The Peace Ballot and the League of Nations. (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The League of Nations Union, formed with the object of spreading information and gaining support for the League of Nations, has come into the news with its Peace Ballot. The ballot is a house-to-house canvass on five questions, drawn up by the Union. The questions are: (1) Should Great Britain remain a member of the League of Nations? (2) Are you in favour of an all-round reduction of armaments by international agreement? (3) Are you in favour of the all-round abolition of national military and naval aircraft by international agreement? (4) Should the manufacture and sale of armaments for private profit be prohibited by international agreement ? (5) Do you consider that if a nation insists on attacking another the other nations should combine to compel it to stop by (a) economic and non-military measures; (b) if necessary, military measures ?

It was to be expected that Lord Beaverbrook and his newspapers would oppose the ballot, as they oppose the League of Nations. They call it the “Ballot of Blood.” War, they say, will be avoided only if the British Government turns its back on the League, cultivates Empire relationships, and firmly refuses to meddle in the affairs of any country outside the Empire. In their wilder moments, Lord Beaverbrook's papers convey the impression that the League of Nations is itself the cause of war.

At the other extreme are the pacifists, who see the cause of war in the machinations of armament firms, and of mysterious wire-pulling international financiers.

In the middle are the people who vaguely accept the doctrine of the Union, that the avoidance of war only requires the cultivation of peaceful and friendly sentiments, plus the habit of using the international machinery of arbitration and discussion provided by the League of Nations. Where all three groups err is in turning a blind eye on capitalism itself. Let us forget foreign affairs and take a look at capitalism at home. Why are there strikes and lock-outs, unemployed demonstrations, frauds, thefts, swindles, forgeries, adulteration of products; hold-ups, property-murders, and a hundred-and-one other manifestations of conflicts over property and the division of the products of industry? Is it lack of propaganda? On the contrary, we cannot escape the cloying stream of pious sentiments in the Press, over the air, in churches, schools and anywhere else where workers can be compelled to listen. Is it lack of machinery? Not at all. Large Government departments, employers organisations and trade unions, and innumerable voluntary associations work day and night under the shadow of a maze of boards and committees designed to dissuade the capitalist and worker from conflict. The class struggle, in its varied aspects, exists and continues because capitalism divides mankind into warring classes, those who live by owning the means of production and distribution, and those who are propertyless and must sell their labour-power to the former. Some people accept this strife as a supposed law of nature. Others preach peace, but steadfastly defend the property basis, which means war. Socialists preach the abolition of the private ownership of the means of life. That is the only way of ending the war of classes.

As it is at home, so it is abroad. Capitalism gives the ruling class the incentive to protect vested interests bound up in trade routes, sources of raw materials, and areas of foreign investment. Control of the machinery of Government gives them the power to wage war. The only sure road to peace is the road which leads to Socialism, conquest of the powers of the Government by a politically organised Socialist majority. While Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, and the rest of the capitalist class, own and control the means of life they are the enemies of the working class and a danger to the human race. Their pious oath that they are not interested financially in this or that armament, or aircraft, or any other particular company, is of no significance. They have the supreme vested interest, a vested interest in the maintenance of capitalism. They can be expected, therefore, to sacrifice the interest of society to the interest of themselves and their class.

The Socialist who examines the Union’s five questions has no difficulty in seeing their futility. The real position boils down to one question: “Are you in favour of depriving the capitalist class of their control over the machinery of Government, including the armed forces?" “Yes," says the Socialist. “ No," says the capitalist and his avowed supporters. “Yes and no, but only gradually, and not unless the capitalist agrees," says the Labourite, with his muddled conceptions of capitalism and Socialism.

It will be seen, therefore, why the Socialist does not share the enthusiasm over the ballot expressed by the League of Nations Union. Nevertheless, even if the mass of the population have a long way to go before they understand the question of war or of the larger question which includes it, the surprisingly large vote for the League of Nations is, in its way, a welcome sign. It is a tribute to the Union’s effective canvass, but it also suggests that the average worker is taking a greater interest in affairs that were once the close preserve of the politician, and is breaking away from old ideas about passively accepting war as if it were as inevitable as changes in the weather. The first two million votes gave a 97 per cent, vote in favour of the League, and votes nearly as large for all the first four questions, and for question 5 (a). Question 5 (b), on the use of military measures, shows a smaller majority, 72 per cent. “for" and 28 per cent. “against." An equally surprising thing is the large number of voters in relation to the total population. In some places well over half the population over the age of eighteen have voted.

One interesting aspect is the efficiency with which the Union has conducted the ballot. By the time it is completed about 250,000 canvassers (mostly voluntary) will have visited 10 million homes and solicited the votes of over 30 million people. That this was possible must be accounted to the large membership and influence the League of Nations Union has acquired. It claims over a million members on its books, about half being paying members, and is well supplied with funds, some of the donations amounting to thousands of pounds. The Union would, no doubt, lose many of its wealthy supporters if the ruling class, after having formed and entered the League of Nations without asking the electorate, should decide to scrap it— also without asking the electorate.

Edgar Hardcastle

Capitalism and Speculation. (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

An attempt by a group of speculators to enrich themselves by cornering two commodities has recently failed. The two commodities are shellac and white pepper; both, it might be mentioned in passing, of importance in connection with the production of war materials. About a year ago the group, through its agents, began to buy up all supplies of these commodities as they came on the market, the object being to force the price up and then to sell at a substantial profit. Shellac and pepper were, presumably, chosen by the speculators for their market manipulations because they thought that the amount of money required to create a comer in these commodities was relatively small, and that supplies could not be rapidly increased. They were mistaken in both respects. As the operations of the group lifted the price of pepper from 8¾d. per lb. to 1s. 6d. per lb., and that of shellac from around 70s. per cwt. to 120s. per cwt., larger and larger supplies came on to the market and buyers went round the back of the speculators and obtained their requirements in the native markets. Imports into this country increased enormously, as the following figures show: —

By the end of January stocks of pepper in London amounted to 21,000 tons (four years' supply) as compared with 3,000 tons a year earlier. About 7,000 tons was due to be paid for on February 8th. At the last minute the speculators found themselves not able to command the financial resources they had relied upon. The gamble had failed.

The storm has centred around a Mr. Bishirgian and a firm of metal brokers, James & Shakespeare, of which he is a director. This business was established in 1842 and was converted into a private company in 1917. In September of last year, after the buying of shellac and pepper had begun, the company made a public issue of £300,000 of preference shares and 300,000 ordinary shares of 5s. each. Part of the proceeds of this issue was utilised to acquire the metal and produce departments of G. Bishirgian & Co., and a majority interest in another firm, Williams, Henry & Co. Among the shareholders of James & Shakespeare are Mr. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank, Ltd., who, however, disclaims knowledge of the pepper gamble. Another is Sir Hugo Cunliffe Owen, chairman of the British-American Tobacco Co., Ltd., and the Dean Finance Co., a company of which we shall have more to say later. Purchases of shellac were made by Williams, Henry & Co., while pepper was bought by James & Shakespeare, both firms acting in the market through brokers. Their dealings, however, were not for their own account, but were on behalf of the group of speculators whose identities are not positively known. It was only because the market confidently believed that there was a powerful group behind the ostensible buyers that dealings were permitted to reach their final unwieldy size. There is now a demand for investigation, but we think it is a safe prophecy that there will be no real inquiry into the gamble and its initiators.

