Postal censorship—An Old and Respected English Custom (1947)

From the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The opinion of most people on the practice of opening letters in the post would probably be that it is a nasty foreign habit, suitable to Totalitarian Russia, but out of place in a democratic State. Perhaps some such attitude of mind influenced the Financial Editor of the Manchester Guardian to write the following.

“The decision to search letters, leaving this country for currency notes, securities, and other valuables, will come as a profound shock to the public …. It is a necessary evil in the present situation of the country, but nothing can make postal censorship in peace-time anything else than an abomination.” (Manchester Guardian, 24/9/47.)

In truth all governments, ever since the Post Office was first formed, have interfered to some extent with the “secrecy of the post” ; in war always and in peace sometimes, and not always within the powers granted by law.

The Labour Daily Herald, reporting the new policy, seems to have felt somewhat ill-at cease about it, and sought re-assurance in the thought that only a small number would be affected.

“In any case only letters selected at random will be opened or X-rayed—there is no question of censorship or opening all overseas mail.” (Daily Herald, 24/9/47.)

Even this comfort was removed a few days later when a Post Office official told the Evening Standard (24/9/47) :

“We shall gradually increase the percentage of mail to be examined.”

How extensive the practice can become was shown in connection with the opening of letters believed to relate to lotteries. In 1932 100,000 letters relating to Irish Sweepstakes were seized, and another 250,000 relating to other lotteries.

Labour M.P.’s who in the past have protested against the opening of letters can see what their policy of trying to subject capitalism to controls leads to. Labour M.P.’s were prominent among those who protested against the seizure, in 1929, of the manuscript of poems by the late D. H. Lawrence. On that occasion it came out that the poems (regarded by the Home Scretary as indecent) were discovered accidentally in a routine examination of book packets to find out if letters had been enclosed, this making the packets liable to letter rates.

The excuse that the number of letters opened under an order of the Home Secretary (apart from Sweepstake letters) is very small has often been used. It was put forward in the secret report of a Committee appointed by the House of Lords in 1844 arising out of the protest made by the Italian refugee, Joseph Mazzini, that his correspondence was opened and the contents conveyed to foreign governments.. As their Lordship’s report had it:

“the issue of six or seven warrants upon a circulation of 220 million of letters cannot be regarded as materially interfering with the sanctity of private correspondence, which, with these exceptions, there is not the slightest ground to believe has been ever invaded.”

The Report also mentioned the Committee’s interesting discovery that “for a long period of time, and under many successive administrators,” it had been the established practice of the Foreign Office to open and read all the correspondence of foreign ambassadors in this country before forwarding it on. This had been done without even legal authority, so the Postmaster General discontinued it in 1844.

Earlier still, when Sir Robert Walpole was Prime Minister (1721-1742), the government kept its own private organisation at the Post Office, ostensibly to keep an eye on foreign correspondence but additionally to open the letters of its political opponents, including M.P.’s. The M.P. ‘s were incensed about this. The opening of other people’s letters they could tolerate but it was not playing the game to open their own. Horace Walpole, remembering what his father did, always assumed that his letters would be opened by the Postmaster-General in a later government, and took elaborate precautions to circumvent it.

That is the kind of thing that still goes on wholesale in the modern dictatorships, where the secret police are a main instrument of government. It is true this is not what the Labour government is doing, but we note that Labour M.P.’s who used to protest so vigorously when Conservative governments opened letters in the post are silent now.

P. S.

How Now, Mr. Pritt ? (1937)

From the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the various Russian trials, in which the prisoners all confessed many astounding things, including some which were shown to have been untrue, a whole host of simpletons took their stand on the proposition that as the prisoners themselves said these things they must be true, and no other evidence was required to prove them. Mr. Pritt, K.C., according to a Manchester Guardian report of a speech delivered by him at Conway Hall, on September 30th, 1936. said: “The corroboration that the confessions gave each other was such that they could not have been invented stories" (Manchester Guardian, October 1st, 1936). Mr. A. J. Cummings, reviewing a pamphlet by Mr. Pritt, was satisfied with the confessions—“Now all was discovered, and they confessed all” (News Chronicle, October 6th, 1936).

Mr. P. A. Sloan, staunch defender of anything Stalin’s Government says, ridiculed the notion that the confessions could have been “play-acting” (Manchester Guardian, February 3rd, 1937). The Daily Herald correspondent, who attended the trials in January, was quite satisfied that the prisoners were telling the truth.

Now read the following report in the Daily Herald (June 21st, 1937): —

From Our Own Correspondent.

Moscow, Sunday.

Radek, Pyatakov, Zinoviev and other accused men in Moscow’s sensational trials deliberately lied in their confessions in face of death.

Vyshinsky, all-Union Prosecutor, who appeared at the trials, makes this declaration in an official report —“How Enemies Work”—published to-day.

“There was not 50 per cent. of truth in their evidence,” says Vyshinsky.

He pictures experienced Bolshevik revolutionary plotters glibly unfolding fictitious stories before a court consisting of former comrades.

Their intention, says Vyshinsky, was to conceal the extent of their activities and divert suspicion from their confederates by giving an appearance of complete frankness.

“We have become convinced of this after each trial,” asserts Vyshinsky.

So it seems that the Public Prosecutor in Russia does not believe the confessions were true; more than 50 per cent. were false. It remained for his silly English dupes to believe the whole 100 per cent., and to suppose that such things constitute proof in the absence of independent evidence.

P. S.

Northern Ireland “Socialist” Party. (1933)

From the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A correspondent in Northern Ireland has sent us the Constitution and Rules of an organisation calling itself the "Northern Ireland Socialist Party," and affiliated with the Labour Party.

The Constitution is a mixture of the Constitutions of the Independent Labour Party (up to 1931) and of the Labour Party. It contains, therefore, the usual large and small inaccuracies and unsound notions cherished by those parties.

For example, the object consists of the meaningless phrase that Socialism "is that state of society in which land and capital are communally owned, and the processes of production, distribution and exchange are social functions.”

