Editorial: The Budget (1948)

Editorial from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Budget time there is always a certain amount of excitement among the workers, rather like that about the result of the Oxford and Cambridge boat race—and with about as much justification. Always there is that mixture of hopes and fears—will beer and cigarettes go down? Will overtime be freed from income tax? Will purchase tax be reduced? Sir Stafford Cripps managed to please and displease nearly everyone, a bit on here, a bit off there. Beer and tobacco up a little, income tax down a little, purchase tax up on some things and down on others. The other principal features of the Budget were the capital levy which will raise about £100 millions from 140,000 of the very rich, the reiteration of the policy of freezing wages at their present level except where special factors justify an increase, and a refusal to freeze profits or to tax them more heavily. On this last point Cripps contented himself with a warning that if companies do increase their dividends to shareholders this year he will consider imposing a limit next year.

Speaking for the. Conservative opposition, Sir John Anderson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, criticised certain features of the Budget, particularly the special levy, but otherwise be welcomed Sir Stafford Cripps’ “realistic and honest approach.” The Manchester Guardian (April 7th, 1948) praised it as “a strong, honest, and radical Budget,” and remarked of the capital levy that it is “in fact a stiff individual profits tax winch falls where it should, on the large personal capital.” That newspaper’s City Editor (April 7th, 1948) went further and showed that it is not even very stiff:–

”The levy on capital will not be severe even for those holding very large amounts of capital. Assuming an investment yield of 5 per cent. the tax would amount to 2½ per cent. on a capital of over £100.000.”

We may sum up by saying that if the workers find that the Budget makes little difference to their position so do the capitalists, and this is true of all Budgets no matter whether the Government is Conservative, or Labour. It explains why the Socialist refuses to get excited about Budget prospects.

What the working class get out of the capitalist system is the wage or salary they receive for selling their energies to the employers (including the Government and the administrative Boards which are Ihe employers in nationalised undertakings), and wages follow fairly closely the rises and falls of the cost of living. This is not an automatic process of adjustment, but takes place through the pressure and counter pressure exerted by the employing class and the workers in strikes and lockouts. When prices are falling unemployment is usually heavy enough to enable the employers to force down wages. When unemployment is at a very low point, as at present, it is easier for the workers to struggle for higher wages and thus try to maintain their standard of living in face of recently rising prices. Those who urge the workers not to take advantage of the present low unemployment to press for higher wages may discover at no very distant date that the opportunity will have passed. Unemployment will be the order of the day; or, as the City Editor of the News Chronicle puts it (April 10th, 1948), ”with the country probably over the inflationary hump and perhaps set on the, road to deflation with the help of the recent Budget.” Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist secretary of the Miners’ Union, apparently is among the short-sighted. According to the Daily Worker (April 6th, 1948) he said at Leicester, “The miners had not taken full advantage of the law of supply and demand of labour. If they had wages would have been much higher.”

When Cabinet spokesmen oppose higher wages they do so because their immediate and predominant responsibility, by virtue of being the Government, is to keep the capitalist system functioning in the only way that capitalism can function, that is by enabling the capitalists to make profits. The Labour Party grew up on the mistaken belief that under Labour Government there would be great possibilities to raise wages by cutting into profits. Rather late in the day some of them, certainly Sir Stafford Cripps, have come up against the, harsh truth that those who administer the capitalist system have very limited freedom of action—on all important issues they can depart little from the practice of their Conservative predecessors. Official figures on the proportion of the national income which goes as salaries, wages and rent and profits, etc., bring this out clearly. In 1938 wages accounted for 39 per cent., salaries for 24 per cent., and profits, rent and interest for 37 per cent. In 1947 wages accounted for 44 per cent., salaries 20 per cent., and rent, profits, etc., 36 per cent. (See Economist, April 10th, 1948, p. 596.) In each case the figures are after meeting income tax.) It will be observed that the percentage going to wages and salaries together, i.e., 63 per cent. in 1938 and 64 per cent. in 1947 has hardly changed at all, likewise the percentage to rent, profit, etc.—37 per cent. in 1938 and 36 per cent. in 1947.

This is the dilemma of all Labour Governments, but no such dilemma faces Socialists. Socialism is not a scheme for redistributing wealth and income inside capitalism, but a system of society to replace the capitalist system

Notes by the Way: This Millionaire Business (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

This Millionaire Business

Mr. Bernard Harris, of the Sunday Express, is worried because under Labour Government (he calls it “Socialism”) “you have no chance to-day of starting a business in Britain which will make you a millionaire before you die.” (Sunday Express, April 11th, 1948.) It seems that the harvest of millionaires has been falling for generations so that to-day “there are only 244 millionaires in Britain. They are the people with incomes of £50,000 a year or more.”

Mr. Harris does not go so far as to say that there will be no new millionaires, but he fears they won’t be hard-working lads like their fathers, but will become millionaires the easy way, “by inheritance or out-and-out speculation.”

“The self-made millionaire, in the sense of the man who has created a vast business from small beginnings, is a fast disappearing species. And he is the only valuable kind.”

He quotes an unnamed jam millionaire who was asked 50 years ago “to give 12 rules for making a million,” and replied, “Repeat ‘hard work’ 12 times.”

So the good millionaires make their money by hard work, and the other millionaires are not good ones. This leads to some curious conclusions. Lord Derby, who died in February last, left property valued at £1,937,838 (Evening Standard, April 8th, 1948), but though he inherited his estates and therefore does not fall into Mr. Harris’s group of valuable millionaires, we do not recall that the Sunday Express ever condemned him as an example of a no-good rich man. Nor did Lord Derby think it of himself. When he was Tory Postmaster-General in 1905 it was the postmen whom he thought were no good. He had nasty things to say about some of them who were trying to work up electoral opposition to him and other M.P.s because, after a Committee appointed by the Government had recommended increases of pay, the Government would not carry out the whole of the recommendations. Lord Derby called the postmen blackmailers and bloodsuckers though later he withdrew the “bloodsuckers” when he found what a storm of criticism it produced The postmen, most of them earning probably between 25s. and 30s. a week, were certainly hard-working— their employer saw to that—but it never got them anywhere.

Mr. Harris also tells us that “there were the Wills, of tobacco fame. Eleven members of that family have died since 1909 leaving a total of £38,000,000 between them.”

In November last Sir William Churchman, a director of the Imperial Tobacco Co. and partner in Churchman’s, died worth £1,102,719. (Evening Standard, 7/2/48).

These ladies and gentlemen got their wealth out of business, in the way Mr. Harris approves but if hard work is the explanation one wonders why the hard-working cigarette makers never get into the millionaire group like their employers.