When the bubble burst, all the shellac bought by Williams, Henry & Co., was taken up. Arrangements were made by which the Dean Finance Co., Ltd., took over from James & Shakespeare their holding of shares in Williams, Henry & Co. The Dean Finance Co., Ltd. (director, Sir Hugo Cunliffe Owen) is a subsidiary of Tobacco Investments, Ltd. (directors, Mr. McKenna and Sir Hugo Cunliffe Owen), which in turn is owned by Tobacco Securities Trust (chairman, Mr. McKenna, vice-chairman. Sir Hugo Cunliffe Owen), a subsidiary of British-American Tobacco Co., Ltd. (chairman, Sir Hugo Cunliffe Owen). The managing director of Williams, Henry & Co., Mr. Louis Hardy, resigned. He is on the board of a number of tin companies, which have been connected with the tin restriction scheme, which has the blessing of the Government.

The pepper position, however, could not be propped up, as the shellac was. A winding-up order was applied for against James & Shakespeare. With that company unable to carry out its obligations, the brokers. Rolls & Sons, and J. T. Adair & Co., Ltd., who had acted for it, were also forced to default. Pepper and shellac are now back to their former level of prices. Three firms have smashed. Their employees are out of jobs. The City, in a fit of righteous indignation, is demanding the heads of the real culprits.

This indignation is farcical. There have been many cornering gambles in the past, and there will be more in the future. Capitalism provides scope for gambling of this kind. It offers fortunes to the successful speculator. Its apologists prate of the useful functions performed by the speculator in helping to make a market. When the gamble goes wrong those who get hurt in their pockets always set up howls of indignation. While a system based on the legalised robbery of the workers persists, there will always be struggles over the swag. That is what speculation is, and that is why talk of “cleaning up” capitalism is bluff and pretence. To end speculation it would be necessary to end capitalism.

The fate of the innocent victims, the clerks now out of jobs, provides a pretty commentary on those who say that profits are payment for risk. The speculators, if they had won, would have made huge profits. The clerks have lost their jobs. What reward did they, or could they, have got for running the risk of unemployment? They suffer when the gamble goes wrong, they would not have gained if it had gone right.

One final point worthy of notice is that we see here a banker, Mr. McKenna, investing money outside banking. Perhaps the illusionists who believe that bankers possess in the banking system a means of creating wealth without limit for themselves will explain why Mr. McKenna should have sought profit in another field.

B. S.

War! Psychological Causes (?) Aldous Huxley Psychoanalysed ! (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Aldous Huxley is a writer of some repute, but that he is not of the calibre of his illustrious ancestor is shown by some of the material which he occasionally publishes. One of his latest efforts appears in The Listener, under the title of “Sadist Satisfactions in War,” and a more illogical lot of nonsense it is difficult to conceive of.

He starts by saying that out of a mistaken idea to simplify things, it is now fashionable to state that the causes of war are economic. We were unaware that it was “fashionable,” but let that pass. He gives as the causes of war: "psychological causes," geography and climate, differences in race, language, and culture, the intellectual gifts, passions, and subconscious tendencies of great men, and, finally, and presumably least important, the economic causes of war.

“Strictly speaking," we are told, "all the causes of war are psychological." Mr. Bertrand Russell is quoted as having passed judgment in his latest book on the dispute between psychologists and economists in a single sentence, to wit: "It is true that the conflicts between nations are largely economic, but the grouping of the world by nations is itself determined by causes which are in the main not economic"—“causes," adds Aldous, “which are largely psychological." A careful reading of the quotation from Bertrand Russell gives one the impression that he is of the opinion that the causes of war are mainly economic, so that although Bertrand Russell is quoted in support of Aldous Huxley, it would seem that he is of a different opinion.

"Wars," he goes on to say, “are not fought by climates or systems, but by human beings" (Really!), “and wherever there are human beings, the question of psychology inevitably arises." No sane person would take the affirmative of the denied proposition, but it is evident from the last part of this sentence and other matter in the article, that Aldous is of the opinion that the mental states of a people taking part in a war are the cause of that war. Yet the majority of pictures of mental states which are given are those which have arisen once the war has started and cannot, therefore, be described as the causes of war.

There is, however, one paragraph which deals with the mental states preceding a war. Let it be quoted:

   So far from discouraging nationalistic hatred and vanity, all governments directly or indirectly foment them. At school, children are taught to boast about their own nation and look down on all other nations. In dictatorial countries, this education in jingoistic sentiments is continued by the state throughout adult life. In liberal countries, it is left to the voluntary labours of the Press. Our rulers profess to desire peace, but do their utmost to make their subjects think and feel in such a way that, the moment a crisis arises, they will all acquiesce in or even actively clamour for war.

Why do governments directly or indirectly foment nationalistic hatred and vanity? Aldous Huxley does not give the answer. Yet surely here is the point which does require to be answered if it is honestly desired to get to the roots of the matter. Aldous Huxley has omitted this point, Possibly, had he thought of it, we might have been told to look for it in the sub-conscious minds of the Government officials! Yet everyone knows that governments exist by virtue of the support of the majority of the people, and under capitalism the different parties gain that support by making various promises to the electorate, and these promises have as their basis the satisfying of certain economic needs on the part of the electorate. The promises are frequently not carried out, but the backing is there. The parties themselves act in the interest of the capitalist class or sections of it—economic self-interest again! Why does a capitalist (Labour in office) Government operate a Poor Law Means Test? Why does a National Government decrease and then increase the unemployment benefit? The answer to both is "to enable capitalism to function." Again, economic interest. And why wars? The Marxian analysis of capitalist society explains the conflict of interests which causes capitalist wars. The capitalists use the State power to capture markets and sources of raw materials, to protect trade routes and areas in which they have invested their surplus wealth—the motive all the time is the profit one. It is so clear and easy to understand as to be almost self-evident.

We will, however, endeavour to deal with a few more of the points in the morass of “psychological causes," in which Aldous Huxley would have us believe.

Perhaps the most farcical of these is the suggestion that, because less suicides are committed in war time, therefore life during war time is more worth living! Continuing, he says (and now prepare to laugh!): “We say, and with our conscious minds, we firmly believe, that war is a catastrophe; but our sub-conscious selves, it is evident, do not agree with our conscious selves!” How the warriors must have loved the mud in the trenches, how they must have enjoyed the sub-conscious delight of falling over rusty barbed wire, half their face being blown away by a bit of shell, or the amputation of a gangrenous leg! According to Aldous, the suicide statistics show that this sort of life is 45 per cent. more worth living than the dull humdrum life of peace! It would be difficult to believe this, were not Aldous Huxley there to assure us that it is so. Aldous Huxley has forgotten one thing, however, namely, that the majority of people who commit suicide do so, not from peregrinational gallivantings in the sub-conscious mind, but simply and solely because life is not darned well worth living. Has Huxley not read in the papers during the recent economic depression how day after day people committed suicide because they would sooner be dead than cold and half-starved? And is it not a fact known to everyone (except Aldous Huxley) that during a war, when capitalist powers need all the labour power at their command in order to wage it to a successful conclusion, jobs are easier to find and that, although destruction is the business of the majority of the people, yet everyone can get jobs and that, therefore, the prime cause of suicides at once disappears?

