Umbrella statesmen (1939)

From the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A lot of skits have been published about Chamberlain and his umbrella, but the real significance of it has escaped the commentators. It is that, in negotiating peace or war, it is the capitalists or their representatives who carry the umbrellas, but the workers who, when the war has started, are expected to shoulder—not umbrellas— but guns, and to blow each other to bits about a quarrel which can be made or made up by statesmen, who need to be armed with nothing more than an umbrella, a fountain pen, and the passive support of the workers themselves in order to be able to plunge the world into a holocaust of blood such as the earth has never yet seen.

R. M.

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the October 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past month several conferences have been held in various parts of the country, and the reports appearing in the Press of their deliberations, though brief, are somewhat interesting reading. For instance, I gather that at the closing meeting of the British Association at Newcastle the subject for consideration was that of industrial fatigue. On this occasion one, Dr. Hunter, declared that the question of fatigue had been very much exaggerated, and he went on to say that :

“In yards where they worked four and a half days a week of 37 hours there could not be any over-fatigue in the ordinary sense, but it was found that if men combined hard work with drinking whisky then over-fatigue might and did come in.

Men who did not take drink worked longer hours in his works and did not suffer in health or complain of over-fatigue.”

Presumably Dr. Hunter would have us believe that the men engaged in the shipbuilding yards only work 37 hours per week, and that the main cause of the trouble in whisky drinking. How many more times is the drink gag to be trotted out as the first and last reason of the failure of capitalist production? One has only to recall the shortage of munitions in the early days of the war to recollect that then there was the same outcry of drinking and shirking. The concluding remarks of the speaker are exceedingly interesting. He continues:

“If men took a more intelligent interest in their work and worked harder they would feel very much less fatigue. The effort to work slowly was really very fatiguing.”—”Daily Chronicle,” Sept. 11, 1916.

Of course, all those wage slaves who have had the good fortune to write daily time sheets and the privilege of punching the clock when they start and finish a job will be able to appreciate to the fullest extent the reference to “a more intelligent interest in their work.” Delightfully funny, isn’t it ?

* * *

A reference to the foregoing conference in another paper states that “Dr. Oliver said that industrial fatigue did exist and played a very important part in the number of accidents that took place.” There you are, you pay your money and take your choice. This quotation is from the “Daily Mail,” same date.

* * *

The Chief Officer of the Board of Education has recently issued his annual report and has emphasised the value of open-air training for children. This is not in the least surprising when one takes into consideration the hovels that vast numbers of the working class have to inhabit from sheer compulsion. What with the dark and gloomy basements to the barrack-like “model dwellings” where the sun’s rays hardly ever penetrate, is it to be wondered at that our children require open-air treatment and social welfare centres !

That the subject is a serious one, and particularly so in view of the wastage of war, may be gathered from the fact the Chief Officer states:

“Not less than a million children of school age are so physically or mentally defective or diseased as to be unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State provides.”

This in itself is a sufficient condemnation of capitalist society. Miss Margaret McMillan, commenting on the above, says: “That is a very low estimate. I should have said that the number of such children was two millions—rather more than less.” Think of it you who toil and slave and who consciously or unconsciously support modern capitalism, what your apathy means to your children and your class. You labour that others may have ease, you build houses but live in dens where your masters would not put their dogs. Such are the legacies resulting from the private ownership in the means of life.

The lady above referred to cites a fact from her own experience in Deptford as to the condition prevailing therein the following words :

“We once examined 147 children who were sent to our clinic to see if they were suffering from something other than the complaints for which they had come to be treated. And we found that 71 of them had weak backs and that 42 of these cases were so serious as to place the future lives of the children in jeopardy. Yet not one of these children had been sent to us as suffering from this complaint at all.”

We ask you to study these things for yourselves, to get at the why and the wherefore of them, to recognise the continual slaughter of the innocents, and when you understand the cause of these abominations to join with us that an end may be put to a system of society which means poverty, misery and want for the vast majority, and assist in ushering in a new society wherein these horrors may be eliminated. Isn’t this worth fighting for? (Quotations from “Daily News,” Sept. 16th, 1916.)

* * *

Reference to the above is also made in “Reynolds’s” (17.9.16) and may perhaps add further to the point. The writer asks: What are we going to do about it ? The importance of the question to our masters is not overlooked as may be judged by this reference.

“Time after time “Reynolds’s” has pointed out the menace to the future of the nation which the neglect of children and child-bearing mothers means. Perhaps now, when the flower of our young men is dying on the battlefield, we may find widespread recognition of the importance of making the best of our children. . . . But the greatest blame most be borne by the democracy, which has not insisted long ago on the sweeping away of many causes which make such a report as Sir George Newman’s possible. Some of the evils are not preventible, but many of them are, and it is only ignorance and apathy which have allowed us to remain quiet while so little has been done.”

Many of the “evils” are “preventible,” then, if so, why not prevent them ? Only the Socialist holds the remedy. Capitalist politicians and reformers have tinkered about with them, long enough, and in the words of Lloyd George stand condemned, for has he not stated that as soon as they heal one social sore another one breaks out. Thirty-bob at birth, sickness and unemployment benefit, and old age pensions at 70 fail to touch the spot. Arise, then, ye workers !

