SPGB Snippets: Hold the tears (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

September 2, 2026

So Starmer is about to resign as an MP. This will allow him to follow the plan he set out after he resigned as PM, i.e.:

“I will now focus on other things and that will be international affairs including defence, security, trade and technology in a fast-changing world.”

A cynic might translate this as:

“I shall reap the dividend of eleven short years in parliament by selling the tiny remnants of my soul to defence corporations, multinationals, big tech, bankers and investors. A quick message to all of you who have worked 40 odd years to gain a pitiful pension to last you through your uncomfortable final years, it appears you joined the wrong pension scheme. So long suckers”

Editorial: Burnham’s plan to rearrange the chairs

Editorial from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The new Prime Minister seems to have borrowed the argument for his flagship policy from the Welsh and Scots Nationalists. Their mantra is that the problems faced by workers living in their geographical area are due to political decisions being made in London rather than in Cardiff or Edinburgh. Burnham’s variation is that the way to solve the problems that workers in England face is to transfer more decision-making powers from London to regional mayors.

These proposals are based on the assumption that governments are able to control the way the capitalist economy works. All the evidence shows that this is not the case. Governments don’t, and can’t, control how capitalism works. It is, rather, the other way round. The capitalist economy generates economic laws which limit what governments can do in that the only choice they have is between giving priority to profits or provoking an economic slowdown.

If you believe that governments can control the economy you will mistakenly conclude that solving the problems facing workers is a matter of government policy and that the policy pursued by those who decide what governments do is the key factor. But, as in fact governments can’t control the way the economy works — can’t overcome its basic economic law that profits must come first — then who makes or where the decision is made to give priority to profit-making is unimportant. Whether this decision is made in London or Cardiff or Edinburgh or Manchester or Midsomer Norton is not going to make any difference. Capitalism will get its way, and as capitalism is the cause of the problems workers face, wherever they live, those problems will continue.

In any event, most decisions concerning the economy are not made by governments, national or regional, but by private enterprises whose goal is to maximise profits for their owners. None of the conventional parties challenge this. So their policies have to be ‘business friendly’ as it is private enterprises in pursuit of profits that decide what is produced.

Burnham’s claim isn’t even that devolving powers to regional mayors would directly benefit workers. It is only that it would, supposedly, benefit them by promoting ‘growth’ which would provide more jobs and extra tax revenue to improve education, the health services and public amenities (after paying more for ‘defence’). Growth, in the sense of the accumulation out of profits of more capital, is what capitalism is all about but it is not something that a government can make happen. The most that a government can do is to maintain or create favourable conditions for profit-making for whenever those in charge of private enterprises see a prospect of making a profit.

It’s not who makes decisions or where they make them but what they decide that is important, and what they decide is imposed by the economic laws of capitalism. We confidently predict that Burnham’s ‘Manchesterism’ won’t work, either to bring about capitalist growth or to solve workers’ problems. It’s no more than rearranging the chairs.

Notes by the Way: Another Communist Travesty of Socialism A Flaw in the Russian Constitution (1936)

The Notes by the Way Column from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another Communist Travesty of Socialism A Flaw in the Russian Constitution

The Daily Worker of June 16th published in full the new Constitution of Soviet Russia. It is a lengthy document containing much that will interest those who wish to follow developments in that country. Two small paragraphs, however, will tell Socialists almost as much as the rest of the Constitution. They are articles 12 and 118. The first contains the statement: —

In the U.S.S.R. the principle of Socialism is being realised: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

The second says that “Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work—the right to receive guaranteed work with payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.” 

Those who know nothing of Socialist principles and who (like the Daily Worker) can see nothing strange in describing the Labour Party as "socialist,” will find these principles in no way remarkable; payment in accordance with the quantity and quality of work is, after all, the declared principle of every capitalist undertaking. Socialists, however, can only be amazed at the impudence of the Communists in trying to pass off as a principle of Socialism "to each according to the quantity and quality of his work.”

We have heard of another, quite different, principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Perhaps the Daily Worker will tell us why they have produced this corrupted version and on what ground they describe it as socialist.

Pigs “Better Housed and Fed” than Proletarians

Sir Benjamin Dawson, Bt., Chairman of the Bradford Central Division Conservative Association, recently alarmed his political associates by making a speech on the condition of the workers in Bradford. It happened thus: he read an advertisement asking for “coals for the poor and aged,” and he was surprised that such things could be necessary in view of the progress we are supposed to have made in the past forty years. So he made a tour of inspection.

“When I had finished my tour, I felt thoroughly ashamed of my country, thoroughly ashamed of the National Government, and thoroughly ashamed of the Conservative Party.

“The pigs on my farm are better housed and fed than some of the people I saw that day.’’—(From a pamphlet reproducing the speech.)

Sir Benjamin, as a mark of his sincerity, rushed off to the Conservative Association, told them what he had seen and what he felt, and offered to resign his chairmanship.

He went on to make some other pertinent remarks about the fact that poverty exists in the midst of plenty, and that those who have money can get what they want and where they want it— on top of Mount Snowdon if they so desire.

Nevertheless. Sir B. Dawson makes a common error in saying that "the cause of these terrible conditions is poverty, and poverty arises from unemployment.''

For years the S.P.G.B. has combated the false doctrine that only the unemployed are poor. Poverty exists for the employed worker as well. Consequently, Sir B. Dawson's remedy—shorter hours, so that the unemployed can be absorbed into employment—is no remedy at all, even if it achieved its first purpose of removing unemployment. Even if all the workers were got back to work, they would still be poor. Moreover, capitalism would continue to create more unemployment by introducing still more labour-displacing machinery.

A Hero of the Home Front

Mr. J. H. Thomas, war-supporter, did all of his fighting on the home-front, which gives an odd flavour to a remark in the Times editorial on the passing of Thomas: “He faced the emergency of war without flinching . . ." (Times, June 3rd, 1936.)

Quite a lot of us can face other people's wars without flinching.

A Question to a Labour Councillor

Speaking at a Conference of the Socialist League on June 1st, a Mr. F. R. Levy, of Stepney, said that he is a member of a council with sixty-five Labour members out of seventy.

The majority of them do not know the first little thing about Socialism or what it stands for. They are either out for a career or are there because some friend of theirs wants a job.—(Manchester Guardian, June 2nd, 1936.)

Mr. Levy went on to urge greater care in the selection of Labour candidates, which misses the most important point about the whole matter, that is, the character of the vote behind the elected delegate. There will be no progress towards the conquest of power for Socialism until the electorate is Socialist, when it will give a mandate for Socialism. If Mr. Levy desired to help Socialism on he could begin now by fighting elections on one demand only—Socialism. We know it is safe to say that the whole of the Labour candidates, at Stepney and elsewhere, do nothing of the kind. Instead they solicit votes on a programme of reforms of capitalism, thus delaying the day when the workers will realise that their only salvation is in Socialism.

Mr. Chamberlain*s Understanding of Capitalism

Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech in Parliament on May 20th, made two admissions of interest to Socialists. The first was an admission that capitalism will in due course produce another trade depression.

. . . . I accept the broad principle that these things do work in cycles, and I have to look forward to the time when we may expect in the natural course of things that trade activity will diminish instead of increase.—(Hansard, col. 1266, May 20th, 1936.)

(It is worth noticing how Mr. Chamberlain unconsciously identifies capitalism with nature, and says “in the natural course of things" when he should say “in the capitalist course of things.")

The second point (col. 1,263) discloses the way in which a capitalist financial expert views expenditure on old-age pensions, unemployment, etc. Another M.P. had said, “Why not raise wages and scrap the expenditure on the social services ?" Mr. Chamberlain replied as follows:—

I did not quite apprehend how my hon. Friend thought it would be possible to provide that the rise in the wages of the workers could be so general, widespread and universal as to give them the equivalent for the social services they would lose.