It should also be borne in mind that the official statistics of suicides during war time are unreliable, because they omit to take into account the suicides of the soldiers at the Front. There were hundreds of such cases during the last war, and these were almost invariably reported as “ killed in action.”

In the same issue of The Listener is the report of a broadcast discussion between Captain Ludovici and A. A. Milne. Captain Ludovici, who advocates armaments for "self-protection,” states "I am not a militarist. I loathe and detest war, and nobody could have been more wretched at the Front than I was.” This is probably the feeling of the majority of those who participated in the last quarrel over the wealth stolen from the workers. Yet Aldous Huxley would have us believe that, at least for many individuals, war is a source of “substantial pleasure” !

Aldous Huxley quotes with approval the saying of a psycho-analyist that the battle of Waterloo was prepared in the nurseries of Corsica. If the Huxley of our generation knew anything about history, he would know that the Napoleonic wars were caused mainly by the lust for markets, the invasion of France by surrounding countries, who saw in French capitalism a menace to their trade, and in the French revolution a menace to their own systems. And that revolution, which enabled the rising bourgeoisie to throw off the yoke of feudalism, was, it need hardly be said, due absolutely to economic causes.

The question may be raised as to whether the mental outlook of psychologists themselves is not determined by economic interests. The psychologists, if they are to get a living, must write books which will have a sufficient sale to enable them to get a living. The new “science” also opens the door to certain professorial appointments. These appointments being under the control of capitalist interests, they must be careful not to say anything which would undermine the capitalist system. Psychology, with its mostly incomprehensible terminology, unduly impresses the bourgeois mind and opens the door to the much-desired El Dorado. The bourgeoisie also, in their desire to find an excuse for the continuance of the present insane system, find natural allies in the psychologists.

Much light entertainment could be provided by giving further quotations from the article under review, but lack of space forbids. It must be added, however, that, in an article purporting to deal with the causes of war, the discussion of a remedy would naturally have first place, though, if war is so satisfactory from a psychological point of view, it would hardly be necessary to worry about its prevention. And the psychologists are not impatient, as the concluding paragraphs of the article, here below quoted, will show: —

   The psycho-analysts profess to have explored the unconscious to a greater depth than has been reached by other investigators. Perhaps it is for this reason that they are so pessimistic about the immediate prospects of abolishing war. Dr. Edward Glover, in War, Sadism, and Pacifism, asks for fifty years of intensive research into the human mind. Only then, he thinks, shall we know enough to be able to act with any real prospect of getting rid of the tendencies that make for war.

  What is to happen in the interval? We must be content, I suppose, to prescribe such political, economic, and psychological sedatives as shall prevent the patient from going completely out of his mind and committing suicide. If we can keep him alive long enough, the doctors may at last agree on the diagnosis and discover a cure.

If the workers are going to rely upon the psychologists to bring about a mental state unproductive of war, they will evidently have to wait a long time!

If our contention is correct, however, that is to say, that wars naturally arise from the existing form of society, then it is evident that only by a revolutionary change in the structure of society can they he eliminated.

Ramo.

Lecture Notes (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

For a short period in the mid-1930s the Socialist Standard would carry lecture notes from SPGB meetings. In this case, the two lectures notes listed below were from an SPGB Educational Course for party members from the winter of 1934. Comrade Stewart was Stella Stewart, a daughter of a founder member of the SPGB, T. A. Jackson, who, interestingly enough, would still have been a leading member of the CPGB in 1935. Comrade Lestor was Charlie Lestor, better known as a speaker and writer for the Socialist Party of Canada in the early decades of the 20th century. The late Labour MP, Joan Lestor, was the daughter of Charlie Lestor.

The French Revolution

(Lecture by Com. Stewart, November 18th, 1934.)

1. Antecedents.

(a) Ideological,

1. Traditional Classicism (of use of Bible during English Revolution).
2. English Materialism. 1600, Bacon. 1660, Hobbes, 1670, Locke.
3. French Encyclopaedists. “Reasoned System of All Human Knowledge,” Diderot, Social- historical viewpoint. Complete scepticism.
4. Iconoclasts. Voltaire, Brilliantly narrow, Super-reformer, Deist.
5. Emotional Individualism. Rousseau, Golden-Age idea. Extremely popular.
6. Communism. Meslier, Morelly, Mably, “All evil due to private property. No need for exchange.” Atheists. Not popular. Influenced Babeuf.

(b) Factual.

1. In France. Normal development of capitalism checked after Renaissance by strong absolute monarchy. After Louis XIV decay of absolutism. No constitution. Extreme class-contrast. 1780 conditions ripe for machinofacture but outworn political system shackled production.
2. Outside France. (1) English Revolution, 1649 and 1689. (2) Contrast between English prosperity and French poverty. Commercial treaty, 1786, intensified this. (3) American Revolution : (a) “No taxation without representation ”; (b) War cost France .£60,000,000.

2. Immediate Causes.

1783. Severe economic and financial crisis. Bad Harvests, etc. -

1789. May 6th: First assembly of States General for 185 years. Third Estate (lawyers, merchants, etc.) militant. Dispute as to voting. June 17th: Secession of Third Estate. Spontaneous anarchy throughout France. Bread riots, etc. 

3. Course.

(a) Big Bourgeoisie, 1789-1792.

National Assembly. Aug. 4th: “St. Bartholomew of property” abolished feudal privilege but NOT property rights. Feudal Lords cap; Landowners. 1790-91: Reforms for traders and industrialists. Civil Constitution of Clergy. 1791. June 14th: Trade Unions banned (“contrary to equality ”).

Constitution: Property and money qualification for franchise. “Rights of Man”; Liberty, Security, Property.

(b) Petty Bourgeoisie, 1792-1794.

Legislative Assembly. Girondin-Jacobin rule. Counter-revolution. 1792, April: War—Austria, Prussia, Russia, then England. August: Fall of monarchy. Sept. : Massacres; victories. Convention elected on much wider suffrage. REPUBLIC.

1. Girondins. Resisted further attacks on property. Fell.
2. Jacobins. Petty-bourgeois reforms, pensions, “work or maintenance,” etc., maximum price for necessities, also maximum wage.
3. Danton’s dictatorship. Committee of Public Safety. Terror.
4. Jacobin split: (1) Bourgeois intelligentsia, e.g., Danton; (2) Petty-bourgeoisie, e.g., Robespierre (3) Small shop-keepers, craftsmen, e.g., Hebert; (4) Nucleus of proletariat, e.g., Rous, Varlet. Centre destroyed others.
5. Robespierre’s dictatorship. Religious Utopianism. Then war danger over need for consolidation made his theorising unpopular. Thermidor. July 27th, 1794.