The truth is, of course, that all great fortunes, whether inherited or acquired during the owner’s lifetime, came out of the unpaid labour of the working class.

* * *

The Garibaldi Communists

When Communists fight elections it is on the principle that no dishonesty is barred provided it gets votes. In Italy, according to a correspondent of the Sunday Express (11/4/48), they are appealing to patriotic sentiment.

“The Red Flag is nowhere to be seen; no hammer and sickle signs disfigure the walls. With a lack of scruple that takes the breath away they proclaim Garibaldi their hero. His head appears on most of their posters.”

However, it seems that Garibaldi’s 81-year-old daughter is still alive and she objects to Communists “hiding behind her father’s picture.”

“Her father,” she said, “never approved of Communism.” “It was founded by a German (Marx) who always hated Garibaldi.” (Daily Mail, 12/4/48.)

* * *

“Freedom of the Press” in Russia

In Russia no political party is legal except the Communist Party and no publication is permitted that opposes the Communist Party. At the United Nations Conference at Geneva on 29th March, 1948, an American delegate, Mr. Harry Martin, president of the American Newspaper Guild, was challenged to produce proof of his statement that in Russia the press is controlled by the Government. According to a Reuter and Associated Press report Manchester Guardian, 30/3/48) he did so by reading out the Statute which in 1931 gave control of publications to a State organisation known as “Gavlit.”

“It authorised the Gavlit administration to forbid the publication of any works containing ‘agitation and propaganda against the Soviet authority and the dictatorship of the proletariat.’ It entrusted Gavlit with ‘preliminary and subsequent control over published literature both from the political-ideological and from the military and economic viewpoints,’ and authorised confiscation of disapproved publications and the prosecution of persons ‘violating the demands of Gavlit, its organs and authorised representatives’.” (Manchester Guardian 30/3/48.)

The News Chronicle's own correspondent at Geneva reported that although the Russian delegate addressed the Conference after the above had been quoted “he made no reference to Mr. Martin’s quotation.” (News Chronicle, 30/3/48.)

* * *

Japan’s the Friend, not China

Honor Tracy, correspondent in Japan of the Observer, reports that American policy has taken a new turn. “Under this policy Japanese economy is to be restored as quickly as possible, with liberal American help, in the hope of creating better conditions, not only in Japan herself but in the Far East as a whole. Japan is thus to become ‘the workshop of Asia’ as she has always claimed is her proper function.” (Observer, 11/4/48.)

The Report continues :

“Travellers returning to Tokyo from China report . . . indignation that the proposed grants and loans to Japan during the present year should be so much greater than what is being offered to China. The American view, on the other hand, is that China is now disintegrating so fast as to make outside help ineffective.”

It looks as if the “brave Eastern allies” in next war may be the Japs, while China qualifies for the position of a horrid dictatorship.

* * *

Lancashire’s Exports

Mr. Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, speaking in London on 9th April, 1948, referred to the struggle to find markets abroad for textiles. “Although the problem of production of textiles this year’ is going to be the biggest problem this country has ever faced, the problem of selling them is going to be even greater, particularly in face of the enormous import restrictions in three-quarters of the trading world. We have put strong diplomatic pressure on every country which is imposing restrictions against us and we have in our various trade negotiations made it a cardinal point to try to open the market wherever possible …” (Manchester Guardian, 10/4/48.)

One of Lancashire’s competitors is Japan and another is U.S.A. Mr. Ewing, Chairman of the Bradford Dyers’ Association, according to a Manchester Guardian report of a speech, “was worried about Japanese competition. Exports of Japanese cotton textiles increased rapidly during 1947 and were equal to three-quarters of Lancashire’s trade. The United States was also developing export trade. Mr. Ewing therefore stressed the need for quality and inventiveness.” (Manchester Guardian, 12/4/48.)

In the meantime, while Japan fights to sell more textiles outside Japan, U.S.A. to sell more textiles outside U.S.A., and Britain to sell more outside Britain, the President of the Board of Trade tells us that “if textile, production does not buck up the clothing ration may have to be reduced.” (Daily Mail, 13/4/48.)

* * *

Is the Church an Essential Industry?

A News Chronicle reporter tells readers that “latest figures show that only 4,000 vicars and rectors have a net income of between £400 and £500 a year. Five thousand earn less than £400—and some hundreds have even less than £300. (News Chronicle, 10/4/48.) He says that parents today will not enter their sons for the Church because of the low pay and “a drive has begun to establish a £500 minimum for vicars and £260 for assistant curates.”

This is all very well but is the Church so other worldly that it hasn’t heard about “wage-freezing” and the policy of allowing increases only in essential industries or where there is increased production?

* * *

Social Reform is not Socialism

While the Daily Express (8/4/48) tells us that things are worse here than in America because “in Britain we have Socialism,” the Daily Mail will have none of it. Criticising a speech in which Mr. Attlee claimed we have had our Socialist social revolution the Mail wrote (24/1/48) :

“For such claptrap read ordinary ‘social reform.’ Bigger names stand upon that role than those of Attlee and Bevin. We cite Disraeli, Chamberlain, Asquith, Lloyd George, Churchill, Baldwin.”

We can leave them to fight out the issue which party achieved more reforms of capitalism. As Socialists we heartily endorse the statement that it is claptrap to describe social reform as Socialism.

* * *

The “Daily Worker” is disappointed with Indian Capitalism

Socialists never supported the Indian Nationalist movement, knowing well that the propertied interests which financed and controlled it were only concerned with making India safe for Indian capitalism. Not so the Communists. They urged Indian workers to support Nehru and the Congress Party. Now the Daily Worker professes to be astonished because Nehru’s government treats the Indian workers in the same way that they were treated under British rule.

“What is happening in India? The British trade unionist may well rub his eyes in astonishment. Trade union leaders are being arrested and repressive action is being taken against the Communist Party . . .

“Such happenings were frequent under British rule, but India is now said to be free . . . The plain fact is that little has changed in India except that it is now ruled directly by the Indian capitalists, landlords and princes by grace of the British Imperialists.” (Daily Worker, 9/4/48.)

There is nothing to cause astonishment in the discovery that Indian capitalism is like any other hut how comes it that the Daily Worker should ever have supposed that it would he different?

Edgar Hardcastle

Alberta Calling—and the Socialist Reply (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Most people, I suppose, regard Karl Marx as the prophet of Communism, but that is not really correct. 

“Communism — meaning the common ownership of goods—was known in the world for many years before Karl Marx was even heard of. What Karl Marx preached was Marxism—a form of Communism which relies upon force and oppression.”