Mr. Chamberlain here admits the Socialist contention that social services are an alternative to wage increases, and his references to "spreading" explain why the capitalists prefer the method of social services. A wage increase will be largely spent by the workers on satisfying the immediate needs of themselves and their families, and still leave the capitalists to provide for the destitute and for the big increase of unemployment during times of crisis. In other words, the social service method is cheaper.

French Capitalists Provide German Armaments

The following is taken from an article in the American Industrial Worker (April 18th, 1936), written by Pierre van Paassen: —

France is arming Germany! Her munitions makers, like those of other lands, know no fatherland but profit.

If Herr Hitler felt strong enough March 7th to defy the world, tear the Locarno Treaty to shreds and install himself on the Rhine with heavy artillery, monster tanks, mobile forts of steel and bombing planes, this was made possible by the French mining trusts.

Seventy-five per cent. of the steel in Germany’s artillery and other war equipment comes from France. Seventy-five per cent, of the shells and bullets which are going to kill French soldiers or the soldiers of nations allied with France in an eventual war with Germany are of French origin.

An average of 60 freight trains loaded with iron ore left France every day in 1933, 1934, and 1935 for Germany. The rate of export is even higher in 1936.

An expert, Paul Allard, has figured out that of every two shells Germany fires off in the next war, one will be of French origin. That is to say, one out of every two shells fired by Germans to kill Frenchmen in the next war will represent a profit to the Comite des Forges, the great French steel trust.

The Co-Operative Movement Admits Defeat

The Co-operative movement is not only fundamentally different from the conceptions of such pioneers as Robert Owen, but even the restricted aims it set itself are now seen to be unattainable. The latter-day notion was that the co-operative trading and manufacturing organisations could beat the private capitalist traders on their own field and thus gradually drive them out of business.

The controllers of the movement now know that this is impossible. At the recent congress of the Co-operative Union a delegate stated that “after ninety years of co-operation they still had only ten per cent. of the retail trade in the country and only half of that trade was placed with the Cooperative Wholesale Society. Only one-third of that was manufactured in their own factories." (Daily Herald, June 4th, 1936.)

A still more amazing confession of failure is an advertisement issued by the C.W.S. itself, in the June issue of The Clerk. It is an appeal to readers when shopping at Co-operative stores to insist that articles purchased came originally from the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and not from a private wholesaler or manufacturer. In other words, the retail Co-operative stores are refusing to buy Co-operative goods themselves, doubtless to a great extent because they can make a bigger profit by handling the better-known products of private manufacturers.

Illusions about Russia, Sweden and France

For years the Bolsheviks complained, with good reason, that the capitalist Press was filled with reckless or deliberately lying statements about conditions in Russia. It would appear that many Communists decided that the best answer to one lie is another. Consider, for example, the following utterly untrue assertion about Russia, which appeared in the Daily Worker (June 1st, 1936), from their own Moscow correspondent: —

In the U.S.S.R. Socialist society has been built.

This is untrue, and the Daily Worker knows it.

Another ridiculous statement, this time about Sweden, was made by the City Editor of the Daily Herald on June 8th, 1936. Mr. Francis Williams there tells us that the administration of capitalism in Sweden by a Labour Government is an instance of “ Socialism in action."

There is this difference between Mr. Williams and the Daily Worker, that Mr. Williams just does not know any better.

A third statement, about France, was made by Major Attlee, leader of the Labour Party. Writing in the Daily Herald (June 15th, 1936), he said: —

There are many people who have maintained until now that Socialism could not be introduced without bloodshed. The French Government is showing that it can.

All three statements are entirely without foundation, and such lies or ignorance do untold harm to Socialism.

The Friends of J. H. Thomas

The Daily Worker (May 25th, 1936) celebrates the eclipse of Mr. J. H. Thomas by telling us that they always knew he was a friend of the ruling class and an enemy of the workers, right back to 1926, 1921, 1919 and 1911—the dates of various noteworthy betrayals.

All of this may be true, but will the Communists now tell us why they persisted in playing Thomas’s game by telling the workers he was a fit and proper person to have their votes and represent their interests in Parliament after 1911, after 1919, after 1921 and after 1926? Even after the General Strike the Communists continued this policy, and mentioned J. H. Thomas by name as one of the Labour M.P.s they would not oppose. (See Communist Review, February, 1928.)

Saving the Girls from Vice

Reynolds' News, advocate of the stupid policy of trying to improve capitalism with reforms instead of abolishing it, neatly gave its whole case away in its issue of May 17th, 1936. It published an article on “Soho’s Vice Racketeers,” and demanded instant action to stop landlords from drawing high rents from brothels. This is how the article ends: —

Fifty years have passed since W. T. Stead aroused the sleeping conscience of the nation by his Pall Mall revelations of “The Maiden Tribute." The M.P. who takes the lid off Soho now will startle the British nation even more.

So fifty years after one reformer reformed London, the position is more startling than ever. So let’s pretend to reform it again.

In reformist circles this is known as progress! 

The Half-Brotherhood of the Sea

The building of luxury liners for plutocrats, while the bulk of the population is underfed and miserably housed and clothed, is a mark of the rottenness of capitalist civilisation, and the way the reformists from Labour to Fascist have rushed in to praise it is a mark of their essentially reactionary attitude. The maiden voyage of the “Queen Mary” led the Daily Herald to publish a sticky editorial about the “comradeship of the sea which transcends national boundaries.” (May 28th, 1936.)

So little does the sea differ from the other i fields of competitive profit-seeking that the very next day the Herald published a fierce attack on the Russian Government for carrying timber in Russian and other non-British ships, "in which wages are lower than those of the British and Scandinavian ships which used 'to handle most of the trade.” (Daily Herald, May 29th, 1936.) The Herald calls it “blacklegging on British shipping and undermining its wage standards,” and adds that it “is not going to be quietly tolerated.”

Surely this is not comradely language to use towards fellow seafarers?

And while we are on the subject, what about the T.U.C.’s policy of excluding coloured seamen from British ships, even coloured seamen who are British subjects? The Indian Labour movement has long protested against this still less comradely attitude.

This Jewish Business

The attempt by German Nazis and British Fascists to explain everything under the sun by reference to the 400,000 Jews in Germany and the 350,000 in Britain (fewer than one per cent. of the population) leads them into curious situations. The German doctrine of a pure, noble, non-Jewish, Nordic race, made even Mussolini laugh. He pointed out that the originators of the idea of a “chosen race” were the Jews themselves. Mussolini has never hesitated to employ Jews as his Ministers and assistants. In Austria, where he finances and controls the "Heimwehr,” a Fascist movement, one of his principal allies and friends is Otto Mandl, who is also political adviser to Fascist Prince Starhemberg and owner of the great Hirtenberg Arms Factory. Mandl is a Jew. (See Evening Standard, October 21st, 1935.) Not for that reason, but because he is a typical capitalist, he supplied arms and munitions both to the Nazis and to the Heimwehr, although they were fighting each other.

In England, Sir Oswald Mosley’s organisation attacks the Jews, and is in turn attacked by Lieut.-Col. Hutchison’s organisation for being the friend of Jews. Truth, published by Hutchison's “National Workers’ Party of Great Britain,” shows a photograph of Mosley speaking at Birmingham Town Hall on September 25th, 1931, at a meeting of the New Party. “ On Mosley’s left is Kid Lewis, Jew boxer. . . . Forming a trio, arm-in-arm, is Mr. W. E. D. Allen, son of David and Sarah Allen, nephew of Samuel Allen; some time M.P. for Belfast. . . . Behind Allen is Peter Cheney, another Jew. . . . The lawyer employed by Sir Oswald Mosley and the Blackshirts is Mr. St. John Hutchinson, whose daughter, in 1935, was converted to Judaism, and married a Rothschild.”

One of the queer errors into which such nonsense betrays its adherents was illustrated in a recent issue of the Blackshirt, which saw fit to comment on The Socialist Standard being sold at a meeting by an individual in whose features the sharp-eyed Fascist thought he discerned Jewish characteristics. As it happens, the individual in question is indeed of mixed stock—pure British “aryan” mixed with Italian; not a trace of Jewish  blood!