(c) Bourgeois Republic.

Return of Girondins. Apathy. “Order.” Gains of Revolution to be protected from both reactionaries and levellers. See-saw politics leading to military dictatorship.

1795. Bonaparte quells Royalist rising. (Whiff of grape-shot.)

1796. Babeuf’s Conspiracy of the Equals. Demanded entire abolition of private property, but no real understanding. , Secret—of Blanqui. Foredoomed because proletariat still only embryonic.

The underlying function of the French Revolution was to enable the powers of industrial development to be utilised to the full. In five years it solidly established a new order of society. It was left to Napoleon merely to consolidate and clarify the results, and to carry them further afield.

Read : 

Booklet in “Working-class History Course.” Pub. Martin Lawrence.

“French Revolution,” by Albert Mathiez.

“French Revolution ” section of Cambridge Modern History.

“Last Episode of French Revolution,” by E. B. Bax.

“The Gods are Athirst,” by Anatole France.

“Revolution, 1789-1906,” by R. W. Postgate. 

Various references by Marx, particularly in “Holy Family” and "Eighteenth Brumaire.”

#    #    #    #

The Paris Commune

(Lecture by Com. Lestor, November 25th, 1934.)

A. Previous Events in French History. 

1789-1800, Great French Revolution liberated forces of capitalist production. 1800-1815, Napoleonic wars. 1815-1830, Restored Bourbon monarchy; reaction. 1830, July “revolution” set up Orleanist constitutional monarchy. Growing influence of English Chartism. 1848, February “revolution.” Second Republic. Louis Napoleon President. 1852, Second Empire. 1854, Crimean War. 1864, First International growth of Trade Unions ana Co-operative Societies. Unemployment—National Workshops.

B. Immediate Causes.

Louis Napoleon’s position weak; desired prestige through military glory. Germany wanted Alsace-Lorraine. July, 1870, Franco-Prussian war. French army inadequate. Louis Napoleon incompetent in command. Three French defeats. Sept. 2nd, Battle of Sedan. Surrender of Louis Napoleon. Sept. 4th, Paris declared a Republic and a “Government of National Defence.” Sept. 25th, Paris besieged. Oct. 31st, Fall of Provisional Government. Blanqui in office. Anarchy. Plebiscite. Return of Provisional Government. Arrest of Blanqui. No defence of Paris. Starvation. Unrest in National Guard (100,000 men). 1871, Jan. 22nd, Pro-Commune riots in Paris. Jan. 29th, Armistice. Feb. 8th, Elections. Monarchist Assembly returned. Riots. Thiers, Chief of Executive. Versailles made the capital. Mar. 13th. All rent and debts to be paid within three days. Mar. 18th, Thiers’ attempted seizure of National Guards’ cannon. Fraternisation with troops. Spontaneous popular insurrection. Flight of Government. Central Committee of National Guard found itself the sole authority in Paris. Mar. 26th, Paris elections. Victory of advanced party. Mar. 28th, Proclamation of the Commune. Membership unco-ordinated—Fenians, Blanquists, Internationalists, Republicans, veterans of 1848. No communication with provinces. Provincial Communes short-lived. No manifesto or programme.

C. The Commune.

1. Legislation.

Post Office, Hospitals, Museums reorganised. Maximum Government Salary, £240. Rent degree repealed; all rents from Oct., 1870, to July, 1871, waived. Pawnshops suppressed, pawned goods returned. Church and State separated. But: Departments of Police, Justice and War chaotic. Careful of property. No plan. No constructive programme in education. 

Department of Labour and Exchange: Forbade night-work for bakers (decree ignored) and fines or stoppages of wages. Factories not in use to be confiscated and run by workers' syndicates. But compensation agreed. Though defective in detail, declared for emancipation of worker and expropriation of exploiter. Ineffective. Commune failed to seine Bank of France.

2. History.

April 2nd, Thiers bombarded Paris. Commune inexperienced in warfare: National Guard disorganised. Collusion between Thiers and Bismarck, though France and Prussia still at war. Commune wrongly expected support of enemy rank and file. Vacillation. Incompetence. Delay. April 19th. Programme : “Communal Autonomy"—impractical, unwanted. Factions within Commune Government. Line of fire closing in on Paris. May 21st, Thiers entered Paris. Barricades. Anarchy. Members of Commune dispersed. May 21st-27th, Street fighting. Heroism—devotion— but no method, no organisation, lack of ammunition. Piecemeal annihilation. May 27th-June 2nd, The Week of Blood. At least 20,000, probably 40,000, massacred.

The Commune was important as the first attempt of workers to seize power and organise society. Foredoomed because it attempted to force the pace of history; not based on understanding; an unprepared unthinking movement; the work of a well-meaning but confused minority.

Books to Read.

E. B. Bax: Short History of the Paris Commune.

Postgate: Revolution (Commune section).

Kautsky: Terrorism and Communism (Commune section). 

G. L. Dickinson: Revolution and Reaction in Modern France (Commune section).

Lissagary: History of the Commune.

Marx: Civil War in France.

Notes by the Way: Democracy in Russia. (1935)

The Notes by the Way Column from the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy in Russia.

After decrying Parliament and democracy and practising dictatorship and suppression for 17 years, the Russian Government has had to respond to the pressure of discontent and economic forces and begin to relax the system which it claimed was the best of all possible systems and the only method of achieving Socialism. The All-Union Congress of Soviets on February 6th decided unanimously in favour of constitutional reforms proposed by the Government (see Manchester Guardian and News-Chronicle, February 7th, Daily Herald, February 2nd, Daily Worker, February 4). Among the changes are to be the introduction of the secret ballot in place of voting by show of hands; the abolition of the system of indirect elections, under which the elector, instead of voting for the central assembly direct, voted for candidates to a local soviet, which voted for a regional soviet, and so on up to the centre; equal voting rights for town workers and peasants—in the past the town workers had more representatives than were their due according to their numbers. There is no indication however that political parties will be allowed in opposition to the Government Party.

What is really entertaining is the statement made by M. Molotov that Russia is going to take over “all that was best in the Parliamentary system” (Manchester Guardian, February 7th). It is only a few short years since the Communists were 100 per cent. sure that the parliamentary system was rotten to the core, a mere capitalist device, useless to the Socialist movement.

#    #    #    #

Canadian Premier Embarrasses the Reformers.

Nobody can complain that capitalist politics are dull these days. While the Bolsheviks are going over to a parliamentary system, Mr. Bennett, Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, is raiding the programmes of his Liberal, Labour, and Communist opponents. All the observers agreed that Mr. Bennett would be hopelessly defeated at the next election and that the Liberals would come into power, with the Labourites (the Canadian Co-operative Commonwealth Federation) a likely second. Then suddenly Mr. Bennett proclaimed a “New Deal,” stole all the most popular points out of his opponents’ programmes, made fierce attacks on the evils of capitalism, and in short upset all calculations.