Even Mr. Maxton had to confess when his attention was drawn to it, that "capital” by its nature cannot be communally owned. Capital is not merely machines and other instruments of production; it is those things in a particular social relationship—the capitalist form of private ownership. When the means of production become the property of society as a whole, they will cease to be means of providing profit for private owners; they will no longer be capital.

Similarly, it is absurd to talk about ”exchange” under Socialism. Exchange only has a place when goods are privately owned. Under Socialism goods will be produced and distributed. There will be no process of exchange.

Again, the Constitution states that the basis of Socialism will be "the organisation of the wage and salary earners.” Actually Socialism involves the abolition of the system of wage-labour altogether. There will be no capitalist class and no working class, and, therefore, no wage and salary earners.

This so-called Socialist Party is merely another attempt to build up in Northern Ireland one of the vote-catching, reformist organisations with which we are familiar in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere.

It is not a Socialist Party in anything but name, and is not deserving of working-class support.

P. S.

Correspondence: Ought We to Back the “Left-Wing” Labour Leaders? (1931)

From the November 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Case of Mr. W. J. Brown, Ex-M.P.

A correspondent (“Robbo”) asks an interesting question. He writes : —

“If an opportunity occurs to support a man like W. J. Brown, who though not an S.P.G.B.’er, has done much to expose the hypocrisy of Labour Party leaders, would it not be advisable to do so?”

On the face of it the question probably implies rather more than our correspondent intended, for it suggests that we should support all who expose the Labour Party leaders, which would mean supporting Liberals and Tories. We are therefore no doubt safe in assuming that our correspondent selects Mr. W. J. Brown because he considers the latter’s criticisms to be essentially different from those of Liberal and Conservative opponents of the Labour Party. In other words, we are asked to believe that Mr. W. J. Brown speaks from a Socialist standpoint. Let us examine this.

It is true that Mr. W. J. Brown has often spoken harshly of some of the Labour Leaders, and has urged what he has called a Socialist policy. But obviously that alone is not enough, for there is hardly a single Labour M.P. who has not done the same. Let us probe more deeply. Does Mr. Brown expose the: Labour Leaders and their policy consistently, or only on rare and obscure occasions when it suits him? Does he show up the uselessness of the Labour Party programme? And does he do this from the standpoint of Socialism?

What is his political history? In 1923 and 1924 he fought West Wolverhampton as Labour Party candidate. But there was no criticism then of those who now draw his fire. On the contrary, in 1924 he had Mr. MacDonald on his platform during the election, soliciting votes for him. It was after the general strike that Mr. Brown launched out on his career of “left-wing” criticism of his leaders. In 1928 at the Labour Party Conference he vigorously assailed the programme “Labour and the Nation,” which was under discussion. Much of what he said was true and might have come from a Socialist. Listen to this : —

“I would say this, that if the whole of this document were carried into effect—and that will not be done by one government or many governments—the result would he, not Socialism, but a State-subsidised Capitalism, which is an entirely different thing.

My advice to the Conference would be … above all to make this clear—that we are in earnest about Socialism, not as a thing for subsequent generations, not as a thing for perorations for our speakers, not as a thing for the dim and distant future, but for this generation to achieve.” (Conference Report, p. 207.)

Mr. Brown’s speech showed, that he had a fairly clear grasp of the nature of the Labour Party programme, and was fully aware what the game was the Labour Leaders were playing. He saw, and said, that they were using the discontent of the workers as a means of getting into office, without any intention whatever of doing other than try to patch up the capitalist system. But to what use did he put his knowledge, his undoubted charm of manner, and his gifts of oratory? The subsequent general election, in 1929, shows only too clearly. Instead of using the election to denounce the Labour Leaders and their capitalist programme, he played exactly the same game as they did. Instead of showing that he was “in earnest about Socialism” by fighting on a Socialist programme, he fought on the very programme he had denounced. His election address boldly displayed the announcement that he was the “Labour Candidate,” committed, therefore, to “Labour and the Nation” and “state-subsidised capitalism.” It was full of all the usual capitalist reforms.

Did he expose the Labour Party Leaders? Not at all. A passage of considerable length was devoted to the wonderful things Mr. MacDonald was supposed to have done for disarmament, describing him as the “Peace Leader of the World.” Did he advocate Socialism in his address? Not by a single word. The only reference to anything other than reforms is the smug phrase, “The Labour Party stands for a new and more Christian and Social Order,” intended obviously to catch the religious vote. The dominant note of the whole address is the emphasised assertion, “Labour is the only alternative to another 5 years of Conservative misrule.”

During the subsequent Labour Government Mr. Brown, as General Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, came into conflict with the Labour Ministers owing to the repeated reductions in Civil Service pay. So he resigned from the Parliamentary Labour Party, but not from the Wolverhampton Labour Party, or from the I.L.P. But was it in order to support Socialism against the Labour Leaders? Again No. It was to join Mosley’s Party, whose Manifesto he helped to draft, and to which he added his signature. (Published early this year under the title “A National Policy.”) This document expressly excludes from consideration the very question about which Socialists are concerned; “Questions of the ultimate goal of society arc excluded by the very urgency of the problem which confronts us ” (page 6). It was not an appeal to Socialists to work for Socialism, but an appeal to “employers and workers” to “meet the emergency by a common effort.” Underlying it throughout was the policy of workers and employers uniting to attack one section of the exploiting class, the bankers. That policy of uniting with the capitalists would on any ground be dangerous for the workers, but Mr. Brown goes further and preaches the deadly doctrine that workers and employers have interests in common. This, if accepted, would destroy the basis of all working-class organisation.

Having had second thoughts about the expediency of joining the Mosley Party, we next find Mr. Brown, in August of this year, associating with prominent Liberals, Tories, and Fascists to issue a document, “The World Crisis and Unemployment,” on behalf of the “Financial Freedom Committee.” It contains nothing whatever about Socialism, but preaches salvation by means of currency juggling.