* * *

Still they come ! Another object lesson in the way patriotism is rewarded is to be found in a newspaper report to hand of a man who was in the 13th Essex Regiment and has been discharged “as being no longer physically fit for war service.” The report states that the man threw up a good job early in 1915 to enlist. He was not a conscript, and he sacrificed between £2 and £3 a week. Passed as medically fit for active service he eventually began training and at last took up the work of a cook. He said:

“We used to get our clothes soaking wet through at the field ovens, but there we had to stick, no matter what sort of weather it was. I have been at it … many times in rain, snow, and blizzards. At Northampton in January it was awful.”

The result was that his health broke down and ultimately he was discharged. The allowance his wife had been receiving was also stopped and he himself on the 10th of August received the following intimation:

“I am directed to acquaint you that the Commissioners of this Hospital [Chelsea], having fully considered your case, have decided that you have no claim to a pension.”—”Star,” August 25th, 1916.)

As this decision stands it serves to show the cold and callous indifference of those who in times past have framed the necessary regulations governing the grant of pensions. May it prove to be a means of opening the eyes of those who are used as cannon fodder to realise their true position in society.

* * *

The Trades Union Congress recently met at Birmingham, and an idea of the revolutionary nature of this body may be gauged from the fact that they were received by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. In his opening speech he “emphasised the need for effort all round, and made an eloquent plea for the preservation of that national unity which the war has brought us. He admitted the claim of working men to take a greater share in the organisation of industry than they have hitherto enjoyed, and did not attempt to gloss over the fact that the conditions in many trades in the past had been bad, and that every man who did his best deserved to obtain decent conditions of life and work and the opportunity of bringing up his children under cheerful and healthy conditions.” How nice and kind our masters are when it suits them for the purpose of swanking the workers. Tell them part of the truth, how in many trades in the past conditions had been bad (as if they were not now), but for heaven’s sake don’t let them realise how they are fleeced.

* * *

In the same article the writer tells us that “the secret of industrial peace lies not in attempts by labour to squeeze capital or by capital to squeeze labour, but in the working together of employer and employed against the competition of outside forces.” Here again we have the old bogey trotted out, the robbed and the robbers are to work amicably together in order to fight against “the competition of outside forces.” That there will be “competition” for jobs here is religiously omitted from the article in question, and the writer says that the fear of a flooded labour market with the disbanding of our great armies is very largely “illusory.” How simple all are !

The Scout

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

Editorial: Conscription—1916 Over Again (1939)

Editorial from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

After repeated pledges not to introduce conscription in peace-time, Mr. Chamberlain has introduced it in peace-time—with the bland excuse that “no one can pretend that this is peace-time in the sense in which the term could be fairly used.” The Labour Party can fairly claim that the man who treats pledges so lightly can hardly throw stones at Hitler, but on every other ground the Labour opposition to conscription is of the flimsiest kind. The Government is treating it accordingly. Particularly during the past six months the Labour Party has done its utmost to persuade the voters and badger the Government into a system of alliances to “stop the aggressors.” Now the Government suddenly falls into line, but says that its actual and potential allies want this country to adopt conscription in order to show that it means business—the nature of the business being the capacity to wage war on a large scale. The Government also points to the fact that France, Russia, Poland and the rest of the countries—except U.S.A.—already have conscription, and M. Blum, leader of the French Socialist Party (the equivalent of the British Labour Party), throws in his influence on the same side and tells his British colleagues not to be illogical. In these circumstances the Government would be foolish to treat seriously the Labour Party’s wordy opposition to conscription—those who have swallowed the camel of war do not for long strain at the gnat of compulsion. If Mr. Chamberlain had any doubts about the matter he could remove them by observing how the Labour Party behaved in 1916, when war-time conscription was being introduced. In theory they were opposed to conscription, but they were also represented in the Government and were in favour of the War. What then could they say when the Government came to them and said that the voluntary system had failed? Some of them did say, indeed, that the Government had broken its word and was tricking them, but they were answered by Mr. Arthur Henderson, one of the Labour Party representatives in the Government. Speaking at the Labour Party Annual Conference at Bristol, in January, 1916, Mr. Henderson supported conscription, on the ground that—

“Notwithstanding the magnificent success of the voluntary system, even now we had not all the men we needed to meet the enemy in the various theatres of war that we were confronted with.” (Report, page 120.)

In spite of Mr. Henderson’s support for conscription, it was obvious that a majority of delegates were still against it. A resolution was before the Conference which declared opposition to the Military Service Bill and went on to commit the Party to “agitate for its repeal” if it became law. This would have been very awkward for the Labour Party and its members, who were part of the Coalition Government, but Mr. Will Thorne and others proposed dividing the resolution. This was done and everyone was satisfied, because Conference then proceeded to adopt the harmless attitude of opposing conscription and also of opposing the resolution which would have committed them to agitating for its repeal. This can safely be taken as a forecast of what will happen now if the Government continues to put in practice the Labour policy of preparing for war, and if the international situation continues to be tense.

As far as the Trade Union Executives are concerned, that is indeed what happened at the special conference held on May 19th, 1939. They rejected by 3,817,000 votes to 232,000 an amendment which would have meant withdrawing from co-operation with the Government on National Service, and passed by 3,933,000 votes to 550,000 a long resolution which opened by protesting “most strongly against the Government’s action in introducing compulsory military service, in violation of the definite pledges given by the Prime Minister, and of the solemn assurances offered to the T.U.C. General Council when co-operation was sought by the responsible Ministers in the organisation of Voluntary National Service.” (Report in Daily Herald, May 20th.)