Here in a nutshell is the answer to the Labour-Communist argument that the way to establish Socialism is to rally the workers on a reformist programme. The capitalists can always, if they wish, adopt the programme or some of it, and round up the voters.

Now the Canadian Labourites are uneasily wondering what their next move shall be.

In the meantime Mr. Bennett is not doing things by halves. Perceiving that among the electors there is a lot of interest and. admiration for certain foreign “left wing" politicians, Mr. Bennett cleverly raids that also by expressing his admiration for the politicians in question. At a dinner at Montreal on January 28th he spoke as follows (Times, January 29th, 1935): —

  he thought the capitalist system should continue, but if the profit motive which had been its mainspring for centuries was left uncontrolled, conditions would arise disheartening to mankind and ruinous to civilisation.

   He agreed that he had held different views in the past, and gave an account of the influences which had helped to convert him. Conversations with M. Litvinoff at Geneva had played their part, he said, and he expressed admiration for Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. John Strachey. describing Mr. Strachey as “one of the profound thinkers of our times.”

#    #    #    #

Tory “Socialism."

Mr. MacDonald’s message to University Conservatives, telling them that their party has always been more or less Socialistic, was obviously designed to make easier his personal position as “Socialist" Prime Minister of a Conservative Government. The effect on old-fashioned Conservatives must have been startling. At once The Times gave prominence to a letter from Dr. Hearnshaw protesting that State capitalism, as exemplified in the Post Office and Telegraphs, is not Socialism, but is “for entirely non-Socialistic ends" (Times, January 12th), thus rescuing Disraeli, Shaftesbury, and other Conservative leaders from the doubtful honour MacDonald wished to give them. In order to support his plea for clarity Dr. Hearnshaw quoted from the Socialist Standard, but after seeking accuracy in one direction immediately went on to inaccuracy in another. It suited him on this occasion to oppose a certain misuse of the word Socialism, but he was not concerned with accurately representing the methods advocated by Socialists. So he proceeded to state that Socialists employ the methods of “general strikes or Bolshevist revolutions" to achieve Socialism.

The principal offenders in the misuse of the word Socialism—apart from the Labour Party and I.L.P., who invariably offend—are the newspapers. Almost all of them do it habitually. Even The Times, which is more accurate than some of its cheaper brethren, often writes of the Labourites as Socialists. Curiously enough, side-by-side with Dr. Hearnshaw’s letter was one from the British Empire Union calling the London Labour Party the “London Socialist Party."

Some newspapers do it out of simple ignorance and an inveterate inability to be accurate. Others, like Lord Beaverbrook’s papers, offend wilfully. Lord Beaverbrook employs tame “left-wingers" as Labour correspondents. Let him ask them whether they think that State action is Socialism, and the Labour Party a Socialist party.

#    #    #    #

Cardinal Bourne and The Labour Party.

From a Times editorial on the death of Cardinal Bourne, head of the Catholic Church in this country: —

   When, more than thirty years ago, Dr. Bourne, the youngest of the English Roman Catholic Bishops, was chosen for the metropolitan see of Westminster, the appointment was received by his own communion with surprise and with grave doubts. He seemed to be a contrast to his great predecessors. He had not Wiseman’s profound learning, nor did he appear to possess Manning’s statesmanship and social enthusiasm or Vaughan’s commanding personality. But the Vatican knew their man, and their choice has long been abundantly justified. . . .

   Everyone will recall the profound effect produced by the broadcast of the Cardinal’s brief and pithy condemnation of the General Strike of seven years ago. But he persistently refused to declare membership of the constitutional, non-revolutionary Labour Party inconsistent with fidelity to the Church.

(Times, January 2nd, 1935.) 

But it must not be imagined that the Cardinal was in any way unsympathetic towards the efforts of the humbler classes to ameliorate their lot through legitimate political action. Some of the stiffer Tories among his flock frequently demanded that he should place the Labour Party out of bounds; but his Eminence always replied that Catholics might work and vote for any of the three great political parties so long as those parties remained within the four corners of Christian ethics and that none of them drifted into Socialism of the Marxian school.

(Times, January 1st, 1935.)

#    #    #    #

The Absurdity of Mixing Socialism and Reforms.

The Times asks the Labour Party to explain why it has a long list of reforms, if it really believes that its so-called “Socialist" programme will obviate the need for any of these ameliorative measures. It is a mystery to which no Labourite can ever give a satisfactory answer.

  Why the Labour Party should keep in its programme a long list of proposals for ameliorative legislation, to improve industrial and social circumstances, when it claims to possess one grand remedy for all the economic ills of the community, and to lack only the power to apply it in every department of national life, has been a little puzzling; but it has the practical effect of giving the party a choice of policies to set before the country when a General Election comes.

(Times, January 17th, 1935.) 

#    #    #    #

Communists again Support the Labour Party.

The history of the relations between the Communist Party and the Labour Party (summarised in the Socialist Standard, October, 1931) has taken a further twist which lands the Communists back where they were 12 years ago. The position at the 1931 General Election was that the Communists nowhere supported Labour candidates, at least if they did it was apparently not on official instructions. Now the Conference of the Communist Party will again require Communists to work for the return of Labour Party candidates, where there is no Communist in the held. This is merely an extension to parliamentary elections of the policy already applied in the recent municipal elections. At South Kilburn and Willesden in October, 1934, two Communist candidates were put forward for the Council elections, and then officially withdrawn, according to a statement of the Communist election agent, “in the interests of unity with the rank and hie electors against the Municipal Reform candidates. We shall call on all our supporters to vote for the Labour candidates in these two wards." (Willesden Chronicle, October 26th, 1934.)

At St. Pancras, Southwark, Hendon, and apparently all over London and the Provinces there were last-minute withdrawals of some of the Communist candidates in order to help the Labour Party.

There were, however, the usual entertaining developments of Labour candidates publicly repudiating the Communists who were supporting them; for the reason, of course, that Communist support is in many neighbourhoods a sure way of losing votes. At Finsbury the Labour candidate, Mr. F. T. Lynch, issued a repudiation of this kind, and was hard-hearted enough to describe the Communist offer of support as a wrecking manoeuvre designed to let the Tory in.

Of course, the Communists hoped to get Labour support for their own candidates, but their two-faced policy availed them nothing, for, according to the Times (November 3rd, 1934), all of their 62 candidates in London and all of their 45 candidates in the Provinces were defeated.

It need hardly be said that the Communists everywhere followed their usual practice of soliciting votes on a programme of reforms. In North-West London the Communist Party issued a Manifesto, cadging for votes on the following reformist pleas:—“Extra winter relief," “free boots for the unemployed," “new school buildings," “immediate 25 per cent. reduction in rent of all Council houses," “more playing fields," “work at trade union rates to provide houses at rents workers can afford to pay,” etc., etc.

In the Gorbals District of Glasgow the Communist, Mr. McShane, came out strongly for the very revolutionary demand: “Vote and fight for the de-rating of working class houses."

