Letter: The Future of Palestine (1935)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

This letter was in response to a two part article that appeared in the July and August 1935 issues of the Socialist Standard.

The Future of Palestine

Amhurst Road, E.8,

August 25th, 1935.

The Secretary,

The Socialist Standard, 

42, Gt. Dover Street,

S.E.1.

Dear Sir,

Kaye and Scrutator have gone to great lengths and to a good deal of trouble to show the fallacies of Zionism and the utter uselessness of a Jewish State. In their eagerness to “prove” their theories they have written quite a number of words, quoted a lot of phrases torn from their context, said quite a lot of irrelevant (and shallow) things, but have not given one single and valid reason why the Jewish people, out of all other peoples who inhabit this unhappy earth, should not possess a country of their own, where they should be able to lead a normal national life, unhampered and unhindered by the tremendous forces which, everywhere, make Jewish life a burden and an encumbrance.

In their quotations referring to conditions in Poland, they show that prominent Jewish employers refuse to employ Jewish labour. In a Jewish State this would, of course, be automatically impossible. On the other hand, they blame the Zionist authorities for disqualifying Jews from membership from the Z.O. who do not employ Jewish labourers! This | is only one glaring example of the shallowness of your writers.

There are many more. “Many Jewish workers in Germany,” they state, “knew the terrors of unemployment long before the coming of Hitler” | (does this mean that Hitler is, after all, not such a bad fellow?). Precisely so. Only that this fact, which also refers to Poland and many other countries, proves conclusively how necessary it is for the Jewish people to have a country of their own, where they will not be subjected to unemployment because they are Jews, and where, since your scribes seem to be so deeply concerned about the religious requirements of the Jewish workers, a Jewish Government will impose Saturday as a day of rest.

One does not know whether it is sheer stupidity or malice when your writers assert that "in the more developed capitalist countries, conditions are not so favourable for the growth of anti-Semitism.” In view of what has been happening in one of these “more developed capitalistic countries”—Germany —where even the “joint control of huge undertakings by Jewish and non-Jewish capitalists” does not tend to “weaken racial prejudice,” one must be utterly blind or foolish to state that there “is little danger from pogroms in advanced capitalist countries,” when for 2½ years there has been one continuous, incessant and intensive-pogrom of the most efficient and gigantic variety, and where Jewish capitalists, middle-class people and Jewish workers alike have been mercilessly and ruthlessly ousted from their homes and positions and are prevented from earning a living and doomed to certain death and extinction. The same process, only not so thorough, goes on in Poland and in Rumania, and elsewhere, where the ruling and capitalistic class are not at all afraid that anti-Jewish “riot and bloodshed would upset the delicate mechanism of capitalist trade and finance.”

“Even in Germany,” your scribes console us, “at the height of the Nazi triumph, there has not been a pogrom of a Czarist character.” Is then a pogrom less beastly and cruel because it takes place, like in Germany, not in the open market-place, but in the concentration camp or in the subterranean passages of the Brown Shirt Headquarters? Or are all the reports contained in the Brown Book and in the hundreds of newspapers mere figments of the imagination, and the result of what Hitler and his gangsters call “Greuel-propaganda” ?

As to the unlikelihood of anti-Jewish riots in a city like London, perhaps I may refer your scribes to what happened in a “city like Berlin” only a week or two ago, on the Kurfuerstendamm, where “valuable property in which many non-Jews are interested” exists, and where the police had no desire to “keep such a mob in hand.”

The extremely complicated Jewish problem is not at all safe even in the hands of the working classes. In Germany and in Poland, Rumania and elsewhere, the working classes are the first to destroy Jewish property and mutilate Jewish lives, and we have even read in the London Daily Worker that the slaughter of Jews in Palestine in 1929 was the rising of the Arab masses against Jewish exploitation. Jewish exploitation by 65 poverty-stricken Talmud students in the ”Yeshibah” of Hebron! We have also seen how a Labour Government, then in full power, instigated a slaughter of 150 Jews in Palestine in August, 1929, how that Government treated the all Jewish demand for protection with the greatest and cruellest callousness, how that chief culprit, Lord Passfield, an avowed Socialist, and then in charge of the Colonial Office, has, as a result of the ghastly slaughter by Arabs of Jews, punished the Jews, curtailed their rights, suppressed their aspirations, and rewarded the Arab murderers, extended their rights and encouraged them in their devilish designs. It was that very Socialist who said that he bad no sympathy with the aspirations of the new generation of working Jews, but that he understood and sympathised with the old, the pious, i.e., the idle, Jews! So much for the safety of the Jew under a Labour Government. That Labour Government, too, was unable, or unwilling, to “keep such a mob in hand,” and allowed the iniquity to go unpunished. The Mufti, that arch-murderer, is still a persona grata with the British authorities.

It will thus be seen that there is no remedy for the Jewish problem except a Jewish State. It has long been recognised that all classes of Jews not only suffer in common with all classes of humanity, but that they are subjected to very special—and inevitable —sufferings and persecutions which are alone the result of their being a pariah among the nations for the last nineteen centuries. All attempts to solve this vicious problem have so far failed. As a Zionist theoretician puts it: “To be robbed as a Jew is equally humiliating, equally hurtful to the self-respect of the Jew, as it is to be protected as a Jew/1 Judeophobia is an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and anti- Semitism is based upon an inherited aberration of the human mind.

No people, generally speaking, has any predilection for foreigners. This has its ethnological basis and cannot be brought as a reproach against any people. But the Jews, more than any other people, are subject to this dislike. Every foreigner is more or less respected because he can repay in his own country with the same coin. The Jew, alone, because he has no country. remains the stranger “par excellence.” He remains a refugee always, and who is the refugee to whom a refuge cannot be refused ?

The real panacea for the Jewish problem, and the only one, is and remains a Jewish State. And in that State, according to the best Jewish and Zionist traditions and teachings, there shall be “one law for the citizen as well as for the stranger that dwelleth in its gates.”

I am, Sir,

Yours faithfully,

Jacob Sarna.

Reply.

It is a pity that Mr. Sarna offers no evidence to support his accusation that we have torn phrases from their context in our anxiety to misrepresent the Zionist position. Our correspondent, evidently, does not share our eagerness to "prove” things.

The attitude of our critic is that of a nationalist. He writes about Peoples. We analyse society in terms of classes. To him the Jewish "problem” is the problem of the Jewish people. To us all problems are to be examined in the light of working-class interests. A considerable divergence of opinion is expected in these circumstances.

We should be glad to learn more about this “normal national life" from which Jews are debarred. May we remind Mr. Sarna, that in the United States of America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, according to Senator T. H. Caraway, there were in 1930 1,000 deaths a day from starvation (Daily Telegraph, February 2nd, 1931). There are now about 12,000,000 unemployed, and millions more are in misery and want. Here in England, hundreds of thousands of people are on the borderline of starvation. Surely this is not what Mr. Sarna, and those who think with him, are striving so hard to attain? We are afraid it is. Palestine must be developed on capitalist lines, they say; then it will produce the same conditions. We suggest that it is precisely these conditions which are the “tremendous forces" that hamper and hinder Jewish workers, and all workers, the world over.

It is obvious that in a Jewish State where presumably the bulk of the population would be Jewish, the employing class would have no option but to exploit Jewish workers, unless they had facilities for importing cheaper labour. What of the cheap negro and continental labour which the American capitalists imported into “God’s own country” ? Industrial history is full of examples of how employers have used “foreign” labour to break down strikes or to lower the standard of living. Furthermore, we did not, as Mr. Sarna suggests, BLAME the Zionists Authorities for any of their actions. We merely gave this information in order to prove that it was unnecessary for the Jews to wait for Sir Oswald Mosley or Adolf Hitler to make them unemployed, as Mr. Smilansky and his capitalist colleagues in Palestine, Manchester, London, and Warsaw have no compunction, when their interests dictate, in sacking their “fellow" Jews. A capitalist, be he Jewish or British, in London or in Jerusalem, has as his first consideration, the making of profits.

