Editorial: The Priests and Politics. (1930)

Editorial from the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Archbishop of Canterbury, and other prelates and religious leaders are making public protests about alleged religious persecution in Russia, and they ask that steps be taken involving interference in the internal affairs of Russia.

Mr. Henderson, the Foreign Secretary, in reply to questions in the House of Commons stated that “the reports of religious persecution were causing the Government grave concern."

The Executive Committee of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches, in a resolution passed at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, express its “utmost horror and reprobation of the policy of persecution adopted by the Soviet Government against the Christian and other religious people of Russia, and its sacrilegious violence against all forms of religious belief.” The Executive also urges upon the British Government the “imperative necessity of using to the utmost all available means of remedying this terrible situation.”

How righteously indignant these people have suddenly become who were silent during the decades of Czarist persecution when the knout was freely used, Jewish pogroms were a commonplace, and “Siberia” became a byword for misery and despotism.

And the basis of their indignation is largely imaginary. The Archbishop himself, in the House of Commons on the 20th of February, stated:

“I propose to make the most exhaustive enquiries” (Daily News, February 21st), thereby admitting that he had so far acted on rumour.

Prebendary Gough, the head of the Christian Protest Movement, has already had to climb down when caught, and admit in the Morning Post for February 20th that “those who are conducting the movement are well aware that the savage orgies which were so frequent in the earlier stages of the Soviet domination do not now characterise the procedure of the persecution.” But neither he nor anyone else has, so far given evidence of the earlier “savage orgies." If there were “earlier savage orgies” how is it that the righteous indignation of the priests has only now found a voice when, according to themselves, the persecution is on the wane?

Further, Arthur Ransome, in a letter to the Manchester Guardian of February 18th, proved that Prebendary Gough’s quotation from Pravda of October 25th, which he alleged was an example of the execution of “persons who openly and actively practise their religion” had been carefully doctored. The real, quotation showed something else entirely—that a military monarchist organisation, composed of the remnants of bands who had distinguished themselves by especial savagery during the civil war, had formed up under the flag of a religious monastic sect, the “name-glorifiers.” Gregorovitch, the leader of the organisation, declared that it set itself the task of ceaseless struggle with the Soviet Government. The seat of the organisation was in the mountains, and they were buying munitions and preparing for armed revolt. The Soviet Government discovered the plot and shot the ringleaders— just as the British Government shot the ringleaders of the Sinn Fein revolt in 1916, all of whom were Christians.

One may ask why the priests should suddenly become so concerned about the fate of their co-religionists in another country. The explanation is not far to seek.

Since the days of the native medicine man religion has been a prop and a handmaiden to each ruling class, and a priestly group has evolved parallel with the evolution of Government and secured a share of the spoil from exploitation. So strong has been the position of religion that each revolution of the past has had a religious glamour cast over it and has involved modification of the creeds of defeated rulers.

So the Church that bids the sweated worker “be patient” and bear his cross in silence, cannot remain still when its position is challenged. The Church leaders imagine that the present regime in Russia threatens the existence of Religion and therefore they would be prepared to violate all the laws they bless sooner than see a diminution in their power.

Groan with the Bishop. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bishops are such poor fish; it seems a shame to hurt them. Their job is hard enough already, convincing their thinning flocks of the blessedness of short commons, whilst dallying themselves with the cursedness of plenty. Formerly, when their palsied logic was reinforced with the rack, the thumb screw and the stake, they were formidable enough, but their day has passed, and their excursions into publicity are more humdrum. So long as their pearls of wisdom are cast before their dumb and docile congregations, or scattered in the dry leaves of their parish magazines, little harm is done. They may be left to peter out painlessly in the dank, gloomy caves where they hide from science. Their brief excursions into the open are unfortunate. We remember with amusement their recent controversy over their book of petrified prayers. One had to mingle amusement with amazement at the spectacle of holy bishops quarrelling over the question as to whether pieces of bread, “blessed” by a priest, could remain sacred if stored in a cupboard. One remembers former controversies and activities. Their opposition to elementary education unless it included their superstitions; their opposition to a widower marrying the sister of his dead wife; their incitements to murder in the recent Great War.

They are engaged, as we have said, in a difficult task, and the day rapidly approaches when they will be forced to do something useful for a living. They realise that in the competitive world they have so lauded, their chances of as cushy a job again, are remote. One gloomy and reverend brother has taken time by the forelock, and makes money by contributing two columns of Christian thought weekly, to one of our bright evening news sheets. When the crash comes, and the Church goes into liquidation, he should be certain of a job on the News of the World. Unlike the scriptures, his writings are copyright in all countries.

But to revert. The Daily News espied a sparkling gem of clerical thought in the Bishop of Gloucester’s diocesan letter for January. Says the Bishop

   A combination of sentiment and the influence of trade unions has steadily aimed at keeping wages above their economic level. The only results of that can mean that a large number of persons are unemployed. [Horrible English, but it is the Bishop's.] Until that is corrected unemployment will go on, but apparently it is unChristian to say that a person should give wages in accordance with the money that he has at his control. If a man is employing four workmen and giving each of them £1 a week, it will cost him £200 a year. If he is told that he must give each of them- £2 a week, there are two alternatives. The one is he can throw up business and throw all out of work; the other is to pay two of them £2 a week, and throw two out of work: but the probable result will be that his business will fail and all four will be thrown out of work.