“The world’s industrial plight can be relieved within a few weeks if the Governments of all nations agree to destroy the Money Monopoly. . . The Government should nationalise the Bank of England and and put an end to the circulation of the present independent promissory notes and substitute for them Treasurv notes which are backed by the whole wealth of the nation.”

So speak the quacks. And with them Mr. Brown. Can Mr. Brown deny that his associates are frankly determined that what they are pleased to miscall “the national wealth” shall never on any account cease to be what it is now, i.e., private property? In other words, that they are open enemies of Socialism?

On August 22nd, in a speech at Wolverhampton, reported in the “Times” (24th August), Mr. Brown was attacking the Labour Government and still demanding a united front of employers and workers against “the parasites who prey upon both” ; a false but plausible device for misleading the workers.

So far we have not seen Mr. Brown’s 1931 election address, but he repeatedly stated that he intended to fight as an “independent” candidate, as indeed he did, “on the same programme as I fought at the last election.”

The Socialist Party stands for Socialism. Nothing but confusion would result from supporting Mr. Brown or any other of the ambitious politicians who delude the workers into the belief that the social problem can be solved without Socialism.

Besides, if we ought to support Mr. Brown because he exposes the Labour Party Leaders, we should also have to support them for exposing Mr, Brown.

P. S.

A Socialist Searchlight. (1931)

From the October 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Maxton gives a date.

Mr. Maxton, M.P., under the false impression that it is a Marxian theory, has for years been prophesying the sudden and irretrievable collapse of capitalism. He has now given it a date. In a speech at Cowcaddens, reported in the Daily Record (August 22nd) and reprinted in Forward (September 12th), he said :—

“I am perfectly satisfied that the great capitalist system that has endured for 150 years in its modern form, declared Mr. James Maxton, M.P., in the Cowcaddens Ward, Glasgow, last night, is now at the stage of final collapse, and not all the devices of the statesmen, not all the three party conferences, not all the collaboration between the leaders, can prevent the system from coming down with one unholy crash. 

They may postpone the collapse for a month, two months, three months, six months,” he cried, forefinger pointing at his audience, and body crouched, “but collapse is sure and certain.”

Six months from August 22nd brings us to February, 1932. When that comes round, we will ask Mr. Maxton for his explanation.

* * *

Another exponent of the collapse theory, Mr. Walton Newbold, has suffered a strange transformation. In 1921, as a Communist, he. prophesied imminent collapse, and was doing his utmost, so he said, to hasten it. It did not come off, and Mr. Newbold, now in the Labour Party, is on this occasion rallying round MacDonald and Thomas to prop capitalism up again !

* * *

Letters to Mr. Hicks.

Mr. George Hicks, M.P., was asked for his comment on the letter of personal explanation which Mr. MacDonald sent to each of the Labour Party M.P.’s. Mr. Hicks sneeringly replied that it was just the sort of letter he would expect from a man like Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. Hicks was not always so minded about letters from that quarter. As recently as April of this year (see The Times, April 11th), when Mr. Hicks was Labour Party candidate at East Woolwich, he published a broadsheet called the George Hicks Herald, containing the letter sent by MacDonald, assuring the electors that Mr. Hicks is the sort of man MacDonald regarded as suitable to represent the workers of Woolwich.

* * *

The Communist-I.L.P. Alliance. 

The crisis has had the effect of throwing together the two reformist bodies, the I.L.P. and the Communist Party. On Sunday, September 6th, Communist and I.L.P. speakers addressed a joint demonstration in Hyde Park, speaking from the same platform. The Secretary of the Balham and Tooting I.L.P., in a letter to the New Leader (September 11th), described it as “a glorious sight to see a demonstration in Hyde Park in which both Parties were united.” This was just a week after the majority of the I.L.P. Labour M.P.’s had voted for the election of Mr. Henderson as leader of the Labour Party in place of Mr. MacDonald. Only five votes were cast against his election (Daily Express, August 29th). One of those who voted for Mr. Henderson was Mr. J. Beckett. M.P., and it was Mr. Beckett who was the star turn at the Hyde Park demonstration, although Mr. Beckett complained that Communists in his audience hurled abuse at the I.L.P. speakers. Mr. Beckett was so anxious not to have it thought that he voted against Henderson, that he had the Daily Express (August 31st) publish a correction of their statement including him among the five.

P. S.

How Not To Get Socialism. (1930)

From the February 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Way of the Communists. 

The “Daily News,” on January 16th, reported Dr. Brown, President of the Baptist Union, as having said that the Baptists last year lost 4,450 church members and 11,000 Sunday School scholars; in ten years, he added, they would at that rate be “as dead as the dodo.”

This is bad news for the Baptists, and we believe it will also be bad news for the Communist Party. For it appears that when they were hard at work preaching the “United Front,” Baptist ministers as well as the Labour Party were to be brought within the fold. Those who think that there must be a limit to the silliness even of the Communists are asked to read the following. It is a letter printed on the front page of the “Workers’ Weekly,” on December 7th, 1923, at a time when a general election was in progress. It is headed, “Helping Ramsay Mac.,” and is signed by J. Stokes, of Portabbot:—

“There is a straight fight in the constituency between Byass, the Capitalist candidate (Unionist), and Ramsay MacDonald. Ramsay MacDonald has all the way to go ; if he gets there, that will be all.

We had a meeting here on November 19th with Ramsay MacDonald, who had three Baptist Ministers on the platform. It was a jolly meeting, and I was most pleased to hear these fellows speaking. We Communists here are doing our best to help Ramsay MacDonald to beat the Capitalist candidate.”

Deeds, not words.

The same issue of the “Workers’ Life” contains many other delightful sidelights on Communist activities. There is, for example, an illustration of what is meant by that favourite slogan of the Communist Party : “Now is the time for action.”

“Comrade Mowatt” writes from Barrow to say that the local Communist Party were working hard to get Mr. J, Bromley returned to Parliament as Labour M.P., and he adds, “all our illusions and theoretical deductions have been hung out on the clothes line to dry.”

