The Future of Sir Stafford Cripps (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

If it be the aim of a politician to have all men speak well of him, Sir Stafford Cripps must be feeling proud of himself on his entry into the War Cabinet. This step was proposed by the Times and others early last year, was duly taken up by newspapers of all political complexions—if, that is, the reader can now distinguish between one complexion and another—and is hailed by Moscow and the Communists. Apart from some hundreds of millions of people in the Axis nations all the world appears to love Sir Stafford.

After early scientific training he was Assistant Superintendent of a large Government explosives factory during the last war, then became a very successful lawyer, and was reputed to earn £25,000 a year. Joining the Labour Party in 1928 he was Solicitor-General in the Labour Government in 1931. During the Abyssinian War he resigned from the Labour Party Executive because he opposed the policy of “sanctions” by the League of Nations against Italy. Later on he was expelled by the Labour Party for running a “Popular Front” campaign against Labour Party policy. 

Born into a strongly Conservative family, he had the support of the Liberal News-Chronicle in his quarrels with the Labour Party over the “Popular Front” early in 1939. At that time he was denouncing a short-lived Churchill group called the “Hundred Thousand” movement on the ground that its object, though nominally democratic, was really “to capture the youth for reactionary imperialism.” It might, he feared, be leading youth “ into what are substantially Fascist paths." He has often had the approval of the Communists and is now much favoured by the Russian Government following his work as Ambassador to Moscow. 

During an earlier campaign for “Socialism in our Time,” he urged that it might become necessary to suspend ordinary Parliamentary procedure. At the Labour Party Conference in May, 1939, he strongly opposed the idea of a National Government, though four years before he had said that the Baldwin National Government had “done quite well for a capitalist Government. . . . There is really very little case at all for an alternative Government within the capitalist system.” He has claimed at times that Socialism must be the paramount aim of the Labour Party, though when he launched his “Popular Front” campaign he frankly stated that it meant putting Socialism “into cold storage.” The idea of the Cripps Popular Front was that all the “genuine friends of democracy,” Liberal, Labour, Communist and Conservative (but excluding the Churchill group) should get together on a limited programme of reforms in order to save democracy at home and abroad; yet not long before Sir Stafford had argued that it would be fatal to do “as the Social-Democrats did in Germany; that is combine with any anti-Fascist forces for the sake of saving democracy.” “That way,” he said, “lies disaster.” “We must, then, firmly and definitely abandon any idea of working in association with any other political group or party that denies the absolute necessity of Socialism.” (Quoted in Daily Herald, 2nd March, 1939.) At one time he distinguished himself as a critic of the Monarchy.

It will be seen that he has been everything in turn and nothing long, and his much-praised brilliant legal mind seems to be chiefly effective in persuading him that his sincerely held but shallow notions of any given moment are the last word in political wisdom for the human race.

It is not easy to discern exactly where he stands at present. Perhaps he does not know himself, hence his remark, “I want to sit on a back bench in the House of Commons for a while and think.” (This was, of course, just prior to his appointment to the War Cabinet.)

On February 8th, 1942, he delivered a speech at Bristol. He dealt with many things, but according to the published reports the one thing he did not deal with was Socialism and his attitude to it. He showed that he is not overmuch enamoured of Russian State Capitalism (which he called "Communism”) and went out of his way to dissociate himself from much that he saw in Russia.

  There is in Communism a great deal to be admired. There is a great deal which one would not wish to see in one’s own country.—"Daily Mail,” February 10th, 1942.

When he dealt with the future that he wishes to see he appears to envisage in this country some kind of State capitalism allied with democratic parliamentary methods.

  Shall we be able to face up to the new conditions after the war? Shall we be able to recognise the need which has been taught us for a planned economy side by side with a liberal culture? Can we try to combine the best of the systems that are to-day fighting for world survival?—“Manchester Guardian," February 9th, 1942.

It may be gathered from this that he admires Russian State planning and wants it combined with the political system existing here. He never was a Socialist though he regarded his reformist and State capitalist notions as Socialism, and it may be taken that at the moment he is not particularly anxious even to claim that he is a Socialist.

Some twelve years ago Lord Baldwin tipped him as "a future Conservative Prime Minister,” His present appointment certainly brings the forecast nearer to fulfilment and the uncertainties of war-time and post-war politics may yet land him in that august position; to the eventual deep disgust of his "left wing” Labour Party admirers, among whom the S.P.G.B. has never been numbered.

Edgar Hardcastle

The New, Old Capitalism (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many attempts have been made by propagandists to explain the dictatorships of Germany, Russia and Italy, and all manage to find some central theme upon which to build their case.

Some say it is the work of evil men (although Stalin is getting a good press now). Some argue a case for a Capitalist anti-labour conspiracy, instancing Italian and German suppression of democrats and socialists.

The Trotskyists formulate a case in which they allege that Russia had her “Socialist” revolution betrayed by Stalin and his bureaucrats, who have turned Lenin’s "dictatorship of the proletariat” into the dictatorship over the proletariat.

Enough has been said to illustrate the diversity of opinion regarding this vexed subject.

The Socialist views Capitalism as one whole cloth which, although woven into different patterns, and sometimes of mixed materials, nevertheless has one basic texture—the exploitation of the workers by a class that lives on the surplus, over and above that which the worker receives as his wages.

Now whether this class is organised as a bureaucracy as in the dictator countries and adopts such nomenclatures as Communists, Fascists, or National-Socialists, it does not detract from the fact that they are eaters of surplus value, and that the system which they have erected is nothing but collective or State Capitalism. The fact that in the dictator countries the population have had no long democratic experience has made it fairly easy for "great leaders” to be swept into power, and to declare a dictatorship. Moreover, it is no mere accident that some 300 million people have been cajoled to accept the Totalitarian method of running capitalism, for implicit in the cry "away with Democracy” has been the imperative drive for war and the "liquidation” of recalcitrant minorities or independent groups, these being described in Russia as wreckers and Trotskyists, and in Italy and Germany as Jews or Communists. Trade unions are merged into the State set-up—one party rules, the party organising the country for "Total War.”

The setting up of State or collective Capitalism has spelt the end of Liberal or laissez-faire doctrine (the right to do what you will with your own), because private property must fall in line with the needs of the State.