But enough of all this rubbish. Individuals are the product of a variety of moulding forces, and the environment of a segregated Jewish group doubtless plays an important part, but dominating all sectional environments is capitalism, with its class divisions and the exploitation of one class by another. The struggles of the exploited to compete with each other for employment, and at the same time to resist the employers, are more important in determining the individual’s conduct than the fact of being Jewish or Gentile.

The only really useful contribution towards ridding society of the unpleasant characteristics of exploiters and exploited is to strive for the abolition of class ownership of the means of production and distribution, and this the Fascists are not doing. What they are doing is to provide a political cloak (or rather, a shirt) under which individuals can promote private vendettas and commercial rivalries against Jews. Most of the anti-Jewish activity is' of the kind mentioned by the Manchester Guardian's Warsaw correspondent: “Many peasants attack Jews merely for looting their shops rather than for other reasons." (Manchester Guardian, February 10th, 1936.) The remainder is mainly blind discontent with capitalism misdirected by Fascists into these useless channels.

Edgar Hardcastle

Here and There: A Labour Party Trumpeter (1936)

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

A Labour Party Trumpeter

Mr. Herbert Morrison has been on a lecture tour in the United States of America. His object was to interest American audiences in the League of Nations and the policy of the British Labour Party. According to a report in the Chicago Daily News for April 24th, he said: —

I think there is misunderstanding about the British Labour Party, because you haven’t had many visitors who represent average official opinion of this Party; more of your visitors have represented the extreme Left Wing of the Party or else the Independent Labour Party, which fights us. A British Labour Government would be well fitted to co-operate with your country whether it has a Republican or Democratic Government.

In effect, Mr. Morrison is saying that the Labour Party is “well fitted" to administer the capitalist system. As Socialists we do not need to be assured of this. We have said so for thirty years and more. Members and supporters of the Labour Party who have denied it, might, however, ponder the point again.

 

I.L.P Confusion and Hysteria

The above quotation from the Chicago Daily News was reproduced and unfavourably commented upon in the New Leader for May 29th, in a column headed "This is Capitalism." The I.L.P. boasted for many years that the Labour Party was its child. And a proud parent it was, too. But after thirty years of telling the workers that the Labour Party was “Socialist," the I.L.P. discovered that it was not. After taking so long to discover that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, it could reasonably be assumed that it would not easily be forgotten. Let us see. The New Leader for May 22nd discusses the various proposals for a "United Front." It dismissed the idea of a "People's Front," such as exists in France and Spain, and which includes Liberals, as unsupportable because of its capital character. The I.L.P. argues for a "Workers' Front."

It is a united Working Class Front without any alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists.

It is a united Working Class Front between the Labour Party, the Co-operative Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party on a maximum agreed programme, with liberty of criticism and action beyond this programme.

It is common action between them on a Federal basis—an alliance of partners, not a rigid and unreal unity such as affiliation to the Labour Party would involve—in order to join forces against our common enemy the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims.

It will be noticed that the I.L.P. refuses to enter an “alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists," but will enter a “United Front" with the Labour Party (which it denounces as a capitalist party) "in order to join forces against our common enemy, the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims." Join with capitalist parties to fight the capitalist class “to realise our common aims." Phew!

Again, in the New Leader, May 29th, Mr. John McGovern, M.P., in a letter to the Editor, complains that the Editor of the I.L.P. inter-party journal, Controversy, deleted a statement from an article by him (McGovern) that C. A. Smith, Fenner Brockway and C. L. R. James had stated that they “would bear arms and join the army if they were in Abyssinia . . .  on behalf of the Emperor."

In his reply, C. A. Smith rises to noble heights: ". . .  I now repeat that had I been in Abyssinia only conflicting duties or sheer cowardice would have prevented my fighting against the Fascist invaders." Twenty years ago the capitalist class persuaded millions of workers to fight in war for capitalist interests with the cry of “Defend poor little Belgium." To-day, Mr. C. A. Smith, a leader in the self-styled revolutionary I.L.P., has let himself into a similar trap. Poor Abyssinia! Drive out the Fascist invaders! For whom and for what end?

Communists and the Labour Party

The Communist Party has applied to the Labour Party for affiliation. The correspondence relating to the application has been published in a penny pamphlet by the Communist Party. In one letter to the Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Pollitt says: “The Communist Party, if affiliated to the Labour Party, would certainly work, as many of your most energetic and sincere members are now working, to strengthen the policy and principles of the Labour Party for the achievement of Socialism, in accordance with the democratic principles provided in the Labour Party constitution, and would at the same time in the daily struggle loyally carry out all agreed upon decisions and mobilise all upon whom it has influence to take part."

Mr. Pollitt goes on to speak approvingly of the “People's Front" as it exists in France. He asks of the Secretary of the Labour Party: “Is it not a fact that the United Front has saved France from Fascism ? Is it not a fact that so profound has this experience been that the United Front has broadened out into the People's Front, embracing large sections of the middle class and all who fear Fascism and war."

Notice "embracing large sections of the middle classes." Even Mr. Pollitt, accustomed as he is to right-about-face changes in Communist Party policy, hesitates to point out that a People's Front on the French model means an alliance with the Liberals. Workers whose memories are not so conveniently short as Mr. Pollitt's will remember that not so long ago the Labour Party was referred to in communist journals as "traitorous," “Social-Fascist" and "war-mongering." The Labour Party has not forgotten, and there seems no prospect of a " United Front " just yet! It is an amusing thought, though, that we may yet see the erstwhile advocates of the violent overthrow of capitalism reproaching the Labour Party for being “too extreme." It is really very confusing.

Poverty, Health and Housing

In a review of a book called Poverty and Public Health, by G. C. M'Gonigle and J. Kirby (Gollancz, 6s.), the News Chronicle (June 8th, 1936) gives some interesting figures on malnutrition and housing.

The close connection between wages and health can be seen from the following table: —

Wages 25s. to 35s., death rate 25.96 per 1,000.

"          35s   "  45s.      "      "    19.34  "       "

"          45s   "  55s.      "      "    19.23  "       "

"          55s   "  65s.      "      "    15.13  "       "

"          65s   "  75s.      "      "    13.51  "       "

"          75s   and up,.    "      "    11.52  "       "

The death rate among workers whose wages are less than two pounds a week is therefore nearly twice as high as among workers whose wages are between three and four pounds a week.

Other interesting facts are mentioned. Far example, an investigation carried out in Stockton revealed that a slum population, after being moved to a new housing estate, was showing a death rate of 33.55 per thousand instead of the expected rate of 8.12 per thousand. That is to say, four times as many deaths as should have occurred were occurring among these ex-slum dwellers now living under “ ideal ** conditions. The plight of unemployed workers on new housing estates is particularly appalling. On one such estate it was found that the amount of money available for four was 2s. 10½d. a week per man. Contrast this with the cost of the British Medical Association's minimum diet, which in 1932 was 4s. 10½d., and which to-day. Dr. M'Gonigle says, is 7s. Our reformers, if they face these awkward facts at all, will doubtless advocate more reforms; reforms catch votes anyway.

Wage-Slaves and Health

Labour Management for February has an interesting article called “ One-Day Absenteeism,*' by Dr. Garland, the medical officer at a large factory which employs thousands of women workers. The doctor argues for greater tolerance for the worker who takes an occasional day off from work. The occasional day off would have a “tonic" and “stimulating" effect on return to work. Workers at the factory where Dr. Garland is employed are shut out for the day, and lose the day's wages, if they are not within the factory gates when the hooter blows. On the other hand, if the worker is away on account of sickness for one day or more, she (or he) does not lose her wages. The result is, according to Dr. Garland, that many workers who are absent because of being shut out in the morning, produce medical certificates to explain their absence for the day. Some of these certificates are for complaints that would lay the average person low for several weeks. The panel doctor in working-class districts apparently cannot afford to risk unpopularity by refusing certificates. His income from medical certificates, at one shilling each, even on a small panel of only 1,000 patients, means an addition to his income, according to Dr. Garland, of probably one hundred pounds a year. On the other hand, says the doctor, “The average worker is rarely feeling so fit and sound that he or she hasn’t an odd pain or ache somewhere that can be magnified into gastritis, enteritis, tonsilitis, or some other ‘ itis ' . . . ."