We never regarded their “theoretical deductions” as other than unsound, but such candid admission from themselves as to the usefulness of their theories is refreshing.

Having abandoned their theories the Communists were then free to get down to action. Mr. J. McHendrick, of Rutherglen, obligingly tells us what kind of action.

“It was arranged that the addressing of envelopes should be done by team work, and anyone who saw this work being done would have to admit that the Communist Party is a working party.”

And to think that the Soviet Government borrows money at high rates of interest from Russian capitalists and then spends part of it paying British Communists to “help Ramsay Mac.” at elections and address envelopes for Labour Party candidates !

The Mass Party.

The justification given by the Communists for supporting MacDonald, whom they described as a “faithful servant of capital,” was that this was the way to build up a “mass Communist Party.”

In the “Communist Review” (October, 1929) the Tyneside District Party Committee publishes a statement on the condition of the Communist Party as a whole.

This is what they say :—

“After ten years of strenuous effort, the Communist Party of Great Britain finds itself with a financial membership which cannot be placed at a higher figure than 2,500, It is doubtful if even this number of financial members would be found to exist were a careful examination made . . . our Party has never been so weak in membership or influence.”

The significance of this admission will be appreciated when it is remembered that the C.P.G.B. claimed to start with about 10,000 members and that, in addition to thousands of members who joined individually, it claimed to have won over in 1921 5,000 members of the l.L.P. en bloc.

It must indeed be disappointing to spend 10 years helping the Capitalist candidates against the Capitalist candidates, and addressing envelopes in Labour Party committee rooms and then find your membership smaller by three-quarters than when you began.

The stock Communist argument against using the vote as the means of gaining political control for the establishment of Socialism, is that the vote is a “Capitalist instrument,” so that instead of using the vote for that purpose they hasten to use it to “help Ramsay Mac.” administer Capitalism. The vote is a means of attaining power, and as such is neither Capitalist nor Socialist, but it is indeed useless to the workers under Communist guidance.

The Communist Street Fighters.

We have often remarked on the danger to the working-class of the Communist policy of street-fighting, that is, the pitting of practically unarmed men against the colossal weapons of modern warfare in the hands of trained soldiers.

At the Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain, held at Leeds at the end of November, 1929, fresh evidence was given of the dangerously reactionary nature of Communist methods.

A special correspondent of the “Manchester Guardian” reports a speech in which Mr. H. Pollitt, the prominent Communist and member of the Communist Party Executive, said : —

“Only through social revolution, only through armed insurrection, can the workers gain power.” —(“Manchester Guardian,” 2nd Dec..)

In the “Workers’ Life” (6th December) is a report of a speech delivered at the Congress by Mr. W. Gallacher, another prominent Communist, and also a member of the Central Committee. In it he said :—

“They had talked of a Revolutionary Workers’ Government, but did they realise what was implied ? Would the organisation of the workers for the revolutionary government be a legal one ? The task of fighting for a revolutionary government would be a task of bringing the workers out on to the streets against the armed forces of Capitalism.”

Having assisted their friend “Ramsay Mac.” into office and placed his Government in control of the armed forces, the Communists now talk of leading the workers into the streets against those same armed forces !

This sort of lunacy they call “tactics.”

Last May Day in Berlin we had an example of this street fighting. Large numbers of young Communists “armed” with a few revolvers and one dummy machine-gun suffered heavy casualties at the hands of a fully-equipped, semi-military, police force.

Recently the same suicidal policy has been tried out again, also in Germany. On this occasion a number of Communists were killed and many were more or less seriously wounded by the police, who were armed with revolvers, machine-guns and armoured cars. (See “Manchester Guardian” and “Daily Express,” 16th January.)

The Communists, according to the accounts in the two newspapers referred to above, were “armed” with a few revolvers, plus “bricks,” “stones,” “planks” and “knuckle-dusters” !

We have only one comment to make. Whenever Pollitt and Gallacher intend throwing stones at a machine-gun or hitting a tank with knuckle-dusters we hope they will let us know so that we can be there to see.

Enter the Proletarian Peashooters.

We are now unreliably informed of new developments in the Communist Party. According to this report that Party is now discussing a question which divided the military experts several hundreds of years ago. The question is that concerning the relative merits of the Crossbow and the Long bow. The old controversy was finally settled by the perfecting of firearms, it being found that both crossbowmen and long-bowmen were as good as dead against the gun.

The present dispute among the “street-fighters” is, however, in danger of being side-tracked by yet another school of thought which has on its side two unanswerable arguments. One is that it is possible for workers to die heroically and perfectly uselessly up against armed forces without going to the trouble of having either longbows or cross-bows, dummy machine guns or knuckle-dusters; and the second is that the cheap and homely pea-shooter, while entirely useless, is a weapon which, unlike the vote, has not been besmirched by being used by the Capitalists, Hence the rumoured formation of an entirely new corps of “Proletarian Peashooters.” Pollitt and Gallacher are to be in command of the new force, ably supported by three unemployed Baptist chaplains.

P. S.

Mr. Thurtle misfires (1946)

From the October 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Ernest Thurtle, Labour M.P. for Shoreditch, sometime member of the Fabian Society and I.L.P., and sometime belligerent war-supporter turned pacifist turned war supporter, writes a weekly column of pontifical political comment and behind-the-scenes chit-chat for Beaverbrook’s Sunday Express under the title “ Labour Point of View.” On Sunday, September 1st, he wrote the following: —

"Sympathy for the little fellow struggling against the big one is natural, but in the present dispute between the little and big unions of the transport workers common sense appears to be on the side of the big battalion.

Mr. Frank Snelling, the national organiser of the little union, which is fighting so spiritedly, is what is known in Labour circles as an S.P.G.B’er. Decoded, this means a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, a strict Marxist sect of microscopic membership.

Because the little party had so few members, who oozed Socialist self-righteousness, the larger movement was wont to refer to them derisively as the Small Party of Good Boys.”