The worker under dictatorship finds that whereas he was dismissed, say, for lateness, by a private capitalist, that now a State ordinance decrees that he shall be fined or imprisoned; his "Trade Union” officials are party bosses, and he has lost the legal right to strike or bargain for the sale price of his labour power. He must listen to State propaganda only, and his power to elect representatives of his own choice is limited to a panel put forward by the ruling clique, which allows of no opposition. Such is the necessarily brief sketch of a regimenting capitalism which the workers will one day break with surprising results; the fight will be more for independence and freedom of speech than for mere bread.

The curtain may go up on a stage set for a real leap forward in human endeavour to solve this age old problem of class ownership of the means of producing wealth, with its privileged position for the few, and social inferiority for the many. The workers will see that this jungle we call capitalism can be organised into different forms going under various titles, with appropriate "ideologies” to match, with its protagonists all proclaiming the virtues of their respective set-up using such euphemisms as "A new social order,” "A new civilisation,” or even "The workers’ state,” which only result in a new set of bosses. There are now indeed few more mistakes that the workers can possibly make.

And now, probably, Socialism—the real democracy which has the common ownership of the means of production and distribution as its basis—will become a real live issue.

Frank Dawe

Socialism and Anarchism - Part 1 (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many workers whose active interest in politics goes back a generation or more would, until recently, have said that Anarchism had passed away for ever from English working class politics. In the years after the last war, Anarchism, never a large movement in this country, appeared to have all but died. The flickering life of a small monthly journal, “Freedom” (when it appeared) was the only evidence that Anarchist ideas anywhere survived. Maybe the ideas of the Third International and its appeal to certain sections of the workers left little elbow room for Anarchist doctrines and groups in which to grow. Maybe, also, the re-appearance in recent years of Anarchist doctrines and groups is in some part due to the disappearance of much of the original Bolshevik doctrines and theories from the shop windows of the parties affiliated to the Third International, in favour of more expedient policies. In any event, for whatever reason, Anarchist ideas are experiencing a new appearance of life, and whilst the influence is not considerable, and perhaps non-existent among organised workers, there is evidence of a well supported movement, publishing a monthly journal and other literature.

It is insufficient to say that Anarchism is anti-authoritarian, and is as old as mankind. So far as Anarchism has any relationship with working class problems or aspirations, it, like Socialism, has its roots in Capitalism. It is not accidental that some of the best known founders of Anarchist doctrines were contemporaries of Marx and Engels. As an attempt to deal with the social problems of capitalism and provide a solution for them, both Anarchism and Socialism grew directly out of capitalism. An examination of the ideas and methods of both, therefore, would assist in throwing them into contrast. The scientific approach of Marx and Engels to these problems took certain fundamental propositions as a starting point. These were: That the first conditions imposed by nature upon man is that he should work; that before he could evolve ideas and social institutions he must be able to live: that the manner society gets living is the basis upon which is built the superstructure of society. Before, therefore, there could be sound judgment of social and governmental institutions it was necessary to understand their relationship with the basis of society. In his examination Marx revealed the workings of the capitalist form of society. The solution, he pointed out, for the contradictions of capitalism was simple, though profound: it was social ownership of the means and instruments of production. In a society where the means and instruments of production were social in character but were privately owned no other solution was possible which would abolish the contradictions arising out of that private ownership. Socialism, therefore, was a new social order which would involve a complete and revolutionary transformation in social relations and institutions. The essence of the Marxist position (the scientific Socialist position) is that social institutions cannot be transformed, nor social problems solved, without first of all altering the basis upon which these institutions rest and with which social problems are bound up. Poverty and insecurity could not be abolished whilst private ownership in the means and instruments of production remained. The State, as a social institution and organ of coercion, could not disappear whilst private property in the means of living, the interests of which it existed to defend and conserve, remained. Social problems had their roots in capitalism as a social system. They could not be solved separately and apart from the revolutionary transformation involved in the change from private ownership to social ownership. Any attempt to solve the effects of Capitalism leads to reformism and failure so far as concerns the fundamental problems of capitalism and their solution.

What are the basic ideas of Anarchism? Can it be said that they grasp the fact of the interrelation of all social problems and their dependence on the basic fact of the private ownership of the means and instruments of production? It can be said that not one Anarchist of the 19th century, or contemporary of Marx, grasped this simple truth. Neither Kropotkin, Bakunin or Proudhon advocated the common ownership of the means and instruments of production. Rather than abolish private ownership they advocated more private ownership, an increase in the number of small holders. Kropotkin in his writings repeatedly held up the craft guilds of the Middle Ages as an example of workers owning their own means of production and being organised in small, independent communities, which could exist without the necessity of State interference, and which could exist independently of the State. The picture that Kropotkin drew was very pretty, but as a solution to the problems of a working class organised on a basis of social production, the majority of whom are not handicraftsmen, it was pure romanticism. The workers in capitalist society are organised nationally and internationally in their millions by the very nature of the production forces. The workers are a class carrying out social productive functions as a class and not as independent producers. To attempt to organise such workers as independent producers would involve not the conversion of the social productive forces—the means and instruments of production—into the common property of society, but the destruction of the productive forces themselves. Instead of society having to face the problems it does to-day it would have to face problems similar to those of earlier phases of industrial development. The idea that society could reverse historical development and create independent producers out of its proletarians is fantastic. Such ideas can only arise out of failure to appreciate the nature of capitalist production. That lack of understanding prevailed among the Anarchists yesterday and still does to-day. Nowhere does current Anarchist literature refute the immaturity of the ideas of its earlier founders. Rather does it endorse them and hold them up for approval. One difference is perhaps the conception of Syndicalism which attempts to adapt Anarchist ideas to modern industry. The following is a quotation from an Anarcho-Syndicalist Declaration of Principles quoted by Rudolf Rocker in his book, “Anarcho-Syndicalism, Theory and Practice” (page 142):

  Revolutionary Syndicalism is the confirmed enemy of economic and social monopoly, and aims at its abolition by economic communes and administrative organs of field and factory workers on the basis of a free system of councils entirely liberated from any subordination to any government or political party. Against the politics of the State and of parties, it erects the economic organisation of labour; against the government of men it sets up the management of things. Consequently, it has for its object not the conquest of political power, but the abolition of every State function in social life. It considers that, along with the monopoly of property, should disappear also the monopoly of domination, and that any form of the State, including the dictatorship of the Proletariat, will always be the creator of new monopolies and new privileges; it could never be an instrument of liberation.