A curious mix-up which reveals how dependent is the position of the medical practitioner and how near many workers are to working no longer in this life.

Changes in Russia

The U.S.S.R. is introducing a parliamentary regime, or at least some of it. The much-vaunted Soviet system of “pure proletarian democracy" is to be replaced by a parliamentary form of government, which, until recently, was looked upon with withering and pitying contempt by the fervent communist. There are to be two chambers, direct voting, the abolition of plural votes (the town workers, under the Soviet constitution, had proportionately more votes than the peasants), the secret ballot, and much of the paraphernalia of western parliamentary government. Any organised group of citizens, we are told, will be able to include names in the list of candidates for parliamentary seats. Louis Fischer tells us in Reynolds News (May 31st, 1936), “The new Constitution contains numerous provisions sensational in their significance. For instance, an interesting declaration will be made about private property."

That declaration should be interesting.

Something else is interesting too. The Russian Government is seeking pacts and alliances with the western parliamentary countries. Shall we yet see another "War to Save Democracy" ?

The Passing of the Crisis

The Ministry of Labour returns issued at the end of May make interesting reading. The number of people at work reached the figure of 10,831,000, which is the highest in the history of unemployed insurance, and excludes the recent inclusion of agricultural workers in unemployment insurance. The number of unemployed was 1,703,941, as against nearly three million, three or four years ago. The facts are significant. Capitalism, once having reached the lowest pitch in the slump, recovered, and is now, once again, going through a period of expansion. There is nothing new in this; it has been the course in every industrial crisis for the past one hundred and fifty years. The pendulum in capitalist production having swung back must, by its very nature, swing forward again. But where are the shoddy economists, capitalist and self-styled Socialist alike, who only yesterday were telling the world that the end of the capitalist system was at hand? Have they relegated the end to an uncertain future date, as the Christians have the second coming of Christ ? The chances are that if the workers allow capitalism to continue long enough to have another crisis they will be prophesying as wrongly, dismally and noisily as ever.

It is curious how events can upset flimsy minds. The New Leader published articles about eight years ago eulogising American mass production methods. Henry Ford, we were told, had shown Marx to be wrong. The New Leader has since discovered many new “lines.” Others talked glibly of the crisis which had lasted since the last war—the mere fact of there being unemployment continuously since then was evidence enough, for them, of a continuous crisis. A little knowledge would show how capitalism really works. The recurring periods of depression and expansion, with the consequent increase and decrease in unemployment, are the very essence of capitalism. These in themselves will not bring it to an end. This will only be done when the.workers understand that the appalling poverty and insecurity which exist side by side with immense wealth in periods of depression and expansion alike, can be abolished by the social ownership of the means of life.

 

The Passing of a Labour Leader

Bruce Clavering has an article in the Sunday Referee (May 24th, 1936), about the life of J. H. Thomas. Certain facts stand out and emphasise how useful he has been to the capitalist class. In 1911, the article says, "the railwaymen wanted to strike. Thomas saw Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He launched an impassioned appeal, but Lloyd George was unmoved.  "I, too, am a Welshman/ said L.G.”

“Then the Chancellor made his own appeal. He pointed out that the Kaiser had issued a virtual ultimatum over Morocco, banking on the trouble in England keeping Britain’s hands tied. Thomas responded to the appeal and called off the strike.” 

"During the war he swelled the army with more recruits than almost any other single man. As an Englishman he was a patriot . . . . he achieved the best for his country and for himself.” 

Trotsky’s verdict on Thomas was, “This incredible lackey.”

Whether J. H. Thomas was sincere, insincere, rogue or fool does not interest us. He served the master-class faithfully and well, and in doing so was supported enthusiastically by the railway workers. His usefulness to the master-class and, to some extent, his popularity with them, was because he could command an enormous working-class following.

His life aptly illustrates the perils for the working-class in “leadership” and the need for the working-class to have knowledge of Socialist principles.

Harry Waite

Editorial: The same difference (2026)

Editorial from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

So Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, has won the Makerfield by-election and can now challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party. If he wins, he will become the new Prime Minister. So what?

Marx famously pointed out that governments are ‘a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’. In Britain the Prime Minister is the chairperson of this committee which doesn’t have to be composed of actual capitalists. In Marx’s day most British Prime Ministers were not capitalists but landed aristocrats but this was acceptable as long as they managed things in the general interest of the capitalist class. In the course of the last century committee members and chairs came to be drawn from a pool of professional politicians who could come from any background. This, too, was acceptable and is the norm today.

All the governments there have been in Britain, whether Conservative or Labour or, earlier, Liberal, or a coalition of two or all three of them, have managed the common affairs of the owning class in the interests of that class. The first duty of any government is to guarantee and enforce the ownership rights of capitalists over the means of production. The second has been to ensure that priority is given to the making and accumulation of profits. These — class ownership and production for profit —are the basis of capitalism and no government has ever challenged them.

Governments have a free hand on narrowly political matters such as the structure of the state machine or what is a crime but, when it comes to the economy, its power is limited by the nature of the capitalist economy as one that runs on profits. If, in its taxation or trade or tariff or employment policies, it goes against this, then sooner or later it will provoke an economic downturn and the risk of the resulting popular discontent leading to it being voted out of office and a rival set of politicians taking over. This is enough to keep governments in line with the general capitalist interest. The Labour Party learned this the hard way while the Conservative and Liberals didn’t need to be taught it. The Green Party has yet to learn it.

If the government has to respect and apply the economic laws of capitalism then it is not all that important who is the chairperson of the board of directors of UK Capitalism PLC. It is true that there can a bad government from a capitalist point of view — one that doesn’t competently manage the common affairs of the capitalist class — and an incompetent chairperson, such as the over-confident Truss or the bumbling Starmer, can contribute to this. But that’s a problem for the capitalist class, not the workers.

Whether Starmer or Burnham is Prime Minister is not going to make the slightest difference to the workers’ subordinate position in society nor solve the problems this brings them.

SPGB Snippets: The merry-go-round (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

 

June 24, 2026 

So Keir Starmer has resigned and Andy Burnham is likely to take over. Will it make any difference? It probably will to Labour’s standing with the electorate. For most people, perception of a leader’s personality seems, unfortunately, to be the key element in what passes for political thinking.

But will a new leader be able to do anything different to resolve the problems of the crisis-ridden system we live under? The answer to this has to be a resounding no. There will only be any difference to speak of when we decide collectively to scrap that system and replace it with an entirely different one that uses the abundant resources that already exist to satisfy all our needs the world over.

Caught In The Act: Time for a change (1991)

The Caught In The Act Column from the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Time for a change

Who is Margaret Thatcher? It is necessary to ask the question because it seems she has disappeared. Only a few months ago she was the indestructible Iron Lady, terrifying her foes, doing all her minister's jobs herself and ruthlessly squashing out any of them who fell from her favour. But now she is hardly mentioned.

For example the Gulf Crisis simmered and burst into war without any stimulus from her; she might have been expected at least to make a speech about the wishes of the Kuwait people being paramount (provided, of course, the dictatorship there allowed the people's wishes to be known). British capitalism is sliding into another recession but she is not expected to launch into one of her searing damnations of the Moaning Minnies who refuse to acknowledge that millions unemployed and an unprecedented bankruptcy rate are actually signs of a booming economy.

When one of Thatcher's Ministers left — or was ejected from — her government it was usual for the Downing Street media manipulators to quickly spread the word that the ex-minister was not much loss or even that the government was better off without them. The more prominent the ex-minister and therefore the more threatening their absence — the more violent was the campaign to undermine their reputations.