Mr. Sarna objects to Jewish workers being unemployed because they are Jews. We go further. We object to Jewish workers, and all workers, being subjected to unemployment because they are surplus to the needs of capitalist industry. Our argument is that the overwhelming majority of unemployed Jewish workers are such because they are privileged to enjoy some of the blessings of our “normal national life.” This is not a defence of Hitler. It merely proves that Hitler and other individuals are not responsible for the existence of unemployment. Why Mr. Sarna believes we are deeply concerned about the religious requirements of Jews, is a mystery yet to be solved.

Our correspondent betrays his ignorance of German political conditions, and we must advise him to make sure of his facts before he again rushes into print. One of the reasons for Hitler’s advent to power is that the German workers had not yet become accustomed to the altered political conditions since the setting up of the capitalist republic after the War. There are also millions of small property owners, peasants, and petty proprietors of workshops in Germany, and these people are very susceptible to anti-Semitic propaganda. Large areas in Germany, are as yet, relatively untouched by industrial development. Mr. Sarna should also keep in mind that most of the Nazi victims in concentration camps are political prisoners, and in view of the support given by numbers of Jews to the Social Democratic Party, it is not surprising to find some of them there together with Communists and Catholics. There is one other point; Mr. Sarna's attitude, and that of other Jews, to this vexed question of brutality and violence, is peculiar and rather limited. They fume with indignation over the atrocities of Hitler, but are strangely silent when the name of Mussolini is mentioned. Marshal Pilsudski, the late dictator of Poland, well known as a pogrom-inciter during and immediately after the War, was lauded to the skies in the Jewish Press on his death. Our sympathies are much larger than Mr. Sarna’s. We also sympathise with the workers who are ill-treated for their political views. Nor would the establishment of a Jewish State on Revisionist lines safeguard the Jewish workers from brutalities at the hands of their “brother” Jews. In order to show how closely the Revisionist organisation is modelled on Fascist lines we shall give a further quotation. In the " Blue-White papers, 1935," published by the Revisionists, there appears a short account of the brown-shirted Revisionist youth organisation, the Berit Trumpeldor. The following are some clauses from their “ Heptalogue ” : —

(1) The Jewish State as the purpose of your own life.

(2) “ Monism ” in the sense of rejecting all subservience to slogans not connected with the Jewish State, especially that of the “ Class War ”

(4) The duty of self-defence, and readiness to join a Jewish Legion should necessity arise . . .

As regards the destruction of valuable property in the streets of Berlin some weeks ago, the “valuable property” destroyed consisted of some broken windows, tables, chairs, crockery, and some smashed windscreens (see Jewish Chronicle, 19/7/35).

We do not understand why Mr. Sarna should have brought The Daily Worker, Lord Passfield, and the Labour Government, into the discussion. Mr. Sarna must know that we are opposed to the Communist Party and the Labour Party. It is absurd of Mr. Sarna to try to foist responsibility for The Daily Worker's nonsense, and the Labour Government’s colonial policy on to the Socialist Party.

Therefore we are on unassailable ground when we urge the Jewish workers not to waste their energies struggling for something out of reason, and which, if achieved, would confer very doubtful and dubious advantages on them, and urge them to assist us in the task of establishing Socialism. The disabilities they suffer as Jews are inextricably bound up with the far greater disabilities they suffer as members of the working class.

Mr. Sarna believes that anti-Semitism is based upon an “inherited aberration of the human mind.” We contend that anti-Semitism in the modern world is mainly a smoke screen used by nervous sections of the ruling class in order to distract the minds of the workers, and to cover the class struggle. It is a means of diverting class-antagonism into racial hatred, and of splitting the workers into warring groups. By trying to fool the workers with fairy stories about the intrigues of secret councils of Jews planning to overthrow all Christian states; of conspiracies of “Jewish” capital, it is hoped to discourage revolutionary ideas. Anti-Semitic propaganda can flourish best where there is an inexperienced and uninformed working class. The only real solution for the Jewish problem is the spread of Socialist knowledge, which teaches the workers that the main struggle is between worker and capitalist. It dispels the illusion, fostered by Zionist and anti-Semite alike, that racial and national distinctions are of concern to the workers.

The spread of Socialist knowledge will bring nearer the day when we can say good-bye to capitalism, and build up a Socialist system of society, which will involve the ”emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.” Instead of this, Mr. Sarna offers to Jewish workers something which will not bear a moment’s examination, as can be seen from the opening paragraph of his letter. He asks why the Jewish people, out of all other peoples who inhabit this unhappy earth, "should not possess a country of their own.” Note these words, “possess a country of their own.” We challenge Mr. Sarna to show us how it will be possible for Palestine to be possessed by the Jewish people, in view of the fact that it is to be run on strictly capitalist lines, which means, of course, that it will be monopolised by the capitalist class, like all those other countries at which Mr. Sarna casts such envious eyes, but which he himself dubs “unhappy.”

Kaye & Scrutator

Notes of the Month: Labour Party Problems (1935)

The Notes of the Month column from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour Party Problems

 

Whilst the Labour Party has officially declared for sanctions against Italy should the latter carry out its threat of attacking Abyssinia, this attitude has met with disapproval from many of its own members, including several prominent officials. Mr. Lansbury has threatened to resign his position as Leader because the application of sanctions may involve the use of armed force. He is now opposed to all wars, because "they are against the teachings of Christianity.” He has now evolved a plan which will, in his opinion, put an end to all possibilities of wars in the future. This is nothing less than the “sharing of all the raw materials, markets and unoccupied territory of the world.” He wants the League of Nations to appoint a commission of economic and scientific experts to draw up a scheme for carrying out these proposals.” They could quite easily tell us how to meet the insistent demands of Italy, Germany and other nations for expansion, and how to pool natural resources, develop the markets, and satisfy the demands of the millions of people starving and sick in Asia, Africa and Europe.” (Daily Herald, September 16th, 1935. Italics ours.)

That Mr. Lansbury can hope that the present owners of territory, mineral resources, etc., will relinquish or share their property unless forced to do so is sheer madness. That he expects such a scheme, even if carried out to “satisfy the demands of the sick and starving millions,” is equally illusory. The “sick and starving millions” are the propertyless workers and peasants, and they are as much a feature of the countries already in possession of raw materials, territory and markets such as Britain, France and the U.S.A. as they are of Germany, Italy Abyssinia, or any other country. The world now belongs to the capitalists and not to the workers, and if it is parcelled out in different proportions or pooled among the present owners, how can that benefit the proletariat?

* * *

 

“Pious ” Enemy No. 2.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is also a Christian. Nevertheless, he can foresee circumstances in which a war may become “Christian." In his broadcast on September 1st he made it clear that, in his opinion, a war fought with the blessing of the League of Nations had also the blessing of the Church. We would add that history does not tell us of many wars in which the Church has withheld its “blessing.”

* * *

Where Does he Stand?

Sir Stafford Cripps is the Chairman of the Socialist League, an organisation affiliated to the Labour Party. He is opposed to Labour’s policy of sanctions, and does not agree with its support of the League of Nations. In an article in the Sunday Referee (September 15th, 1935), entitled ”Where I Stand,” he says: “While capitalism controls our national, and imperialism our international life, the actions of our Government will be determined by capitalist and imperialist interests.” Correct, Sir Stafford, but how do you square that statement with your membership of the Labour Party, which plainly holds the opposite point of view?

* * *

United Front at Last

The Communists seem to have achieved their hearts' desire, that much-sought-after "United Front." And it is of a magnitude that must exceed their most sanguine hopes. For on the Italian-Abyssinian dispute they are solidly behind the National Government (or should we say in front of them?). "The League's Covenant must be upheld by all means at our disposal," declared Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Minister, in a speech at Geneva. And he has the solid support of the bulk of the Labour Party, the whole of the Liberal Party, and most certainly the Communist Party, who have issued impressive-looking proclamations, urging the public to support the League. As their sponsors at Moscow are now members of the League this is not surprising. But their attempts to explain their "policy" are ludicrous. Lenin's condemnation of the League as a “Thieves' Kitchen" still holds good with us, though the disciples of Lenin grace its functions. And what has become of their erstwhile boast, to "turn every imperialist war into a civil war " ?