Here again can be seen that the emphasis is against “monopoly” and “domination” and the “State.” There is no understanding that social ownership is the logical sequence to the development of the productive forces and the only solution to working class problems, leading incidentally to the “withering away” of the State. It is the modern version of Kropotkin’s mediaeval conception of small producers organised into communes.

It is a reactionary proposal which would lead to disaster and despair.

Harry Waite

(To be continued.)

Link to Part 2

Socialism For The Newcomer (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

You told me, Mr. Newcomer, that you were fed up. Something was wrong. You worked hard, and studied your master’s interest. Seldom drank, didn’t bet or waste your money. But you never seemed to get on. The wife wasn’t the same now, either. Always dissatisfied. Seemed to think that it was your fault, that you were a failure. So you took to going to our meetings. You said you couldn’t always understand. The speaker didn’t get down to the language of the man in the street. Well, don’t blame the speaker. He has enough to contend with, and he cannot please everyone. Why not buy The Socialist Standard regularly each month, and read the articles? You see, they are written for you and your pals. I don’t think you will find scientific Socialism so hard to understand. Anyway, isn’t it worth it. A few minutes’ study, once a month, in order to understand and to gain the knowledge required to sweep away the troubles and evils which are ruining your life, and the life of your wife too.

There is an old song, Mr. Newcomer, the people sometimes sing. It goes, “Britons never, never shall be slaves.” Most of the people have a queer distorted idea of what slavery is. Usually, they think of coloured men being driven on by the overseer with a long whip. Others think of “enslaved peoples” under Hitler. Then again, sometimes one hears of miners being referred to as “slaves of the lamp,” and so on. It’s rather amusing that the average worker would be very much on his dignity if this epithet of “slave” was applied to himself. So, Mr. Newcomer, if you really wish to understand the implications of Socialism, you must expect some shocks. Truth is not always palatable.

When you left school, the first thing you did was to look for a job, because you had to start and earn your living. You had to obtain the wherewithal to provide yourself with food, clothing and shelter. Whatever happens, you must pay your rent. But we are going too fast, Mr. Newcomer. Before you began work you either wrote a letter in answer to an advertisement, or you just called in and enquired if a boy was wanted. If you wrote a letter, you started off with "Sir,” and after anxiously informing the employer that you were strong, healthy and honest, you probably pleaded for an interview at his convenience, and finished up by signing yourself “Your humble servant.” On the other hand, if you called at a shop or factory where you knew “hands” were being taken on, you carefully brushed your clothes first, polished your boots, and donned a clean collar. In fact, you made yourself as smart and presentable as possible. You see, you cannot sell dirty goods usually, and you were selling something, although you didn’t know it. Later on, perhaps, you wished to change your job, in order to better yourself, or perhaps your services were dispensed with. So you went through the same performance again. No doubt you have repeated the process many times since, not now in order to better yourself, but just in order to go on living. Why have you had to do this? Here, Mr. Newcomer, is where you come up against one of those unpalatable truths the Socialists warn you about. Also we reach the point where you learn your first lesson in the science of Socialism.

You see, you are a member of the working class, and before you can earn your living you must apply humbly to the employing or master class, and beg for a job. If they think you are a suitable man, that is, strong and capable, they may allow you to work for them. If you leave your master, you must apply to another, as you know now by past bitter experience. So, in order to live, you cannot escape applying to the master class for permission to work. There are, of course, a few workers who avoid this to some extent by various means, but their numbers are so small in proportion to the rest that they can be ignored for the time being. It takes very little mental effort, therefore, to realise that you belong to a class which must always go, cap in hand, to another class in order to obtain permission to work. So you see, then, that there are two classes in society. The majority, who possess nothing but their labour power, and who are forced to sell their labour power to a smaller class who own the means of production. The larger class, who possess nothing worth while and who live by working, we call the working class. That small class, who own the land, the mines, railways and factories, etc., and who force us by sheer starvation to come and work for them, we designate the master or capitalist class. So you see, Mr. Newcomer, you cannot do anything, except sell your health and strength; your capacity to labour, for a small wage, in order to live. Therefore you must recognise that the workers are in a slave position, Always at the beck and call of the masters. So now you know why the Socialist smiles when he hears his fellow workers singing “Britons never, never shall be slaves.”

Of course, there is more than this to be said about it, and I trust, Mr. Newcomer, that you will continue with the next chat. In the meanwhile—think it over.

Comrade Mac.

The Socialist Archbishop (1942)

Editorial from the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Dr. Temple was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury the Daily Express informed its readers that “Dr. Temple is the first Socialist to become Primate ” (February 23rd, 1942).

Lord Elton, in the Daily Mail of the same date, was not so sure. He would not go beyond a statement that “Temple was said to be a Socialist"; and both agreed in fact that he is “a keen social reformer,” ”has a passion for social reform.”

Lord Elton and the Daily Express do not understand that a social reformer is not a Socialist. True, Dr. Temple has advocated better housing for the workers, regular holidays, and education, and other reforms. “He will hammer away year after year . . . at some public scandal such as road accidents.” He advocates State control of the Bank of England and the joint stock banks. Therefore he is not a Socialist, for whatever success he and others have at reforming the capitalist system he is not in favour of its abolition. He has, in effect, said so.

  There is nothing wrong with profits as such. Producer and trader are entitled to a profit as a means of livelihood which they have earned by service to the community.—“Daily Mail,” February 23rd, 1942.

In the above passage he shows that he is incapable of describing the capitalist system as it really is. That a "producer” should have a livelihood for the service he renders may seem reasonable, but the typical capitalist owner (mostly by inheritance) is not a producer but only an employer of producers. He does not render service but merely permits workers to produce. He lives by owning.

Marx and Engels, in the "Communist Manifesto” (written in 1847) summed up such social reformers under the satirical description, “the Socialistic bourgeois.” What they want is 

  “all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements.”

They desire that 

  ‘‘the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.”
  “To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole and corner reformers of every imaginable kind.”

In short, 

  "a part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.”