That is all Mr. Thurtle has to say. He gives no facts about the dispute and no reasons why he believes that all the common sense is on one side. He does not mention that the S.P.G.B. has members in the T. & G.W.U. as well as in the N.U.P.W., and it is evident that his sole object in. referring to the dispute was to provide a peg on which to hang the unoriginal remarks about the S.P.G.B.; from which we conclude that his anguished outcry is really due to some of the “microscopic membership” of the S.P.G.B. having got under his skin some time or other.

We thank him for one thing. He concedes that the kind of self-righteousness we ooze is “Socialist”—our complaint about Mr. Thurtle and his party is that Socialism is the last thing they can be self-righteous about.

Nearly all of the remainder of Mr. Thurtle’s column was devoted to a penitent’s lengthy explanation of his own errors.

“Let me confess,” he wrote, "that I, along with other Labour candidates at the General Election, in stressing the importance of good relations with Russia, avowed confidently that a Labour Government would win the co-operation of the Soviet. We believed this. How wrong we were !”

Yet he still cannot see that the capitalist clash of interests is not altered by having British capitalism run by a Labour Government and Russian State capitalism run by a so-called Communist Party. He still Ands the situation ‘‘puzzling.” If he had any Socialism to ooze he would not have believed the nonsense he told the electors. (Incidentally, as he obviously obtained votes under a misapprehension, what about emulating his father-in-law, the late Mr. George Lansbury, and resigning to give the electors a chance to say whether they still want him as their M.P.?)

There are occasions when Mr. Thurtle, in his efforts to coin a telling phrase, tells more of the truth than he ever intended. On April 14th, in his Express article, he congratulated Mr. Dalton on having “achieved another Budget success ” ; but he added the following two-edged remark: —

"His 1946 favours are neither large nor numerous, but they have been distributed with great skill. It needs much knowledge of human nature to be able to please so many with so little." (Our italics.)

That final sentence should be treasured as a fitting emblem of Labour Governments—but it needs to be read alongside another saying; that you can’t fool all the people all the time.

P. S.

Mr. Keynes Goes to the Bank of England (1941)

From the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The news that Mr. J. M. Keynes, the “rebel against financial orthodoxy,” has become a director of the Bank of England and may in due course become governor when Mr. Montague Norman retires, inspires great hopes among his admirers in the Labour Party, but it will not cause even the slightest flutter of excitement among Socialists. His admirers may congratulate themselves at his appointment because he opposed the return to the gold standard in 1925 and advocated “unorthodox” proposals such as a managed currency and State control of interest rates, but they should remember his own words: “My trouble has been that orthodoxy has always caught up with me.” In other words, his quarrel with the administrators of capitalist finance has always been at bottom that they did not know their job properly, and should take some tips from him. He has never been concerned with our job of getting rid of capitalism.

It will be recalled that Mr. Keynes was active early in the war with his scheme for “compulsory savings,” the idea being that a proportion of every wage should be deducted and paid to the Government for war expenditure, and that the amount should be repaid after the war. The scheme is now applied in a modified form to income tax payments, part of which will be returned later on. Mr. Keynes may claim to have provided the Government with a shrewd scheme for the painless extraction of part of wages but it would be interesting if he could be induced to explain exactly how the workers are going to get it back after the war. Of course they will receive the money, but what exactly will be the real result in terms of work and articles of consumption ?

The first point to notice is that the labour and materials which go into shells and bombs and guns and are destroyed in the war no longer exist. They cannot be brought back. So that if, during wartime, the workers spend only part of their wages on food, clothing, etc., and forego other consumption in order that shells may be produced and destroyed they have in effect and for the time being suffered a reduction of wages.

But, say Mr. Keynes and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the workers have given up during the war will be made up to them afterwards. In other words if, during a war a nominal wage of say £5 a week was reduced to £4 a week, a nominal wage of £4 after the war will be brought up to £5 by these payments. (These figures are not actual ones but are merely taken for illustration.) But after the war (as always) it will be the working class who will be producing the articles which all the nation consumes. Then (as always) the wealth the workers produce will belong to the capitalist class, and what the workers get out of the total will be their wages. If they are to get a larger amount it can be in two ways, either by reducing the share that goes to the propertied class or by working harder and producing a larger total. Remembering what happened after the last war (the great “work harder, produce more” campaign, carried on by the Government and by a group of Labour leaders and economists) we may well anticipate that the workers will be told that the great destruction of the war has to be made good and will be asked to provide their own “bonuses” by working harder. If they don’t, they will certainly be told by employers that there isn’t enough to go round and wages must be reduced. Do Mr. Keynes and the Government intend to rack their brains finding some cast-iron scheme for preventing wages from being reduced (and prices from rising), and for preventing employers from dismissing workers, in short a scheme for forcing an all-round reduction of the wealth of the propertied class in order to raise the standard of living of the workers?

An illustration may help to show the essence of the matter. There was once a tenant who worked some acres of land on condition that he surrendered half his crop to the landlord. Then came war and the landlord said we shall each have to hand over some of our share to feed the troops, but your loss will be put right for you later on. When later on came, the landlord said, “Now that the destruction of the war has to be made good, I am afraid I still can’t let you have more than half the crop, but the promise will be kept. You shall have a larger amount, for I will let you work harder and produce a, bigger crop. Thus your half will be larger and you will be repaid for what you gave up.” And the tenant, while not very clear about the matter, had a feeling that there was something wrong somewhere.

It would certainly be interesting to have the shrewd Mr. Keynes explain the second part of the trick of turning your butter into guns and getting the butter back afterwards.

P. S.

Unity After The War. The Repeal of the Trade Disputes Act (1941)

From the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a recent pronouncement, “The War and the Peace,” which was adopted at the last Labour Party Annual Conference, the Labour Party outlines its views on reconstruction after the war. It is based on an assumption which all experience shows to be an illusion, the assumption that the struggle between the classes will be absent after the war. It states that “war has taught us that without Socialist principles there can be no security,” and in another passage it assumes that there is agreement between the capitalists and the workers about reconstruction: —

“We note that all classes in our society, as at no time in our history, are united to assure to ordinary men and women the full implications of that victory for Freedom and Democracy for which we are fighting.”