This statement, together with many others equally vague or inaccurate, comes all the way from Alberta, broadcast by one Richard J. Needham. Unlike most modern critics of Marx—who usually commence by paying him tribute for the scientific character of his works—Mr. Needham tries to belittle him by referring to him as prophet arid preacher. A good critic should never belittle the object of his criticism at the start, that should emerge as he unfolds his criticism. If Marx had been a mere ranter there would be no special virtue in having exposed him. But what is of even greater importance, Mr. Needham should have made himself acquainted with Marxism before he rushed to the microphone to talk about it.

It is true Communism existed before Marx. It was practised in ancient society, was, in fact, the normal mode of social life, but was obviously not known by that name at the time. The word was first used in the early days of the working-class movement and was derived from the French commune, or village community. The communal way of life prevailed, too, among savage tribes discovered in fairly recent times. It is said to have been practised by the monks in the early days of the Christian era. But none of these examples, as Marx said, is to be compared with the higher communism to come; which is only possible when the working class have come to realise that class ownership of the means of life is inconsistent with the free development of humanity.

To Mr. Needham Russia is the embodiment of Marxism. Soviet Russia, for him, is Marxism in practice, hence, for him, to expose the Russian way of life is to smash Marxism. He says :

“This, of course, is what has happened in Russia. Capitalism has been destroyed, but we can scarcely say that Communism has taken its place. What has happened is that a dictatorship has been set up—not exactly a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship acting in the name of the proletariat. Sympathisers with Communism tell us that this dictatorship, as Marx proclaimed, is purely temporary, but it does not seem very temporary. Although it has been in effect thirty years, it still shows no signs of giving way to parliamentary democracy as we understand it.”

Capitalism in Russia destroyed; a temporary state called dictatorship established; and, as yet, no signs of parliamentary democracy as we understand it, Which means: we destroy capitalism, establish dictatorship and progress backwards, or is it forward? to capitalism. What is the truth?

America and Russia are the two greatest capitalist powers in the world, the two greatest powers in the present conflict of power-politics. America with her dollars and her atom bombs, and Russia grabbing oil fields, plutonium and other raw materials in readiness to answer the American challenge for world supremacy.

From this survey of the external facts it would appear that Russian capitalism is very much alive. What about the internal facts? The Supreme Soviet of Russia with all its political and industrial machinery is built on wage labour. The surplus value, over and above the cost of living of Russian workers, now flows into the coffers of the totalitarian state and is divided among officials, political, military and industrial, according to their usefulness in the Soviet schemes for power.

The leaders of the so-called Russian revolution have achieved power over the mass of their fellow countrymen. They lead, or push them into the industrial or military conflict for world domination in a capitalist world, under the dictates of the supreme Soviet. They are as firmly in control of their subjugated millions as the American capitalist class with its control of the political machinery. No Russian worker can escape the efficiency and widely flung tentacles of the Russian Government.

Orders are issued from the top, and they must be obeyed. They are obeyed. What would Wall Street not give to have their wage-slaves under such perfect control? Scared stiff by Hollywood reds and talk of Communists in official positions, they would care little at being dubbed fascist or gestapo, if their power to enforce their orders were equal to that of the Russian leaders.

It is obvious, that there is no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, nor anywhere else, nor at any time, now, or in the future. When the working-class is in a position to dictate they will be democratically organised for the purpose they have agreed upon, and their organisation will be intellectually and technically equal to the task. Until then it is the capitalists that dictate, and the workers’ task is an individual one: to understand and help to organise for the day when deeds of ownership and share certificates in the land and means of wealth production will be abolished; and the working-class will carry on production, in a truly democratic manner, for the satisfaction of their needs. Next Mr. Needham quotes from Marx as follows:

“In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole means at the same time accumulation of misery, toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality and mental degradation at the opposite pole.”

All this is substantially true. With regard to the accumulation of wealth Mr. Needham might have discovered that it was beyond dispute. An American work entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means, gives the information that one half the corporate wealth of the United States is controlled by no more than 200 companies. While 2,500 officers and directors own between them two thousand million dollars of capital; most of it in the hands of about 250 men who occupy the decisive executive positions.

Mr. Needham does not agree that this accumulation of wealth at one pole means poverty at the other, he says :

“The wages paid to factory workers in Canada and the United States are higher than have ever been paid to factory workers anywhere—not only in the money sense, but also in actual purchasing-power. Millions of factory workers in North America own comfortable houses and up-to-date automobiles.”

A higher standard of living is only made possible by the industry of the workers. But enjoyment of that higher standard by the workers is always opposed by the capitalists. The realisation of it can only come through hard bargaining and often strikes. Higher wages are not the result of generosity or fairness. They are paid for special qualifications, or as a compromise against still higher demands.

But ownership of a comfortable house and automobile is not confined to America. In most capitalist countries, there may not be millions, but there are more or less in a comparable position. This was proved in the last depression, when many thousands worsened the crisis because they could not keep up payments for cars, radio sets and refrigerators.

From the millions of factory workers owning houses and cars take a look at the other side of the picture. Of the slums in all the large towns, where millions do actually live in the grip of perpetual poverty. Where the conditions of existence are below any decent civilised standard. An American periodical, “Fortune,” ,says:

“About 31 per cent. of American homes lack running water; more than ten million dwelling units have no modern plumbing facilities. Eighteen million families are without baths. More than eight million families are without electric light, or power.” (Quoted in Daily Worker, August 1st, 1947.)

These figures possibly cover America’s notorious slums, but weighed in the balance against Mr. Needham’s doubtful millions, the misery side of the scale sags definitely. From the mortgaged or slum home to the factory:

“The factories, of course, have vastly improved under capitalism. People do their jobs under conditions strictly laid down by law. The manufacturing plants of Canada and the United States are the roomiest, the best lighted, the safest and most comfortable in the world. The milk and bread, the fruit and meat consumed by Canadian and American workers has to pass the most rigid tests.”

Who makes the factories roomy and keeps them clean? Not the capitalist owners. Neither is it permitted by them out of consideration for their wage-slaves. The housing of the machine must keep pace with its development. Machines are expensive, and must be suitably housed and protected from weather if they are to replace their value with the sale of products before they are worn out. While the workers who keep them running at top speed must work with ease if they are to last out the shift. And the capitalists who rely on these workers will not tolerate any tampering with food that would diminish their workers’ efficiency or constitute a danger to themselves.

According to Mr. Needham Marx made many mistakes. No doubt he did in minor matters, but in the general analysis of the capitalist system, and the part the workers should play to achieve their freedom he was sound. Mr. Needham says :

“Marx made the greatest mistake when he told the workers to rise up, in blood and fury, and destroy their compatriots: He made his greatest mistake when he called upon them to engage in class warfare.”