I like these simple illustrations, don’t you? They are so easily grasped, even by the meanest intellect. They are so clear, so luminous, so self-evident, so—well, what is the use of all these terms like gold standards, and socialisation, after all? What we want is simplicity. One employer and four men; everyone can grasp that position. Four men work, one man pays them each £l, out of his scanty pocket, and then they go home. Having spent their substance in riotous living, they listen to a combination of sentiment and trade unionism, and straightway go unto the one man and demand of him £2 each. The Bishop sees but two alternative courses; either he should satisfy the clamour of two of them, and tell the others to go hang, or he shall throw up the business and tell them all to go hang. It is a pity the ecclesiastic vision could discern but two courses. For, having thrown up the business, what is he to do now? Having no business he will be in the same boat as the four. And then again, how far is the process to go. Are all the other employers who so kindly give £2 a week to their workmen to follow his example and throw up their businesses when asked for more? There is another course open too. If the employer in the illustration went to the same school of economics as the Bishop, he could take an enlightened view and at one fell swoop, solve the unemployment problem. He could reduce their wages to 5/- a week and take on twelve more men. They would object, you will say! Simple. The Bishop would beg a ride from some friendly carman, and fortified by his frugal bread and cheese, would go to them and explain the simple elements of his economic system to them. Being at bottom, sensible men, and impressed by the spectacle of dignified penury before them, they would throw their sentiment into the adjacent gutter, and break their trade unions across their knees, and thus would dawn a new era. There would be no unemployment, for the appearance of any man asking for a job, would only be the excuse for a little sum in simple division. When I come to think of it, the whole poverty problem would be solved too. For poverty, after all, is only a relative condition. If everyone were getting the same sum, big or little, the term poverty, would cease to serve any useful purpose. So you will see there is more in the Bishop’s clear reasoning and simple illustration than one might think. And yet some people grudge them their £15,000 a year.

W. T. Hopley

Answer to a Correspondent: Is there Socialism in Russia? (1930)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

                                                  Stepney, E.l.

23/1/30.

Comrade Editor,

The S.P.G.B. are professed Marxian socialists, yet their attitude towards Russia refutes that. If Russia was a capitalist country, would it tolerate the Communist International (the continuing of Marx's First International), which agitates and organises workers throughout the world? Teach, too, in schools Marxian economics, and the solidarity of the workers of the world; try to stamp out illiteracy, and endeavours whenever possible to raise the standard of living for the workers. As for the inevitableness—according to economic laws of development—for Russia adopting capitalistic economy, as in the French revolution, the times are different; France, then, was in an environment of just developing Industrialism, Russia with its potential productiveness—in a world of highly developed capitalism—and admitted, by its aid can quickly obtain the prerequisites for Communism. It is doing so in fulfilling the five years' plan of development with resolute determination. Marx in the “Communist Manifesto" proposed certain measures to be adopted when the proletariat achieved power; Russia, when the revolution occurred, adopted those measures. Socialism is being prepared in Soviet Russia; the capitalist world is hostile to it; Socialists generally, and professed Marxian Socialists in particular should at least innovate, from capitalist hostility to Socialist help to the . Workers' Republic.—Yours, etc.,

Jack Miller.

Reply.

Our correspondent has evidently not troubled to acquaint himself with the Socialist Party’s attitude towards the Russian Bolshevists. We state as a fact that the economic system in Russia is capitalist. Our correspondent does not attempt to give direct evidence to prove the contrary, but introduces a number of irrelevant statements to show that the other Governments are hostile to the Russian Government. Even if it were true, that hostility would not prove that there is socialism in Russia. Antagonism between Capitalist governments arising out of conflicting interests is a permanent feature of Capitalism. Has our correspondent forgotten the Great War? Or does he perhaps think that the war proved that one side or the other was Socialist?

We have never denied that the Bolshevists would have liked to introduce Socialism if they could. What we do say is that they have not introduced Socialism and cannot do so. They are endeavouring to speed up the development of State Capitalism.

Mr. Miller asks if a Capitalist country would tolerate the Communist International "which agitates and organises the workers throughout the world.”. In the February Socialist Standard we showed how the Communists “agitate and organise” the workers in this country to vote for Ramsay MacDonald. Does our correspondent think that the toleration of these activities in this country proves that we have Socialism here? Further, we flatly deny that Marx ever advocated such practices as voting for anti-Socialists as a method of attaining Socialism.

With regard to illiteracy, every Capitalist government compels the children of the workers to attend school. The difference between good intentions and the actual achievements which Russia’s backward development permits, is illustrated by the figures of illiteracy. The Soviet Union Year Book shows that between 1920 and 1926 the proportion of literate people had been increased from 466 per 1,000 only to the very low figure of 667 per 1,000. (Page 474, 1929 Year Book.)

We are not aware that we have based our attitude towards Russia on what happened in France in 1789.

Our correspondent refers to measures mentioned by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. May we remind him that the detailed measures referred to were intended for the actual situation in Europe in 1847. They might be appropriate if the internal condition of Russia is similar to that of some central European states 82 years ago. Is that our correspondent’s contention?

Mr. Miller says that the “Capitalist world is hostile” to Russia. In the 1929 Soviet Union Year Book (Page 43—70) are particulars of the relationship between the Russian Government and the other Capitalist Governments. The number of Commercial and other Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions with foreign governments numbered 26. The Russian Government had abroad 15 ambassadors in European capitals, 1 in America (Mexico) and 7 in Asia. Twenty countries had embassies in Moscow. Fifteen countries had consuls in Russia, and the Russian Government had consuls in 26 foreign countries. So much for “hostility.”

Our correspondent would have been more accurate had he said that the Russian Government represents Capitalist interests which bring it into a greater or less degree of conflict with some other governments. But that is true of all Capitalist states in their relationship with each other.

Editorial Committee.

Answer to a Correspondent: What is Socialism? (1930)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A New Reader’s Difficulties.

A correspondent writes telling us that he is a relatively new reader of the Socialist Standard, but finds himself agreeing wholeheartedly with our description of the anomalies of Capitalism. He is nevertheless, he says, somewhat confused on the question of our programme of action when everybody thinks as we do and political control has been achieved.