If we bring these two passages together and ask if war has really taught the Conservative Party and its supporters that Socialism is a necessity, the answer is obvious.

We do not need to wait till the war is over to see that the defenders of capitalism have not changed their aim or their methods. Reference was made in these columns recently to an article in the Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941) by Mr. F. C. Hooper, “one of the biggest business men in the Midlands and North.” The article was called “The Cranks who want to Change Britain,” and its one argument is that in the main pre-war Britain was all right and should not be changed. A similar view appears in an appeal for funds issued by Sir Thomas Barlow, Treasurer of the Manchester Conservative and Unionist Association, reproduced in the Daily Herald (August 27th, 1941). Sir Thomas takes the Labour Party to task for seeming to have the idea “that the war is being fought to save trade unionism,” and goes on to insist that “the fundamental rights of freedom and particularly of private ownership must be maintained in any new order of society, and there can be no surer safeguard of this than a strong and virile Conservative Party emerging from the war.”

So while it is true that all kinds of people may agree on the loose phrase “victory for freedom and democracy,” when it comes to translating the phrase into concrete terms Sir Thomas Barlow means no interference with private property.

How little the war-time suspension of the party conflict really means in relation to reconstruction is shown further by the fact that the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party have each set up their own committee to consider and make recommendations on reconstruction. If there were really unity why the separate committees?

A test case is the question of the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act of 1927 which imposed restrictions on trade unions. The Prime Minister has told the T.U.C. that any change must wait until after the war because a request for the repeal or even modification of the Act would start a discussion that would hamper the war effort (Daily Herald, September 4th, 1941)

.

Meetings are at present taking place of representatives of the Conservative Party and representatives of the T.U.C. to consider possible amendments of the Act, but the Daily Telegraph (September 16th) reports that “feeling against concessions is growing among Conservative M.P.s, who will watch the progress of the talks closely.” It is worth recalling in this matter that the present legal position of the trade unions as a result of the 1927 Act is worse than it was before the last war in spite of similar prophecies of social unity that were made by the Labour Party while that war was in progress.

P. S

Did Hitler say that ? (1941)

From the April 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a recent speech Hitler was reported to have said: “Basically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same” (News Chronicle, February 25th, 1941). At first we thought it was just one more example of that limitless disregard for the truth and that contempt for the intelligence of his German listeners for which Hitler is renowned, and that like other poses he has adopted from time to time, it foreshadowed a new twist to his tortuous policy. We learn, however, from the New Statesman (March 1st, 1941) that Hitler was misreported, and that what he actually said was: “Nazism and Fascism are fundamentally the same,” meaning the German and the Italian brands of thuggery.

P. S.

The facts about working class savings (1945)

From the June 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Institute of Statistics, in the issue of their Bulletin dated January 13th, 1945, publish the results of an inquiry into working class savings, undertaken by the British Institute of Public Opinion in the Spring of 1944. The inquiry was based on a sample of 1,153 working class families chosen at random and distributed throughout the country. Taking into account all money savings in Cash, Savings Banks, Savings Certificates, Government Bonds, Co-operative Societies, Building Societies, etc. (but excluding savings in the form of house property and insurance policies), it was found that the total savings of over half the families amounted to £50 or less; and three-quarters of the families had £100 or less. Only about one family in eight had more than £200. The cautious conclusion reached is that “the results of the inquiry—after allowing for errors inherent in this sampling method—do suggest that the bulk of the working class population have comparatively insignificant holdings of money-savings."

The reason is, of course, that the working class only receive about sufficient to meet day to day expenses, and the campaigns of the National Savings Committee are largely wasted as far as members of the working class are concerned.

P. S.

Answers to Correspondents (1939)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Mr. J. Bolge (S.E.20) asks: “What is the Socialist solution for the problem of 'unequal pay’ ?” And adds: “ Perhaps there is none under the present system.” He has anticipated our reply. The employer is not interested in abstract principles of equality, but in getting the kind of workers he wants as cheaply as possible. If he finds that large numbers of suitable applicants for a particular kind of work are available, he takes advantage of this to force down wages, and trade unions can only offer a limited amount of resistance to pressure in such circumstances. Mr. G. B. Shaw —in splendid isolation—advocates equal wages for everyone, but nobody supposes that this is practicable. Neither the workers nor the capitalists desire it.

Various groups of people advocate other schemes in the name of ” equality.” The best known are the advocates of “equal pay for men and women,” duly qualified by the words “for equal work.” They have in mind the cases where men and women work side by side, yet the man is more highly paid. This they say is “unfair"; to which men reply that “equal" wages are equally unfair, because of the married man's greater financial responsibilities. Generally speaking, however, the advocates of equal pay for men and women do not ask that charwomen should receive equal pay with women teachers, nor do the opponents of it favour equal pay for male bus drivers and bank clerks. In defence of their inconsistency, both groups raise the question of the so-called “value of work," but this is pure illusion. There is no way in which the so-called "value" of one kind of work can be measured against that of another kind.

Dustmen and doctors both perform services which are very useful to those who benefit by them, but how can the usefulness of the two be measured and compared? In actual fact, when they talk of “value of work" and “comparative value of work," what they are really doing is to accept the current extreme contempt for so-called “manual" and “menial” work, and use it as a lever to get increased wages for those kinds of work which in capitalist eyes are less despicable. The capitalistically minded teacher, or bank clerk, or chemist making poison gas, sneers at the dustman, and claims that his work is “more valuable" and should, therefore, be better paid.

The only solution for the friction and resentments aroused among workers by the wages system and its illogical workings is not a differently regulated wages system, but the abolition of the wages system—i.e., Socialism.

Ed. Comm.

Mr. Ralph Oder (New York). We have your inquiry about the conclusion of the article on page 178 of the December, 1938, issue. It is certainly ambiguous. The meaning it was intended to convey is that the Socialist movement, in fighting to achieve Socialism, is at the same time safeguarding democracy. 