Is there a class war? Is there class hatred? The Socialist knows that the capitalists in America, as elsewhere, suppress strikes in blood and fury.” He knows that those strikes are evidence of the conflict of interests in. the basis of capitalist society. Evidences of these conflicting interests are present all over the world; in America, the most advanced capitalist country, more so than anywhere else. The workers all over the world to-day struggle blindly on the industrial field to maintain their meagre standard of living. When, they realise that their struggle is inherent in the system because of its class ownership of the means of life, they will organise consciously for control of the machinery of government, in order that they may abolish class ownership and establish Socialism. A truly democratic system of all the people, who will control production and distribution according to their needs.

F. Foan

“The Third Way” by Wilfred Wellock. A Review (1948)

Pamphlet Review from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

This topical pamphlet accepts the common outlook to-day that the people of Britain must choose between “Russian Communism,” the “American way of life,” or “a third way,” and Mr. Wellock gives us directions so that we may go with him along his “third way.”

In the present state of world affairs, Mr. Wellock realises that the policies of the great powers in scrambling for export markets is a hopeless solution to their national problems and that when the markets of the world are again glutted a slump will occur. He also realises that the logical end of such policies is a third world war, complete with atomic atrocities.

He also mentions the point that many countries which previously were good markets for the older established producers are now producing many things within their own frontiers which hitherto they have purchased. The extension of this process makes it much more difficult for the, older nations to export more than they used to.

In order to gain the support of the workers for their programme of increased production the Labour Government has produced its version of the old illusion that only by this means can they raise their standard of living. Mr. Wellock, although an ex-Labour M.P., disagrees with this policy, but from a peculiar point of view.

He is much concerned with the spiritual uplift of the people. “The unbalanced economics of to-day are the product of greed and naked power politics, have wrought untold economic and spiritual harm, and must he superseded by an economy that is based on human need, spiritual and economic.” (P. 23.)

He appears to think that an increase in the standard of living will simply result in the workers spending more money on beer, cigarettes, football pools, and other frivolous pleasures and pastimes. The development of mass production has produced the “mass mind and the mass man.” Is the drive to increase the standard of living worth while, then? Mr. Wellock does not think so, unless we change entirely our scale of values, and in doing so revise entirely our concept of the meaning of “standard of living.”

“Our job, in fact, is to find that better way of life for which the whole world is looking, and not- east the people of Britain. That ‘way’ will place in their right order material and spiritual factors so that both may make their maximum contribution to the achievement of that abundant life which the human soul in its silent and better moments knows to be within man’s reach.” (P. 24.)

Following such a “change of heart,” society would demand, according to Mr. Wellock, a reversion to decentralised small-scale economy in which each individual could feel he had a responsible place. Machines would be put to “their right use which is to assist man in making things of the highest quality and beauty.” Consequently, Mr. Wellock visualises a return to an economy of craftsmen and craftsmanship, and his “way” calls for nothing less than the rebuilding of civilisation on new foundations, which are, he believes, the creative and social values of Christianity.

Like the bulk of these petty reformists, Mr. Wellock has a totally false conception of the world in which we live. Whilst he is able to see a lot of the evils which exist, on the surface, they are the results of causes which he has not yet grasped, causes of which he has no knowledge.

All the evils which Mr. Wellock criticises—modern war, dictatorship, “money values,” monotonous labour, etc.—arise from the kind of society in which we live, capitalism. These evils arise from certain material causes, e.g., war from national capitalist rivalries over sources of raw materials, markets, trade routes, etc. ; “money values” from the production of commodities for sale at a profit; monotonous labour from the introduction of machinery for the purpose of cheapening prices. These bad things do not exist because man is bad. These bad things are the normal workings of capitalism. Neither are these bad things bad for everybody. There is no doubt they are had for the workers, the vast majority of the people—not because workers have bad thoughts but because they have no property. Conversely these things are good for the capitalist class, or sections of it, because they serve a purpose in protecting private property and profits.

Mr. Wellock has no knowledge, or studiously avoids disclosing it, of the division of society into two classes, propertyless workers and propertied capitalists, or of the historical development of human society from primitive communism through chattel slavery and feudalism to capitalism, otherwise he would not be wastiug his time advocating a return to the conditions of a mediaeval economy.

His pamphlet bears the hall-mark of the well meaning social reformer who, failing to understand the material causes which underlie the great and grave problems confronting the working class, takes refuge in the worn-out belief that only by retreating to pre-capitalist conditions will these problems be solved.

Far from it—the clock cannot be put back.

The “way” lies forward, along paths not yet trodden by the foot of man, but clearly marked on the map for those willing to read, “To Socialism.”

N.S.

A Letter from Vienna (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amongst cables and letters of greeting and good wishes received by our 44th Annual Conference in London at Easter, was the following letter from an early member of the Party now in Vienna.

16th March, 1948.

“Please convey to the Conference a salute and good wishes from a number of comrades and sympathisers in this city.

“If the promises and hopes held out in previous messages to Conferences have remained unfulfilled— which no one regrets more than I do—let us find consolation in the fact that we have at least survived bombs and totalitarian terrorism so that we can still kindle the light that must eventually pierce the dark clouds and penetrate the hearts and brains of the workers. Greater efforts in these past years might very possibly have led to the extinction of even these few torch bearers in this tortured Continent. Remember we are not in England, but East of it. As it is, we can still watch our opportunity, and opportunity is a fine thing for us also. So, when the stock taking is made at the Conference, delegates might be justified in booking even this weak point of contact as a small asset for the movement.

“The existence of the scientific and solid instrument of the S.P.G.B. has always been a strong ray of hope and comfort to me. It seems to shine brighter and brighter as the world situation is deteriorating and increasingly menacing, and confusion in the labour movement is growing apace. As the bankruptcy of ideas, policies, and the general helplessness becomes glaringly more evident, can it be doubted that when the third crisis approaches, the party’s message will at last be heard and taken up in wider circles as the only possible way out of an appalling dilemma?

“I am forever grateful for the education received at the S.P.G.B. University, which puts people on the track of understanding and explaining social phenomena when every other theory and action has failed and events leave men utterly bewildered. The scientific outlook on and attitude to life which Socialism gives, has enabled me, too, to steer clear of all vicious temptations and avoid the pitfalls of quackery and confusion.

“As long as I live, you can always count me amongst the most ardent and steadfast upholders of the cause. My work has in the past had to be on a very limited scale, but who can say whether even the humblest of us will not sooner or later become the medium of quickening the pace of progress and find his hands strengthened and forced by events? At this juncture, we cannot, of course, escape the vital importance of seeing at least Democracy maintained as against the renewed evil onslaughts that are being made in many quarters, including the country from which I write.