When the machinery of government is in the hands of the Socialist Party what use is going to be made of it? In what way does the policy of Socialists differ from that of the Labour Government? What is the essential difference between Nationalisation and Municipalisation on the one hand, and Socialism on the other? Our correspondent goes on to say that he realises the “hollowness of the Labour Government's pretensions, if not their hypocrisy, together with the efforts of organised religion to keep things as they are.”

Clearing the ground.

Let us, before coming to the main question, clear away one or two possible misunderstandings indicated in our questioner’s last remark. It is not hypocrisy nor the activities of the Churches which are the main obstacles on the road to Socialism. Hypocrisy, the dictionary tells us, consists in “feigning to be what one is not.” Now it may be said that some members and leaders in the Labour Party “feign” to be Socialists. But it must be remembered that for the most part the persons concerned do not mean or say that they want what we want, i.e., common ownership of the means of production and distribution. Generally speaking, they make it perfectly clear that when they use the word Socialism they mean something quite different, for example, Nationalisation as applied in the Post Office. It is unfortunate that they should use the word loosely and unscientifically, but that is not hypocrisy. More often than not it denotes loose thinking and muddled ideas, and the practice has grown up very largely because the Liberals and Tories have made a habit of calling the Labour Party socialist as a term of abuse.

The essence of the difference between us and the Labour Party is that they claim Nationalisation and other schemes of reform to be means of solving the problems of poverty and unemployment, whereas we claim that common ownership—a quite different thing—and nothing but common ownership will be of use. People who vote for Labour candidates do not imagine that they are voting for common ownership, even if those candidates sometimes describe their programme as Socialism. The main obstacle to the conquest of political power for the purpose of establishing a system of society based upon common ownership of the means of production and distribution is the lack of political knowledge among the workers. The loose thinking and talking of Labour Party leaders is largely a reflection of that lack of knowledge.

As for the Church, it has to be recognised that the great majority of the electorate, including the majority of the workers, would continue to vote for Capitalism even if there were no churches. They would do so because they are satisfied with things as they are, or because their dissatisfaction is not directed against Capitalism but merely against the administration of Capitalism by a particular party or particular persons. Capitalism remains because the political machinery is in the hands of people who have no wish, and no mandate from the electors, to replace it by Socialism. Parliament, the centre of power, is controlled by Capitalist agents because the electors vote them there, either because they find Capitalism good or because they are not convinced that there is a practical alternative. Organised religion plays its part in moulding the opinions of voters, but it is a relatively small part and probably one which is decreasing in importance.

Some terms explained.

Capitalism is a system of society in which the means of producing and distributing food, clothing, and shelter, in fact all the so-called necessaries and luxuries of human existence, are owned and controlled by only a part of the population. The land, the factories, the railways, steamships, aeroplanes, and so forth, are owned by a minority of people, who are correctly described as “Capitalists,” i.e., persons who possess sufficient property to be able, if they so desire, to live on the income derived therefrom without the necessity of working. A minority are in this privileged position. The great majority are not in this position but have to work for their living. They have to sell their labour-power, their mental and physical energies, to the Capitalists. Capitalism has been summed up by an anti-Socialist economist, Professor Edwin Cannan, in the following terms :—

  “The majority of workers work as they are directed to work by persons and bodies of persons who employ them in order to make a profit by getting more than they pay for all expenses, and who reckon the profit as a percentage on their capital. The greater part of the property is also in the hands of such persons and institutions. (“Wealth,” page 104.)

That is Capitalism, a system under which one section of the population lives by owning property, while the other section— the working class—carry on all the work of wealth production but do not own either the means of production or the products. They work for someone else and live on the wages and salaries paid to them for the sale of their labour-power. In the words of our Declaration of Principles, which our correspondent and all new readers should carefully study (see back page), Capitalist society is composed of two classes—"those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.”

Many things flow from that condition. Workers may only work how and when and where the Capitalists choose to permit them to work. When the Capitalists do not permit, unemployment is the consequence. The goods produced belong to the owners of the means of production and not to society as a whole, hence the mere existence of great quantities of useful articles, or the existence of workers able and willing to produce them, does not give a guarantee that those who need the articles shall have them. The rule of Capitalism is that goods are accessible not to those who need them but to those who can afford to pay for them, goods are produced for sale not for use, and when the Capitalist cannot sell his goods he prevents the workers from continuing to produce them by the simple process of giving his workers the “sack.” Under Socialism the means of production and distribution will be owned and controlled by society as a whole and the goods produced by all the able-bodied members of society will be produced not for sale to those who can afford to pay, but directly for the use of all. The guiding principle which Socialist society will apply to production will be to organise for the manufacture of different kinds of articles in the proportions and total quantities which society under given powers of production decides upon. Contrast that with the principle which rules under Capitalism. It was stated by Lord Cowdray in a memorandum which he drew up to show his son how to be a successful Capitalist:—

  Every problem that presents itself has to be viewed and analysed from two standpoints: the first what I can make out of the enterprise; the second, what 1 can lose by the enterprise. (See Daily News, 22 February, 1930.)

Where does the Labour Party stand?

Socialism means a system in which articles are produced for use, not for sale. There will be no privileged class living by owning property. People will not have their “right to live” dependent upon their ability to get an employer to employ them, that is upon the employer’s hopes of selling at a profit, or his willingness to spend his surplus wealth on all kinds of luxuries out of the reach of nine-tenths of the population.

But Nationalisation and Municipalisation do not involve the abolition of these features of Capitalism. The L.C.C. municipal tramways and the Government-owned Post Office are not forms of Socialism, but forms of Capitalism. Nominally “owned by the community” they are in fact owned and controlled by the Capitalist class and do not in any way alter the subject position of the working class. The services they render are not for "use” but for “sale.” They are financed in just the same way as the ordinary Capitalist company. The Government receives investments of capital to finance services controlled by the Post Office, and pays interest on those investments. Similarly with the L.C.C. tramways. But even if they were not run on invested capital, and even if they were run free of charge and paid for out of rates and taxes, the position of the working class would be just what it is now. If the cost of travelling and the cost of correspondence were removed from the cost of living of the working class the result would merely be that wages—that is, the cost of keeping the workers in a fit condition to work and bring up their families—would fall correspondingly. You cannot have “Socialist” institutions inside Capitalism. Socialism is itself a system of society.