Ed. Comm.

Mr. Graham Boatfield (Ashford). For statements on "Collective Security" and “War for democracy," see The Socialist Standard for October, 1938, and February, 1939.

Ed. Comm.

Mr. L. S. Chell (N.W.9). We will endeavour to get an article on the subject in the near future.

Ed. Comm.

Mr. W. V. Andrews (Wickford). Different economists and statisticians use different definitions of "National Income" according to the purpose for which they are to be used. All of their definitions include both profits and wages. You will find a statement on the subject in Chapter .I of "The National Income," by Colin Clark (MacMillan & Co., 1932), and in "The National Income," by Bowley & Stamp (Clarendon Press, 1927).

Ed. Comm.

Mr. R. Mead (High Wycombe). The basis of your criticism of our attitude towards the Bolshevists is your belief that Russia “is undoubtedly striving towards, and will soon attain, real Communism." If you will give us the reasons for your belief we will examine them.

You are wrong in saying that the S.P.G.B. opposes Popular Fronts simply because they are not composed of Socialists. The question is whether Popular Fronts can succeed in achieving what is claimed for them. We say no. Incidentally, we notice that you believe a “so-called Dictatorship is inevitable" in order to achieve Socialism. How do you square this with your support of Popular Fronts, which are intended to preserve democracy?

Ed. Comm.

The Wages of Agricultural Workers

In the January issue of The Socialist Standard we stated that "it has been estimated that as many as twenty-five per cent, of agricultural workers are being paid less than the minimum wage legally applicable to them."

Mr. Andrews (Wickford, Essex) wrote, asking how this information was obtained. Unfortunately, we were at the moment unable to name the source of our information (See Socialist Standard, April), but we can now give details.

The “sweating" of agricultural workers by farmers was dealt with in The Socialist Standard (July, 1931, p. 174, and October, 1934, p. 30).

From the earlier issue we quote the following: " According to Reynolds's Illustrated News (April 12th, 1931), in 1930, 4,523 farms were inspected, as a result of which there were 1,630 claims for arrears of wages. Reynolds's Agricultural Correspondent estimates that 'one farmer in four throughout the country is violating the law.' This estimate is based on official inspections over a number of years in every part of the country."

Why the Workers are Not Anti-Patriotic

A correspondent in Canada writes about the quotation from the pre-war Mussolini that "The proletariat is anti-patriotic by definition and necessity." He points out that workers in all lands are in the main not at all anti-patriotic, although, the necessity exists all right.

As regards the quotation, its form makes it somewhat ambiguous. Although Mussolini (writing, of course, in his Syndicalist days) used the expression “The proletariat is anti-patriotic," that was only intended as a concise way of saying that the proletariat, being a subject class, ought to recognise the necessity of being anti-patriotic.

The trouble is, that although the workers' class position is such that their interests lie in internationalism and the fight to establish Socialism, in the main they do not realise this. All the trappings of state, the flag-wagging, uniforms, coronation ceremonies, are used to disguise the truth from the workers, and all of the capitalist parties and the churches help to keep the truth hidden. Not least dangerous among these agencies of confusion are the jumped-up Labour leaders and ex-Labour leaders, from Mussolini to J. H. Thomas, Clynes, etc. They have learned the trick of combining nationalism with pseudo-Socialism, as in Hitler’s National Socialist or Nazi movement, and the various patriotic so-called Labour Parties.

There is no cure for this except knowledge and experience on the part of the workers, but it is helped by the way in which, from time to time, every country witnesses brutal and open subjection of the workers and their organisations by the employers—with the help of the armed forces of the state. Even the most dazzling of flags fail to fill empty bellies.

P. S.

Italy in Abyssinia and Britain in Arabia: A contrast in methods. (1938)

From the May 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

All the world has heard about the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, but few of the readers of British newspapers have heard about Britain’s acquisition of new territory in Arabia. This contrast between doing the thing openly and doing it quietly is, however, about the only difference.

Among the Annexes to the Anglo-Italian agreement (see text in Manchester Guardian, April 18th, 1938) is one which gives an Anglo-Italian guarantee of the independence and integrity of Saudi Arabia and the Yamen, warns off all other Powers from this area, and recognises British rights over certain Arab lands in South Arabia. Italy and Britain have been sparring for position in these areas, which, naturally, bodes ill for the independence of the Arabs.

Mr. H. St. John Philby, the authority on Arabia, wrote on the subject in the January issue of World Review in an article aptly called "British Bombs over Arabia." Below are some extracts:—

  In the same month (July, 1937) the British Government announced its decision to reserve a strategic position for itself at Aquaba. . . . Only four months earlier, by Order in Council, it had annexed 100,000 square miles in South Arabia to the British Empire in defiance of treaties of long standing with the various Arab rulers and princes of that territory. Italy countered by renewing her treaty with the Yamen.

He refers to stories of British bombing, and comments:—

 If it is true that the Royal Air Force at Aden has been bombing Arab tribes and villages, which cannot retaliate in the same way, that is in my opinion an atrocity. . . . The Arabs do not want to be ruled by Great Britain or any other great power. . . . That aerial bombing is freely used by the Aden administration is not denied by the Government. It is actually defended by those responsible for it as a rapid and humane method of keeping peace in the outposts of Empire.

It is true that the Arabs are warned in advance so that they can escape before their homes are destroyed, but, as Mr. St. John Philby points out, they do not want British penetration and control:—

  Their resistance is merely in defence of their liberty and independence, recognised by Great Britain until within the last 12 months. 

The desire for a strong strategic position is not the only attraction. An expedition has gone out in search of geographical and archaeological knowledge, but, as Mr. Philby adds,

   . . . it will not be alone in the field. The quest for antiquarian data will be accompanied by a quest for oil, the existence of which at Shabura and other localities has been established as the result of my. own journey to those parts last year.
  The oil expedition has not been advertised. The company responsible for it has been fortunate to obtain the exploitary rights for this interesting territory without payment. That also is a new departure. What has happened is that the British Government has given away for nothing certain rights .. . . . in territory which does not belong to it. It is conceivable that the owners of that territory may object to, or even resist, such unauthorised encroachment on their property. The aeroplanes of Aden will be there to argue the point with leaflets and bombs.