He also demanded, “immediately,” a two-year programme of 20,000 houses for the workers, the “immediate ending of every slum in Glasgow,” and the “75 per cent. rate exemption for all workers’ houses."

(Why not 100 per cent.?)

Other of his demands were “Soviet Power in Glasgow,” more workers and less work on the trams and buses, and no more evictions.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Arthur Woodburn and Capitalism.

Among the interesting features of the elections was a letter to the Glasgow Herald (October 26th, 1934), from a candidate, Mr. Arthur Woodburn (who masquerades as a Marxist), claiming that his party’s (i.e., the Labour Party’s) schemes for nationalising the banks—

   are purely of a business character and can be justified on grounds of efficiency and public policy.

He explained that nationalisation of the banks “does not in any way interfere with the normal functions of assisting industry, except in so far its their services might be supplied cheaper by an elimination of overlapping and waste.”

Here speaks the ambitious Labour leader, assuring his future masters that they need fear no attack on capitalism.

#    #    #    #

The Robin Hood Bank Clerk.

Recently a case came before the Courts of a bank clerk who had transferred money belonging to wealthy clients or to the bank itself to the accounts of poorer depositors. The sum ran into a few thousand pounds, and an unsympathetic Court sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment. Seeing that the Douglasites believe the banks can create tens, hundreds, thousands, and millions of pounds at no cost except the actual writing of figures in a book, why did they not point out to the learned judge and the hard-hearted bank that the supposed theft of thousands of pounds was quite illusory, and that at most the bank had only been robbed of the time taken to make the entries, and the cost of pen, paper and ink -say 2s. 6d. in all?

#    #    #    #

A Political Curiosity.

A letter from Mr. J. Middleton Murry, a leader of the “Independent Socialist Party,” to the Times Literary Supplement (December 6th, 1934):—

  Sir,  I have no objection to being called a Communist, provided it is in a reasonable context, with proper qualifications. Mr. Wyndham Lewis’s letter affords neither of these safeguards. Therefore, I wish to be allowed to say that within his frame of reference I am not a Communist, but simply a democratic Socialist. When the term Communist is applied to me and used (as Mr. Lewis appears to use it) to suggest that I am an adherent of some Russian Communist orthodoxy, promulgated from Moscow, I must claim my correct “political” label. I was quite accurately described both by your reviewer and Mr. Heppenstall as the adherent of a Marxism which owes “as much to Blake and to Jesus, to Shakespeare and to Keats  . . . as to Marx.” I see no reason why this description should be simplified and I distorted to suit polemical needs.

Yours very faithfully, 

J. Middleton Murry.

#    #    #    #

Labour Party's Lack of Socialist Convictions admitted by Mr. Herbert Morrison.

From a speech at the Paris Sorbonne (Daily Herald, December 1st, 1934): —

   The British Labour Party is a Socialist Party. It believes that the existing economic muddle and confusion can only be effectively remedied by the public ownership, direction and planning of the nation’s economic resources, and it desires to see a similar policy applied all over the world.

   Definite Socialist convictions are not growing among the British electors as fast as their attachment to the more general and immediate ideas of the Labour Party.

   Labour is particularly popular for its support of peace policies.

(It will be noticed that Mr. Morrison misuses the word Socialism by applying it to the schemes for rationalised and planned capitalism with which he and his party are so much concerned.) When, last year, the Labour Party won a by-election at Swindon they did so in just the manner suggested in Mr. Morrison’s speech, i.e., by soliciting the votes of non-Socialists who happened to be attracted by reforms and immediate issues. Read Dr. Addison’s explanation of his victory, which he attributed to several things, but not to Socialist convictions among the electors: —

  The new member as a Liberal was Minister of Munitions and Minister for Health, and after joining  the Labour Party in 1923 was Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour Government.

  After the result Dr. Addison said: —

     “I attribute my victory very largely to the line I have taken on the issue of peace and the League of Nations. I believe that has appealed to many people, especially in these troublous times. Another point which has told strongly in my favour is the means test, for in the borough there are many cases of hardship. Generally the result shows that the people are tired of the National Government.” 

—(Manchester Guardian, October 27th, 1934.) 

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: A Monopolist Scheme for Control. (1935)

Editorial from the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the advocates of “nationalisation” of industry switched over to preaching State supervision of private monopolies on the lines of the London Passenger Transport Board there has been a noticeable increase of friendliness in the relationship between leading trade union officials and Labour leaders on the one side and what are called “progressively minded" captains of industry on the other. The progressive mindedness means nothing more than that the individuals in question have an interest in replacing the existing small and medium-sized concerns by large-scale monopolies or semi-monopolies. That they are in favour of change at all is sufficient to bring the Labour Party to view them as potential allies on the road to office, and that party obligingly popularises the terms “Public ownership" “public utility corporation," and “socialisation" as a cover under which those large-scale capitalists who are out to devour their smaller and weaker brethren, can operate. The Labour Party and the trade unions are thus to throw their weight on the side of the workers’ most powerful enemies, or are to remain neutral while these enemies consolidate their position.

The lines on which the bigger capitalists are thinking has already been disclosed by the merger of London transport and the schemes propounded in various quarters for amalgamating the iron and steel industry, the mines, the electricity concerns, and so on. A detailed scheme applicable to a whole series of industries is contained in the Industrial Reorganisation (Enabling Bill), presented in the House of Lords last autumn by Lord Melchett (price 4d., from H.M. Stationery Office).

Some interest attaches to the promoter of the Bill. He is the son of the late Lord Melchett, formerly Sir Alfred Mond, the Liberal who went over to the Conservatives at about the time that the Conservatives’ Derating Act bestowed very substantial rating reliefs on Imperial Chemical Industries, the firm of which he was head. The present Lord Melchett is director of I.C.I. and of other chemical, coal, and finance companies, and of Barclays Bank. Although a Conservative, he holds what are regarded as unorthodox views on currency and banking, and like his father, has been heard to denounce the rapacity of the money-lending capitalists. Because of this he is much admired in certain Labour and currency crank circles where the sectional antagonisms of the various groups of capitalists are thought to be of concern to the workers who are exploited indiscriminately by all capitalists. One can guess that Lord Melchett would show the same lofty disregard of the party line as did his father, and he may some day be seen graciously allowing the Labour Party enthusiasts for remodelling capitalism to pull chestnuts out of the fire for him.

The Big Fish devour the Little Ones.

The object of the bill “is to provide for the self-government of industries by enabling the majority of producers in an industry, notwithstanding the opposition of a small minority, to introduce and cause to be enforced schemes for the reorganisation of the whole or part of that industry with the general object of promoting greater efficiency, eliminating wasteful competition, and of facilitating the production, manufacture, and supply of the products of that industry.”

Now what could be more reasonable, innocent sounding, and democratic than that? Who would not want to see mining, chemicals, textiles, tobacco, foodstuffs, etc., etc., made more efficient in the interest of all?