Incentives Under Socialism (1942)

Editorial from the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Joseph E. Davies, formerly American Ambassador in Moscow, has placed on record a conversation he had with the Ambassador from Afghanistan on the interesting question of incentives. Here are the views of the latter:—

   He thought that the Soviets were doing a great deal of good in many ways. But the wisdom of the centuries, he said, disclosed that there was very little progress without the incentive of personal interest. Human nature had not yet arrived at, and probably would not for a long time reach, a point where men would simply work for the joy of the working.
  The incentive for work and progress was personal interest and would be for a long time to come. This wise and fine man impressed me with his sincerity and his philosophy. It may be, he said, that this experiment might work out and evolve successfully by making allowances for and being modified by these fundamental facts in human nature. It might be one of the steps in the evolution of progress. Time would tell, said he.

Here we have the representatives of the slumbering East and the wideawake West able to find common ground in their views on human nature. That in itself is a curious and significant circumstance, for have we not been told by a very conservative observer that there is not one human race but two races, an East and a West, and that “never the twain shall meet”? But meet they did and summarily disposed of Socialism in a brief discussion.

Next, if it be permitted to apply their conclusion to themselves, may we ask what was their own little game? Seeing that men (including Ambassadors) do not work for the joy of working or for any other motive except the incentive of personal interest, what was the personal interest that caused them to leave Washington and' Kabul for the voyage to Moscow? It could not have been a desire to serve their respective nations or the human race as a whole, or a liking for the work, for by definition men simply do not do that sort of thing. Was it nothing but the salary, or the ambition to wear a cocked hat and knee breeches and gain coveted decorations, or some even less reputable private racket? And one of them fine and wise and sincere with it all! It would be interesting to ask them a number of questions, but as that is impossible we must take our examination elsewhere.

As it happens, the newspaper in which the above conversation is recorded (the Sunday Express, February 22nd, 1942) publishes several items which may help us. The editorial denounces the British Civil Service as a "dead and numbing hand stretched over all our national life." It concedes that Civil Servants ate "impeccably honest, scrupulous, hard-working and efficient," and that they are "often idealists," yet they are vigorously condemned because they are said to resent and resist every measure which threatens to disturb the even tenor of their lives and their ponderous and unprogressive ways of doing business.

Elsewhere in the same newspaper is a bitter attack on amateur pilferers, men and women who were honest before the war, but are now stealing to the extent of £2,000,000 in the past two years.

Then the editor has a slashing article on the men and women, in and out of the Forces, who are half-hearted in their efforts, or are seeking to make big profits or slack at their work. He mentions, for example, the soldier in the tank who says, "Half a crown a day for me, while it lasts; 30s. a week and starvation for my wife if I don’t come through,” and the civilian worker whose attitude to the war is: “I’ve got a soft job out of it." He compares them with the Germans, Japanese, Russians and Chinese, who, he says, work and fight superbly because they are inspired visionaries, "To each this war is a holy war."

From all of which we perceive that there seems to be something amiss with the simple doctrine of the two Ambassadors. If personal interest is and must be the only incentive why shouldn’t the Civil Servant further his personal interest in his allegedly sheltered life and career? Why shouldn’t the worker on docks or railways pilfer? Why shouldn’t every individual prove his normal human nature by looking no further than what appears to be his own immediate personal benefit?

The answer is that the supposed obstacle placed by unchanging human nature in the way of work and progress is a myth. Human knowledge and understanding and with them human conduct have changed, are changing, and will continue to change. With the development, through human agency, of mankind's control of natural forces and the power of producing wealth in greater abundance the potentialities of human co-operation have been more and more understood and consciously fostered. Co-operation was never entirely absent, though in the past much of the work of human beings was individual and it was possible to think and act in terms of individual effort and personally benefit from it. Now that the productive powers of co-operative effort have reached gigantic new levels it has become a possibility for each individual to benefit enormously from the conscious reorganisation of society on a Socialist basis. Where then will be the difficulty about incentive? All that will be needed is that the individual shall intelligently appreciate the place he will occupy in the life and work of society as a whole. The worker to-day who understood nothing of political organisation might refuse to take part in an election on the plea that one vote counts for nothing in an electorate of tens of millions. So also under Socialism he might lack incentive to work if he knew nothing of the part he plays in co-operative production and the benefit he and every other person will derive therefrom. Yet the understanding voter uses his vote and the understanding worker will gladly and enthusiastically play his part under Socialism.

This presupposes, of course, that before we can have Socialism there must be a Socialist majority to make Socialism a working system—but Socialists have never supposed otherwise.

To achieve that end it will be necessary to change the worker’s understanding, but it will not be necessary to change his human nature; though under Socialism we may anticipate a little difficulty at first with heads-in-the-air ex-Ambassadors and tough ex-editors of newspapers whose understanding of the favourable potentialities of human nature is not profound.

Reality of Equality (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism implies that all will have free and equal access to the means of living. Anything else, whatever it may be, is not Socialism. That is why we are looked upon as visionaries, particularly by the people who use the name of Socialism as a label for their reform nostrums. Social equality, we are told, is a dream. A vague, utopian concept with no place in practical politics. That view is also held by the majority of the working class. They have the sense of inferiority which is partly due to their subject position, but chiefly the result of the free education so generously bestowed upon them by their masters. It is not surprising that the ordinary, average working man believes that existing inequalities are eternal and inevitable, when the self-styled intellectuals who offer themselves as his leaders, share the same misconception. We hear it often. From the exceedingly bumptuous fry on the climb. The song goes something like this: “if we all started from scratch it would be the same all over again. Some would have, and others would not. The brainy and the thrifty would become rich, the dull and lazy would be poor."