* * *

Where we Stand

"The people who do not own a country and its resources have nothing to fight for excepting Socialism "! That is our policy. The workers of Abyssinia, many of whom are still chattel-slaves, should not be inveigled into fighting for the property of Abyssinian princes. The workers of Italy have nothing to gain by fighting to secure more territory and raw materials for their masters. And the business of the workers the world over is not to take sides with either of the two Governments, or any other Government or League of Governments. Their business is to take the world out of the hands of the present owners and make it the possession of all. That is not the attitude of any other political party in this country.

* * *

Another Mining Disaster

Seventeen miners died as a result of an explosion in a coal mine near Barnsley (Yorks.) on September 12th. There have now been three big mining disasters this year, all claiming a heavy toll of life. These tragedies emphasise the conditions of workers who, for a pittance of less than £2 per week, have to risk their lives. And we often have to answer questions like: "Do not the capitalists have to risk their money in order to make a profit?" The miners are now preparing to struggle for an increase in their wages. Whilst we commend such struggles, we must at the same time point out that such a struggle, even if successful, will only mean a few more shillings a week. And we ask you miners: "How can you be satisfied with that when, by organising into the S.P.G.B., you can help obtain the Means of Life, including the mines, for society as a whole." Then the risk to human life would be lessened and, in return for less arduous and unpleasant work, all the comforts of life would be yours.

* * *

A “ Corrective ” for Capitalism

"Capitalism is your servant and must never be your master—but it must be treated fairly. When it goes wrong, as it has gone wrong, it must be corrected." (Mr. Bennett, Canadian Premier, Daily Herald, September 13th, 1935.) We propose that the working class makes itself "master" of the political machine, and then administer one stroke—the appropriation of the land, factories, means of transport, etc., in the name of society.

* * *

“Men of Action ” at Work

The German "Men of Action," Hitler and Co., assembled at Nuremberg, where the German Reichstag was called to deal with problems alleged to be of vital importance to the German workers. General Goering presented the first Bill, which provides that the Swastika flag shall become the State flag of Germany. Thus a tremendous victory was won for the German working population! Further evidence of the Nazi Government's concern for the conditions of the German workers was shown by the following new laws (Daily Herald, September 16th): —

For the protection of the German blood and honour, this law forbids the marriage between Jews and Germans or related lines.

Jews cannot hire German maid's in their household under the age of 45.

The joy of German working people should be boundless. How different from Socialists, who are merely concerned with the solution of the problem of poverty!

* * *

Without Trimmings

The agenda of the Labour Party Conference, held at Brighton this month, contains several interesting items. A resolution submitted by the Southport Trades Council and Labour Party reads as follows: "That the next General Election be fought without trimmings, on the policy outlined at the Southport Conference, under the title of ‘For Socialism and Peace,' special stress being laid upon:—

1. The immediate nationalisation of the land and all minerals.
2. The immediate establishment of a 40-hour week, with no reduction in economic circumstances.
3. The immediate raising of the school-leaving age to 15 years, with full maintenance during the last year at school.
4. General retirement from industry at the age of 60, with pension, such pension to be raised to £1 per week for a single person and £2 per week for married couples.

“ It is urged that this general and specific policy be a ‘Stand or Fall' programme, and declares that it is the lowest minimum of policy as Socialists this Conference is prepared to tolerate.”

So now you can “stand or fall” for “Socialism and Peace” with or without “trimmings”—and get “trimmed". 

A further resolution submitted by the Warrington T.C. and L.P. reads as follows: —

“That this Conference, believing that there is a limit to the possibility of Social Reform legislation within the capitalist system, and realising definitely that the Labour Movement of this country has declared for a Socialist policy, agrees that the Movement should centre the whole of its propaganda and educational activities on making Socialism and Socialist Policy its only objective” 

”The Conference further declares that the concentration of the Party on the support of the policy of doles and palliatives has become inimical to its Socialist objective, and that the next Labour Government should set out immediately to adopt such Socialist measures as will render such doles and palliatives unnecessary.”

Everything depends upon what the people at Warrington mean by “Socialism” and "Socialist measures.” But if they mean to change the Labour Party from a reformist organisation to a Socialist one their task is hopeless. The bulk of the Labour Party membership is not Socialist, and the job of converting them cannot be done from within. And why trouble to change the Labour Party if there is already a party in existence whose only objective is Socialism, namely, the S.P.G.B.

Labour Party headquarters have shown what they think of the above resolutions by putting it at the tail-end of the agenda, under the heading of “Miscellaneous.”

* * *

S.P.G.B. and the B.B.C.

Last year we approached the B.B.C. with a view to obtaining permission to put our case over the radio. We received a polite letter, informing us that arrangements had already been made for a representative of “Left-Wing Socialism” to broadcast. As we are not “Left-Wing,” but Socialists, as, in fact, we belong to “no wing” of the Reformist Movement we repudiated the right of anyone to speak on our behalf, unless appointed by ourselves. Now we have again approached the B.B.C. and hope that these gentlemen will grant us the privilege that has not been denied to the other political organisations. If and when we get our turn we hope to be able to make it quite clear to the listeners that as the S.P.G.B. is the only party in this country that does not recruit support on questions of day-to-day legislation under capitalism but gets its backing solely on the issue of Socialism versus Capitalism, we have nothing in common with those who, calling themselves “Socialists,” are, in fact, nothing of the kind. Scientific, revolutionary Socialism in Great Britain is represented by the S.P.G.B.

Sid Rubin

The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics (1938)

Blogger's Note:

 As I just scanned in the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard, which covered in some detail Neville Chamberlain and his actions in and around what is now known as the Munich Crisis, I thought I'd take the opportunity to also post on the blog the full text of the 1938 SPGB pamphlet, 'The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics'.

In its long history the SPGB has not made a habit of rushing out special pamphlets dealing with an 'issue of the day' — that is what the Socialist Standard is in place for  — but the Munich Crisis was self-evidently such a burning issue with the threat of possible impending war that the SPGB felt it was necessary to publish a standalone pamphlet which went into greater detail on the matter. It exposed the hard nosed political hypocrisy of Chamberlain's actions and the double-talk of both the Labour Party and the British Communist Party.

Such turbulent times called for special measures, and the SPGB were to publish another 'issue of the day' pamphlet the following year under the title of 'The Socialist and Conscription'. War was for the working class the issue of the day.

The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics (1938)

 

So the crisis is over. Representatives of the four major European Powers sat round the table and concluded arrangements that carve up Czechoslovakia, freeze Russia out of Europe, and, we are fervently assured, lay the basis of “peace in our time”. Lest there should be any doubt about this peaceful future, a great drive to develop armaments is proposed, and plans are being made to ensure that everybody will have a niche in defensive and offensive operations. The temporary popularity of Chamberlain, the general relief at the banishing of immediate war danger, and the united support worked up on behalf of the Czechs, are being utilised to push forward the increased armament campaign.

On September 30th hysterical crowds went wild with joy and hero-worship. War had been averted, and it was believed that Chamberlain was the man who accomplished that deed. His smiling face appeared on placards, in newspapers, and on the moving-picture screen. His wife shared in his fame, and crowds fought to shake her hand. For a while he was the most popular man in England. Yet the strange part of it is that Chamberlain’s fame is based on the circumstance that apparently his plans nearly went entirely wrong; raised the spectre of war, and eventually brought the Munich instead of the Godesberg Agreement. The British Government have been landed in a position in European affairs that was not expected by them. So far Hitler and not Chamberlain has gained most out of the diplomatic manoeuvres of months past.

What were the real facts of the situation? On what does Chamberlain’s claim to fame rest?

The immediate source of Chamberlain’s popularity is not hard to find. For a few days modern war, with its horrors, weighed like a black cloud on the minds of everybody. The subsequent relief on hearing the message of peace released an uncritical joy that deified the messenger.

What part has Chamberlain really played in this dangerous business?