“With renewed good wishes for the success of your Conference, I remain, Yours fraternally……”

Rudolf Frank

Although the Socialist message penetrates to and finds acceptance in many parts of the world, the points of contact are small and limited, hut we definitely assure our Viennese comrades that we regard our contact with them as a real asset to our movement. We can also assure all our well-wishers in other lands, that if hopes held out in messages to this Conference remain unfulfilled by the time we hold our next one, it will be our misfortune and not our fault.

Overseas Secretary.

Our Message For May Day, 1948 (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

This time a hundred years ago the European world was immersed in conflicts that were bom out of the struggle of Capitalist industry to smear its murky thumb across the pages of history. Since then it has spread across the world, carrying war, ruin and misery in its wake.

Although the wounds of the last war are still open, millions still fret over the loss of their loved ones, and hunger and disease are ravaging a large part of the population of Europe and the East, the leading powers of the world are preparing to engage in another war tragedy with means of torment and destruction more terrible than mankind has ever known in even the most murderous epochs of its history. With cynical hypocrisy, after so recently exchanging vows of eternal peace and mutual congratulations about the final destruction of the dragon of autocracy which, they claimed, had for so long threatened the peace of the world, our masters, again bring forward, as an imperative justification for a new period of slaughter, the worn out claim of a battle to safeguard democracy. Thus in a world still suffering and torn by the dissensions thrown up by the last useless holocaust of slaughter, the war clouds are fast gathering again.

This new war that is foreshadowed is a struggle between the Eastern and the Western imperialistic powers, the old brigands and the new. In this country the Labour Party are in the seat of power and their attitude to the problem of war is the same as that of their predecessors in power—the defence of the interests of the British section of the capitalist class. The Communists, in their blind worship of Russia under the Bolsheviks, are defending the imperialistic policy of Russia in language that is a repetition of the familiar pleas put forward on behalf of the older imperialistic powers.

In these circumstances it is necessary to call attention once again to the following facts:

• That the wealth of the world is produced by the labour of the working class of the world, who receive in return wages that are barely enough to provide a poor existence for themselves and their families;
• That the wealth so produced takes the form of commodities, which are sold on the markets of the world on behalf of the capitalist class, the owners of the means of production, for the sole purpose of providing a profit for that class in order to enable its members to live in luxury without the necessity of working;
• That this profit represents the difference between the value of what the worker produces and the value of what he gets, in the form of wages or salaries, to provide him and his family with means of subsistence;
• That the pursuit of this profit, the result of the exploitation of the workers, is the fundamental cause of all modern wars which are quarrels between sections of the master class over the division of the spoil arising out of the robbery of the working class;

That, therefore, the workers of the world should unite across the false barriers of territory, race, colour and creeds into one world-wide combination of their class for the purpose of putting an end to their exploitation by abolishing the present system of capitalist production; in its place they should establish a socialist system, in which the means of production will he owned in common by the whole of mankind and used for the sole purpose of fulfilling equally the needs of each member of society, thus removing the profit motive as a social incentive and replacing it by the socialist principle of “from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs.”

As the establishment of this socialist system of society is the only means to prevent wars we call upon the workers of all lands to join together to accomplish this end and we point out the need for haste if the world is to be saved from a devastation that might well involve all in a common ruin and put an end to humanity’s progress for hundreds of years to come.

We further affirm our determination, whatever the immediate future may bring, to continue our policy of opposition to war and our advocacy of Socialism as the only solution to the problems that beset the working class, no matter on what part of the world’s surface sections of that class may be employed.

This is our message for May Day, and it is the only message of hope in a world that appears to be on the verge of catastrophe.

Gilmac.

Annual Conference, 1948 (1948)

Party News from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“It's been the best conference I’ve ever attended,” said one old member of the party after the Conway Hall rally on Easter Sunday evening, and, to judge by the enthusiasm of the majority of those present at the rally, his views must have been shared by nearly everyone. It was three days' hard slogging for all of us, but we enjoyed it because in our own democratic way we spent the time in keeping the revolutionary weapon sharp. What a lesson in democracy in action there is to learn from the manner in which Socialists run their organisation! The whole conference belonged to delegates sent with their branch's mandates; Executive Committee members present had the right to speak—but not to act.

Here are some of the things decided upon by conference. The first item on Friday morning brought delegates up against our most urgent problem, the question of financial resources. In spite of a plea from provincial delegates, conference found itself compelled to instruct the Executive Committee not to proceed during 1948 with filling the vacant posts of paid organisers, but to review the question again in twelve months' time. The decision was made solely because of our weak financial position. The discussion of propaganda took a lot of time on Friday, but as propaganda is the heart of our activity the time was well spent Conference rejected the idea of appointing a full-time propagandist in London as opposed to full-time provincial propagandists; it discussed the appropriate propaganda in the present political situation; it declined to alter the party tradition of giving free admission to all our meetings, and it declared that we should be prepared to debate with any political party —this after turning down resolutions which would have kept Fascist organisations off our debating platforms. Conference then altered our rule book by making the literature distribution department the responsibility of the Executive Committee and not that of a Literature Secretary appointed by party ballot.

On the second day we started with greetings from companion parties overseas and from an old member in Vienna who sent a very inspiring letter. After this we took the item “Electoral Action," and after a long discussion the branches, through their delegates, overwhelmingly defeated a resolution which wanted us to defer putting forward parliamentary candidates for the time being. Members of the Independent Labour Party, please take special note of this! Under the same heading we went on to discuss the attitude of a Socialist M.P. in the House of Commons towards reforms. This question was the subject of a prolonged series of debates in the party many years ago, and the position approved then was re-approved by conference without a dissentient. Those who are interested can find the party's attitude given in an answer to a correspondent in the February, 1910, issue of the “Socialist Standard." This answer is, by the way, being circulated in the full conference report sent to members. Space prevents us giving it here.

Late on the afternoon of the second day we started dealing with our publications. The first thing we talked about was the price being charged for our pamphlets. Some branches thought that they were too dear, and others that this sort of question was better left to the discretion of the Executive Committee. In the end a majority supported the latter view, but only after a keen debate. Then delegates really got to work. Pamphlets, pamphlets, pamphlets and still more pamphlets were asked for. The conference was reminded of paper and financial difficulties, but delegates were not deterred. They had the feeling that if we got stuff ready for the press, somehow or another we'd find the paper and the money too. Pamphlets specially mentioned were a short one on ‘‘War and the Working- Class," a revised edition of “Questions of the Day," and ‘‘Trade Unions.” Every month in this column we ask readers to help us financially, and we make the appeal again. Send as much as you can as quickly as you can. Socialists want all the written ammunition they can get hold of—it will be well used, but one of the curses of capitalism is that printing has to be paid for. Do what you can! Excuse the digression.