We, too, are also aware of physical and mental inequalities in men, but we know that these differences can be easily exaggerated. We can quote Mr. G. B. Shaw on this point: “To the ordinary man the difference between himself and the great man is infinite. To the great man it is infinitesimal. . . . " Increased mental development due to economic advantages and better education is very often alleged to be the result of hereditary abilities. Even doctors without patients and lawyers without clients regard themselves as the natural born superiors of dockers and miners. Although probably many a docker educated to be a lawyer or a doctor would do much better in Harley Street or the Law Courts. What these people fail to understand is that all men are equal in one overwhelmingly important respect. The individual, no matter what his physical and mental development, is entirely dependent upon the efforts of the whole of society for his existence and his comforts. Take the case of the learned professor, for example. We know that even the most learned professor remembers to eat sometimes. Other men must obtain his food for him. Grimy and stunted men must dig in the bowels of the earth for the coal that warms his house. The milkman brings the milk, the baker brings the bread, and the tailor sends in his bills. A strike of railwaymen, busmen, or perhaps taxi-drivers, would no doubt cause him some inconvenience. He is utterly dependent on a society of non-professors for all of these extremely valuable ministrations. More important; modern capitalist development, with its gigantic socially operated instruments of production, has increased the dependence of the individual on society as a whole. This not only applies to individuals but to nations, and even continents. No man is indispensable; all kinds of work are necessary. In a society where an article, before it reaches the consumer, may have to pass through several thousand hands and, perhaps, travel many miles, the individual cannot assume an importance of very great magnitude. Socialism is a recognition of the interdependence of men and women all over the world. It is not a sharing-out process where everybody will start off with five shillings or five pounds, and then look after himself. Human society is not a race-track, nor is it a jungle, even though it may give that appearance to superficial observers. We know that men must work together, and in working together they are equals. Socialism is a system of ownership which is consistent with the existing method of production. We say, that as wealth is produced in common it could be owned in common. Social equality is now a necessary condition for the fuller development of society, and this can only obtain with the common ownership of the means of production.

The equality of Socialism does not mean that we shall all be obliged to eat exactly the same quantities of food, and wear exactly the same kind of clothes, or even work exactly the same number of hours It means that every member of society will receive what he requires for his own personal needs, and of the best that can be provided for him. And in return, he would be under the obligation of working in whatever capacity he was able to work, in line with his abilities, taste, or health. It would put an end to the existence of a class of property owners enabled to live without working by the exploitation of those who work. The very clever, the ordinary and the foolish, will have the same social standing. There is no absolute law of nature which lays it down that a very clever man must eat more food, or wear more clothes, than a less gifted man, or that he needs a larger house, and an army of servants to wait on him. Very clever people do not get these things to-day by mere virtue of their cleverness; they can only have what opportunity and social conditions allow them to take, and capitalists only pay for those “clever” qualities which enable them to pile up more profits.

We urge the workers to rid themselves of their slavish notions. Wage-slaves they are, but they also have the power to free themselves. They are only held in subjection with their own consent. When they decide to establish a social order which is consistent with their interests there will be no power on earth to stop them. All that is necessary to bring it about is a slight extension of their knowledge from the sphere of industry to the sphere of politics. They will have made an important step in the right direction when they begin to see that as they produce and distribute wealth for the benefit of the capitalist class, they could just as easily and more efficiently produce and distribute it for society as a whole. A world of wealth, as yet relatively undeveloped, is awaiting their strength and ingenuity. Its almost incalculable resources will never be extended to their fullest whilst allowed to remain in the hands of a minority. Doubtless many workers are even now thinking along these lines at a time when they are pouring out a torrent of steel in order to shatter cities and men.

Kaye.

Notes by the Way: The Changes and Chances of War (1942)

The Notes by the Way column from the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Changes and Chances of War

The course of war is always unpredictable, not least in the new associations of old antagonists it brings about. Who would have predicted a few years ago that Prime Minister Churchill would be receiving an official “Trade Union delegation” sent by the Russian Government, and that the delegation would be accompanied by the British Foreign Secretary? Hardly less remarkable, in view of recent relationships, was the fact that the Russians were welcomed and sponsored not merely by the Communists but by Sir W. Citrine for the Trades Union Congress.

Under recent Emergency Orders the Government has power to remove directors and others about whose efficiency complaint is made, and in cases reported in the News-Chronicle (October 7th, 1941) workers in one factory were called in to give evidence which led to the removal.

In the sphere of Imperial relationship we have seen the Australian Prime Minister calling on U.S.A. to give aid against the Japs, and saying:—

 Without inhibitions of any kind, Australia looks to America, free from any pangs about her traditional links of kinship with Britain.—“News Chronicle,” December 29th, 1941.

Another incident, also no doubt attributable to the war, was the action of a Conservative newspaper quoting extensively from Marx in an editorial. This was the Evening Standard (December 3rd, 1941), and the point of the quotation was to show how closely the Vichy clique in France resemble their predecessors under Louis Napoleon, described by Marx in his work, "The Eighteenth Brumaire.” The Evening Standard was gracious enough to attribute the quotation to "a great historian," but they softened the blow for their readers by omitting to mention that it was K. Marx.

#    #    #    #

One Nation Should Learn from Others

That "one nation can and should learn from others" is unexceptionable doctrine. (For the benefit of the Evening Standard that, too, is a quotation from their "great historian.”) It is, however, important to pick and choose what to learn. There was a time when, according to the Conservative Press, there was nothing to be learned from Russia, but in recent months many people have been asking that the authorities here should take an example from the way pilfering and rationing offences are treated in that country. A typical example is the following from the Sunday Express (February 8th, 1942): —

   Every dishonesty, small or great, is a sabotage of the war effort, and a nail in the nation’s coffin.
   In Moscow they shoot men or women where we fine them. In Moscow they mean business.
   If the civil courts are too gentle why not have military courts for all offences against the State at war? They at least would make the punishments really fit the crimes.

Many workers, exasperated by the way in which certain people can evade the rationing regulations, may sympathise with the call for the firing-squad. It should, however, be remembered that when the accepted standards in a country are lowered and brutalised the consequences in the long run are not going to be confined to a handful of black marketeers.

#    #    #    #

The Workers are Stretched to the Limit

As the war goes on there is more talk about the alleged slackness of the workers—what more natural than that the higher-ups should look for other shoulders on which to lay the responsibility for their own shortcomings? It is interesting, therefore, to see two statements by men in a position to form a useful opinion.

One is the view expressed by the Managing Director of what is described as "a huge factory which is concentrating on production of a heavy bomber": —

  The staff is fine. I get hot under the collar when I hear the general accusation that workers in war factories are slacking. When the history of this war comes to be written, you will find that British factories turned out more machines, and finer machines, than any other country in the world.—“Daily Telegraph,” August 29th, 1941.