For a long time the capitalist government of this country has been split into different camps over foreign policy. The reasons for this are too long to go into here. It is sufficient to say that they are partly economic differences and partly differences of view as to what best serves the general capitalist interest. One group favours “minding our own business” and leaving other nations to mind theirs; another group urges a better understanding with Russia and the resisting of the imperialist policies of Germany and Italy; a third group presses for a general pact between England, Germany, France and Italy, and the shutting out of Russia from any influence on European affairs.

The third policy is the one that has been urged by the Chamberlains and their supporters for some time past. It was given expression to by Chamberlain on the eve of the Munich meeting when, in his Parliamentary statement, he criticised the provisions of the Versailles Peace Treaty.

Even while a member of the Baldwin Government, which had taken half-hearted measures to resist Italy’s policy in Abyssinia, Chamberlain made clear his disagreements on foreign policy. Sir Charles Petrie, an admirer of Chamberlain, describes the circumstances of the public statement in 1936 and, at the same time, made plain the nature of the support behind Chamberlain. He describes the incident as follows:

“Mr Chamberlain stepped into the breach. On the 10th June he was the guest of honour at the annual dinner of the 1900 Club, and he took the opportunity to declare against the continuance of Sanctions. The effect was tremendous. An audience which represented the wealth and power of Great Britain cheered the Chancellor to the echo” (The Chamberlain Tradition, page 249).

Since Chamberlain became head of the Government, foreign policy has changed its direction. The efforts of Government diplomacy have been turned towards finding a basis of agreement with Germany and Italy and the weaning of France away from its alliance with Russia.

The Munich conference of the four Powers appears to have been a long step towards accomplishing this object, though it occurred under dangerous circumstances, with the threat of war hanging over it. The fact that Czechoslovakian unity was sacrificed in the process was a small matter to the imperialist powers concerned.

The attitude of the Chamberlain group towards Italy’s Abyssinian venture and Germany’s march on Austria, gave Hitler a hint that further territorial conquests would not be seriously opposed providing these conquests did not interfere with British capitalist interests. When Chamberlain made his first trip to Hitler, on what was wrongly presumed to be an effort to save Czechoslovakian independence, he evidently went with the intention of being a party to the slicing up of that territory. His explanation in Parliament, on the eve of his last visit, makes this clear to those who examine the statement critically.

Taking into consideration the nature of Chamberlain’s foreign policy, as briefly outlined, the war situation out of which he “rescued” peace was largely of his own making.

While the Prime Minister was basking in the sunshine of mistaken adulation, one of his supporters pointed out that the real danger that menaces the interests of British capitalists is outside of Europe. On the morrow of the Munich pacts, while Germany was sending emissaries to Turkey and Yugoslavia, to widen its markets and its sources of raw materials, British politicians were heaving sighs of relief and turning to face “the danger again displayed by the Dominions and India, which has not passed unnoticed in Europe”.

The last remark is taken from an article in the Evening Standard (October 3rd) by Sir Arnold Wilson, who also makes the following significant statement:

“The Parliamentary Opposition parties are representing the redrawing of the map of Europe, now in progress, as a victory for Hitler, which it is, and a defeat for Britain, which it is not”.

This is another way of showing that Chamberlain went to Germany prepared to accede to the plans for dismembering Czechoslovakia. And why not? What does it matter to the British capitalist class whether the Czechs are independent or incorporated in Germany? The “National Honour” idea is a myth only invoked when it suits the interests of our rulers to beguile us with it. If Chamberlain, as is claimed, really set out to help Czechoslovakia, then “National Honour” went down on its knees before Hitler along with Chamberlain. Or, as the Daily Express (October 3rd) put it more genteelly:

“But this fact must be recognised by all: Britain accepted the Munich Agreement because our defences were not in a condition enabling us to take any other decision”.

This plea relating to the defences is being popularised as a means to obtain workers’ support for A. R. P. and similar defensive programmes—with all that these things will eventually mean.

One piece of information, relating to the crisis, that has now some significance was published in the News Review on July 14th, over two months before the crisis occurred:

“‘August, 1914’, is a date poignant with memories. What is it that makes Georges Bonnet, France’s Foreign Minister, so mysterious about August 1938?

To journalists who discussed the holiday question with him last week, Bonnet’s tendered the advice, ‘Certainly, take your holidays in August, but don’t leave Paris if you can help it’.

Though pressed for an explanation, he refused to say more than that ‘there will be a great deal to do,’ and that he himself would be at his desk throughout the month”.

What was in Bonnet’s mind? It could hardly have been war. Was in Godesberg?

The shameless diplomatic methods adopted have misled a number of people into believing that the whole business, including the threat of war, was a fake, deliberately contrived to secure acquiescence in the provisions of the Munich Agreement.

Two writers in the New Statesman (October 8th), J. M. Keynes and Robert Dell, make out a plausible case to show that it was a put-up job. That the crisis and the eleventh hour conference, with its solution, had been arranged beforehand. Although there are curious incidents that lend colour to this view, there are solid objections to it. The risk of war did ultimately enter into the game. Apart from other reasons it is too much to allow that a capitalist government would go into the huge expenses of war preparation, running into over £20 millions, either to lend substance to the shadow or for practice purposes.

The threat of war appeared in the scene because Chamberlain, in shaping his policy, apparently overlooked the fact that Hitler might not be inclined to bargain over territory that he felt strong enough to take if he wished to do so.

One purpose, among many, has been served by the crisis. It has been used as a means for enabling the British and French Governments to recognise officially the Italian conquest of Abyssinia without too much sanctimonious dust being raised about it. Now the way is open for British capitalists to invest freely in Abyssinia and to share with their Italian brothers the wealth squeezed from the Abyssinians.

In this time of stress where did the self-styled leaders of the working class, the Labour and Communist Parties, stand? The answer is easily given. They stood ready, if necessary, to man the guns and shoulder the burden of Empire in the mistaken idea that they were defending democracy against autocracy. Which shows how easy it is to divert movements that are anchored in the shifting sands of mere discontent. Such movements are easily directed into channels that serve the interests of the capitalists. The experience of decades has shown that when the cry “the country is in danger” is raised, the propertyless workers are urged by their leaders to flock to its defence, and to be ready to lay down their lives for a system that does not even guarantee to them the satisfaction of their elementary needs in food and shelter.

Over and over again the workers have been told by the Labour Party and the Communist Party that capitalism is on the down-grade, and that therefore they cannot hope for much improvement in wage conditions. Yet the country has been shown lately to be so wealthy that it could afford to throw away millions of pounds’ worth of goods in defensive measures, when it was believed that war threatened. Under a sensible social system workers would have bread instead of gas-masks.

Now that a great drive for armaments is proposed, the Labour and Communist Parties are logically bound to support it owing to their attitude during the war scare. This fact has been seized upon by all influential newspapers, which point out that the country is united in its desire to build up huge armaments.

Extracts from official sources show clearly the folly and the panic of those who claim to lead the workers.

On September 27th the Daily Herald published an article by the Editor, which contained the following statement:

“If there is war, it will be faced with calmness, with resolution, with unshakable courage. All that could be offered to Germany in honour and justice has been offered—far more than that, indeed . . . But if war there must be, since Herr Hitler is set on war, then it is better that it should be now, when Britain has strong allies beside her and to support her, the united opinion of the civilised world, than hereafter, when Germany, by successful aggression has won the mastership of Europe”.

Again, on September 30th, the Daily Herald spoke officially:

“In these last days two emotions have sustained the British people. One has been the desire for peace, if peace consistent with honour were possible. The other has been the determination to stand firm, if necessary to the ultimate degree—for the great principles of equity and justice in international affairs by which alone civilisation can flourish”.

International Information (September 12th), a typed sheet issued by the “Labour and Socialist International”, contained this statement:

“Whatever the risks involved, Great Britain must take its stand against aggression. There is now no room for doubt or hesitation”.

The above quotations are sufficient evidence of the Labour Party’s readiness to back the Government if war had been declared. The workers should also note also the insistence on “Honour”, “Justice” and “Equity”, all of which, it was contended, would be flouted if Czechoslovakia were split up. It is another example of the fatuity of the utterances of Labour when one remembers the official view of 18 years ago. In 1920 the Labour Party declared:

“Permission to the predominantly German areas of Czechoslovakia to determine their political future should be granted”—Quoted by the Evening Standard (September 16th).