They also rejected by 4,172,000 to 425,000 a resolution in favour of a “general strike as a last effort to oppose military and industrial conscription.”

The Labour Party’s votes in Parliament in 1916 were equally illuminating for the light they throw on that Party’s attitude. There were three votes on the Military Service Bill, on January 6th, 12th and 18th, 1916. At the first vote, fourteen Labour M.P.s were absent out of the total of thirty-six. Of those present, thirteen voted “against” conscription and nine “for.” At the Second Reading, nine were absent, eleven voted “against” and sixteen “for.” And at the Third Reading, no fewer than twenty were absent, six voted “against” and eleven “for.” (The number of M.P.s had in the meantime increased to thirty-seven.)

As in 1916, so in 1939

The Labour Party is, in 1939, again making a great show of opposing conscription, because, in its view, the voluntary system “is providing, and can continue to provide, the nation with all the manpower required for effective national defence and for the fulfilment of its obligations for mutual assistance in the collective system of resistance to aggression.” (Statement issued by the National Council of Labour Daily Herald, April 26th.)

Many trade union executives and conferences have endorsed the Labour Party view, but one Union, the Civil Service Clerical Association, a little more far-seeing than the rest, has anticipated the likely future trend of misguided working-class opinion. Instead of playing for immediate popularity by opposing conscription, the General Secretary of the C.S.C.A., Mr. W. J. Brown, and his Executive Committee, moved an emergency resolution at their annual conference supporting conscription “on conditions,” one of which was the “immediate conscription of wealth.” The movers are thus in the safe position of still being able to say that they never supported conscription unconditionally in the form in which it will actually exist. At the same time they save themselves from the ridiculous position of the Labour Party. The C.S.C.A. delegates carried the vote for conscription by 414 votes to six.

The man who was largely responsible for persuading the delegates was Mr. W. J. Brown, former pet of the Communists and the I.L.P., ever a nimble sprinter after the merry-go-round of capitalist reforms and expedients. The day before yesterday he was MacDonald’s friend, then Mosley’s (at the birth of the New Party). Then he was very, very “left-wing” and the enemy of Bevin. Now he is “for conscription” and Bevin is against it. But the present position will, doubtless, be no more stable than the others, and any serious crisis for British capitalism will find them in the same camp again.

The Socialist Position

As against both of the above policies, policies circumscribed by the callous requirements of predatory capitalism, the Socialist Party stands for Socialism, well aware that neither the Browns nor the Bevins, the Chamberlains nor the Stalins, have any practical solution to offer for the evil plight in which the world’s workers find themselves.

The Socialist is opposed to conscription because he is opposed to the capitalist war for which the armed forces, whether volunteer, professional or conscript, are wanted. Though the war would be described on the one side as a war “for democracy” and on the other side as a war “against encirclement,” the driving force behind both sides would be the capitalist lust for markets, raw materials and strategic positions. When Hitler for the German capitalists says that Germany must expand or explode, find markets or perish, he meets his opposite in Mr. Hudson, British Secretary for Overseas Trade, who said in Warsaw on March 21st that “we are not going to give up any markets to anyone. . . Great Britain is strong enough to fight for markets abroad. Britain is now definitely going to take a greater interest in Eastern Europe.” (News Chronicle, March 22nd, 1939.)

Fighting that at present takes the form of words, trade agreements, loans, guarantees against aggression, etc., may, as in 1914, turn into an armed conflict, and that armed conflict will be yet another war produced by capitalist rivalries.

The Socialist Party knows that such wars solve nothing for the workers, and leave capitalism to produce still more wars in endless horror.

The Socialist Party declares its opposition not only to conscription but to capitalist war and to capitalism itself. The Socialist Party can repeat now what was written in its official organ in February, 1916, about the conscription then being introduced : —

“… We are bitterly opposed to conscription. But what are conscription, war, unemployment, poverty, overwork and starvation wages but the direct results of capitalist class rule? What hope of any permanent amelioration so long as the workers are the underdogs? What hope, indeed, of even a paltry concession in this matter so long as the exploiters are masters of the State and feel their controlling position unmenaced? We, therefore, urge the workers to join the real campaign against conscription; for conscription, on the part of the governing class, is only one item in the war upon the workers.”

Ted’s all at sea but does it matter ? (1971)

From the October 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard 

If we accept their own evaluation of themselves, there can be no doubt that our politicians do a wonderful job. Toiling night and day, they control the economy to a hair’s breadth accuracy — stimulating here, damping there, so that we all enjoy the most marvellous prosperity ever known to man. And if anything goes wrong with their control, if they stimulate when they should dampen, or vice versa, they are ready with a number of amazingly generous schemes of social security which ensure that even when we are out of work we are almost as prosperous as before.

Then there is the matter of defence. We all know that we live in an extremely dangerous world where everything we hold dear, like our motor car and our back garden and the Royal Family, is under the threat from Russia and China and Egypt and many other uncivilised countries. To ward off this threat the politicians have arranged a fantastic armoury of weapons which are enough to frighten away the most insensitive Oriental ever born. Of course at the same time as they claim the credit for the production of these weapons the politicians also tell us that they have attended numerous conferences and signed numerous treaties with the professed object of ensuring that the weapons are never used, But that apparent contradiction should prove to everyone except the most cynical what wonderful men our leaders are.