Recently, too, Sir Andrew Duncan, former President of the Board of Trade, now Minister of Supply, gave his view to Mr. Frank Owen. The latter, writing in the Evening Standard, says: —

  Andrew Duncan, who is a hard-headed, man and the best President of the Board of Trade for twenty years, told me the other day that he reckoned that British work, people were just about stretched to the limit. The Industrial Health Board confirms that view. So what’s the good of exhorting the workers to "Work Harder” ? It is like advising your wife, "Cook harder!” It has nothing to do with making the meal.—February 11th, 1942.

#    #    #    #

War and the Child Pottery Workers

By 20 votes to 17 the House of Lords (February 11th, 1942) voted in favour of an Order extending the hours of labour for children, below 16, in the pottery industry from 48 to 53 a week. It is argued that this extension is necessary in order to maintain output in face of a shortage of labour, the children being required to fit their hours in with those of the adult workers. But what does it mean to the children? A view was given to the News-Chronicle by Miss Miriam Pease, formerly a Superintendent Inspector of Factories :—

  Mould-running is the most dangerous to health of trades in which children are employed. The mould-runner is well named because he runs back and forth between the moulders’ bench and the drying stove or bay.
   He never stops running while on the job.
  The child actually goes into the stove. It is hot and humid, and the shop itself it hot and dusty.—"News Chronicle,” February ,13th, 1942.

The Times said: —

  No one will question the patriotic intention of the trade union and the manufacturers’ association in agreeing to an extension of working hours. But it is highly doubtful whether the nation (not merely the industry) has any right to demand from young growing children, even in a time of acute emergency, such long hours of work, especially under the conditions which obtain generally in the pottery factories. The industry is scheduled as a dangerous trade on account of both silicosis and lead-poisoning. The children who assist the moulders work, at piecework pressure, in a hot, humid atmosphere heavy with silica. Many of the factories are said to be old-fashioned, ill-lit, and badly ventilated. It is blind-alley employment, and the work yields no training for other occupations.— “Times" February 13th, 1942.

#    #    #    # 

The Communists and Mr. Churchill

Early in 1939 when Mr. Churchill was not in the Government the Communists wanted him in. As soon as he got in they were demanding his removal. Now they are supporting him again. The following statements deserve to be recorded.

At the People’s Convention held in January, 1941, the Communists were demanding a People’s Government and a People’s Peace, and Mr. Harry Pollitt said that he wanted to see “ the victory of the people of this country over its real enemies in the Churchill Government and the policy it is pursuing at the present moment.” He added: —

  When we are united we are powerful. Let us be proud of our power and use it. The Churchill Government will be removed and a Government giving realisation to the programme and policy you are deciding to-day will be brought to power.—Report, page 48.

Just a year later, when a vote of confidence in the Churchill Government was carried in the House of Commons (28th and 29th January), Mr. W. Gallacher, the Communist M.P., was one of the 464 who voted for the vote of confidence. In his speech he particularly condemned some Tory M.P.s because, he said, their desire "is to weaken the Prime Minister.” He ended his speech by saying, "in spite of my opposition to the Municheers and my feeling that there is much that is wrong in the Government, I will give a vote for the Government when the Division takes place ” (Hansard, 28th January, col. 8B9).

The various somersaults of the Communist spokesmen in this country must be considered in relation to the changes of policy of the Russian Government, and it will not have escaped notice that a little earlier the Moscow radio’s official announcer, when sending greetings to Churchill on his birthday, had said: —

  The Soviet people join with the British ally in their good wishes for their leader Winston Churchill. We are glad that England has the right man at the helm in the decisive hour.—“Daily Mail,” December 1st, 1941.

Messrs. Pollitt and Gallacher will claim, of course, that their views are their own, honestly arrived at. We do not question this, but we may be forgiven for remarking that they are so spell-bound by the Russian example that their minds are unable for any length of time to reach or hold any conclusion other than that of Moscow.

#    #    #    #

A Social Reform Chicken Comes Home to Roost

For many years the Labour Party imagined it was helping the workers by advocating changes in the method of raising taxes. In particular, the demand was made that the Government should raise all or most of its revenue by direct taxes on income such as income tax, excess profits tax, surtax, and less by "indirect” taxes such as taxes on beer, tobacco, etc. The argument was that indirect taxes raise the prices of the articles taxed and thus reduce the purchasing power of the workers’ wages. Not understanding what are the real factors governing the workers' standard of living the Labour Party failed to notice that no matter whether prices are higher or lower, wages always tend to fall into line, and a fall in prices brings no material change because wages fall too. Now the chicken has come home to roost because the extension of income tax to lower levels of wages has brought an outcry from the workers affected. Below is an extract from a broadcast by Mr. W. Lawther, President of the Mineworkers’ Federation, dealing with workers’ complaints about income tax.

  When I was a youngster we used to pass resolutions for the abolition of indirect taxation and for the institution of direct taxation. Apparently now that we've got what we want, we don't want it.—"Daily Telegraph,” February 2nd, 1942.

Perhaps after this experience the workers will be less ready to interest themselves in the capitalists’ problem of methods of raising State revenue and will give more thought to their own problem of ending capitalism.

#    #    #    #

Gold Mining and the Shortage of Labour

In war-time we are told that all must work in essential industries and no labour must be wasted. Yet capitalism still goes on mining gold, refining it, and stowing it away in bank vaults. The City Editor of the News-Chronicle (February 14th, 1942) quotes from the American journal, Time:—

  “Gold,” says “Time,” "which nobody really needs is being mined at peak rates, while other crucially scarce metals are made even scarcer by the tightening pinch in mine labour, equipment, shipping space.” The British Empire Has over 500,000 workers employed in producing gold; the United States has 55,000. ‘‘Between them they swell the buried treasure at Fort Knox by a round 1,000 tons a year.”

Time says that the 30,000 Canadian miners ought to be put to other work, but adds the cryptic remark that South Africa is a different proposition since to withdraw from the Rand the 400,000 natives engaged in gold production would be to "let loose a pestilence in South Africa.”