“Individualism” versus “State Ownership.”

The Labour Party claims to believe that "State ownership” is preferable to Individualism.” The Socialist denies that it makes any difference to the working class, and he is not the least interested in that conflict of opinions about forms of organising Capitalist industry. We say that it makes no difference to the working class whether the railways, for example, are owned by railway shareholders, or whether the shareholders have their railway shares taken away and replaced by holdings of Government stock. That is the essence of the Labour Party’s programme of Nationalisation and Municipalisation. The same privileged class are to go on drawing property incomes (that is living on wealth produced by the working class) but are to receive those incomes from the Government which becomes the employer, instead of receiving their incomes direct. The Labour Party’s programme “Labour and the Nation,” promises that the Labour Government will give "full publicity” to profits: the Socialist Party aims at the abolition of the whole system of profit making.

The Labour Party is now trying to make British Capitalist industry more efficient so that it can compete with foreign Capitalists. One of the ways of improving efficiency is, in the opinion of that party, to extend Nationalisation.

The Socialist Party does not want to increase the competitive power of one section of the Capitalist class against another. We are not concerned with the troubles of Capitalists in the geographical area of the United Kingdom or the Empire, but with troubles of the working class everywhere. We are aiming at dispossessing the Capitalist class and the establishment of Socialism which will necessarily be international. The method is by way of securing control of the machinery of government. We cannot get political power for the purpose of establishing Socialism until a majority are in favour of that step. The Labour Government is in office but was not elected by Socialists, and therefore has no choice but to try to administer Capitalism.

Editorial Committee

Answer To Correspondents: "Bank Loans and Deposits" (1930)

Letters to the Editors from the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Bank Loans and Deposits"

Mr. Nicholls (London, N.4).

We see no reason to believe that the late Mr. Walter Leaf meant anything but what he said. His words are quite plain—“The banks are strictly limited in their lending operations by the amount which the depositor thinks fit to leave with them.” ("Banking" p. 102.) And, "the banks can lend no more than they can borrow—in fact not nearly so much ” (ibid). There is nothing in the context to indicate that he could possibly have meant anything else. You ask, “is it possible to make any normal person believe that there is a moneyed class in this country willing to remain depositors in the Big Five to the extent of upwards of £1,000 million.”

If you will look up the latest balance-sheets of the "Big Five” banks you will see that their deposits total well over £1,600 million. The total of their loans and advances is only £880 million.

The relationship of gold to deposits is a quite different question. Banks pay interest on deposits not merely on the amount of gold they happen to hold. 

Ed. Comm.

#    #    #    #

Mr. F. L. Rimington.

See reply to Mr. Nicholls. Ed. Comm.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Edwin Wright.

You based your case on a statement ("every bank loan creates a deposit ”) which you attributed to Mr. McKenna. We did not attempt to meet the point merely by quoting a different opinion expressed by the late Mr. Walter Leaf, but gave as well the evidence on which he based his opinion. We notice that you ignore this evidence.

Mr. McKenna's present views and the practice of the bank of which he is Chairman, certainly do not correspond with the theories which you say were held by him. At the Midland Bank annual meeting (22nd January) Mr. McKenna made the following statements in his address (See Times, 23rd January):—

  It is a common notion to judge from speeches and letters in the Press, that the banks have an inexhaustible power of lending money to industrial enterprises, and that any industry suffering from general depression could be restored to prosperity if only what is termed a more generous policy were adopted by the banks. (Laughter!) A moment’s reflection, however, will show that the banks have no inexhaustible fund to draw upon. The sums they lend are balanced by amounts due to depositors, who would certainly not rest content unless confident that their money was being wisely used and could be repaid to them at any time.

According to the theory which you say Mr. McKenna held, the banks ought to be able to create deposits at will and thus draw upon "an inexhaustible fund.” It is evident that Mr. McKenna, like the late Mr. Walter Leaf, does not share your view.

Ed. Comm.

Do You Know? (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

That an Examiner in the Bankruptcy Department of the Civil Service, who was fired on the 18th February for accepting a bribe, was paid the munificent rate of £4 5s. 0d. per week? And yet you are urged to support Government ownership!

#    #    #    #

That according to Fenner Brockway, London M.P., and member of the National Council of the I.L.P., "The present tendency is that, despite a Labour Government, Capitalism is being strengthened.” And yet the I.L.P. urge you to support the Labour Government!

#    #    #    #

That Baron Rothschild and his friends, "in a six weeks' trip . . . bagged five lions, five buffaloes, two rhinoceros, and five antelopes.” They did it from an aeroplane because it was safer! And yet one and a half millions of workers cannot find a job, and the rest are urged to accept reductions because industry "cannot afford to pay” a decent wage to all!

#    #    #    #

That British motor-car producers (in the interests of free competition!) threaten to "force British agents to sell only British cars . . . It is the intention in future contracts, it is understood, to change the wording to enable the supply of cars by any British maker to an offending agent to be stopped at once. All producing firms in the British motor industry have agreed to this.” And yet the hypocrites who rule us complain and threaten war when the Chinaman or the Hindu suggests "supporting their home industries” !

#    #    #    #

That the Labour Party are only administering Capitalism, like the previous Governments, and therefore cannot make any appreciable difference in the number of unemployed, because they cannot force the self-acting doors on the tube railways to bring back the discharged porters, the automatic machines to bring back the booking clerks that are superfluous or all the other improvements in machines and organisation—in Government departments as well as outside—that "save labour” to suddenly bring back the workers that have been rendered superfluous. All sections of the International Capitalist class are engaged in a mad rush to obtain markets by cheapening production, i.e., by reducing the number of workers employed to produce given quantities of goods.