So it was that the likes of Howe and Lawson were on the receiving end of particularly malicious stories. Of course we couldn't expect that Thatcher would now be treated like that — John Major is supposed to be a much nicer, much less obsessive personality. In fact a rather gentler and more subtle technique has been used. Thatcher's standing now was expressed by a Tory grassroots member in the Ribble constituency: "I'm grateful for all she did for the country", said this patient, malleable blockhead, "But it was time for a change".

But whatever the style employed the fact is that Thatcher is the victim of an exceptionally efficient demolition job. The Tories have a long history of these things, often plotted in some bastion of chivalry such as the Carlton Club or the discreet offices of City merchants.

When the knife was wielded it was done with due regard for the Tory reputation as the Gentleman's Party. For they are the most single-minded bunch of political operators, who thoroughly understand that politics is about getting power to keep capitalism running in their way, at whatever cost. In the business of fighting elections and disposing of leaders who damage their chances of winning they leave their opponents standing. Ask Douglas-Home. Or Ted Heath. Or Margaret Thatcher.

Labour in change

It is ironical that Thatcher may eventually be seen to have left more of a mark on the Labour Party than on their own side. As the Tories have shown that they could win enough votes from politically deranged workers to keep them in power for a long time, the Labour Party decided that their best hope of winning a general election lay in imitating the Tories as closely as possible. The new Labour policies have provoked anger and confusion among those grassroots members who joined the party under the mistaken impression that it took a principled stand for a basically different society.

Their anger is based on the recent policy statement Meet The Challenge, Make The Change, which openly accepted market forces and private industry and was aimed solely at winning the next election. But how much of a change is this from the Labour Party of the past?

In October 1964 the Labour President of the Board, Douglas Jay, assured a dinner of the International Chamber of Trade that "the new government starts with no prejudice or bias whatever against private business and industry". In May 1965 George Brown, who was then head of the Department of Economic Affairs, told a meeting of company directors and managers that "the profit motive has an ' important role to play as an incentive and test of efficiency". In April 1966 Harold Lever, who later became a Treasury minister, wrote "Labour and business are already moving towards a mutual understanding".

And what about Labour's leader then, Harold Wilson. How does he compare to Neil Kinnock? In September 1964 — just before Wilson won the election — Anthony Howard wrote that ". . . he has already transformed the Labour Party from being primarily an ideological movement into being an election-minded organisation". Lest you misunderstand — Howard was one of Wilson's admirers.

Disappointed Leader

It could be that Kinnock has misled himself enough to be disappointed, were he to learn that he has not really changed anything about the Labour Party. It is some years now since he was a rebellious, CND-marching, fiery left winger; he dropped all that to concentrate on the serious business of exploiting working class readiness to disregard their interests and to vote parties like Labour into power.

To do this Kinnock must associate himself with, and defend, election programmes the attraction of which lies in their unrealistic claims to be able to solve capitalism’s problems and to reconcile essentially conflicting class interests.

In this Kinnock must upset his old friends, outraged by what they see as his change of course. In fact the real problem lies with them for Kinnock is following the inexorable route of a party which stands for a reformed capitalism and which must therefore compete for power over the system, cadging for votes with policies and promises which are as false and as cynical as they need be. This is as ruthless a business as the Tories getting rid of Thatcher; that is the nature of capitalist politics.

So it is not only incorrect to give Thatcher the blame — or the credit, depending on how you look at it — for Labour changing its policies and its style. It is also unfair: the Labour Party have always been as they are now only at times they are less effective in their campaign for capitalism. In any case, to be charitable to Thatcher: in the depths of anonymity of wherever she is, hasn't she got enough to answer for?

Ivan

The Apostles of Lower Wages. (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again we turn the searchlight upon the nefarious traffic of those who, styling themselves labour leaders, support the character by leading Labour, like a lamb, to the slaughter. The latest instance of the treachery of these odorous hirelings of the capitalist class, while of no importance as an historical event, since it indicates no new phase in the record of this unspeakable band of fratricides, is of moment as showing once again, to those who have eyes to see, the face of the old enemy beneath the mask of the new friend. Mr. D. J. Shackleton, M.P., member of the Parliamentary Labour Group, president of the Trade Unions Congress, is reported to have delivered himself of the following sentiments at the Mechanics’ Institute, Nottingham, on November 30th :—

“Supporters of the Bill recently rejected were hoping that it would have enabled them to deal with the drink traffic in such a manner as to put the country on a more equal footing with its industrial competitors in other countries. So long as they spent, as at present, far and away more than Germany and America per head of the population on intoxicating liquors, so long would they be liable to be beaten in industrial competition.”—Daily Chronicle, 1.12.08.

There is, indeed, food for reflection in this message from the chief of the purveyors of soporifics to the working class of this country. In the first place it may be noticed with what a deft turn of capitalist sophistry this hireling shepherd removes the fight from the “class” field to that of race. It is not, be it observed, the filching from the worker of the greater part of the product of his toil that claims the attention of Mr. D. J. Shackleton and his cannibal pack of vampires. No ! the enemy of labour is not capital; the despoiler of the worker is not that class which stand between him and the fulness of the earth the fruit of his painful drudgery ; the evil is not, mark you, rooted in the system of class domination, class possession of all that is necessary and good under the sun. No ! all this is mythology, the vain vapouring of well-meaning visionaries, or the calculated seduction of far-seeing panderers to the popular aspiration to better conditions. Labour has but one foe, we are told, and that is—himself.

Oh ! coals of fire upon those of us who dared to dream of the “brotherhood of man,” and those others of us who asserted nothing higher than the oneness of the material interests of the wage-workers the whole world—over the enemy of Labour in one country is himself in all other countries. The workers of Germany and of America have taken us by the throat in the strife of industrial competition, and we must clutch at their vitals in self defence.

Alas ! for our dream of emancipation without distinction of race or sex.

Oh ! sackcloth and ashes for those of us who aspired to the capture of political power for the overthrow of the capitalist system, the bill is to be filled by the abolition of the House of Lords to the end that a measure shall be passed to make the British worker become more abstemious and so put “the country on a more equal footing with its industrial competitors in other countries.”

Overwhelming shame on those of us who, in our visionary frenzy, declared for “the whole product to the producer,”—the trouble is that the workers already get too much ! They must be legislated into temperance—not for temperance sake, but to “put the country on a more equal footing with its industrial competitors in other countries.”

Repentance at leisure for those fools who sent Mr. D. J. Shackleton and his gang of shameless harpies to the House of Commons to forward the interests of Labour—the only interest of Labour they have made any attempt to forward is this abortive effort to reduce the workers’ “drink bill” so that a corresponding deduction may be made from their wages bill “to put the country on a more equal footing with its industrial competitors of other countries.”

These men stand now in the broad light of day, self confessed—by the lips of their leader—apostles of lower wages for the class who are fools enough to allow them access to their pockets in the vain hope that they will do something for them.

For how else can they pretend that the realisation of their desire to “deal with the drink traffic” can save their working-class dupes from being “beaten in industrial competition,” except on the ground that lower wages would rule, and enable the manufacturer to throw commodities into the foreign market at a lower price ? Mr. Shackleton may be quite correct in his economics so far. It is admitted that, notwithstanding the broad law ruling the world of commodities, making them exchange one with another according to the labour time necessary to their production, the manufacturer who secures the cheapest labour-power is certainly in a position to sell below value “to secure the business.” But to argue therefrom that the workers of this country, as a result of having learnt to live cheaper, and therefore to work, as these labour leeches wish them to, for smaller wages, are going to reap the benefit in the form of less unemployment, is to present a view as chimerical as it is pleasing and plausible.

If there is any truth in Mr. Shackleton’s argument that the lower wages due to the lessened consumption of intoxicating liquors will enable British commodities to find a larger sale in foreign markets, it equally true that the rise in British wages which would follow upon the more general demand for labour-power in the home labour market will have a counterbalancing effect. For the rest, as has been recently shown in these columns, any rise of the price of labour-power at once handicaps it against its incessant competitor, machinery, the extended adoption of which throws men out of employment until the relative proportion of out-o’-works to in-works stands at that particular level that best suits the production of profit.