#    #    #    #

There Is Still Money About

The following is from an account of the auction sale of wines from the cellar of Glyndebourne, the Sussex opera house:—

  I estimate that more than £17,000 was realised by the auction. Of the 1,200 dozens of hocks and moselles offered, the cheapest, a Forster Fleckinger Riesling 1936, sold at 260s. a dozen—21s. 8d. a bottle. A few dozen Forster Ungeheuer Riesling Auslese 1934 fetched 610s. a dozen—50s. 10d. a bottle. Average prices were round about 350s.-400s.
  The German wines were the focus of interest among the bidders, but champagnes, ports, sherries and clarets all fetched good prices, even for these days of restricted supplies.
   Four bottles of Cognac du Roi, Louis XVIII., 1820, were sold at £5 a bottle. What is believed to -e a record price was paid for 22 large bottles of Yellow Chartreuse at 1,360s. a dozen—£5 13s. 4d. a bottle.—"Daily Telegraph,” January 30th, 1942.

The seller of the wines, Mr. John Christie, was rather gloomy about the prospects of the rich after the war. He fears they will not be able to afford wines. "I feel,” he said, "that the patrons of the Festival after the war will prefer to see, say, iced lager on the tables around them rather than the expensive wines which they used to be able to afford. I regard this sale as a gesture to them.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Party Notes and News (1942)

Party News from the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Classes, Lectures, Discussions

Prior to the outbreak of the war, classes on diverse subjects were held at the old Headquarters in Southwark, and many of our readers will recall the highly successful lectures which were delivered under the auspices of the Bloomsbury Branch in Doughty Street, London. Many of the Bloomsbury lectures were repeated at various other London branches, and in some cases at branches in the provinces. War conditions, however, made it impossible for a time to continue this important activity. Gradually conditions improved sufficiently to enable us to organise a new effort aimed at developing the abilities of potential writers and lecturers, and generally fitting the members to increase their capacities for the propagation of Socialism.

Last September the first of a new series of classes on Marxian Economics, the Class Struggle, and Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern History was inaugurated. Com. C. Lestor was the tutor, and the classes were conducted every Monday evening at our new Headquarters. There was an average attendance of 35 keen students whose interest and enthusiasm were maintained throughout the course, which terminated in January. Another series to be run on similar lines is under consideration.

A writer’s training class, under the direction of Comrade H. Waite, is achieving encouraging results. Already a number of articles produced by the students of this class have been published in these columns, and as the class develops its full scope more articles will doubtless be forthcoming. The tutor is at present working on a scheme which may enable would-be writers for The Socialist Standard to receive tuition by correspondence.

Friday evenings are devoted to discussion meetings at which a Party speaker opens up the discussion on a subject previously selected by the organisers of the classes. Then follows a general discussion. Since the commencement of these meetings a variety of subjects, including many of topical interest, have been dealt with. Valuable experience has been gained by members who aspire to the Party’s platform. These meetings not only serve to increase the knowledge of members, but they afford many opportunities for them to develop their abilities to speak in public. The following Party speakers have contributed to the success of these meetings: Comrades Rubin, Waite, Turner, Cash, Young, Groves and Hardy. The average attendance at these meetings is 40 members.

On Sunday evenings, lectures have attracted audiences averaging about 60 members and sympathisers. Up to mid-February the syllabus and the lecturers were as follows: “ History of Political Economy,” Com. Goldie; ” Dictatorships, Ancient and Modern,” Com. Turner; “ History of Socialism,” Com; Cash; “ Federal Union,” Com. Groves; and ‘‘Tendencies for Socialism,” Com. Rubin. These lectures evoked great interest amongst the members, and the series is to be continued.

Although the foregoing classes and lectures are not the kind of activities from which the Party expects to benefit financially, the students have emphasised their enthusiasm by donating liberally.

The organisers are giving serious study to the question of enlarging the scope of the classes, and duplicating them in other parts of London. The possibility of extending aid to provincial branches to enable them to organise a similar effort is also under consideration.

In a few weeks the outdoor propaganda season will be here, and it is hoped that we shall be in a position to conduct an increased number of meetings as compared with last season.

Meanwhile, arrangements for debates are being made, and proposals for propaganda meetings in Manchester, Glasgow, Bristol, etc., are being examined by the Propaganda Committee. Fixtures, as they are made, will be announced in The Socialist Standard and advertised by other means.

Annual Conference

It is probable that the Party’s Annual Conference which is to be held on Good Friday, Saturday and Sunday, will be one of the most important and interesting in the history of our organisation.

Many delegates, members, and sympathisers from the provinces are expected to attend, and “exiles” from London will have the opportunity of renewing contacts.

Arrangements are being made to hold the Party Re-union and Dance in the evening of Easter Saturday. Details of the venue and times of the Conference, and of the Re-union, are announced elsewhere in this issue.

London comrades who are in a position to offer hospitality to delegates from the provinces during Easter, are asked to communicate details to the Social Committee at Head Office. A speedy response to this request will facilitate the task of fixing up suitable accommodation for our comrades.

H. G. Holt.

February, 1942.

To All Readers (1942)

Party News from the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

In these days of rising prices and income-tax demands, we hesitate to exploit the generosity of members and sympathisers by making further appeals for donations to Party funds. Necessity, however, forces us to overcome our reluctance in this matter, since donations are the means whereby the machinery of our organised activities may be oiled. Our task is to make Socialists, and the only way to fulfil that task is by propagating Socialist ideas through the medium of our publications and propaganda meetings. As printers require payment, and landlords require rent, we must have the money to enable us to continue our activities.

Since the eaters of surplus-value have no desire to assist us in advocating their abolition, it will be obvious that few millionaires can be expected to respond to this appeal, therefore we must rely on the self-sacrificing efforts of that section of society in whose interest the fight for Socialism is carried on— that is, the working class. Our experience is that there are an increasing number of people anxious to hear our case, and with the disillusionment that will surely come to large sections of the working class as a result of the failure of other political parties to solve their problems for them, we are convinced that many of them will be eager to listen to the only organisation which promises them nothing, but urges them to organise on the political field, in order to bring about their own emancipation. For various reasons, many sympathisers are unable to actively assist us, but let us give them the assurance that every penny they can contribute will be put to the most effective use. Our task is vital. Don't let it be said that lack of funds prevented us from carrying on. GIVE US ALL THE HELP YOU CAN.

Send donations to J. Butler, 298, Halley Road, Manor Park, E.12. P.O.s, cheques, etc., should be crossed and made payable to S.P.G.B.