After pamphlets the "Socialist Standard" came under fire with a discussion on the desirability of publishing articles dealing with side issues on which party members might have varying views. No decision was arrived at and there was a wide divergence of opinion among delegates. It was pointed out to conference that the present policy is to publish articles providing they do not conflict with our position even if they contain material on other questions which represented only the writer's point of view. One branch was in favour of discontinuing the publication of “Party News Briefs" in the “Socialist Standard" as soon as possible, but found very little support. Branches appeared to consider them useful and informative.

Another revival in party history was a branch's suggestion to recommence an inter-party journal for circulation among members. We had one some years ago which had a brief existence before difficulties of production killed it. Here again no decision was arrived at, and delegates did not appear anxious, to commit themselves on the question. The discussion on party publications took us nearly up to-lunch-time on the third day, but during the morning conference had a report on the success of the Head Office tutorial class. They learned that the effort to turn out tutors able to run classes for party members was progressing in a very healthy fashion. The committee running the class was satisfied with the results, particularly as they aimed at something that took much longer than just preparing members for speaking on the party platforms.

Most of the afternoon of the third day was spent on an item of discussion which covered the method used by the party in its approach to workers organised in the trade unions, particularly those in factories, mills, mines, etc. A very wide field was traversed—much too wide to attempt to report here, but the final result was a request to the Executive Committee to get out a pamphlet, on Trade Unions as quickly as possible.

And so our 44th Annual Conference came to an end, and while most of us were washed out physically, our spirits were high and our minds refreshed. In all, during the conference we had 63 delegates representing 23 branches. And now for the relaxing side. First of all on Saturday evening the party had its annual fling at the Conway Hall where amiability was combined with agility on the dance floor. In view of the astonishing dexterity of some of the older members with their feet it is to be regretted that we only have these jive-sessions once a year. And then we think it reasonable to classify on the relaxing side the rally on Sunday evening. The hall was all but full and the whole atmosphere was one of enthusiasm and party well-being. The speakers concentrated their attention on the progress of the party, particularly in relation to those organisations which had derided us for what they claimed to be our ‘‘slow” methods. As they die one by one we gain in strength; and the audience provided an atmosphere which was stimulating and invigorating. They also donated £40 to our funds. And now for another twelve months' struggle towards our objective.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day is being celebrated by the Party on an extensive scale this year. The original plan was to conclude large outdoor demonstrations in Hyde Park with a bumper meeting in the Metropolitan Theatre on Sunday evening, May 2nd. Unfortunately, through no fault of ours, we cannot obtain the Metropolitan Theatre this year, and the Sunday evening rally is to take place in the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square. The May Day procession organised by the London Trades Council takes place on Saturday afternoon, May 1st, and our aim is to have at least 100 members selling literature and delivering handbills on the route. We have made application to use decorated trailers as platforms in Hyde Park both on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, and on the Saturday we hope to have an amplifying apparatus at work as well. The whole of our effort is being extensively advertised.. There is every reason to believe that, given reasonable weather, May 1st and 2nd will be something to remember in party history. We hear from the provinces that Manchester, Glasgow and Bristol are well ahead with their own plans for special May Day efforts. The speakers at the London Conway Hall meeting will be Cash, Turner and Groves.

The Summer Outdoor Propaganda Season is now off to a good start, and most branches will have their various stations at work by the time this issue is published. South-West London branch is spreading its wings a bit more this summer with meetings planned for Friday evenings at Comyn Road, Clapham Junction, Saturday evenings at Rushcroft Road, Brixton, and Sunday afternoons at Clapham Common.

Kingston Branch commenced their outdoor season on March 20th at Castle Street, Kingston, with a very successful meeting. During 1947 the Communist Party tried to establish meetings here. They invariably commenced them early, but as soon as our platform was erected their audiences evaporated and ours grew. This year the branch will commence their meetings at 6.30 p.m. to save the audience the trouble of moving from one platform to the other. The branch attempted to hold Saturday afternoon meetings and establish a literature stall in Kingston Market, but they were stopped by the police on the grounds of “Obstruction." When petrol is available the branch is going to organise Sunday propaganda outings to various south coast towns during the summer season.

Manchester Branch recently held a debate with the Stockport Labour Party at the Unity Hall in Stockport. The hall was packed—about 150 being present. The Labour Party’s representative was Councillor Watson, and our man was A. Mertons. Watson was quite hopeless. All that he could say was that the S.P.G.B. might be right, and so, for that matter, might be quite a number of other parties. So far he had been unable to make up his mind, but in the meantime someone had to do the “practical” work! He had great difficulty in filling out his time and seemed relieved when our representative managed to collar an extra 15 minutes. All members present agreed that the debate was very well worth while. Two days after the debate the branch held a meeting at the Rusholme Public Hall where Mertons was again the speaker on “The Struggle for the World.” There were about 120 at this meeting and members were well satisfied. Outdoor propaganda has commenced in Platt Fields on Sunday afternoons, and during the summer the branch aims to revive the Eccles Cross outdoor station. In addition regular indoor meetings are going to be held in the Onward Hall, Manchester. The branch has also an economic class in course of preparation. Without being unduly optimistic it is possible to foresee more and sustained activity by the branch which should result in an increase in membership.

Edgware Branch has recently been in difficulties owing to a shortage of active members, but now appears to be on the up-grade. Sympathisers living in the district will be welcomed to branch meetings.

The Independent Labour Party through one of its organisers in London, has been nagging us to send a speaker to their summer school to talk on something palatable to them like the “Managerial Revolution" or “ Russia.” We replied that we would send a speaker to talk about the policy of our party. There the matter rests for the moment pending an official reply to an official letter sent to the I.L.P. We do not aim to entertain the last few tottering remains of an organisation which has been in the last throes for years and is now dishonourably sinking into oblivion. If they want to hear something about Socialism we’ll give it to ’em.

A Party Meeting is being arranged for members to discuss the question of "Socialism and Violence.” A hall has not yet been booked, but members will receive ample notice.

The Annual Conference is reported elsewhere, but one item of news has just come to hand. In addition to the general success of the conference we learn that party funds will benefit by about £70 as a result of collections, dance tickets, prize draws, etc.