If it were honourable, just and equitable for these areas to determine their political future in 1920, why has it become dishonourable, unjust and inequitable for them to do so now? Above all, why is it necessary that thousands of lives should be sacrificed now for something that was quite proper 18 years ago? The plain fact is that the Labour Party leaders do not know where they are.

The Communist Party is in a like position, and in addition responds blindly to the changing signals from Moscow. On October 3rd the Daily Worker published an article by the Editor. The following extracts from it are interesting as a logical interpretation of the Communist Party’s demand that Britain should stand firm in opposition to Hitler’s designs on Czechoslovakia.

“Had war broken loose on Saturday, as seemed almost certain up till Friday, the corpses of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, would now be strewing the streets of Prague, Paris, Berlin, and even London”.

(. . .)

“That the ‘peace terms’ signed by Chamberlain are such that they strike a mortal blow at the interests and security of the British people”.

(. . .)

“The leaders of the British Labour Movement have to bear a great measure of responsibility for the sullying of British honour. For they who had the power to mobilise a tremendous public opinion, powerful enough to compel Chamberlain to have stood resolutely by France, Russia and Czechoslovakia, fell into the trap of assuming that Chamberlain was intent upon making a stand against Hitler, when actually he had no such intention”.

(. . .)

“There must be no further confidence in Chamberlain. Labour must stand firm in Parliament to-day and give a lead which will rally all the truly patriotic and progressive forces in Parliament against the shameful Munich betrayal”.

Two days later the Secretariat of the Communist Party repudiated the article. But they probably did so because it was too outspoken a statement of the logic of their position—that Britain and France should take a strong line against Hitler. That this would in all probability have led to war is shown by Russia’s war preparations and Litvinov’s explicit statement that Russia was prepared to join Britain and France in going to war in aid of Czechoslovakia if it were attacked.

It must be clear to anyone not blinded by prejudice that the Editor of the Daily Worker (who presumably was familiar with the attitude of the Party of which he was an official spokesman) based his article on Communist policy.

The Communist Party, like the Labour Party, has completely changed its attitude on Czechoslovakia. It has gone even further in its change of front. Consider its present insistence on Britain rallying to the support of Czechoslovakia and resisting the march of “reactionary Fascism”, and then examine the following quotation from The Struggle against War, and the Tasks of the Communists, a 6d pamphlet issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1928:

“In the last imperialist war the Allies made use of the slogan ‘Fight against Prussian Militarism’, while the Central Powers used the slogan ‘Fight against Czarism’; both sides using the respective slogans to mobilise the masses for the war. In a future war between Italy and France, or Yugoslavia, the same purpose will be served by the slogan ‘Fight against reactionary Fascism’, for the bourgeoisie in the latter countries will take advantage of the anti-Fascist sentiments of the masses to justify an imperialist war” (page 14).

“In Czechoslovakia and in the Balkan countries, in Italy, in France, Spain, Belgium and Great Britain (Ireland) there are also oppressed nationalities. The Communist Parties must support the liberation movement of the oppressed nations and national minorities in all these countries, lead them in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and unreservedly champion their right to self-determination, which must include the right to complete separation” (page 31. Italics in the pamphlet).

It is doubtful if anyone but the Communist Party could make such a blatant and complete somersault in policy. Possibly the greatest joke of the whole tragic business, though it might have been a tragic one, is the spectacle of the Communist Party urging the British and French workers to be ready to lay down their lives in defence of democracy—and “bourgeois” democracy at that!

One thing at least can be said. Chamberlain’s actions were consistent, in line with his views on Czech dismemberment and his desire for unity with European Powers. But the attitude of the Labour and Communist Parties is a complete reversal of their former views. They held previously that Czechoslovakia should be allowed to be split up—in the name of “Justice” and “Liberty”. Now they want it to remain intact in the name of the same deities.

The reversal of policy by the latter two parties, just as much as the tricky diplomacy of the Chamberlain group, should be a warning to workers not to be misled by high-sounding phrases, but to look behind these phrases. Base their attitude on their class interest alone and they will not be led into the support of groups or parties that pursue a policy which obscures the fundamental antagonism of interest between worker and capitalist, of all races, colours and creeds.

The attitude of the Labour Party, the Communist Party, and others of like views, relating to the position of the Czechs, is due partly to fright, which has developed an acute attack of anti-Fascitus. They are prepared to see cities littered with the corpses of hundreds of thousands of working men, women and children, for what? To prevent what would be in the main merely a change of rulers.

While the workers of the world are prepared to put up with capitalism, and all that capitalism means, a change of rule is a minor question. Certainly not worth a war which would put back the movement for Socialism amongst both victors and vanquished. The present position of Germany, Austria and Italy is a striking illustration of this fact.

In conclusion, we must stress the fact that the only attitude for the workers to adopt, if they would free themselves from the horrors of both war and peace, is to organise together for the purpose of establishing a system of society in which the wealth of the world will be commonly owned by all the people of the world.

Czechoslovakia: The Choice Before Us (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Though the Daily Herald paused in its campaign on behalf of Czechoslovakia to speed Mr Neville Chamberlain on his way to Hitler with a “Good luck, Chamberlain!” and congratulated him on taking a course “which will receive general support” (Daily Herald, September 15th), it was as plain as a pikestaff that Chamberlain was quite prepared to abandon the Czechs if he thought that by so doing he could safeguard the interests of British capitalism. Now the Herald says this is a very dishonourable action, but when did any ruling class ever trouble about such trifles? The German ruling class in 1914 never hesitated a moment about violating their guarantee of Belgian neutrality. Nor did the British hesitate to make pledges to the Arabs which they never intended to keep. Then they double-crossed Italy, first bribing the latter to desert its own ally, Germany, and afterwards letting Italy whistle for payment when the time came to divide the loot at Versailles. And when has any capitalist politician ever kept faith with the working class?

Yet the Herald could not think of anything better to say to the workers than tell them, in effect, to trust Chamberlain!

Britain Not Ready for War.

Chamberlain was not thinking about the problems of the Czech ruling class–except, perhaps, that he was wondering exactly how they could be induced to lie down quietly while the sell-out took place. (It is really very wicked for victims to be armed and able to put up a fight; they should be defenceless, like the Abyssinians.) What, no doubt, weighed heavily on Chamberlain’s mind is that Great Britain’s re-armament is a long way from being finished and it would be very awkward indeed if Britain were to be forced into war at such a time as this. Among other things, Chamberlain’s own reputation as a politician would suffer a fatal blow, for he could hardly hope to persuade his masters or the electorate that his Government has efficiently handled the re-armament programme in the two years since he became Prime Minister. The guiding line of British foreign policy in recent years has been to prevent, if possible, any widespread conflict which would be certain to endanger the power and possessions of British capitalism and which would offer little prospect of gain in the event of victory – itself a very uncertain factor. Later on Chamberlain will feel readier to take a strong line, or, of course, events might force Britain into war against Germany in spite of Britain’s efforts to avoid, postpone or localise hostilities.

The Tragedy of the Present Position.

The real tragedy of the present position of the workers here and abroad is that they are hopelessly confused and divided, most of them even unaware that there is a Socialist attitude to war. In Great Britain most of the argument only centres about the two traditional views of ruling-class foreign policy. On the one side is the isolationist view: “let the Empire line up with USA and keep out of European wars”. It is marred for the capitalists by the awkward fact that Empire trade routes are very much bound up with the Mediterranean, and no method has been discovered of taking the Mediterranean out of Europe’s way and turning it into a British lake. The other view is the old Balance of Power doctrine: “keep the Continent divided into two more or less equally strong groups, and help the weaker side in case of need”. Although names have changed, and there are various positions intermediate between these two, not only Britain’s capitalists, but also most of Britain’s workers cannot see any alternative policy; except the Communists, who simply echo whatever from time to time accords with the interests of Russia’s rulers.

Save Democracy by War.