#    #    #    #

That Ramsay MacDonald has found from his practical experience of "Government” that his earlier ideas were too "advanced”? That’s what comes of wearing a top-hat and going to dinner with "the people that prey.”

#    #    #    #

That "the Angel of Mons were motion pictures thrown upon 'screens' of foggy white cloudbanks in Flanders by cinematograph projecting machines mounted on German aeroplanes which hovered above the British lines,” that the British Command was aware of the trick and turned the vision to their own benefit? No means are too despicable for employment in modern wars, because the latter are the product of one of the most despicable instincts—profit-seeking.

#    #    #    #

That Lord Beaverbrook’s new party is only the latest stunt to keep the worker’s mind off the real cause of his troubles—the private ownership of the means of production. One can prophecy with a fair amount of confidence the line the next General Election will take: On the one side, Conservatives, and on the other Liberals and Labourites arguing about the incidence of this or that item of taxation, and the worker’s slave position will be obscured by the smoke screen of useless argument. Whether there are high taxes, low taxes or no taxes, the worker remains a slave to the owners of the means of production, who, at the same time, are the rulers of society today. And until the worker turns a deaf ear to all kinds of stunts he will remain a slave.

Gilmac.

Karl Marx On The Suffrage. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Reprinted from "Labour Monthly," Dec., 1929.)

  "We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for, contain nothing but the demand of universal suffrage, and of the conditions without which universal suffrage would be illusory for the working class : such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But universal suffrage is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat form the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground, civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but landlords, industrial Capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.
  "Its inevitable result here, is the political supremacy of the working class.”

—("N.Y. Tribune,” Aug. 25th, 1852.)

The Labour Party and The City. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Snowden and Mr. MacDonald have recently received the Freedom of the City of London. Addressing the bankers, stockbrokers and city business men gathered at the Guildhall on the occasion, Mr. Snowden said :—

   The Prime Minister and he perhaps held different views from those who had been given the honour before. "That illustrates," said Mr. Snowden, "one of the finest traits of British life —a toleration of opinions with which we differ— and it shows still more that the political controversies which divide us are petty and trivial compared with the vital things which unite us.” —("Edinburgh Evening News," 19th Dec.)

Yet there are people who describe the Labour Party as a class party—a Working Class Party.

C.

SPGB Meetings (1930)

Party News from the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fallacy of Empire Free Trade. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook, who six months ago were waging a fierce ‘‘circulation war” in their rival group of newspapers, have buried the hatchet in order to launch the United Empire Party—the “Party of Prosperity.” The idea underlying the programme of the new party is simple enough. The British Empire is to become one unit for trade purposes against the rest of the world. Any article which can be grown or manufactured inside one or other of the Empire countries is to be grown there and freely imported into other Empire countries. Foreign productions are to be kept out by means of protective tariffs. America is to be the model, and prosperity is to be the result. Viscount Rothermere writing in the Sunday Despatch on February 23rd, tells us that five years after the achievement of Empire Free Trade “Great Britain will be as prosperous as the United States.” The party is described as “not political, but economic. It will include men and women of all political (views. Conservatives, Liberals, and Labourites alike will be welcome to it.” (Viscount Rothermere, in the Daily Mail, 19th February). This “non-political” party is, however, going to run a large number of candidates for Parliament, to secure the application of its programme. Lord Beaverbrook is the leader of the new party, and Viscount Rothermere his right hand man.

“All Sensible Persons.”
The U.E.P. has met with a heavy fire of criticism from the older parties, but almost all of the critics agree in endorsing the notion that “prosperity” would result from improved trade. They condemn the scheme only because they believe it. to be impracticable for the purpose it has in view. As the New Statesman puts it, “all sensible persons wish to see an expansion of trade between Empire countries.” A glance at the last general election programmes of the political parties will show that they all believe in improved trade. Mr. Baldwin backed “safeguarding” as the means of doing this. Mr. Lloyd George preferred the Trade Facilities Act, which gives “the support of the national credit to industrial enterprises.” The Labour Party shared Lloyd George’s view; “A Labour Government will set to work at once by using Export Credits and Trade Facilities Guarantees, to stimulate the depressed export trades.” Finally the Communists urged the development of trade with Russia. Only the Socialist Party dissents from the view of the New Statesman's “all sensible persons.” We do not want “free trade” or “protection” but Socialism, which means “no trade.” Trade, whether local trade, Empire trade or International trade, means the buying and selling of goods which are privately owned by the owners of the means of production. Socialism, which means the production of goods for use and not for sale, will end buying and selling.

That is a question of the organisation of production and distribution on a Socialist basis, and it may be asked what is our attitude to the problem of trade as it exists under capitalism. Our attitude on this too, is essentially different from that of the parties mentioned.

“Prosperity” For Whom?

We deny that improved trade offers any solution for the problems of the working class. Each of the parties of capitalism accepts the view that greater efficiency in British industry would enable British manufacturers to produce more cheaply and thus beat their foreign competitors. The argument is based on a childish fallacy which every elementary student of logic has met in the following little poser. In an examination set to a class of 30 boys, no boy was more than 5 marks from the boy above him on the list. Any boy would therefore be raised one place higher if he had 10 more marks. Is it then true to say that all the boys would be one place higher if they all had 10 more marks? The “improved trade” argument is just as silly. It is doubtless true that if “John Bull’s” manufactures were reduced in price he would capture some markets from “Uncle Sam” or "Old Fritz”—provided that “Uncle Sam” and “Old Fritz” and the rest of the capitalist world consent to stand still. But they don’t consent to stand still. In a competitive world an increase in the efficiency of each competitor leaves all the competitors where they were. A ten per cent. reduction in prices all over the world through the application of similar methods of rationalisation, leaves the least efficient capitalist nation still at the bottom of the class and still desperately trying to outstrip the others.