So, the object of these instruments of working-class betrayal resolves itself merely into a reduction of the working-class standard of living, lessening of the portion of wealth produced which falls to the lot of the producer, ostensibly “to put the country on a more equal footing with its industrial competitors in other countries,” but in reality in order that a larger share of the wealth produced may be left for those who do not produce it.

A high aim, friends and fellow workers of the S.D.P. and I.L.P., who bruised your shoulders against the wheel to trundle these men into the “House.” A lofty and noble aspiration, brother workers of the trade unions, of whose Congress this particular individual is the presis, to direct your anxious efforts toward. Lower wages is the only message he has for you, for all the hundreds of golden pieces you pour into his capacious maw, year in and year out. A lower standard of living, a cheaper existence, is the only hope he can see for you, who produce all the wealth of the community and enjoy so little of it. A labour leader, and the only enemy he can find to lead you against is your fellow workers of Germany and America. The paid declarant of your poverty and suffering, he insults and mocks you with the suggestion that you have yourselves to blame for wasting your substance in riotous living—as your abstemious masters have told you for so many years without charging you anything for the information.

Fellow members of the working class, how long will you continue to put your faith in these damnable, sneering rascals who, imbuing you with the fallacious idea that they are nearer to you than your masters are, become the valued instruments of those masters by leading you around the industrial Desert of Gobi ? The present remedy for your deplorable condition is to reduce your standard of living to that of your German co-workers ; but how when international capital opens up the great Chinese labour market, and you are face to face with the products of 500,000,000 people who can each, we are told, live on a handful of rice ? It is logical to presume that your salvation will then lie in reducing your standard of living to meet the new conditions.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain do not offer you economic salvation at so low a cost as temperance or even total abstinence, do not promise you safety in citizen armies, or surcease of sorrow in pensions for the old and meals for the young, do not urge you to take arms against the militarism of the German Emperor or to tighten the belt and forego pipe and pewter in the endeavour to outstarve the “industrial competitors in other countries.” All we can offer you are the irresistible weapons of the class struggle and a place in the forefront of the battle; continued and increasing poverty and suffering until the day of victory,—but victory at last. They lie who promise you more; they betray who would have you burn your brains out in the search for palliatives. There is no balm in capitalist Gilead, therefore—the World for the Workers. Only possession of whole means of production can give you any amelioration of your lot. Unemployment and starvation, ay, and even drunkenness too, and other degradation, are, the necessary concomitants, or, it is better said, necessary results of your status as wage-slaves. That status must be altered ; and it is because these men who claim to represent Labour in Parliament, with their fostering of race hatred, their advocacy of cheaper existence, their thousand and one acts and “words that weary and perplex and pander and conceal,” are one of the chief bulwarks of capitalist domination that we denounce them for what they are—tools of the master class, betrayers of their own.

A. E. Jacomb

Political Notes: Labour love in (1982)

The Political Notes Column from the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour love in

In November 1980 Michael Foot defeated Denis Healey in the parliamentary election for the leadership of the Labour Party. This victory was regarded by many people in the Labour Party as signalling an important change, as with a new, dynamic, “left-wing" politician as leader, the next Labour government would be able to begin, once again, the job of running the profit-system in ways it claims are beneficial to the working class.

As Foot's ascendancy was greeted from some quarters with great enthusiasm, we were not encouraged to remember that he had been Minister of Unemployment in the last Labour government when the number in the dole queues had doubled. The large membership of the Labour Party is not united in sharing a single political objective and Foot's inability to smooth out major disagreements between the fighting factions has led to speculation that he is about to be ousted from his position.

The names of Denis Healey, Tony Benn and Roy Hattersley have all been rumoured as possible successors. As the ideas of these heirs apparent are canvassed it is worth remembering that they all give general support to the profit system. The Institute of Directors in Scotland recently invited Healey to address them on “How any future Labour government would not be a bad thing for business, or for free enterprise" (Observer, 5 September 1982) to which Healey readily agreed. A twist to the episode came when Denis — engaging in some free enterprise himself — asked for a £500 fee on top of his expenses, and the Institute, unwilling to pay his free market rate, went elsewhere for a speaker.

Tony Benn, although often mistakenly associated with the word “Socialism", does not advocate revolution. By his own admission he believes that capitalism can be changed to work in our interests by a series of reform measures. In the 27 August edition of New Socialist, the Labour Party magazine, Benn urged certain reforms regarding the constitutional power of the cabinet to declare and end a war and the monarch's power to dissolve Parliament and invite someone to form a government. He does not urge the arrangement of society so that there will be no need or use for monarchs, governments or wars.

Wars fought over the interests of the ruling class — over markets, trade routes, raw materials and strategic areas — are not democratic occurrences. Soldiers are not, for instance, asked by their commanding officers whether they would care to engage in killing “the enemy". But this is what Benn would like to see: "The making of war and conclusion of peace should be subject to the consent of the Commons".

In an interview after his article had been published, he described his proposals as “modest". The scale on which our lives are impoverished and made insecure by capitalism is not “modest" and this social structure cannot be dismantled by piecemeal measures.

As Shadow Home Secretary, Roy Hattersley has been busy trying to cultivate an image of respectability, perhaps in order to be regarded as a person “responsible" enough to be trusted in higher office. Unveiling a proposed policy to be debated at this year’s Labour Party conference. Hattersley said that the next Labour government will adopt “a compassionate and moral attitude" towards immigration. He said the approach would be not to treat immigration issues as a numbers game about black people.

From the point of view of his vote-catching potential. Hattersley must have been pleased to have made his opinion clear, lest his support for the racially discriminatory 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act was remembered. For all his endearing “compassion”, he is still firmly in favour of the world being artificially divided into nations and of people's mobility being shackled by their "nationality". Being interviewed on News at Ten (ITV) last month, he was asked whether, by wishing to case the pressures on immigration, he was implicitly condoning the actions of some "illegal immigrants”? “Oh No", he replied, “I am very much against illegal immigration, and I favour catching illegal immigrants and sending them home.”

More love

In a pamphlet, The Labour Party — Myth and Reality, published by the Socialist Workers Party, the role which the Labour Party has played in supporting capitalism is described in some detail and many examples are given of its impotency to remove the problems we suffer in a class-divided society. It speaks correctly about the "myth that the Labour Party can be won to socialist politics". It concludes, however, with the ludicrously illogical statement, “We even support the Labour Party against the Tories, until we are in a position to replace it". If you continue to give support to something you will, of course, never be able to replace it. For, although it may have escaped the attention of the Leninist intelligentsia of the SWP. you cannot both support and oppose the same political party.

Racist repentant?

In his early days as governor of Alabama, George Wallace would get his audiences going in that Deep South fortress of racial persecution with a chant: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”.

Well forever is a long time and it was a notably different Wallace who recently went on the campaign trail for another term (or rather to win the Democratic nomination, which amounts to the same thing). The old favourite of the Ku Klux Klan came out as a bold champion of equal rights between white and black.

No secret was made about the reason for this. Few black votes were allowed in Alabama in the old days but now about a quarter of the state’s registered voters are black. Wallace badly needed their support. Leaving nothing (he hoped) to chance he also declared himself a fervent friend of god (religious groups like the Born Again Christians have quite a political influence in the Deep South).

The old Wallace was a chilling politician; in face of his racist mob oratory, one did not know whether to laugh, cry, or run for cover. It was easy to forget, then, that he had not always spouted these vicious prejudices; he came out as a white racist only after his first attempt at being governor failed because he was too “liberal”. The lesson he learned is that, if there are votes in it, you must out-racist the racists—or, now, try to out-liberal the liberals.

If Wallace is to be taken seriously, it must be in a way he does not intend. His cynical, vote-grubbing changes of policy, careless as they are of the effect on the conditions — and in the case of Alabama it used to be on the very lives — of people, were always inspired by a single-minded ambition for power.