With all these tremendously good, and time consuming, works being done for us the wonder is that the politicians ever have any time spare for anything else. Yet many of them are active in all sorts of other fields. Churchill, for example, used to spend a great deal of time eating and drinking; Attlee was clever enough to be able to doodle silently while the great affairs of state were being fought out all around him; Macmillan and Douglas-Home were both fond of the grouse moors. But now we have a Prime Minister who is better than all of them because he is an international sportsman.

It is possible that some sport fans will he misled by that description into thinking that Ted Heath has been recruited into Alf Ramsay’s squad and will shortly be taking on George Best for the glory and honour of Old England. But before any of them have a heart attack at this idea, it should be made clear that Heath’s international sporting is confined to yachting, in which he has represented Great Britain.

Perhaps Heath’s public relations men think that his hobby — if that is what it can be called — fits in well with his image of the small seaside town grammar school boy who made the top. This, you see, is the age of the Daily Mirror dinghy, when almost any worker who is not actually out of work can probably afford to buy or build his own sailing ship for a fairly modest outlay. Unfortunately Heath’s rather elephantine publicists seem to have overlooked the vital fact that his boat is larger and more expensive — something like £20,000 more expensive — than all those little do-it-yourself boats.

In addition the Prime Minister is providing the Labour opposition with some handy ammunition, because as he has been absorbedly sailing backwards and forwards there has been an escalation of the current problems of British capitalism which he as the top politician should be able to solve. In Ulster the violence flares even higher, with more and more deaths. The world is in the throes of yet another currency crisis. At home, among the usual poverty problems like housing, unemployment has become an issue and is likely to reach the dreaded million mark this winter.

The Labour Party have always been adept at picturing leisured Tory ministers callously at their sports while the workers are suffering. On the face of it, it seems reasonable to expect, politicians to be energetic and committed to their work. But it needs only a little probing beneath the surface to put this assumption in a very different light.

Of the men who have held the job of Prime Minister since the First World War, one who provoked a lot of criticism by his apparent inertia and lack of concern was Stanley Baldwin. He was a man who was always ready to make a sentimental speech about the beauty of the English countryside but who preferred to spend his holidays in Southern France. He exploited the image of the comfortable, fatherly, pipe-smoking leader talking to the people like a family doctor — which he rather spoiled by being photographed looking affectionately at a pig. Chamberlain referred sarcastically to his ‘‘poetic temperament” and whatever truth there was in this sneer, Baldwin was capable of coining some memorable phrases — like his slogan of ‘‘Safety First” for the election of 1929, when there were a couple of million unemployed in this country who might have been expected to want anything but a policy of caution. Nevertheless the workers were so fascinated by Baldwin’s promise of tranquility that they gave him almost enough votes to get back into power.

Just after he got back to the Premiership in 1932 he

. . . declared himself by no means overwhelmed by his responsibilities ... He was going to the theatre tonight!

(Neville Chamberlain’s diaries; 23.5.1932).

And while Baldwin was so gay and carefree Sir John Orr was telling the world, which included the politicians, that the cost of an adequate diet — nine or ten shillings a week — was beyond the purchasing power of one third of the people. A little before this Baldwin had announced to the Junior Imperial League that “This is a glorious age in which we live . . . the whole world is sick” but he did not mean the same thing.

After a time his lethargy and stone-walling became a liability. In addition he once made the statement that “You cannot palter with the truth for the sake of votes”, which must have seriously unnerved his fellow' politicians and, more than anything else, convinced them that he had to go.

Baldwin was succeeded by the scrawny Neville Chamberlain, who may have been the most unpopular Prime Minister of recent times. So old fashioned was he that he regarded the fountain pen as a new fangled instrument of torture. Chamberlain belied his appearance because, apart from recurrent gout, he was a robust and physically tireless man. He took the chair of every Cabinet committee dealing with major domestic policies; he was the one minister in his government who could always be relied on to read and digest every paper before the Cabinet; when he was seventy and would tire out his police bodyguard by dragging him on long, hard hikes over the Chiltern Hills. And of course there were those famous flights to meet Hitler — in those days quite an adventure for a man of 69.

Although Chamberlain championed many of the methods of running British capitalism which might have been put forward by the Labour Party — for example state welfare schemes and what he called a “managed economy” — he was the image of the stiff, grim faced Tory. Yet none of his opponents could accuse him of lethargy; indeed, when he later became damned with the memory of Munich the Tories must have wished miserably that he had not been so energetic. Perhaps a bit more of Baldwin’s casualness would have saved something from the wreck which emerged as Labour’s victory of 1945.

But in the nature of capitalism’s politics the Tories recovered and after Attlee’s men, many of whom were so energetic in their efforts to defend the interests of the British capitalist class that they worked themselves into an early grave, came the Age of the Grouse Moor. As it happened Macmillan was a one-time admirer of Baldwin’s and shared many of his characteristics as a slick performer on the political tightrope. He too made slushy speeches, once persuading a deputation of railwaymen to call off a strike by tearful reminiscences of the 1917 battle of Passchendaele.

Macmillan was a man who presented strongly contrasting images. He liked to affect the “effortless superiority” of one who had gone to a posh Oxford college yet he could also sponsor policies like the Premium Bonds which some Tories thought were vulgar. One of the many surprises he sprung was to become energised by taking on the job of Prime Minister. Before that he was thought to be worn out by his time as Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. But as Premier he blossomed; crisis suited his acting talent and he quickly dominated his party, stifling any gestures of opposition with elaborate yawns and deliberately boring speeches.