But not so fast. The voting is to be “democratic,” the "majority" is to decide the issue (subject to inquiry, supervision, and possible veto by Government and Parliament), but the majority is not to be a majority of the population or of those engaged in the industry. It is only to be a majority of persons who have “an ownership interest,” in other words, the capitalists alone, although they are only a small minority in relation to the workers they employ. Thus this democratic self-regulation of industry is just the same as the so-called democratic control of industry preached by Sir Oswald Mosley and the Fascists generally . The workers are to get a look-in not in proportion to their numbers, but simply as a trade union having a “special interest" in the industry, and thus entitled merely to express opinions. Lord Melchett, like Sir Oswald Mosley, is determined that the workers shall not decide. Capitalism, reorganised, is to be preserved intact.

Moreover—and this is where the bill exposes the particular aim of the big capitalist—the “ownership interest” of any person or persons putting forward a scheme of reorganisation to the Board of Trade must be a “substantial one having regard to the ownership of all other persons having an ownership interest in the industry." Thus weight is to be given in the question of promoting a scheme, not to the number of capitalists, but to the size of their capital. Eventually, after any scheme has been published and discussed, a poll of all persons having an ownership interest shall take place, and if 75 per cent. of the recorded votes are in favour the scheme shall go forward for Parliamentary approval notwithstanding the objections of the minority. The use of this to crush the smaller fry in any industry is obvious, and that no doubt is why Lord Melchett’s bill was drafted. Those of his admirers who think that his criticisms of the banks arise from a disinterested desire to see the small man helped to keep his head above water by means of easier credit facilities are invited to study the bill, and note what its effects would be if it or a similar measure is eventually adopted by a Government and becomes law.

 

Anyone who is interested in the way large-scale industry is developing will find much useful material in a study of Imperial Chemical Industries, published in the Economist (January 19th, 1935). This £77 million combine made £7,664,000 profit in 1933.

What this means is perhaps best conveyed by relating it to the number of workers employed. According to figures published a few years ago, the number was then about 60,000, and on this basis the profit represents about £128 per head of the workers employed. (The number has, possibly, increased somewhat in the meantime.)

I.C.I. is interested in chemicals, explosives, fertilisers and many other trades, “as diversified as sporting cartridges and soda crystals, motor components and motor fuel, and property It has connections by shareholdings or agreements with powerful concerns in Germany, U. S. A., Canada, S. Africa, and elsewhere. It has a “footing in many countries (from China, literally, to Peru).”

In view of the popularity so-called planned economy is attaining in the eyes of members of the Labour Party, we read with interest the opinion expressed by the Economist that:

   the modern world indeed, under a regime of private enterprise, has produced no more perfect an example of "planned economy," centralised for policy and finance, decentralised in administrative functions, and aimed at all points in its relations with suppliers, customers, competitors and the State.

Marx and the "Blackcoats". (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a sign of the times that the name of Karl Marx is so often mentioned wherever social problems are discussed. His opponents, and they number many, including such bitter “opponents" of each other as Conservatives and Labourites, pay an unwitting tribute to the soundness of Marxism each time they attempt to “prove" Marx wrong.

To give an example of the manner in which his critics “dispose" of Marx, here is an extract from the Daily Herald, “Labour's own paper." Under the heading, “All Together," it printed a leader dealing with the proposed affiliation of the Medical Practitioners' Union to the T.U.C., which it described as being “full of significance." “The middle-class workers," it says (italics ours) “in the professions, in commerce, and in industry, are established in positions of great influence and power. Their numbers are growing with astonishing rapidity. The class whose decline Marx foretold in his certain accents is expanding in numbers, growing in power and developing its own outlook as a great new factor in politics." (December 15th, 1934. Italics ours.)

"The class whose decline Marx foretold in his certain accents . . . . "! Which class? In the Daily Herald's own words, the "middle-class workers! The managers, foremen, architects, clerks, salesmen, etc.? Since when have these types of workers constituted a separate class? And when and where did Marx “foretell their decline" ? Not a word from the Herald in support of their allegation.

In fact, Marx quite clearly foresaw that the work of administration would be taken over by the workers. In his work, “Capital" Marx says: “Just as at first the capitalist is relieved from actual labour so soon as his capital has reached that minimum amount with which capitalist production, as such, begins, so now, he hands over the work of direct and constant supervision of the individual workmen and groups of workmen, to a special kind of wage labourer. . . . The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function." (Vol. 1. Swan Sonnenschien. Edited by F. Engels. Page 322.)

Further, in dealing with clerks, etc., he states: “The commercial labourer, in the strict meaning of the term, belongs to the better-paid classes of wage-workers, he belongs to the class of skilled labourers, which is above the average. . . . The generalisation of public education makes it possible to recruit this line of labourers from classes that had formerly no access to such education and that were accustomed to a lower scale of living. . . . The capitalist increases the number of these labourers whenever he has more value and profits to realise." (Italics ours. Vol. 3, Kerr and Co. Trans, by E. Untermann. Edited by F. Engels. Page 354.)

These are "certain accents" of Marx all right, but they give no support to the case of the Daily Herald. Marx did not make the mistake of confusing the better paid workers with the smaller capitalists, as the Herald writer apparently does.

Perhaps the “subjects" of this controversy, namely the Daily Herald's “middle-class workers," those who are established in positions of “great influence" and “power" may derive small comfort from what Karl Marx or the Daily Herald says about them. But they will sooner or later be forced to listen to what the Socialist Party has to say to them.

Firstly, there is no fundamental distinction between the workers by “hand" and those by "brain." In fact, all workers have to use both, and because all of them have to sell their working ability, whatever its character, to an employer for a livelihood, all of them belong to that economic category, the working-class.

The clerks, architects, and many other of the “superior" sections of the workers face the same problems, generally speaking, as tailors, bricklayers or engineers. All those problems can be traced to one root cause—the private ownership of the means of living. In many cases, the position of the professional workers and clerks is worse than that of their “manual" brethren. When in work, it.is a constant struggle to keep up appearances; when out of work, some do not even get the dole. And mechanisation and rationalisation have wrought havoc in their ranks, too.

Therefore, the Socialist Party does not select particular sections of the working-class for special mention.

Misunderstanding of the Socialist case is prevalent amongst all grades of workers to-day. Professional workers do not possess some mental kink which will make it impossible for us to convert them. Even the snobbish outlook born of “semi-detacheds’’ in Suburbia cannot withstand for ever the bitter lessons which capitalism is teaching.

Marxian Socialism — Scientific Socialism — stands primarily for the recognition of the fact that the working-class, nine-tenths of the population here, cannot live without getting permission to use the land, the factories, railways, etc., from the capitalists who own them. This means nothing but slavery and exploitation for all working-men and women, no matter what their jobs are.

And therefore, we of the Socialist Party ask you, whether you are “black-coated workers, or workers with no coats at all, to join us?" Because the task we have set ourselves is the most vital of all, the task of taking the means of life out of the hands of the minority and securing them for common ownership.