The Labour Party’s view is that the workers should in the last resort be prepared to go to war to save Czechoslovakian territory and independence. It has a strong emotional appeal. It is natural for generous-minded people who do not think clearly to be indignant at what looks to them like the aggression of a big Power against a small one, especially when the existence of democratic institutions and trade unionism are involved. It is the same appeal as was made in 1914 for “Poor little Belgium”, but though the British ruling class were and are very vitally concerned with the independence of Belgium they are not so much concerned about Czechoslovakia, so this time the Government and the Labour Party are at the moment on opposite sides. Socialists say that the workers should not be on either of these sides, but should be thinking about a line of their own.

The first step towards clear thinking is to recognise that a majority of the Germans in Czechoslovakia favour the idea of being inside Germany. They have lived under Czechoslovakian democracy, suffered prolonged misery from industrial depression and unemployment, had to put up with some not very serious disabilities imposed on them by the Czechs, and have finally been swept off their feet by Hitler’s promises and his appeal to their nationalism. Foolishly but fanatically they believe that Paradise awaits them on the other side of the frontier. As a matter of cold fact, Hitler would probably be able to alleviate their economic distress and unemployment a little, at least, for a time, just as he did for the workers in what was Austria. Socialists would tell them that they ought not to take short-sighted views and sell themselves to the capitalist Nazi movement for the sake of some small immediate advantage. But the Labourites, including the Czech Social-Democrats, cannot convincingly tell them that, for is it not the essence of Labourite philosophy that workers should concentrate always on the immediate advantage and the petty concession and look with favour on nationalism?

Capitalist democracy and reformism are not enough. The workers in most lands have tried them and are not satisfied. Along comes some glib talker about the efficiency of dictatorship or some patriotic fanatic who can stir their emotions with talk of racial superiority, and they desert their old democratic allegiance. Now it should be clear why Socialists say that war to save democracy is a snare and a delusion. By huge sacrifice of life, and assuming that Germany lost the war, it might be possible to force the Sudeten Germans to remain in Czechoslovakia. It might be possible to drive out some of the existing dictatorships (but not all of them, because some at least of the countries arrayed against Germany would themselves be dictatorships – for instance, England and France would possibly be able once more to buy the Italian Government). Would that bring Socialism nearer? Would it even “make the world safe for democracy” (remember the old 1914 catch-word?)? No, the workers everywhere would still be poverty-stricken and insecure, still political cannon-fodder for the first Fascist mob-orator who came along promising to rescue some new national minority from alien tyranny and save them from the horrors of capitalist democracy. Whichever side wins, war leaves the real problem unsolved and, indeed, by creating still more national hatred, it makes its solution more difficult than ever. The real problem is that of rallying the workers to something which will hold their allegiance against all spurious appeals and hold it for all time. Only Socialism can do that. Only Socialism is worth struggling for.

Socialism at any other time, but not now.

One final word. The Labour Party and the Communist Party are again preaching the doctrine that everything else must give place to the problems of Fascism and Czechoslovakia. Forgotten are all the other “urgent immediate demands” which filled their programmes in past years. Socialists are not impressed. For one thing, in the eyes of the Labour and Communist Parties, there never was a moment when Socialist propaganda was timely. During war they will want all energies turned to killing “the enemy”. During peace they always want to concentrate on disarmament, the “means test”, old-age pensions, or the “vital” question of pushing out one Government administering capitalism in order to put in another, differing chiefly in name.

The job of Socialists at all times, is to propagate Socialism and organise for the conquest of political power in the country in which they happen to live, in unceasing opposition to capitalism and all its agents and parties. We do not wish good luck to Mr Neville Chamberlain, nor do we seek war to save Czech capitalism or British or any other capitalism. We say, hasten the day when the British workers, along with the workers of all countries, can drive from power Chamberlain and his foreign capitalist friends and enemies, both democratic and Fascist, and establish Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Here and There: More About A.R.P. (1938)

The Here and There column from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

More About A.R.P.

Through a sympathetic correspondent, our statement on A.R.P. found its way into a Leeds newspaper and received a reply from an A.R.P. official, who, referring to the correspondent in question, says:—

He is fortunate in living in a country where, despite the many faults, he doubtless finds in it, he can still express his personal opinions as freely and forcibly as he wishes, so long as he respects the bounds of order and good conduct.

I am not concerned with his political creed, but I would point out that in the logical sequence of things he should be prepared, in the event of an Air Raid, not to accept the services of those Volunteers who to-day are giving up time and energy to fitting themselves to be of service to their fellows should the need ever arise.

Our A.R.P. officer thinks that a Socialist logically should not accept the services that A.R.P. offers. Very well. But what about the other side of the argument put forward by our A.R.P. officer, viz., that war preparations and A.R.P. are “a safeguard of peace” ? If preparations for “safeguarding peace” fail and war results then surely the correspondent referred to, who is in favour of peace and opposed to war, could reasonably expect to be safeguarded!

However, the A.R.P. officer dodged the main contention of our article. That is, briefly, that preparations for war, including A.R.P., require a war-willing working class for their success. Without which war would be impossible. As a writer in Controversy (September, 1938), who might also have read the article, says:—

. . . British Capitalism must be reasonably certain of one thing—national unity. It dare not go to war if it is conscious that it may be stabbed in the back by a disloyal working-class.

Our article also pointed out that A.R.P. provides capitalist governments with the opportunity of canalising anti-war sentiments into support for A.R.P. with plausible humanitarian arguments. 

The Controversy article touches this point:—

A.R.P. has two functions, both psychological. First, if support can be obtained for the limited measures for civilian “protection" embodied in the scheme—or for any official measures for protection whatsoever—then the Government can logically point out that there is no reason for withholding support from the re-armament programme as a whole.

There is no logical) escape from this sequence. To support, however tacitly, A.R.P., is in effect to support British Capitalism. And for a working-class party to refuse participation after the first stage is merely to evidence a theoretical confusion, which is no incentive to confidence on the part of the masses.

We are grateful that our attitude on this aspect of the war question flnds agreement outside the Socialist Party.

Fools and Democracy.

Under the heading “Democracy Must Not be Fooled Again," H. N. Brailsford, writing on the Czechoslovakian question, says:—

Twenty years ago Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau made this problem for us. They included in the Czech Republic 3,600,000 unwilling German subjects.

It was not necessary to do so. This is not a scattered minority. It lies in a compact fringe round the frontiers, and could have been detached to join its kinsmen in Germany and Austria.

For strategical reasons this obvious solution was avoided. The mountains of the Sudetenland offered an easily defensible frontier. The French General Staff and French heavy industry, largely interested in Czech armaments, meant to erect here a formidable barrier against Germany, then a disarmed and pacific republic.

To-day, with Austria within his Empire, it is Hitler rather than the French staff who poses the strategical problem.

He is bent on dismantling or neutralising this fortress that lies on the flank of any German advance eastwards. It bars the road to the oil wells of Rumania and the black earth of the Ukraine.— (Reynolds', September 10th, 1938.)

From that it might be logically assumed that Mr. Brailsford would be in opposition to war. But no; what he says is: “To oppose it may be morally impossible, but Labour, if it is wise, will keep its independence . . . critical and ready when the moment comes to serve the cause of the workers—the Germans as well as the Czechs, the Russians as well as the French."

Why is it morally impossible to oppose war? And why serve the cause of the workers “when the moment comes"—why not now?

Unfortunately, this is the sort of nonsense that is being regarded as “anti-war" and in line with the Socialist attitude.

It looks as though Mr. Brailsford is being fooled.

“Progress" of the Communist Party.

In a booklet running to over one hundred pages the Central Committee of the Communist Party reports to its 15th Party Congress. It is a remarkable document. It is remarkable for its complete omission of any ideas the Party held up to only a few years ago, and for the energy with which it now puts over capitalist ideas and propaganda with all the righteousness of the Salvationist combined with the subtlety of the Jesuits. Gone is the agitation for the violent overthrow of capitalism, the supreme contempt for the “social-Fascist” Labour Party, and opposition to the League of Nations as an agent of the capitalists. The Communist Party is now the standard-bearer for democracy, for affiliation to the Labour Party, for collective security. In respect of the last named it goes further than others and opposes “reconciliation with Fascist countries,” which “bolsters up the National Government and encourages fresh Fascist aggression.” The “Fascist countries” are Italy and Germany, and not those dictatorial capitalist States who might line up with France and Russia in a military alliance. “No reconciliation with Fascist countries" sounds plausible to working-class sentiment, but in practice means that the Communists. will support any capitalist government that will resist German and Italian ambitions. This policy is in line with the foreign policy of the Russian Government, whose interests the official Communist Party in Great Britain cannot oppose.