Nevertheless, behind the facade of the dandy in a fashionable play Macmillan was doing a tricky political job. He played a large part in recognising the necessity of, and organising, the retreat of British capitalism from the old Empire so dear to Tory hearts. He signalled this policy in a speech which passed a new catch phrase — the Wind of Change — into common usage and which infuriated those Tories whom Macmillan had allowed to believe that he would carry on with Eden’s policies in areas like the Middle East. Years later, in an interview with Nigel Lawson (Listener 8/9/66), he described the process of this trickery:

Lawson: Would you say it is easier for a Prime Minister in this country to do one thing if he says he is doing something else?

Macmillan: It is a very common method, yes.

As in the case of Baldwin, Macmillan’s popularity waned and his grip on his party weakened, with the growing impression that he pursued too casual a style while crisis mounted all around him. In the end he panicked, he came to admit in the Profumo debate that he was out of touch with the times and, after one last effort, he retired from the Premiership. Even his influence on the choice of his successor Douglas- Home provoked such a split in the Tories that they never used that method again.

After Douglas-Home, Wilson came roaring into office with a reputation for crushingly hard work. He was another grammar school boy made good — in fact the original, authentic article with his simple life style and comfortable family. Wilson was said never to relax, giving up even his Sundays to reading and to preparing his speeches. He said he thrived on work; only boredom made him tired and the most responsibility he had the more relaxed he became.

For a time this was effective; we all remember how pleased the voters were with their new, bustling Prime Minister after those thirteen years of Tory snobbishness and lethargy. It was only as reality forced its way into the picture (yet again, for the umpteenth time) that Wilson was discredited. He himself probably helped in this process, by persisting with the image long after it had been exposed as a sham and the man of action written down as a slick purveyor of empty clap-trap and blatant trickery. It will need a massive confidence trick now to reestablish him as a creditable politician worth any of the millions of votes which will be cast for capitalism at the next election.

It would be possible to go on like this for some time, but every example would lead us back to the same conclusion. The personalities of our politicians — whether they are stupid or clever, energetic or lazy — have absolutely no effect upon the world they are supposed to control and improve. The tragedy is that, as political leaders are necessary to capitalism, the working class assume that they will always be necessary in any society. In fact, a successful politician needs many of the talents and qualities of a good actor, which means that he cannot represent reality. It is not uncommon, when a play is no good, for the customers to enforce its shut-down by the simple method of not supporting it. In the same way the working class could bring down the curtain on the destructive farce of capitalism.

Ivan

The Rise and Fall of Mussolini (1943)

From the August 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most of the accounts of Mussolini, by himself, by his friends, and by his enemies are a compound of myth and misrepresentation. Many of those who now denounce him as a monster of cruelty and treachery used not to regard him in that light.

Mr. Churchill was reported to have said in 1927 : —

“If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.” (Times, January 21st, 1927.)

And did not the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain say in the House of Commons (May 2nd, 1938) : —

“To-day there is a new Italy, an Italy which, under the stimulus of the personality of Signor Mussolini, is showing new vigour, in which there is apparent new vision and new efficiency in administration and in the measures which they are taking to improve the conditions of their people.”

We may also recall the, unbounded enthusiasm for Mussolini and Hitler displayed by Lord Rothermere in his Daily Mail when he was backing Mosley’s Blackshirts and urging young British men and women to emulate the “spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy.” (Daily Mail, January 15th, 1934).

Even the New Leader, organ of the I.L.P., was not quite sure in 1922 whether the workers should support Mussolini or not. In the issue dated November 10th, 1922, an article from an Italian correspondent was published urging cooperation with the Fascists in the national reconstruction of Italy. The Editor, while not associating himself with the idea, did not feel able to reject it out of hand. He doubted the feasibility of the idea, but said:

“Only events can test our correspondent’s optimistic reading of its (Fascism’s) new spirit.”

It is only necessary to recall these now-forgotten enthusiasms and aberrations to perceive the fallacy of the argument that those German and Italian workers who swallowed the absurd and brutal doctrines of their leaders must be punished and kept under, in order to save the world from further dictatorships and aggressions. If it is a crime for the workers to be taken in by the demagogy of a Hitler or a Mussolini, what of the illustrious statesmen and public men who were taken in too?

One myth about Mussolini, still held by many who denounce him, is that he was the creator of modern Italy, the inspired and dynamic leader who moulded events to his will and took power by a brilliant and forcible “march on Rome” in October, 1922. Mr. Bernard Shaw is an outstanding believer in the “great man” myth. If it were true that the great man could so mould events to his will, why the undignified and craven exit from power? Mussolini’s path to power was not through any bold and godlike master-stroke, but through the connivance and desire of those who had control of the political machine, in Italy in 1922. Is it not related how General Badoglio offered at the time to “scatter this Blackshirt rabble with a whiff of grapeshot,” only to be ordered by the King of Italy to let the rabble take office. Mussolini’s exit has been like his entry, for, according to the Daily Telegraph (July 27th, 1943), this giant among men resigned because, after a meeting of the Fascist Grand Council lasting ten hours he was voted down by 19 voles to 7!