Sid Rubin

A Letter from a Former Communist. (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

[We have received the following letter from a former Communist. It is particularly interesting, as the writer took an active part, in the Manchester area, in the work of the Communist Party. While we may not see eye-to-eye with the writer on every point, his letter merits serious attention, as an example of the outlook to which years of wholehearted support of the Communist Party has brought one of its adherents.—ED. COMM.]

Stockport.

      February 20th, 1935.

The Editorial Committee,

              THE SOCIALIST STANDARD.

Dear Comrades,

Although in the past I have been an active and enthusiastic member of the Communist Party, the recent change of policy in relation to the Labour Party has compelled me to re-examine the principles and policy of the Party I formerly supported. The conclusions, for what they are worth—but by no means lightly arrived at—are set out below.

At the moment, the C.P., notwithstanding all specious reservations, is committed in principle to the return of a third Labour Government as a “lesser evil" to the National Government of to-day. This in spite of past vehement declarations that Labourism was Social Fascism, was, as Stalin declared, “objectively the moderate wing of Fascism." I, at least, have learned the lesson that the Labour Party “is the most dangerous enemy of the working-class within the working-class" too well; so well, in fact, that I find it impossible to support one capitalist party against another in the supposed interests of unity—even though the Party I am asked to support calls itself Labour.

The incontestable truth is that the change from unqualified opposition to the Labour Party and I.L.P. (quite clearly defined in the C.C. Resolution of the C.P.G.B., 1931) to one of support, was imposed from above by the Comintern when, after the German disaster and at a moment’s notice, it issued its world-wide appeal to its component parties to make unity overtures to organisations hitherto denounced as “Social-Fascist," etc. Evidently, one policy having proved so disastrous, it was decided, with a complete lack of political principle, to try something else.

The indecent haste employed by representatives of the Soviet Union in attempting to conclude pacts of an economic and political character with the butchers of the German working-class; the entrance of the Soviet Union into that “thieves' kitchen," the League of Nations; the substitution of the “defence of the Soviet Union" for the world revolution, can only mean that the Comintern has become completely subordinated to the special interests of the Soviet Union; and that, consequently, the various Communist Parties have been degraded to mere advertising agencies for Russia.

The advent to power in Germany of the Hitler dictatorship proves quite conclusively the bankruptcy of Communist policy. Through their blind “fetishism" of violence, the German Communists contributed just as much to the dissipation of the working-class forces as did the Social-Democrats through their shameless prostitution of the name of Socialism. Palme Dutt, in his book, "Fascism and the Social Revolution," quotes, in support of his case, Kautsky, who, in his introduction to the third edition of his book, “The Proletarian Revolution" (1931), says: “In November, 1918, the Revolution was the work of the proletariat alone. The proletariat won so all-powerful a position that the bourgeois elements at first did not dare to attempt any resistance." What lesson is drawn from this? That the German Social-Democrats betrayed the revolution because they persuaded the German working-class to adopt the “ peaceful path to Socialism," as against the path of violent revolution advocated by the Communists.

The one clear and indisputable conclusion, namely, that Social-Democracy was able to operate a policy of capitalism, suitably garbed in “Socialist" phrases, because the majority of the German working-class were in complete ignorance of Socialist principles, has so far been completely ignored by Communist writers on German events.

Before the workers can obtain political power, and wield it in their own interests, they must be conscious of those interests. The Communist Party, in urging the workers to fight for reforms, has not assisted in any way in aiding the workers to realise the need for Socialism. In fact, the thousands that have drifted in and out of the C.P. proves that they have failed to educate their own members in Socialist principles, to say nothing of the working-class.

For a so-called revolutionary party to enter into competition with reformist parties for reforms, is utterly futile. Any reforms that capitalism may think necessary will reach the working-class via parties with years of experience, organisation and traditions in the reformist business.

If the emancipation of the working-class is to be the work of the working-class itself, it follows with iron logic that the working-class must know from what it has to emancipate, and to what its emancipation will lead. This can only be achieved by spreading Socialistic knowledge.

Therefore, I appeal to all thinking members of the Communist Party to earnestly consider whether their time could not be more profitably employed in working for a Party that stands uncompromisingly for Socialism, instead of in a Party where half their time has to be occupied in explaining away the political somersaults of the Communist leadership. and the other half in urging workers to fight for reforms, which, even if granted, leave the position of the working-class materially unaltered.

                                                                                                                        Yours fraternally,

A. H. Maertens

Christ as a Capitalist. (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

On November 11th last year, there appeared in The People an interview with Mr. Ernest Thompson, the retiring Mayor of Louth, a "bustling" little town in Lincolnshire. Louth is a remarkable place for these pagan times. It is supposed to "bustle" with the Christian spirit. Mr. Thompson is also a Christian, but it is not the ordinary brand of Christianity. Mr. Thompson is a practical Christian. He believes that practical Christianity is the only remedy for present-day problems. "Not your so-called religion,: he says, with a frank smile, "but practical Christianity—applied to every-day life, can solve all our problems—even that of unemployment."

At last the saviour! After nearly two thousand years of searching, the true Christian doctrine has been discovered, and we have to thank the Mayor of a "bustling" little town in Lincolnshire.

Of course, Mr. Thompson must have told The People that the reason why the workers are poor is because they produce the wealth for the benefit of the master class, and not for themselves. Surely he pointed out that the profit-making nature of this system restricted the production of wealth and reduced millions of workers to the aggravated poverty of unemployment. There can be no doubt that he urged the establishment of a social system where goods shall be produced for use, and not for sale. What else could he say? Alas, no! What he said was:—

If employers would use their capital and possessions as Christ would have them used, then there would be no money lying idle in the banks and men would be trooping back to work . . . 

And how? As Christ had no possessions and despised them, the answer is obviously a lemon. But Mr. Thompson has solved the riddle. Mr. Thompson, you see, does not keep all his eggs in one basket. He is a contractor as well as a practical Christian, and from all accounts he is a very practical contractor. He has begun work on a new housing scheme to provide work for the unemployed, because he has been "guided by God" to buy the land for that purpose . . . And here is the gem—the master-stroke:—

The men I have employed are all working with the Christian spirit in their hearts—and that alone is going to have a sound practical result . . . It means that they are working harder and better than ever would have done. They are building the houses faster, and consequently, more cheaply than usual. And that means I shall be able to sell them at a lower price and develop the estate further . . .

Councillor Thompson smiled. "You see," he said, "Christianity can be practical . . . "

Such simplicity is positively staggering. Mind you, no mention is made of profits. But, remember, Mr. Thompson insists that the necessary condition for producing cheaper houses is harder work from his wage-slaves. Strange as it may seem, the Practical Christian, like any other sort of employer, wants to squeeze the utmost out of the workers. If this pious gentleman is only eager to find work for the unemployed in Louth, he would give them a five-hour day and urge them to take it easy. What should it matter to the Practical Christian if he gets no profits on his capital so long as it is used to make people happy? . . . "I do not profess to be a saint,"  said Mr. Thompson, "but I am convinced that here is the solution the world is looking for . . . "

Mr. Thompson is certainly no saint. He is just a plain, simple, ordinary capitalist exploiter.

KAYE.