They may be represented now as caricatures but if so it is because, like caricatures, they have a basic validity, illustrating the nature of the features they emphasise.

Wallace’s campaigns, with all their swings, have one message. The politics of capitalism are cynical, corrupt and decadent, typical of the social system itself.

Sunshine

Geoffrey Howe has never been famous as the Conservatives’ little ray of sunshine but even at that his latest thoughts on the matter of unemployment were gloomy enough to depress the dole queues even further.

Interviewed on Radio Two by Jimmy Young (who tries to be famous as everyone’s little ray of etc., etc.), Howe said that the peak of unemployment has not yet been reached (in other words, things will get worse) and that “It’s bound to take a long time” before the jobless figures begin to fall.

Well if anyone is supposed to know about these things it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the unemployed can take comfort; Howe, like his predecessors, has a notable record for getting his prophecies about the economy wrong.

In May 1980, flushed after his first year in charge at the Treasury, he exulted “. . . inflation would start to move down after July, the economy would resume its growth from next year, interest rates would come down ‘in due course’ and there were still many opportunities for firms to expand” (Daily Telegraph, 29 May 1980).

Just over a year later, Howe was definite that he had done the trick, claiming that “there was an accumulation of evidence” which justified him in saying that “the recession was over” (The Times, 10 August 1981).

If Howe was wrong when he said that things were getting better for British capitalism, he can also be wrong when he groans that they are getting worse. Both prophecies are false for the same reason: no Chancellor, nor any of the hordes of “experts” who offer their advice (whether asked for or not) can predict the course of capitalism’s economy. If it were otherwise, they might be able to eliminate booms and slumps and instead organise an even progress to prosperity.

Their obvious impotence should of itself be enough to ensure that no worker anywhere will ever vote for them again. What will actually happen, at the next election, is that people will leave the dole queues to join those at the polling stations, lining up to opt for another spell of anarchy and poverty. And that is a little ray of sunshine for Howe.

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A. J. W. (Reading).—You are confusing the two bodies. Our office is in London, not in Glasgow. As we believe that our members understood our position when they signed our Declaration of Principles on joining the Party, and as there has been no change in that position, we do not think it necessary “that each member of the Party shall reaffirm his adherence to the essential principles” of the Party.

W. H. (London, W.) objects that the title of the letter, “The Fall of Hardie,” which appeared in the last issue, presupposes that Hardie had a position to fall from. So he had—a position in the estimation of the writer of the article. That estimation may have been higher than the circumstances warranted, but we are not concerned with that. Besides, it is quite conceivable that Hardie could fall lower yet, even in our estimation. But he hasn’t nearly so much room to fall as he has to rise as he has to rise.

Anxious Enquirer (Herts).—Why haven’t we dealt with the Garden Party incident ? Well—we were so much occupied in watching the Labour members making what Will Thorne would call “blithering idiots” of themselves, and we were so convulsed by the exhibition, that we couldn’t keep our hand steady enough to write. But if you want to know our view, it is that Edward (gorblessim) is just a marionette worked by capitalism for capitalism. He is doubtless a well-constructed figure (gorblessim) and works nicely and easily, his joints being adequately greased by a special preparation known, we believe, as palm oil. He responds to the manipulator so readily that the audience frequently loses sight of the string. But the string is there all right and the manipulator is the same every time. To talk, therefore, of the King versus the people as the Labour members have, is the result of losing sight of the string. The issue is the capitalist class versus the working class. The present disturbance is due to a Labour member or two being knocked off the free list of a certain al fresco entertainment at which the marionette divertissement referred to, was the star turn. Naturally, the members affected felt aggrieved. Having been professional “dead heads” for so long they objected to their privileges being curtailed. Of course, it’s very sad, but if they are not prepared to cheer the performance they can’t expect to receive a pass-in check. And that’s all there is to it. If they want the pass they must cheer. If they don’t want it what are they howling about ?

Cuttings and Critiques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Social-Democratic “Victory.”

____________

In reporting the return to the Barking District Council of Mr. Edwards of the S.D.P., Justice claimed that he ran as a straight Socialist. Below we reproduce a “revolutionary” appeal issued by Mr. Edwards :—

To the Electors of the West Ward.

____________

Vote For A Man.

Who will support your interests as a working man, not a man who, if you ask him for a job, should say “Aye, mon, let’s look at your honds?”

What price

Working or a gasholder at 6d. per hour

in all winds and weathers. Is this the type of a man who supporting Contractors and others in the undercurrent which is now so prevalent on the Council, the man for the West Ward ? Show your disgust by

Voting For 

Edwards.

* * *

The Tariff Reform propaganda is certainly compelling the Liberals to make some very interesting admissions, in their efforts to show that the existing unemployment and poverty are not due to that Free Trade which they claim has brought so much prosperity to this country. Thus in the House of Commons on April 14th Mr. Lloyd George declared that we are to-day producing the same quantity of hops as hitherto, but out of a smaller acreage—due to improved methods of production. Those engaged in the industry are suffering, he said, because of these improved methods and machinery, which have enabled a great saving of labour to be effected. In a similar strain the Daily Chronicle wrote in connection with the Wolverhampton bye-election. Local unemployment, it declared, was to some extent due to improved machinery and machine tools. The output is greater than ever, but owing to methods of standardisation, the cost of production is decreased, and less labour is required.

* * *

The manufacturers are doing well, it added. Of course they are, and always will so long as they own the machinery which the workers improve and operate. No fiscal arrangements or rearrangements under capitalism will affect the workers’ position.

* * *

Some idea of the extent to which that “Peasants’ Charter,” otherwise the Small Holdings Act, will “solve the land problem” may be gathered from the reports in the Liberal Press of the recent floods. Some recently laid down allotment land in Upper Caversham, wrote the Daily News on April 30th, is submerged to a considerable depth, which means a heavy loss to those working men who have rented the ground and who have already planted for the season. It also reported that allotment holders around Towcaster and in other parts had suffered considerably.

* * *

And yet some folk still continue to swear by these pills for the earthquake.

* * *

According to the Anglo-Indian Temperance Association, the revenue from intoxicants in India continues to rise, having reached £6,510,000 in 1907. In 1875 it was £1,755,000. This of course has taken place side by side with an increase in the number of conversions to Christianity.

* * *

In reply to a correspondent who asserted (inter alia) that everybody knew the I.L.P. was a Socialist Party, the Editor of the Western Clarion (Vancouver), in the issue of that paper for April 25th, 1908, writes as follows :—

“He is mistaken in stating that we all know the I.L.P. Is a Socialist Party. We all don’t know that a party is a Socialist Party which has for its leading lights and parliamentary representatives men who, like Ramsay MacDonald and Shackleton, favour child-labour and advocate the lowering of the school age to thirteen years so that the child-slaves may be available to the profit mills of capitalism at as early an age as possible; or men who, like Henderson, oppose the eight-hour law ; or who condone a rifle diet for hungry strikers, like the whole precious bunch of them. Socialists ? Why, no Whig or Tory could serve capitalism better.”

* * *

The reply is commended to the careful attention of the Western Clarion’s English namesake. It is not expected that the organ of the house of Blatchford will enthusiastically endorse the views so definitely expressed in the Vancouver journal, but it does not follow therefore that the views are not true. Rather the contrary.

* * *

The recent election at Dundee provides yet another illustration of the compromising tactics of the “Labour” Party. The manner in which the officials of the Labour Party acted was directly opposed to the “Labour” nominee. It is well known that Mr. James Ramsay MacDonald went down to Manchester to interview Mr. Winston S. Churchill, and assured the Liberal Cabinet Minister that no opposition would be forthcoming from the Labour Party at Dundee. Is this the reason why Mr. MacDonald and the senior member for Dundee, Alex. Wilkie, did not speak on Mr. G. Stuart’s behalf and did not send a message to him ? What a curious lot ! And what “Independence ” !