A. Price (Party Funds Organiser).

Death of an Alberta Comrade (1942)

Obituary from the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

[Our Canadian comrades ask us to publish the following notice for the information of Canadian readers.]

Readers in Alberta will regret to learn of the death of Comrade Dan Pollitt, which occurred in July of last year, though we have only now received word of it. Though Comrade Pollitt never took the platform, he was a valued and untiring member of the former Calgary Branch, a thoughtful reader, regular in attendance at classes and meetings, and no one could beat him at selling tickets for entertainments to increase the Party funds. . Speakers will recollect with gratitude his services at the open-air Sunday meetings in the Park. He arranged the rostrum and the benches, and his genial countenance radiated encouragement to the speakers. After an afternoon in the scorching Alberta sun the speakers appreciated the hospitality and shade of the Pollitts' pleasant bungalow, where they were welcomed by members of the family. Discussions were engaged in till a late hour and the less informed members received much enlightenment there. Mrs. Pollitt is still in Calgary, and we extend our sympathy to her.

Are The Workers Better Off During The War? (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

As happened during the last war there is much exaggerated talk about the supposed high wages earned by workers in munition factories and the demand is frequently made that the Government should put a stop to all wage increases or even reduce the level of civilian pay to that of men in the armed Forces. The policy of the Government is, however, the more cautious one of deprecating all-round increases of wages while leaving the various arbitration and negotiating bodies free to sanction wage increases in certain cases, "particularly among comparatively low paid grades and categories of workers, or for adjustment owing to changes in the form, method or volume of production." This policy of trying to stabilise the general level of wages is linked with the policy of preventing the prices of a number of essential foodstuffs from rising above the present level. To do this large subsidies are paid to producers of such articles as wheat, milk, meat and bacon, and the retail prices are controlled.

As far as it is possible to describe what has taken place with regard to wages and prices, by means of figures, the position is fairly clear. It gives no support whatever to the claim that wages have outstripped the rise in the cost of living. The Ministry of Labour Cost of Living Index shows a rise from 155 in September, 1939, to 200 in February, 1942. This increase of 45 points represents a percentage rise of 29% above the level of September, 1939. As regards the level of wage rates for a normal week’s work, the Ministry of Labour Gazette (January, 1942) shows that the average increase due to wage increases and war bonuses since September, 1939, has been about 26% or 27%. It will be seen, therefore, that wages have barely kept pace with the rise of the cost of living index figure. If in some industries wages have risen by a larger percentage this is offset by the many industries in which the rise has been much smaller.

The critics who talk about high wages ignore the above official figures and either seize upon the few exceptional cases where the increase has been larger or else use a quite different set of figures which relate not to the standard wage for a normal week’s work but to earnings for the very long hours now being put in, earnings which include of course payment for overtime and Sunday work.

A typical case was a complaint in the House of Commons on January 20th, 1942, that youths under 21 were earning "excessive” wages. The figure mentioned was 50s. 5d. a week, but, as the Ministry of Labour pointed out, this happened to apply in only one out of many industries, and the average for all industries was only 40s. 7d.. Moreover, it made no allowance for the fact that owing to the scarcity of adult workers many of the youths in question are doing work formerly done by older men; ’incidentally without regard to the possible danger to their health through undue physical strain and long hours.

One critic of the earnings of juveniles, Lady Bonham-Carter, complained that production has suffered through the fact that a young munition maker may be receiving more than a Civil Defence worker or soldier. “It does not seem," she said, “to rest on justice" (News Chronicle, February 5th, 1942). Needless to say, she did not develop her case and apply it to the whole capitalist class who are much concerned with inequalities inside the ranks of the working class but turn a blind eye on the fact that they as a propertied class receive their incomes simply by virtue of ownership and without the need to work at all.

Another relevant factor in any comparison between the rise of prices and the rise of wage-rates is that the Cost of Living Index is at best a very defective measure of the extent to which the cost of the workers’ necessities has risen since September, 1939. Even the Ministry of Labour do not claim that it is an accurate guide, being based as it is on the kind of articles a working class family bought in 1914. It should be added that even if the index were more accurate it would not make any appreciable difference to the working class. Wage negotiations may be to some degree influenced by such figures, but the index does not lay down a minimum level below which wages should not fall. All it does it to show to what extent the cost of the articles bought by workers has risen over a period of time. If all wages were brought into line with an accurately measured rise of prices since September, 1939, that would still, leave millions of workers in the position they were in before the war of being unable to afford the food and clothing, etc., required to maintain them in health and efficiency, let alone comfort. If, under war conditions of long hours of work, some of them actually earn enough to buy more of the bare necessities, it is only at the expense of their leisure, and in the long run, of their health. Capitalism is still with us. The wages system is still the wages system, and the remedy is not the reformist one of regulating wages and prices but of abolishing capitalism and the wages system in their entirety.

Edgar Hardcastle

Fish and Conchies (1942)

From the March 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sunday Pictorial publishes letters from its readers under the title of "Voice of the People." On Sunday, January 25th, a hater of conchies urged that they should all be made to catch fish with pay at 1s. a day. Alternatively, they should be issued with conspicuously marked ration books which only allowed them foods which men have NOT risked their lives to get.

So conchies should catch fish for one shilling a day! Speaking of fish, we remember a time when particularly large catches of fish were thrown back into the sea. This happened, of course, in the piping days of peace and prosperity. They were discarded, because certain interested capitalists feared that so large an abundance might interfere with their rate of profit. Many workers, particularly the free unemployed, would have enjoyed some of this "surplus" fish.

May we be permitted to suggest that it would be quite a good idea to make the individuals responsible do a spot of fishing themselves. Possibly, after several months at sea, they would consider the advisability of tipping unwanted catches into the briny.

But, of course, these people are not conscientious objectors. They are busy trying to fight, or urging others to fight, for freedom—the freedom to burn food, pour milk down the drains, use wheat as fuel, and, of course, thrown fish into the sea, as their profit-making activities require.

The view that conchies should not be allowed to eat food for which other men have risked their lives affords us some cynical amusement.  Workers also risk their lives during the periods of capitalist peace. They suffer mutilation and death in the mines and factories. And the fruit of their labour is used to make easy and joyful the lives of the propertied few. Shall we issue these people with specially marked ration books? But ah, they are not conscientious objectors.

Kaye.