The writers of this report show outstanding skill in one certain direction. They manage to review working-class activity in this country and throughout the world in a way which leaves the impression that any credit for improvements in working-class conditions is due to the Communist Party, who are the people responsible for taking the initiative. Thus commenting on the fact that three million workers won holidays with pay, the report says “. . . our campaign now aims to extend this provision immediately to embrace every worker.” And even in Africa the crusaders see their influence at work:—

East and West Africa: Whilst we have only irregular contact with these colonies, the recent cocoa war in the Gold Coast and the coffee trouble in Tanganyika indicates that here also the movement is gaining strength.

It is to be hoped that the natives in East and West Africa are conscious of their debt to the Communist Party. And in this way the report almost breathlessly describes the conflicts throughout the British Empire; conflicts which, it is inferred. arise out of Communist influence and leadership.

In a section dealing with “Work Among the Middle Class and Professional Sections,” the report speaks of the need “to mobilise the middle class and professional people on the basis of their own professional interests.” The section also refers to the growth of national movements in Scotland and Wales, and says:

It has been made clear that our Party stands for a policy which preserves the best traditions of the Scottish people, and the Welsh people, resists every attempt to encroach upon their national rights, and demands the fullest opportunities for the development of self-government.

That is, of course, one way of pandering to the ignorance and prejudice of the “middle class and the professional sections,” and of getting the support of reactionaries and any but Socialists.

A “popular pamphlet” dealing with the question before the end of the year is promised. 

Dealing with the Daily Worker, “ such innovations as well-known Scottish leaders of thought I acting as contributors” are to be a feature of certain improvements. Commenting on the present contributors the report says: “John Strachey’s commentaries are still well liked.” There seems to be a touch of unconscious irony in that “still.” 

Communist Party membership is stated to have reached fifteen thousand; Daily Worker sales have on occasions exceeded one hundred thousand.

Those figures express a growth of the influence of the Communist Party and the degree to which the ideas for which its original Russian founders stood have been deserted.

There is no Communist Party in anything but name.

Communists are so misunderstood.

The writer of “ A Worker’s Notebook,” in the Daily Worker (September 16th, 1938), says that some one had rung up the paper to tell them of her experience during a demonstration in Whitehall. She had apparently asked two policemen what the demonstration was about and each had given exactly the same answer: “ It is the Communists, who are demanding war with Germany.” 

“Their unanimity,” says the Daily Worker, “made her wonder whether they were answering according to instructions.”

Touching; but surely even policemen may be forgiven for not being able to appreciate that the demands of the Communists that the British Government, with France and Russia, should go to the aid of Czechoslovakia in the event of German attack are meant to be interpreted as love overtures.

Another Lost Leader.

Commenting on the Czechoslovakian crisis the Daily Worker (September 16th, 1938) refers b pro-Nazi circles in France “ extending from ex-Premier Flandin, a special friend of Chamberlain and Hitler, to Leon Blum. . . . ”

It is only a few months since Leon Blum was head of the “Popular Front ” Government in France and the pet of the British Communist Party.

On Coat-turning.

Mr. John McGovern, M.P., of the I.L.P., has resigned from the negotiating committee appointed by the I.L.P. to discuss terms for the proposed re-affiliation with the Labour Party. In an interview with the Daily Herald (September 1st, 1938) he says:—

“ I am an unrepentant believer in unconditional re-affiliation, and the majority of my fellow members in the East End of Glasgow hold a similar opinion.

“In the present international situation the working classes cannot afford the luxury of dissension, and all who believe in peace, international security and social progress should be prepared to unite under the banner of the Labour Party."

Now, Mr. McGovern is not a newcomer to the politics of the Labour movement.- He sat in the House of Commons as a Labour M.P. during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. After some experience of that Government he saw no disadvantage for the workers in the “luxury of dissension." Writing in Forward (August 2nd, 1930) he said: —

The only time in my life that I have allied myself with the enemies of the workers has been since I came to the House of Commons, and that is by order of the Labour Government, Almost every time I go into the Division lobby I join such tried and trusted friends of t.he Labour Party as Lloyd George, his daughter, Sir Herbert Samuel, etc. They are keeping the Labour Party in office on condition that the workers and the Labour programme are deserted.

Really, Mr, McGovern, isn’t there some explaining to do? Has the Labour Party turned its coat—or Lloyd George—or only you?

Unemployment in India.

India is a country which is becoming rapidly industrialised. In the process she passes through the familiar stages of social development. Millions of workers from the land have been attracted to industrial centres, with the consequence that when the capitalists have no use for their labour they have nothing to fall back upon, and in large numbers are thrown on the streets. According to the Indian Labour Journal (August 21st, 1938), “ they pass their days in hunger, only to be relieved by epidemics and diseases that cannot be prevented by poverty."

“Relieved by" is really a nice, delicate way of saying that workers die as the result of their poverty. In what numbers they die the Journal does not say, but it does estimate the numbers of ex-land workers who are thrown on the industrial scrap-heap in the manner described above. The. number is forty millions!

Fine place the British Empire—for the capitalists!

Robbery with Impudence.

 

Whilst the British and Italians pursue their struggle over Spain, agree to “non-intervention," and assure each other of noble intentions, a report by the City Editor of the News Chronicle (August 29th, 1938), shows one of the underlying attractions in Spain:—

The full text of a triangular trade agreement between Italy, Manchukuo and Japan has just been published in Tokio, according to Reuter’s correspondent. Italy has undertaken to import as from September 1st a fixed annual quota of Japanese and Manchukuan goods. One of the main items will be, soya beans.

In return, Japan and Manchukuo have jointly undertaken to import a fixed quota of Italian goods. These are expected to consist largely of motor-cars, aluminium and mercury,

Note the “and mercury." And remember that the sources for mercury in Spain are in the territory still held by the Spanish Republican Government.

A case of selling the swag before it is stolen.

Harry Waite

Germany Stages a Come-Back (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The crash in Wall Street put an end to the flow of money and credits across the Atlantic. German capitalism sang “Don’t let the river run dry.” Short-term loans in Germany were now called in, and there was a rush on the banks. The number of small businesses which went under is legion, and monopoly capitalism (giant trusts) alone could survive the deluge. Unemployment and bankruptcies went up by leaps and bounds. This condition, whilst tragic, served a useful purpose. It enabled the mighty German industries (built by American money) to shake off the foreign fetters, America being in a mess. In this way the gigantic plant and production, with new rails, roads, etc., passed into “Aryan” hands.

The era of monopoly capitalism needs a corresponding moulding of the workers. It needs a human conveyor belt, a producing class as automatic as a machine. How can this be done? Two ways! Eliminate those who think otherwise (always a comparative few) and bluff the unthinking (the vast majority). In Hitler and his gangsters they saw the very instrument, so, placing their money at Hitler’s disposal, they built up their (industrial capitalist) machine. The millions of workers, not understanding Socialism, fell for demagogy of the Nazis, who cunningly used the term “National Socialist.” This cannot happen if the workers know the meaning of Socialism.

Capitalism in Germany having consolidated itself inside, now has to move outside. Fascist or Kaiser, the same problem remains, the problem which no capitalism can evade, the problem inherent in the very marrow of its bones—how to find new markets and new sources of profitable exploitation. Confronting Germany is the same circle as in 1914. French and British capitalism are holding on to their spoils.

The simple rule, the golden plan.

Let him take who may, let him keep who can. 