The truth is that Mussolini and his Fascist Party had outlived its popularity under the stress of economic hardship and military defeat, and could no longer fulfil the prime function of those who take on the job of harnessing the exploited working class to the capitalist State in the interest of the exploiting class. Discontent had grown and the workers would not go on believing and obeying the leaders in whom they had once placed their trust. Long ago it was admitted by leading Fascist journals that things were in a bad way. The Fascist Party, which they admitted had “become an enormous, top-heavy organisation with a rigid bureaucracy” (Manchester Guardian, September 3rd, 1941), was no longer able to serve its purpose. Mussolini and his Fascists did not mould events, but were the astute exploiters of events which moulded them. In particular, they gained their opportunity to rise to office (and to the luscious fruits of office) because capitalism in Italy after the last war could not solve its own problems or satisfy the mass of the population. Their later policies were similarly dictated by the contradictions of capitalism. As Sir George Paish, the economist, pointed, out, it was the world-crisis of capitalism which determined Italy’s aggressive foreign policy. Writing in 1935. he said:

“If the difficulty between Italy and Abyssinia is to be settled, is it not essential to discover its real cause and remove it? Clearly its cause is similar to that which induced Italy to attack Abyssinia in 1896. At that time the world was suffering from a severe economic and financial crisis, and the distress of Italy caused her statesmen to seek relief in a policy of conquest. The world to-day is suffering from a crisis more severe than 40 years ago, and Italy is in even greater distress than she was then. In consequence, Italy desires a colony to give her a market for her products, to which her people can emigrate, and from which she can obtain food, raw material and gold.” (Times, August 31st. 1935.)

Crises, wars and dictatorships are possible only because of the lasting inability of capitalism to meet the needs of the population of the world. The remedy is not to seek new inspired leaders or new ways of managing capitalism. but to abolish the capitalist system from the face of the earth.

50 Years Ago: The Housing Question (1975)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

How eloquent both Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the present Health Minister, and Mr. Wheatley, his predecessor in that office can become over the deplorable housing conditions of the workers! And what grand schemes both can produce to solve the problem ! And yet the housing problem is as troublesome as ever. Why?

In that Conservative newspaper, the Sunday Chronicle, March 1st, Mr. Harold Begbie has an article, entitled “The Selfish Builder”, from which we cull the following: —

‘Of all the sections of Labour which have thus paralyzed our industrial activity and brought incalculable sufferings and sorrows on the head of the working classes, none stands so clearly and so cruelly guilty as that section of Labour which controls the building trade . . . the guilt lies at the door of those politicians of Labour who have encouraged the operatives of the building trade to make a selfish use of the nation’s direct necessity.’

The national and municipal housing schemes of the Labour Party have not succeeded, for the same reason that other schemes fail. Capitalism, whether private, municipal, or under State ownership has no mere ethical or ‘spiritual’ basis, its basis is material profit, obtained by the exploitation of the workers and realised by the sale of goods. If there is no sale there is no realisation of profit, and it is solely because the great majority of workers can neither buy nor even rent a newly-built house that the output of houses is restricted.

Now if one were to go to the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives . . . their secretary has repeatedly pointed out that bricklayers and plasterers are on the books as unemployed, despite the cant of the employers about the shortage of skilled labour.

Moreover, is there any cry about the shortage of labour when a warehouse, mill, factory, bank, theatre or cinema is wanted? No, these jump up like mushrooms overnight.

(From an unsigned editorial “The Truth About the Housing Question”, Socialist Standard May 1925.)

Personalities and Socialist politics. (1926)

From the October 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are constantly told by new readers, especially by members of the Labour Party, that they regret what they call our “personal” attacks on the leaders of other political parties. Many individuals in the Labour Party, who say they want to see the establishment of a Socialist form of society, claim that Socialist educational work would make more rapid headway if those who carry it on would carefully avoid hurting the feelings of workers who have some admiration or liking for their “big men.” At the same time it is readily admitted that the actions of these leaders often call for criticism. But our criticism, they say, is not “fair criticism, ” it is not “helpful” or “encouraging.”

In taking up this attitude our critics are showing in fact that their disagreement with our general principles and policy is more fundamental than they imagine. It is essential to our conception of Socialist education that we should continually use the lessons of experience to sap the confidence placed by the workers in their leaders, political or trade union, Liberal, Tory, Labour or Communist; not because those leaders are good, bad or indifferent, but simply because they are leaders. This to a superficial view, and in the eyes of those who unconsciously have in mind the false analogy of the military discipline applied to masses of mechanically-minded soldiers, looks like treachery to the working class, and it is, therefore, our endeavour to show that our attitude is in fact an elementary principle of effective organisation for Socialism.

We are, of course, not alone in attacking the leaders of other organisations, but our methods and our aims in so doing are different from those of our opponents. In the first place it is important to notice that we do not criticise Mr. MacDonald or Mr. Lloyd George on the ground that they are corrupt or incompetent, and that we know some better leaders—ourselves. We have no leaders in our organisation, and we do not ask you to believe that we can lead you to paradise, if only you will give us your confidence. No one would deny that individuals differ. Some men would readily, and others not so readily, permit themselves to be bribed by “the other side.” The influences most likely to affect Mr. Churchill, for instance, would probably make no appeal whatever to Mr. MacDonald. There are men of whom it could safely be said that it is almost inconceivable that they could ever be bribed, either by money, office, “honours.” or—perhaps the most seductive attraction of all—even by flattery and the offer of the hospitality and friendship of “society.”

But even if we could find leaders who in the accepted sense are incorruptible and possessed of sound judgment, we should still oppose the principle of leadership, and we should still be able to justify ourselves by reference to experience.