Ealing Branch’s debate at Kensington Town Hall again proved the popularity of this form of propaganda. This debate was with Collin Brooks, Editor of ”Truth,” and Chairman of the Executive of the Society of Individualists. Our representative was the General Secretary. The hall, holding 600 people, was filled to capacity, and literature sales and collection were very good. Brooks, who had agreed to defend Capitalism against Socialism, spent nine-tenths of his time attacking Labour Party state capitalism in spite of strenuous efforts on our part to get him to the point. He refused to get to grips with the real issue of the debate, perhaps through ignorance, or perhaps by choice, one guess being as good as another. Members present considered that good propaganda work had been done by the debate.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Love, Marriage and Divorce In Russia (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the radical movement of the last hundred years or so the “woman question” has loomed large. In fact, amongst the self-styled “intellectuals” the enthusiasm for the emancipation of love from property fetters appeared to rival the enthusiasm for the emancipation of labour. Consequently, after the revolution in Russia had been accomplished and groups of “advanced” people abroad had swallowed the delusion that Socialism had been achieved in one country, it was accepted that woman in Russia had been freed from the shackles property had fastened upon her, and free relations between the sexes had at last become the social custom. Early reports gave some colour to this view. The Soviet Union was held up to admiring gaze as a model of sanity in sex relationship and we were regaled with stories of the love life of bright young women, married and unmarried, who had enjoyed the felicity of numerous husbands to the satisfaction and happiness of all concerned. Knowledge of birth control methods was widespread, abortion was permitted and, at the worst, the State cared for children, so that women were relieved of their worst burdens. It may be noted in passing that the benevolence of the State sprang from motives that had nothing to do with helping women to engage in untrammelled love affairs. Labour was urgently needed for industrial operations and women who were free from the burden of children provided a part of this labour.

Inspired by the false dawn in Russia an American biologist decided that the appropriate time had come to give the world at large views that he had long restricted to a privileged few, which contained his vision of humanity freed from evolutionary influences that were leading the human race to disaster. The book he wrote on the subject was entitled “Out of the Night” (published by Gollancz in 1936) and the biologist was H. J. Muller. He was professor of Zoology, University of Texas; Member, National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.; and, finally, Foreign Member, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. In his preface to the book Professor Muller writes, in connection with the views on eugenics he is putting forward:—

   “In the meantime, our airy imaginings concerning the future possibilities of co-operative activity on a grand scale are brought down to earth and given substance when we turn to the great and solid actualities of collective achievement which are becoming increasingly evident in that one section of the world—the Soviet Union—in which the fundamental changes in the economic basis have already been established. More intimate familiarity with these developments at the time of writing would have rendered available a mass of material pertinent to our subject. There the march of progress proceeds apace, while elsewhere discouragement and decadence admittedly deepen. This central fact of the present-day social world at once substantiates, and belittles our theorising. (P. 8.)

As we shall see, it is a pity that the learned professor did not leave his visions for a while and familiarise himself with the real foundations of Soviet Russia. However, let us first of all summarise the nature of his visions.

The professor advocates a form of eugenic procedure which, he claims, will ensure the improvement of the human race to such an extent that the next few centuries will concentrate within them biological improvement and terrestrial control equivalent to the progress achieved in the thousands of years between the amoeba and modern man. For example, he envisages a time when, on the basis of recent progress in biological investigation and experiment, the human egg-cell will be impregnated and germinate into the embryo and the child outside the human body; thus banishing from love relations the biological function of procreation. He looks forward to the time, now within the realms of possibility, when male cultures and female egg-cells will be stored and labelled, to be mixed later on principles that will ensure the procreation of only the best physical and mental types. This final fruition of biological genius he leaves, however, to the distant future. In the meantime he alleges that there are some things that can be done and he looks to Russia, the Mecca of his hopes, to initiate the first steps because, as he puts it, they can only be satisfactorily begun in a community from which private property has been banished. He argues that female insemination by artificial methods has now been advanced to a stage where woman can choose the father of her children without needing the intervention of sex relations. He argues that it is only a short biological step forward to be able to ensure the storage of male cultures for an indefinite period. The advantage of this would be that while it is impossible to determine during the lifetime of a prominent man whether or not he was of a superior type the lapse of, say, twenty-five years after his death should be sufficient to settle this problem and his culture would be available for insemination. Lest the reader has a vision of enormous storage spaces it is only fair to give the professor's estimate of what it might amount to. He assures us that if all the heritable characteristics (all that grows into legs, bodies, heart, lungs, eyes, brains, and so forth) of the whole of the next generation of mankind were gathered into a heap it would be about the size of an aspirin tablet. So that solves that worry! In a wild burst of ecstacy he asks:

   “How fortunate we should be had such a method been in existence in time to have enabled us to secure living cultures of some of our departed great! How many women, in an enlightened community devoid of superstitions, taboos and sex slavery, would be eager and proud to bear and rear a child of Lenin or Darwin! Is it not obvious that restraint, rather than compulsion, would be called for? " (P. 152.)

Well! the writer can imagine a lot of women that would not be enamoured with the project. After all it is they, and not the professor, who would have to undergo the pains of childbirth after insemination.

Still, we are not at the moment concerned with a discussion of the professor’s visions of the future. What we are concerned with is the false estimate that he, in common with others of his type, has made of the present shape of things in Russia.

Since Professor Muller’s book appeared a drastic change has been apparent in the attitude of Russia’s rulers to sex relations. This change has been bound up with the growth of Russia into a first-class industrial and military power based upon the following of methods previously adopted by Western powers to secure dominance. The wealth of Russian privileged groups has reached such a pitch that an English communist has had to write a pamphlet in defence of Russian millionaires. In this pamphlet (“Soviet Millionaires” by R. Bishop) mention is made of the change in the Soviet law of inheritance in 1945 aimed at securing priority to the children of the testator in the distribution of his property (page 11). The inference from this is obvious and partly explains the recent tightening up of divorce regulations. But there are other reasons as well, and of equal importance.

In the general tightening up of regulations concerning marriage and divorce the use of birth control methods has been restricted, abortion has become a crime, and divorce has been so hedged around by restrictions that it is almost impossible for any but the wealthy to obtain release from the marriage tie. In 1944 decorations were offered to women for the bearing of large families, but the limitations on divorce and the other methods aimed at increasing the birth-rate suggest that the answer of women to this empty flattery has not produced the desired result. Why does Russia so urgently need an increase in the birth-rate? To increase the measure of happiness of the people? No! The reasons are as sordid as those that inpired the Nazi regime and all modern states.. Russia needs children as exploitable material for her industries and as cannon fodder in future wars. Hence the sex relations are controlled and directed for these purposes and to secure the inheritance of property within a certain circle. Thus, in this sphere of human relationships the Russian regime is back behind its starting point. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals has necessitated decrees securing the right of inheritance and this., in turn, demands that the parentage of children shall be put beyond the bounds of reasonable doubt. In other words, the property development that brought into existence the monogamic family is exerting its influence with increasing force in Russia to-day.