Here and There: Brailsford on the Russian Executions (1937)

The Here and There column from the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Brailsford on the Russian Executions

Mr. H. N. Brailsford, writing on the execution of Marshal Tukhachevsky and the seven Russian army leaders, says: —

No human society can for long live in health under a dictatorship that makes no provision for loyal opposition.

One thing or the other we must believe. Either these men turned traitors because they could not conduct an open and loyal opposition; or else Stalin destroyed them in their innocence because he feared their independence.

The truth it may be, we shall never know, because in Russia there is neither honest justice nor free discussion.—(Reynold's, June 20th, 1937.)

In his early days Brailsford was a Liberal journalist of the Manchester Guardian school. Since then he has been prominent in the Labour Party and I.L.P. in this country. From the time of the overthrow of Czarism he has been sympathetic to the Russian Government. He still regards it as “the greatest thing in history in Russia.” His critical attitude towards the Russian trials is typical of the attitude of many responsible journalists and prominent people in the Labour movement. The points made by Brailsford on Russia merit serious examination. To label him “traitor” or “Trotskyist" is abuse and not ananswer to his case.

* * *

Homes for Workers

An exhibition of model rooms with furniture designed for working-class homes was opened by Sir Kingsley Wood at the Building Centre, New Bond Street. The exhibition was an attempt to provide for small families with incomes between £3 and £5 per week. It aimed at artistry and “gaiety" in the design of furniture for a family consisting of father, mother and two children, with an outlay of £50. The News Chronicle (June 3rd, 1937) approved of the idea and pointed out that “three-quarters of the families in this country do not earn more than £5 a week.” That statement obscures more than it reveals. The News Chronicle could have mentioned that only a minority of the workers receive between three and five pounds a week. Or, better still, they could have pointed out that many thousands of workers in the Post Office receive less than fifty shillings a week, and that Sir Kingsley Wood (who opened the exhibition) took great pains when he was Postmaster-General to convince postal workers that the Government

could really afford no more.

* * *

The Labour Party and MacDonaldism

Labour Party leaders and propagandists would have workers believe that the ignominious failure of. two Labour Governments was due to the treacherous betrayal of Labour Party principles by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and that “MacDonaldism” left the Labour Party along with MacDonald; Mr. Hamilton Fyfe, ex-editor of the Daily Herald, does not think so. He says: —

Unfortunately “MacDonaldism ” is a disease by no means extirpated. Among its symptoms are—greater respect for the good opinion of opponents than for that of supporters, fear of doing anything to suggest that Socialism means more than slight, harmless changes, desire to take over industry and show capitalists how to run it—on capitalist lines ! —(Reynold's, June 6th, 1937.)

Mr. Fyfe is confused. The disease symptoms he refers to are not the result of “MacDonaldism." They have been the essence of Labour Party policy for thirty years. Mr. Fyfe informed Reynold's readers: “I believed in him [MacDonald] intensely, felt a personal devotion to him, would have done anything for him. I was quickly disillusioned." It is gratifying to know that Mr. Fyfe is disillusioned. He could now usefully spend some effort in disabusing the minds of hundreds of thousands of workers who have as pathetic a faith in the present leaders of the Labour Party. 

* * *

Germany and Colonies

Sir Arnold Wilson, M.P., writing in the Evening Standard (March 15th, 1937) an article called “German Colonies—the Case for Return," makes some telling points.

Answering the hypocritical arguments put forward by Mr. Churchill, that Germany would not benefit from colonies and that colonies could not be handed over to Germany without consulting the natives, he says: —

We did not ask leave of the Somalis of Jubaland when we handed them to Italy in 1925, or the people of Togoland when we transferred them to France, or of Ruanda and Urundi when they were taken over by Belgium.

Further, he adds:—

I would not ask the youth of this country to fight to exclude Germany from her former colonies, and in this, I believe, I speak for a great body of opinion in this country which is scarcely represented in Parliament or heard in the Press. If we are told that we must be ready to fight Germany in order to keep South Africa within the Empire. I would reply that I would not ask men to offer their lives for an ideal so shadowy and so unreal.

Time will see whether Sir Arnold changes his mind.

* * *

Hoodwinking the Workers

Speaking at a Co-operative Party Conference on a proposal to establish a flat-rate pension of £l a week to all persons at the age of 60, Mr. W. H. Green, Labour M.P. for Deptford, said: — 

The cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £250,000,000.

“ One of our failures as a Labour movement,” he said, “is that we are far too ready to promise all sorts of things which, when we get near to power, we find we cannot carry out.

“We ought not to hoodwink the electorate by promising things we cannot carry out.”—(News Chronicle,  March 30th, 1937.)

Nevertheless, the next General Election will see the Labour Party making promises as specious as ever. In order to get votes the “hoodwinking” business will become a riot. Promises that are not fulfilled will bring their own reward to those that perpetrate the fraud. The influence of the Labour Party on the workers will wane, if it is not already doing so. Workers who are without understanding of what is happening can only judge by immediate results. The failures of Labour Governments in other countries are pregnant with lessons for members of the British Labour Party who are intelligent enough to see them. A few of them do, and occasionally show by their writings and speeches that they are uneasy. Many look upon the Labour vote as their right, and upon the loyalty of the voter as something unchangeable. We foresee rocks ahead. Unescapable crises will bring down any government which claims to administer capitalism in such a way as to be able to solve working-class problems. The failure of Labour Governments is inevitable and it unfortunately casts discredit on the working-class movement as a whole. The task of the Socialist is made more difficult in consequence. 

* * *

Russian Statistics

In Russia To-day (June, 1937) Mrs. Margaret Cole reviews a book compiled by the State Planning Commission of the U.S.S.R. called “The Second Five-Year Plan. 1933-37."

She refers to the fact that statistics on English conditions “mean figures of fact and achievement, figures of things which have actually happened, and which can be checked from records in actual existence," but, she says,

Soviet statistics, on the other hand, are a mixture of fact, hope, and exhortation. The statistics in this book are of true Soviet type.

The majority of the tables, whether of wages, production, education, or whatever you choose, end with figures for 1937, which can only be a matter for conjecture, and compare them with figures for capitalist countries based upon the peak year of 1929—which is to compare one conjecture with another.

The foreword, by V. I. Mezhlauk, for example, says (p. xlvi) that the number of children in pre-school institutions in 1935 was approximately 6 millions.

The official table on page 652 gives 7½ millions for 1934 and 9 millions for 1935. The official figures make it seem credible that by the end of 1937 there will be 16 million children in kindergartens. But which of them is right ?

Briefly, Russian statistics have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

* * *

Land of Hope and Glory

From a speech in the House of Commons by Mr. J. Griffiths, Labour M.P. for Llanelly (Times report, June 20th, 1937):—

The report on maternal mortality in Wales showed that of 665 women about to become mothers who were sent to 17 infant welfare centres in South Wales, 30 per cent. were anaemic, emaciated, and were running very grave risks. This problem must be tackled and solved, but the local authorities in South Wales were too impoverished to do so.

As a commentary on capitalist values that report coincided with another announcing the gift of £250,000 to Earl Baldwin from an anonymous donor to be spent on any project fostering the Empire spirit.

* * *

Confessions of a Captain of Industry

Speaking at a tea and entertainment provided for retired works employees of the London Transport Board, Lord Ashfield said:—

He would always recall with pleasure and satisfaction the opportunities he had to walk through the Chiswick works, marvelling at the interesting and intricate work they were doing, appearing at the time to be very wise, but at the same time not understanding it.—(Brentford & Chiswick Times, May 28th, 1937.)

The statement was greeted with laughter.

It would now be interesting to hear an apologist’s explanation for Lord Ashfield’s £15,000 a year salary for doing a job perhaps little or no more “interesting and intricate” than the works engineers and mechanics and draughtsmen who receive only £3 to £4 a week.

Perhaps the father of the London Passenger Transport Board, Mr. Herbert Morrison, would oblige?

Harry Waite