Playing on the chord of race, Germany spent huge sums of money in subsidising subversive movements in neighbouring territories. This, however, is a two-edged sword. It was quite an easy task to murder and pillage an unarmed, defenceless half-a-million Jews inside Germany, but outside—that is another story. Hitler expresses German capitalism aptly in “Mein Kampf" (page 699), when he says: "The inexorable enemy of the German nation is and always will be France.” French capitalism bars the way to western expansion, and that means British capitalism must stand by France. It also, of necessity, links Holland, Belgium, etc. Baldwin settled that by “our frontiers are on the Rhine.”

Barred from the west by the might of Britain and France, Germany has either to break this circumstantial unity or go east. Italy’s Near Eastern adventure in Abyssinia roused British and French capitalism; both saw an unexpected menace to their dominance in that part of the world. Their anti-Italian attitude gave Germany its chance. Up to this period Italian Fascism ('knowing the breed) did not relish a brother Fascist as a neighbour, and was looked upon as a factor against the eastward trend of Germany. The new situation, however, created a new orientation. It brought Italy and Germany together as “victims” of French-British capitalism and wound up with the Berlin-Rome axis. In this fashion was split the unity of forces against Germany westward and the move eastward facilitated.

We must again quote Hitler in his “Mein Kampf”: “ We stop the eternal march to the south and west of Europe and turn our eyes towards the land in the east.” In addition to the east being the easiest way, it was the safest way. The States en route were small and could in no sense put up much of a fight on their own, with the exception of Russia, who, from a military standpoint, would be a tough customer to tackle, but this was the route and economic necessity a remorseless master. Germany took a chance, invaded and seized Austria—it came off. The first stage had been overcome, and appetites grow by what they feed upon; Austria will do to start off with, but it is the industrial part of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire which matters, and that is now called—Czechoslovakia!

There, in twenty years, with French financial aid, has grown and developed a healthy, young and virile capitalism with a prosperous home-grown capitalist class, who mean to hang on to their right to exploit their workers. This they will do with the usual cries used by capitalism: national independence, or some such catchword. Once again German capitalism is challenging the capitalists of France and Britain. Can she do it? 

Lew.

News in Review: Wall Street slump (1962)

The News in Review column from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wall Street slump

Wall Street got the twitch last month and so did London and the Bourses on the Continent. The newspapers rushed out pictures of the panic in 1929 and then had to set their City Editors to work to explain why 1929 cannot after all happen again.

Everybody seemed to have forgotten that just before 1929 the financial experts were assuring us that the crash which was in fact just around the corner could never happen anyway. If this does not make the experts of 1929 look very impressive in retrospect, it must also teach us that the forecasts of all capitalism's economic experts are not worth very much.

Nowadays the experts are fond of pointing out the precautions which (they are confident) would prevent a runaway boom like the one which preceded the 1929 crash and therefore (they reason) would also prevent the crash itself.

This ignores the fact that slumps are not the result of an attack of jitters on the Stock Exchange; rather is it the other way round. Nineteen-twenty-nine was one of capitalism's classic crises and no amount of stock juggling could have averted it.

Nor should we assume that hotheaded speculation is dead. The Observer correspondent in New York reported that the “intellectuals" of Wall Street thought that: “By the end of last year the market had reached heights that brokers now, without blushing, describe as insane." and quoted one New York broker:

"The way some of (the big brokers) have been pushing over-priced stocks at naive investors is nothing short of criminal."

Perhaps a repeat of 1929 is not so impossible after all. For some of the experts were mystified by Wall Street’s 1962 twitch. The Guardian said: "The continuing retreat is puzzling commentators in that there seems to be no apparent reason for it. Mr. Walter Heller, President Kennedy's economic adviser, said there were no economic grounds for the condition of the market." Does this fill us with confidence that capitalism’s economists could not be taken unawares by a repeat of 1929? It does not.

Capitalism could have something up its sleeve, just as it had thirty-three years ago, to surprise the experts and impoverish the rest of us.

Liberal Party promises

Nobody can accuse the Tories of not being worried about the Liberal revival. Faced with the fact that some of the electorate undoubtedly find the Liberal Party attractive, the Conservatives have set out to prove that the very allure of Liberal policy lies in its irresponsibility.

This is being done in the time- honoured way of accusing the Liberals of pushing vote-catching policies without also mentioning that they would increase taxes to finance them. Mr. Iain Macleod has estimated that full application of the Liberal policy would put another eleven shillings on income tax. Most workers are convinced that they are the people who pay taxes: to them, the prospect of a standard income tax rate of 18/9d. in the pound must have seemed like black nightmare.

To back up his case. Mr. Macleod had his research boys dig out some choice examples of Liberal promise-mongering. He quoted Liberal policies for spending more on roads and education, for increasing pensions, repaying post-war credits and much more besides. The Liberals claimed that Macleod‘s quotes were taken out of context.

Yet in one way Macleod had a point, even if he did not know that he was making it. All capitalist political parties have to make a lot of attractive promises and boast that they can do things which they know are beyond their abilities. The Tories, for example, said in 1951 that they would stop prices rising.

Such promises can be effective vote-catchers. The one snag is that a party which is liable to be returned to power cannot make its promises too extravagant, because that would only make their betrayal that much more obvious. On the other hand, the more remote from power a party is, the more reckless its promises can be. The Liberals have little immediate prospect of becoming the government of British capitalism.

We may be sure that if the Liberal revival really gets under way their promises will become dimmer and more sober as the votes mount up. And if they ever get into power again most of the promises will disappear. Grimond and his men would run British capitalism in roughly the same way as the parties they now decry.

End of Eichmann?

No time was wasted, after the Israeli President bad written the quotation from the Bible across the petition for reprieve, in sending Adolf Eichmann to his death and scattering his ashes into the sea.

Why was Eichmann executed? For revenge? One man cannot adequately expiate the murder of six million people; a split-second execution is hardly revenge for the years of pitiless concentration camp horrors.

P

erhaps nearer the mark were those observers who think that the whole thing—the abduction, the trial, the execution—was meant to establish Israel as a political reality among the other capitalist nations. Political acts in themselves do have significance and for Israel to put to death the man who organised the extermination of the Jews is significant indeed.

Israel has asserted her power—even if, in terms of capitalist legality, she had little right—to bring the Jews' tormentors to book.

But what else has Israel done?

Perhaps she has made a martyr of the clerk-like Eichmann. Racial theories still live in capitalism's jungle; the execution of Eichmann could be the grain of sand around which they crystallise and flourish.

There is no easy explanation of the Eichmanns of the thirties and forties; Nazi Germany will remain a horrifying enigma for a long time to come. But we can say that part, at any rate, of the reason for the electoral success of the Nazis was the crisis of German capitalism after 1918 and the despair and cynicism which this bred in the minds of the German working class. In this mood, they would have supported anyone who sounded as if he had the answer to their problems. And Hitler, with his race mania, sounded like that to them.

Capitalism is always liable to convulsion and in any case it will never stop looking for scapegoats for its own shortcomings. This means that racial hatred is still with us and that even the madness of the Nazis need not be very far away.

The world may not have seen the last of its Adolf Eichmanns.

Coal profits

The nationalised coal mines made £28.7 million operating profit last year. If the Coal Board were a normal commercial company, said chairman Lord Robens when he announced these figures, it would be paying a dividend of 2½% from its profits.

But the coal mines are not, of course, a normal concern. The N.C.B. is liable to pay out on fixed interest stock and loans, which means that its dividend payments bear no relation to its working profit.

Last year the N.C.B’s interest payments came to £42.4 million, which turned its working profit into an accounting deficit of £13.7 million.

There are three things to be said about this.

Firstly, nationalising the coal mines was obviously a good move from the point of view of those who get the £42.4 million interest from a profit of only £28.7 million; much more than they would have got from Lord Robens' two-and-a-half per cent!

Secondly, the fact that millions of pounds profit is being wrung from the coal mines is proof—if anymore were needed—that nationalisation does not alter the capitalist nature of society. For profit, in private or state industry, can only come from the exploitation of workers in the industry.

Which brings us to the third, conclusive point. Many workers in this country were misled into supporting nationalisation because they thought it had something to do with common ownership. The figures which the National Coal Board has produced, and those which the other nationalised industries turn out year by year, show up that it was nothing of the kind.