Viscount Rothermere tells us to copy America and then in five years we shall be “as prosperous” as America is. But how prosperous are the American workers? Has poverty been abolished in the U.S.A.? Viscount Rothermere’s newspaper, the Evening News, told us as recently as December 17th, 1929. that “the world has never been without poverty and that in the U.S.A. to-day, the richest nation in material wealth that the world has ever known, there is plenty of it—not relative poverty merely, but want and destitution.”

The Cause of “Bad Trade.”

Before joining the party of “want and destitution,” stop and consider why “bad trade” and unemployment exist; The newspaper Lords are looking for the cause at the furthest end of the Empire; Mr. J. H. Thomas recently went seeking it in Canada; the Labour Party and the Communists fancy they have found it (or part of it) in the failure to be on good trade relations with Moscow. The real cause lies nearer home, in the organisation of capitalism itself. In the U.S.A. there are over 33,000 people with incomes of 50,000 dollars or more, say upwards of £200 a week. In this country there are more than 9,000 people in the same happy position. They represent the wealthiest section of the capitalist class, but between them and the average worker with his wage of £2 or £3 per week (when he is in work), there are a few million wealthy people who between them get nearly half the total national income. Many of them have so much more than they need that they cannot and do not spend it. It must be as difficult to get through £200 a week as it was for the proverbial rich man in the Bible story to get into heaven, or the camel to get through the eye of a needle. The constant relative over-production of goods, the inability to find buyers, is due to the inequality of wealth which is part and parcel of Capitalism. So great is the wealth of the rich minority that all the stupendous and alluring advertising campaigns fail to induce them to spend up to the limit of their income or anything approaching the limit. The cost of building useless battleships, donations to charity, taxation to provide relief for the destitute, and pensions for the aged, all these forms of voluntary or obligatory expenditure leave the problem hardly touched. The wealth of the rich, their ownership and control of our means of life, this is the cause of poverty and unemployment. None of the “improved trade” parties can solve the problem. Workers who desert the Liberal, Tory, Labour and Communist Parties to join the new party are merely exchanging one illusory hope for another. Socialism will solve the problem of the poverty of the many by abolishing a system of society based upon the ownership of the means of production by the wealthy few; it will solve the problem of unemployment by abolishing the classes of employers and employed; it will solve the problems of competitive trade by abolishing trade.

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialism and the Economic "Experts". (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many people to whom Socialist teachings seem unanswerable and in every way satisfactory, are still reluctant to accept the Socialist case because they cannot believe that Capitalist theories can be unsound and yet be accepted by so many clever men, economists, financial and industrial experts, professors, scientists, and so on. They ask us how we can be so confident that we are right when so many apparently great economists say that we are wrong.

Our answer is two-fold. We claim in the first place that the only final test of a theory is that it should explain the facts and not be out of keeping with the facts. So, for example, we can quite confidently assert that the various theories which try to prove that permanent unemployment is impossible are shown to be wrong by the facts of permanent unemployment. Secondly, we ask you to remember that great reputations can be, to a large extent, created out of very little substance and that universities and such places, being dependent on the financial support of Capitalist Governments, wealthy companies, etc., do not shower honours on and give prominent posts to men whose ideas clash violently with the accepted ideas of Capitalism.

When we come to examine the theories of the learned men with whom we are especially concerned, the economists, we find that there are one or two facts which alone should justify the abandonment of that attitude of worshipping their declarations as If they were above criticism. Firstly, we observe that these "great” men rarely agree among themselves; secondly, their inability to give useful advice in practical problems is notorious; and thirdly, they themselves on occasion admit the unsatisfactory nature of their whole body of doctrines.

We give below two quotations which illustrate these points. The first is taken from a review, published in the New Statesman, of a recent book by Professor Edwin Cannan, who is one of the most famous of living economists. The book is his "Review of Economic Theory.” The reviewer calls Professor Cannan the "Economic Socrates,” and says :—

  Let no one, then, go to this Review of Economic Theory in the hope of discovering in it new truth of a positive sort. It may help readers to new truth, but only indirectly, through the exposure of old error. This, however, it achieves with signal success. Professor Cannan has no difficulty at all in proving his case that economic theory has been throughout its life, and is still, in a state of deplorable confusion, and that not only do the text-books talk a great deal of utter nonsense, but even the classical practitioners of the art or science are in a terribly muddled condition. His handling of Marshall is as devastating as his handling of Mill; and his comments on Marshall's living disciples are mostly to the effect that they have made the confusion worse. This is a real service; for economics stand in real need of an iconoclast, and an economic Socrates may well be the indispensable forerunner of an economic Plato. (The New Statesman, Oct. 19, 1929.)

Our next quotation is taken from "The Founders of Political Economy,” by Jan St. Lewinski, D.Ec.Sc., Professor of Political Economy in the University of Lublin, Poland. The book was published in 1922 by P. S. King & Son, Ltd. :—

   The Great War has clearly shown of what little use all our economic knowledge has been where most simple theoretical problems had to be solved. When, for instance, the question if after the war the rate of interest will be high or low became acute, writers began to discuss what capital really is, and each gave a different definition and different solutions of the problem. In Germany economic writers of high standing, as, for instance, the Vice-Chancellor and former Professor of Political Economy at the University of Berlin, Helfferich claimed that Germany can wage war indefinitely because “money remains in the country." They imagined that money expended in financing military operations would return in form of war loans, and that this circle could last for centuries. Almost all economists in Germany believed in the truth of this absurd doctrine, and only the University of Breslau, which was a little doubtful about it, organised an inquiry on the subject.
  All the rich economic literature which had been accumulating for more than a century could not afford a solution of a problem which really belongs to the A B C of our science. Could anything illustrate better the deplorable state of political economy? (Page 167.)