The typical feature of leadership is that of a man or woman standing in a position of authority, able in varying degrees to commit those whom he or she represents. Its extreme form exists in military organisation where the authority is almost unquestionable and unlimited. In the labour world it shows itself in the claim made by Labour M.P.’s to vote “as their conscience dictates,” i.e., not necessarily as may be required by their Party ; and in the practice of refusing trade unionists the right of access to the meetings of their own Executive Committees, and the almost universal custom of conducting negotiations with employers in private. These and other exhibitions of the leadership principle are tolerated by the workers because of their failure to notice two confusions of thought. Military discipline is compulsory on the soldier and is accepted by the workers in general as a necessity, even if an evil. It is truly a necessity—to the ruling class. They need a machine to enforce their policy, in defence of their interests, and they know no other or better way of organising that machine. They do not imagine that the protection of their interests, even to a politically ignorant army, will in itself serve as sufficient inducement to make soldiers sacrifice their lives. But the working class has to learn to organise and struggle for its own class interests, and it can only do this for itself. There are no leaders in earth or heaven who can relieve the workers of the twin difficulties of thinking out working-class policies and organising to achieve them. The first confusion of thought is this one of introducing military conceptions into the social struggle. The army is a force organised from above to fulfil objects to which the units composing the army may well be completely indifferent, if not vaguely hostile. It is directed by political leaders and their officer subordinates, who know precisely what they want done, and have small consideration for the lives or the wishes of those they command, except with in the narrow limits of military service. The army is a machine.

The struggle in which the workers are now engaged, and still more the struggle for Socialism, is the struggle of a class for power. It needs organisation, confidence and a comparatively high level of individual knowledge. These things can be won only by the voluntary intelligent co-operation of the workers. Leaders cannot give them, nor act as a substitute for them. The organisation struggling for Socialism must be built and must derive its strength from below, not from above. It must know its own path, and give its own instructions to its own servants, who will be neither ahead nor in the rear of the organisation itself.

This brings us to the second confusion of thought. Owing to their habitual humility towards those in authority, the workers imagine that there is some power and virtue in “office.” They think of their Labour M.P. or trade union leader as a being possessed of a power to act existing independently of themselves. There is no such power. The power of the M.P. is ultimately the power he has through his hold over the minds of his electors, that and nothing more. The power of the trade union leader is in you, the members. Bluff may serve occasionally, but everyone knows well enough that the employing class are not bluffed often or for long. It is precisely for this reason that, ever since there was a Labour movement, we have had from the time-honoured but ever juvenile institution called the “Left Wing,” a continual chorus of complaint that “our leaders do not lead.” They don’t “lead” because they realise that life is too precarious for the individual who gets ahead of the main body. Self-preservation can be secured only by-preaching as nearly as possible what is being thought by those who are seeking for guidance. This simple fact that victory or defeats rests finally with the organised workers, and not with their “leaders,” justifies our insistence on the need for the rejection of the belief in leadership altogether. Not until that has been done will the workers feel to the full their own individual responsibilities, and the recent general strike would appear to show that the workers are not slow to respond when responsibility clearly falls on them.

In reply to the objection that the workers will make mistakes if not guided by leaders, it is sufficient to point out that their leaders (apart from their own mistakes) are now quite unable to save their members from the latter’s mistakes. When the workers feel their responsibility for their own actions, they will at least be able to learn from them, instead of dismissing failure as the fault of this; or that leader. Under present methods of organisation leaders, however sound their judgment, can do little to save their members when outside influences are the immediate cause of a wrong policy being followed.

When in 1914 capitalist propaganda stampeded the workers into war fever, the very, very few Labour leaders who were not themselves swept away, could only look on in helpless despair. They could not stop the madness, and they could only take refuge in that deadly pessimism, which views the workers as hopelessly servile and ignorant, incapable of a sustained effort for their own emancipation. This seems to be the fate reserved for those leaders who do not become corrupted by the more common demoralising influences. We all regret the ease with which the workers can be moved by capitalist politicians, but we must point out that every defender of leaders and leadership is himself hindering the development of the minds of the workers to the point at which they will cease to be swayed by any emotional appeal, but will examine every statement critically, and accept no advice merely on the ground of the authoritative position of the leader who offers it.

It was remarked above that our criticism of leaders is different in kind from that of the Labour Party. In the Daily Herald (September 17th) an editorial was devoted to abuse of Neville Chamberlain. It was the kind of criticism we consider useless and dangerous to the working class. Chamberlain is said to do the “dirty work for the Cabinet,” and to like doing it. “He is singularly fitted for the seamy side of statemanship” ; he was the “most abject failure of the whole war period” ; he has never shown “a spark of ability or kindly human feeling.” But for him and a “few of his colleagues there might never have been need of the National Strike.” There is a whole column in the same kindly tone, and the, editor decides that Chamberlain is “a menace to the whole country,” and wants him sacked “to the lasting good of the nation.”