Thus the delusion that Russia was the Mecca of freedom in sex relations has vanished along with the immediate hopes of Professor Muller. But the imposition of restrictions has not yet finished.

The Manchester Guardian for April 9th contains the report of a lecture to a large audience in Russia on “Love, Marriage and the Family in Socialist Society ” by Professor Kolbanovsky. The lecture shows how drastically the Russian attitude has changed. The report is from Moscow and is by Alexander Werth. The following extracts need little comment:—

   “A special reason for this great interest in the lecture was that some drastic new marriage and family legislation is now being considered by a special Government committee . . .  The Soviet divorce laws were greatly stiffened in 1944, but he indicated that they would be stiffened still further. Without ‘prophecying' what the new laws would be, he spoke very harshly of the disastrous effect on a child's mind of his parent’s divorce, adding that 'for living parents to create semi-orphans is an act of criminal baseness.' "

     "In Soviet society to-day there were still many deplorable survivals of the capitalist way of thinking and acting. Also, some vulgar and unworthy ideas on 'free-love’ which flourished in the early days of the revolution—and which Lenin wholeheartedly condemned—had not yet been quite eradicated. Such revolting practices were unworthy of Soviet society.”

 .  .  .

“It was true, he said, that some marriages broke up owing to monotony and boredom. ‘Variety’ should, therefore, be provided by the wife herself. It was important, for instance, that the wife should develop and grow intellectually, that man and wife should have new interests, that these interests should be closely linked with those of the country and community; that they should also take a common interest in the upbringing of their children. . . .  As for the 'free-love' theories, the lecturer recalled that there were indeed some 'Marxist' theorists in the past who claimed that the family was a bourgeois institution, and that the State should take charge of the children. No! said the lecturer. Socialism rejected this 'stud farm' principle; nor was the family a 'property unit,' as in bourgeois society, but it was a vital 'social unit,' and, under Socialism, the monogamous family had a better chance than under any other system. Woman would be more and more freed of all drudgery and petty worries, her mental interest in her husband would increase, and that was a guarantee for a lasting association."

 .  .  .

   "Another peculiarity of Soviet society was, he said, that all conditions were being, and would continue to be, created for having an unlimited number of children ; the economic reasons for birth control would be eliminated.”

It will be noticed that it is the women who are to have the pains and the responsibilities and the subjection. They are to keep their husbands interested and to have large families. In other words, they are to be the slaves of the monogamic family. One is tempted to echo the phrase of the dustman in one of Shaw’s plays: "Bourgeois morality. Pah!"

Gilmac

A Modern Parable (1948)

A Short Story from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

There once lived a man, Proletarius by name. He had a bicycle, which was old and therefore had many faults. Whenever Proletarius rode it, he crashed and suffered considerable pain in consequence.

These mishaps induced him to try to solve the problem produced by the faulty nature of his bicycle. He saw a friend, Socialist by name, who knew something about bicycles. He explained to Proletarius that it was old and would not stand much more wear and tear. Socialist said he was unable to do anything himself and explained to Proletarius the need for a new machine. He added that only Proletarius himself is in a position to select his new bicycle and must therefore acquire a sound knowledge of them.

But Proletarius, although he worked very hard for his employer and was always ready to help his wife at home and spent hours toiling arduously in his back garden, was mentally lazy. He was unwilling to acquire new ideas and to get a new bicycle.

So he called at “ Reforms Cycle Repairs Co., Ltd.,” whose proprietor was called Leader. Leader said to him, “Entrust your bicycle to me and I will give it the general overhauling it needs. It will run well enough after I have straightened the front wheel and tightened the screws." After a week Proletarius called for his bicycle, paid Leader the price he charged and found his machine running fairly smoothly.

Soon, however, the screws began to fall out again. Proletarius weighed the matter up and thought, "I have chosen the wrong shop; they cheated me. 'Pseudo-Communistus,' who owns the 'Left-wing,' is a kind man and I trust him to do the job properly for me." He had new screws fixed on and the bicycle ran fairly smoothly for a few days. Meanwhile the brakes had become rusty and failed to perform their function. So when he went down hill his brakes failed; he crashed and broke his neck.

His brother, “Revolutionary," inherited his bicycle. But he knew something about bicycles and realised that the machine he had inherited was too old and worn out for further use. He heeded the lesson he learned from his brother’s experience and realised the need for a new bicycle.

And the various bicycle merchants heard of this and offered him the various makes they had in stock. They offered "Jingoism and Red Herrings, Unlimited," "Demagogy" and "Superstition." They used the press, wireless and the screen to advertise their wares.

But “Revolutionary" examined them and realised they were extremely cranky machines. Knowing something about bicycles, he did not need anyone’s advice, and selected his new bicycle himself, in accordance with his wishes, which coincided with his requirements.

Henceforward he had no bicycle troubles.

F. T.

Letters:The Outlook for Socialism (1948)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader who was present at an S.P.G.B. meeting and heard members of the audience trying to shout down the speaker writes as follows:

"In view of the fact it was practically impossible to hear the Speaker, the very able Mr. Cash, for the cries from the crowd, "We want Mosley," and "Down with the Communists" (what an insult to hurl at an S.P.G.B.'er!) I should just like to know how you propose to teach the Socialism of Karl Marx to a crowd of this description. Perhaps you could enlighten me in the columns of the Socialist Standard. Perhaps!!!

Yours, etc., R.S.B."

Reply.

It is certainly true that there are some workers who not only do not accept or even know the Socialist case but do not want to listen. They do not want to hear anything that challenges their own opinions and prejudices and they try to prevent their opponents from getting a hearing. They try to shout down Socialists and anyone else who disagrees with them. They are a bye-product of Capitalism. They prefer violence to argument. Some—but by no means all of them—find their way into the ranks of the Fascists. Communists sometimes try the same methods. On the other hand our correspondent should remember that it is an exception for S.P.G.B. meetings to be disorderly and we have had some debates with Communists and some with Fascists that have been conducted without any disturbance. Our meetings compare favourably in that respect with the meetings of all other organisations. There is an important difference between our meetings and those of other parties, it is the fact that audiences know that they will be allowed to ask questions and get on our platform to state their case against the S.P.G.B. This right of opposition may not always impress those other opponents of the S.P.G.B.—and they are the great majority—who are willing to listen and state their case in an orderly fashion. In short we can usually rely on the good sense of the majority of workers to deter a disorderly minority. And this brings us to the very important point that in the last resort it is what the majority want that determines the course of events. When the majority understand and accept Socialism we shall not have to be concerned with the awkward minority. They will fall into line when they find the majority against them.

Ed. Comm.