The next time somebody tells you that Socialist theory must be unsound because this or the other professor of economics says so, you may reject that the views of these gentlemen on the subject of Socialism would carry more weight if they had first succeeded in reducing to order the chaotic jumble of theories which make up their own department of study.

Edgar Hardcastle

Communist Rowdies. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, published on January 29th, on its editorial page, an article by Mr. Harry Pollitt, under the heading “Now is the Time for Action.” Among other forms which the action is to take we get the following direct incitement to the smashing up of opponents’ meetings.

   Workshop meetings should be called by such workers and resolutions for the support of our Party should be carried, but the mere passing of resolutions is not enough. There should not be a Labour meeting held anywhere, but that the revolutionary workers in that district attend such meetings and fight against the speakers, whoever they are, so-called “ left,” “ right ” or centre.”
   They should never be allowed to address the workers. This will bring us in conflict with the authorities, but this must be done. The fight can no longer be conducted in a passive manner.
     We must lead the masses in struggle against this Government and the time has arrived to use every conceivable means of political agitation. The Communist Party and its organ, the "Daily Worker,” will lead the working class, fighting boldly and openly, against this Government of scoundrels and agents of capitalism.

The Paris Commune. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

We cannot let March pass away without a reference to an event of great significance in the history of the Working Class Movement. We refer to the Paris Commune of 1871.

Although nearly sixty years have passed away since the Commune, yet it still has a message for us, a message of hope and a message of warning. Then for the first time a section of the French working class, owing to a set of favourable circumstances, obtained control of supreme power and held it for a period of three months. Their defeat was due to many causes, chief of which were the unity of the International capitalists against them and the as yet unreadiness of the French working class for a social change in their interests.

The story of the Commune is told by Karl Marx in his little book, “The Civil War in France," and also by Lissagary (himself a fighter in the Commune) in his “Paris Commune of 1871.”

Of the objects of the Commune Marx speaks as follows:

  The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of Church and State.
 All public servants (including magistrates and judges) were to be elective, responsible and revocable.
 The Paris Commune was to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France.
 The Rural Communes of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send delegations to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the formal instruction of his constituents. The few but important functions which still would remain for a Central Government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal, and therefore strictly responsible, agents.

Engels in his introduction to the German edition of "The Civil War in France,” points out that the members of the Commune were divided into a majority of Blanquists, who had also predominated on the Central Committee of the National Guard, and a minority, which consisted for most part of members of the International Working Men’s Association, who were followers of Proudhon. He then shows that both the Blanquists and Proudhonists did the reverse of that which the doctrines of their Schools prescribed. Of the Blanquists he writes as follows :—

The Blanquists fared no better. Brought up in the School of Conspiracy, held together by the rigid discipline essential to it, they started from the conception that a comparatively small number of resolute, welt-organised men would be able not only to grasp the helm of State at a favourable moment, but also, through the display of great energy and reckless daring, to hold it as long as required; that is, until they had succeeded in carrying the masses of the people into the revolutionary current, and ranging them around the small leading band. To accomplish this, what was necessary, above all else, was the most stringent dictatorial centralisation of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary Government. And what did the Commune do— which in the majority consisted of these very Blanquists? In all its proclamations to the French people in the Provinces, it called upon them for a free federation of all French communes with Paris, for a National Organisation, which for the first time was to be the real creation of the nation. The Army, the Political Police, the Bureaucracy, all those agencies of oppression in a centralised government, which Napoleon had created in 1798, and which since then every new government had gladly used and kept up as ready weapons against its enemies, were to be abolished everywhere as they had been abolished in Paris. (Page 16.)

Lissagary gives a picture of Paris during the reign of the Commune which is instructive and interesting;—

Sunday the 26th was a day of joy and sunshine. Paris breathed again, happy, like one just escaped from death or great peril. At Versailles the streets looked gloomy, gendarmes occupied the station, brutally demanded passports, confiscated all the journals of Paris, and at the slightest expression of sympathy for the town arrested you. At Paris everybody could enter freely. The streets swarmed with people, the cafes were noisy; the same lad cried out the “Paris Journal” and the “Commune.” The attacks against the Hotel-de-Ville, the protestations of a few malcontents, were posted on the walls by the side of the placards of the Central Committee. The people were without anger because without fear. The voting paper had replaced the Chassepot.” (Page 127.)

In the course of the Commune, working men demonstrated their capacity to organise. The departments of the Mint, Finances, Education, Labour and Post Office were in charge of working men, and the results accomplished in the short space of time at their disposal was remarkable and many were continued after the suppression of the Commune.

But the people were not ready for such a fundamental change, and the forces without were too strong. The French Capitalists had made an arrangement with Bismarck under which one of the first stipulations was the pacification of Paris, and accordingly Bismarck released the captured French troops, who were let loose upon Paris by the Versailles government. The Communards contested with unsurpassed bravery and devotion every foot of ground and resisted for several days after the gates of Paris had been opened by treachery, and bitter was the toll they paid for the rising. The savagery of the government troops, as illustrated by Lissagary are almost unbelievable and even called forth comment from such a conservative paper as the English Times.

Lissagary records that about 20,000 were killed, while the number of the wounded will never be known. More than 40,000 prisoners were taken and trials followed lasting several years. 13,221 men, 157 women and 62 children were condemned. 270 were condemned to death and 7,500 to transportation.

Such was the vengeance wreaked by the French ruling class for an insurrection that failed. It will be well for the working class to remember the Commune and profit by its lessons.

Gilmac.

Life and Laughter. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and so does humour. For instance: Magistrate (at Willesden, of course) :

"What is your occupation?"

Prisoner: "Unemployment!"