This is written according to the rules of the ancient game of politics. It is supposed to be useful and legitimate to denounce your opponents in order to win the votes of the unthinking. Possibly it serves its end, but it does not serve the end of bringing Socialism nearer. It does not hint at the necessity of dispensing with leaders, and it effectively, if not deliberately, obscures the one factor, an understanding of which alone can give meaning and simplicity to politics. It disguises the class nature of government. The capitalists are at present the ruling class. They rule with the object of preserving capitalism and defending their class interests. They govern with the consent of the majority of the workers, that consent being expressed at election times. It is our object to persuade the workers that while capitalism is good for capitalists, only Socialism can serve the interests of the working class. When this is recognised the workers will, instead of giving power to others, use their political power them selves, in order to establish Socialism. For the workers capitalism is the enemy, and Socialism the remedy of working-class economic problems. The Herald’s criticism of Chamberlain supports those, very illusions on which capitalist political control rests. It leads its readers to suppose that all will be well if “good government ” replaces “inefficient government,” and if a “kindly” Minister of Health replaces one who “has the niggling spirit of the usurer.” It fosters the belief that persons are all important and the system a matter of indifference. So long as the workers accept that view, the capitalist class will never have any difficulty in finding politicians able to play the part of “honest Baldwin” or “silent Cal Coolidge” or “clever Lloyd George” or “steady statesmanlike Asquith.” As one reputation falls so another rises. “Sack Neville Chamberlain” is the latest expression of a parrot cry which has been directed in turn against almost every Cabinet Minister for generations. Ministers come and go, but the system remains intact. Good government or bad, ministers with kind hearts or ministers with coronets, inefficients or supermen, these are all distinctions of minor concern to the workers. The thing that matters is that every government which administers capitalism does, and must, first and foremost, protect the interests of the capitalist class. Chamberlain’s activities are not a menace to the whole country. If they were a menace to capital, Chamberlain would have been dismissed long ago. If he is “kind” to his class, he must be “hard-faced” to ours; if he is a very efficient servant of our masters, so much the worse for us; if he is “niggling” towards workers needing relief to prevent starvation, so much the better for the capitalist taxpayers, who have to meet the cost of maintaining the derelicts of their profit-making system.

We are not much concerned with Neville Chamberlain’s personal merits, although it is highly improbable that he is such a villain as the Herald chooses to paint him. We are concerned with getting the workers to see that Chamberlain stands for capitalism, and is, therefore, bound to act contrary to working-class interests. This the Herald does not do.

We point out further that, if he were an angel, he could not do for the workers any thing material to improve their condition inside capitalism or to bring about Socialism. This applies equally to every leader of whatever political colour or personal quality. It includes Labour, Communist, and trade union organisations, and is our justification for our attitude. We claim that our criticism of leaders and leadership is necessary, and that unlike the Herald’s abuse of Chamberlain, it is based upon and helps to illustrate the basic principles of Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Why Economise? (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The road which we have to tread is that of stern service and sacrifice.” Thus writes the Daily Telegraph leader writer (January 10th, 1940) in amplificatory approval of Chamberlain’s Mansion House speech. ChamberIain is further quoted as stating: “We have got to do without a lot of things we shall miss very much.” Less money must be spent on sugar and butter. Approval is also given to the statement of Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that “you can’t finance a great war by soaking the rich.” This prepares the way for what follows: “To tie wages to the cost of living so closely that spending can go on as in peace time will give us the vicious spiral of the last war, which ultimately benefited no-one.”

On the page following the above-mentioned article is a Harrods’ advertisement, which says: “Now, more than ever, you need bargains in wines and spirits.” You can get a dozen bottles of 1924 brandy for nine quid (usual price £9 12s.). Whisky is slightly cheaper at £8 5s., or you can get a dozen bottles of 1933 Barsac for as little as £2 16s. Cigars also are going cheap at £5 7s. 6d. the hundred.

You see, now there is a war on, even the poor rich have to economise and look around for bargains in wines and spirits.

It is possible, however, that a large number of the readers of the Daily Telegraph, in their hurry to get to the back pages, where cheap jobs are advertised, may have missed the foregoing advertisement, about which this much must be said—that experienced capitalist concerns do not spend large sums on advertising unless there is reasonable certainty of a substantial return. Hence we can well imagine Colonel Try-it-on and Major Soak-it-up over their whisky-and-splash approvingly endorsing the Chancellor’s remark that “you can’t finance a great war by soaking the rich.”

Of course, we admit that the capitalists have got a bit of a problem on in running this war. War, unfortunately for them, is an expensive business. But if the workers can be induced to lie low, and not be too troublesome about asking for more wages to meet a higher cost of living, cut down their butter and sugar, and so on, it might not prove so expensive after all. Hence the necessity of “stern service and sacrifice” in order that “freedom and justice and the dignity of human life shall not perish from the earth.” Need we say that included amongst those who share the “dignity of human life” are the “hard core”—the 240,000 workers who have been unemployed for over 12 months? The majority of these, needless to say, have been retaining their dignity, not on butter, but on margarine—and probably unvitaminised at that, as, for the information of the unsophisticated, unvitaminised marge is slightly cheaper than that containing the vital elements. The dignified “hard core,” however, are going to be looked after—”steps are to be taken by the Government to speed up their absorption into industry.”—(Daily Telegraph Industrial Correspondent, January 10th, 1940.)

Obviously, what is concerning the minds of the capitalists is that, with everybody employed, workers will be asking, insisting on, and succeeding in getting, higher wages. Hence the dim foreshadowing of some means or measure to arrest the process.

Whilst the sectional struggle between the capitalist Powers has taken on the form of armed warfare, the economic warfare between capitalists and workers, between rulers and ruled, continues from official peace time into official war time, with this difference, that when a war is on, owing to the elimination of the competition of the unemployed, the scales are weighted in favour of the workers. Hence the concern of our capitalist masters over the wages question and their attempt to drum into the ears of the workers the necessity of “doing without a lot of things they will miss very much,” and the statement that the “wealthier classes have had to make large reductions in standards of living.”

R. Milborne