This was selected by the newspapers as a police court joke. So it is, but there is more humour than meets the eye. Another magistrate: "What is your occupation?"

Prisoner (or should we say defendant here): "I am a gentleman.” No! there is no laughter here, not even a smile.

Here is a Labour Government in the seats of the mighty, pledged to abolish unemployment. They are not a sad-eyed, melancholy party. Jollity oozes from their joints and mirth gushes from their mouths. How they laughed when the Liberals said they would reduce unemployment to normal (whatever that is) in a twelvemonth. How the unemployed must laugh at this date, to think what the Labour' Party has done for them. Mr. Thomas has been to Canada and several dinners, Mr. MacDonald has been to America and several luncheons, Mr. Snowden has been to Paris and several tea-fights, and Mr. Henderson has been to the Hague. And they all wear optimistic tall hats.

After all, life is very jolly, isn't it? Look at jolly old George Lansbury. He is papering the parlour with photographs from the papers, showing him at school treats, and looking at sites for Lidos, and sites for tarpaulin doss-houses, and considering other solutions of the poverty problem- There is no need for gloom, or despondency. Sir Oliver Lodge is helping. He has withdrawn his gaze from the interstellar spaces, and comes down to earth with jovial George. We believe this is the first occasion when a learned man of stifling profundity has collaborated with a real, red, one hundred per cent., out-and-out, raging, tearing revolutionary.

Such a jolly idea, too. The proposal is that those of our fellows who cannot find a master, and in consequence have no home, shall be allowed to pass the hours of darkness in the public parks. The possibility of rain is provided for by the intervention of a tarpaulin sheet between the homeless and heaven. You see how practical they are. Something now, that is the idea. None of your waiting until everybody votes for socialism. Free dosshouses in our time or in our parks, everyone can appreciate that.

But really, if it wasn't for humour, where should we be? Someone suggested the other day that if we all wore our shirt tails six inches longer, we should abolish depressions in Lancashire. Of course, as usual, people thought it was a joke. You wait till George, the practical revolutionary, sees the idea. He and Sir Oliver ought to do something between them.

While we are on the subject of humour, it may be news to you that the recent great war was one long side-splitting joke. Books like "All Quiet on the Western Front," "Undertones of War," "Goodbye to all That," and so on, filled as they were with blood, brains and mangled bodies, lice, filth, disease, and death, were calculated to give the impression that modern war was no joke. That would never do. What about a crop of heroes for the next little quarrel? So out comes the Evening News with a daily page of Cockney stories of the war. One huge joke, from start to finish. The only wounded were those whose heads protruded above the trench through laughing so much. There may have been a bit of blood about in some parts of the battlefield, and one or two nasty accidents, but bless you, the Cockneys did not mind. They just laughed and carried on.

And that suggests an idea. Perhaps it will strike Mr. Lansbury too. Could not the new lotus-eaters of Lansbury Lidos (tarpaulin section) be supplied with a copy of the Evening News each evening? Before they closed their eyes in slumber they could read of the lovely times the "boys" had in France, and sigh for the next orgy of humorous slaughter. They could mitigate the rain blowing in at the sides by reading the reports of company meetings, and gathering that industry is not doing very badly after all. And possibly, they might discover a picture on the back page of Mr. Lansbury having a swing. It is a great world.

W. T. Hopley

Socialism in Sheffield: The recent by-election. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent by-election in Sheffield would have appeared tragic had it not been so amusing. After a knock-out contest lasting several rounds the Labour nominee emerged into full public view in the form of a local Trade Unionist.

The Communist candidate, J. T. Murphy, also made the most of his local connections and his activities in the shop-stewards' movement during the war. His supporters, however, do not appear to have learned the lesson of the collapse of that movement, but still cling to the "industrial" illusions associated therewith. In the face of experience of the power of the employers on the economic field (as exemplified in rationalisation, etc.), they still swallow the yarn that it is possible to develop a movement which will "take and hold" at the point of production and successfully challenge the armed forces of the nation. Murphy took his stand on the Communist Party's programme of reforms (comically labelled "class against class") and left the basis of Capitalism untouched. He had the easy job of pillorying the failure of the Labour Government to solve the problems afflicting the workers; but in general his remedy was the delightfully vague one of "raising the workers' standard of living." Challenged to explain why the Communist Party had supported the Labour Party at elections over a period of six or seven years he took refuge in the feeble plea that the Labour leaders had been "obliged by circumstances to appear on the side of the workers." From which we reach the conclusion that the Communist Party backed them in 1923 and 1924 because the said leaders "led" the strike of 1926!

This champion of a "disciplined revolutionary international," however, was candid enough to admit that the Communists had maintained their support of the Labour Party "too long." They should, he said, have abandoned that policy immediately after the strike fiasco and not have waited till 1929. He was thereupon challenged to debate with a representative of the S.P.G.B., and this he accepted with the assurance that "he would debate with the devil himself." We cannot promise the workers of Sheffield any display of Mephistophelian fireworks, but the debate may provide them with food for thought.

The Labour nominee's case was so feeble that he dropped seven or eight thousand votes. Tory criticism was directed towards showing that "Socialism" had failed to do anything but add to the numbers of the unemployed, and relatively speaking he got away with the story very well. Possibly on some future occasion the local branch may invite him to explain why two million unemployed exist in Germany, and from three million upwards in the U.S.A., countries which have enjoyed the benefits of "safeguarding" for generations.

The Liberals' case was that the Labour Government needed gingering up, but probably could, with parental supervision, be relied upon to do the right thing. "After all," argued their street corner orators, "it was the Liberals who had made it possible for the Labour Party to experiment in social reform."

The election proved once more the vast amount of propagandist spade-work needed in this reputed "hot-bed of Socialism." We are not greedy! Socialists in Sheffield are invited, nay urged, to come and give a hand in this work.

Eric Boden