It is perhaps not surprising that Mr. St. John Philby was not able to interest the British Press in what the British Government is doing in Arabia. Their columns were too full of material on the wickedness of the Italian, German, Japanese, and other Governments.

P. S.

The War Situation: From the Rhine to Abyssinia (1936)

From the April 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Keeping up with current affairs has become very largely a question of following the moves in the threatening conflict between the Powers. Hitler, unable to keep his pledges of prosperity for the German workers, shatters the superficial harmony of the concert of Europe with the diversion of sending troops into the Rhine provinces. At once the millions of half-starved wage- slaves of the European continent turn their eyes away from their own problems to gape in admiration or fear at this circus marvel. Hitler qualifies for the role of Europe’s bogeyman, following the footsteps of Napoleon, Metternich and Kaiser Wilhelm II. The world has indeed moved little since 1914. Busily preparing for war and manoeuvring for position, the politicians are conducting a long-distance mouth-and-pen duel about the sanctity of treaties. Hitler in the one gesture tears up Locarno, and promises solemnly to keep the next treaty. England, Belgium and France—who pledged themselves to disarm under the Versailles Treaty—indignantly condemn Germany for rearming. Guilty themselves of defaulting on their debts to America, they are horrified at the threat that action against Germany may be followed by default on Germany’s foreign debts. Turning from the capitalist Governments to the Labour Parties, there, too, little has altered. Immediately before 1914 and immediately after 1918 the Labour leaders and Labour Parties took solemn oaths against participation in war. How they broke their oaths in 1914 is a matter of common knowledge. How they propose to do it in a future war has not yet been fully realised. If will be by the slim device of distinguishing between a war waged by “Allied Governments” and a war waged by Allied Governments calling themselves all or part of the League of Nations. The Government’s “Statement Relating to Defence” recognises (as Mr. Lloyd George recognised in the last war) that rearmament “will require the most careful organisation and the willing co-operation both of the leaders of industry and of Trade Unions if our task is to be successfully accomplished.” The assistance asked for will, of course, be forthcoming.

The Government spokesmen in the House of Lords discussed the various problems arising, and Lord Strabolgi (formerly Commander Kenworthy), Labour Peer, hastens to assure the Government that they can count on Labour support in a future war.

  The governing majority of the Labour Party were prepared to support this country in a war for its defence if it was in harmony with our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations. Since 1914 there had been a tremendous change in the country.
  They had now a great labour political movement. Unless they carried that labour political and industrial movement with them they could not get the united nation one would hope for in the case of some terrible emergency in the future. They would only get that if they tried to build up the system of collective security and if the defensive preparations were based on providing the means for this nation to play its part as one State-member of the League of Nations.—(Times, February 28th.)

The condition mentioned by Lord Strabolgi is that the Government shall try to build up the system of so-called collective security under the League of Nations. The Government, naturally, has no intention of declining a condition so innocuous. On March 13th we find Mr. Duff Cooper, M.P., Minister for War, relating in the House of Commons that

  So far as we can see into the future, if ever we are involved in a war again on the Continent, under whatever Government it may be, it will be a war according to the policy which now has the support of the vast majority of our people, a war on behalf of and in support of the principles of collective security, that is to say, it, will be a war fought with allies, and I hope many allies.—(Hansard, March 12th, col. 2356.) 

There will be little point in saying at the outbreak of any future war that the Labour Parties have deserted their principles, for their principles now lead straight into wars labelled “League of Nations Wars.”

What the League did for Abyssinia.

However, the present diplomatic turmoil does not mean war. It may turn out to be the overture to a war in the not very distant future, but the curtain is hardly due to go up yet. Let us, then, turn from the war which isn’t yet to the war that is still in progress between Italy and Abyssinia. Everywhere, except in the “news” departments of the Daily Worker, Herald, and various other journals, the badly-armed Abyssinians have been unable to withstand the overwhelming armaments of the Italians. The Emperor of Abyssinia now speaks with bitterness about the League Powers for failing to give him any material help. The Times correspondent in Addis Ababa writes : —

  What he considers the disgraceful procrastination of the League in applying the only sanctions which could stop the war—which he has described in interviews with me as financial assistance to the victim of aggression and an embargo against the aggressor on all materials neccesary for war—combined with the fact that whenever the League looks like being effective some obstructive measure in the disguise of conciliation is regularly introduced, is beginning to alter His Majesty’s outlook. He is becoming slowly an Ethiopian of the old warlike type, eager to get into the fighting and either destroy the Italians or die like a Negus.—(Times, March 16th.)

The Emperor’s Committee in London appeals to England “Please stop the murder, massacre, and

slaughter of the innocent and defenceless people of Ethiopia by helping them to acquire proper means of defending themselves. . .” (Manchester Guardian, March 5th.)

As Socialists we are not concerned with whether Abyssinia should be exploited by the native ruling class or by the Italian capitalists; but we sympathise with the tribesmen hounded into war by the Negus and the Italian conscripts led to death by Mussolini’s Government. We would ask the well- meaning supporters of the League and of Sanctions, who, six months ago, helped to mislead the Abyssinians into relying on League and Labour Party help, what they have to say now? What have they done except prolong the useless slaughter? What, indeed, could they do, unless the British ruling class themselves took or threatened armed action, i.e., war against Italy? Giving new names to war has not altered the capitalist world. The capitalist class set the armed forces in motion only to defend capitalist interests. Those who ignore this fact and imagine that the League is above and beyond the motives of those who control it are misleading the workers and playing into the hands of capitalist war-makers.

P. S.

The Camera Cannot Lie (1943)

From the May 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his "Falsehood in War-time” (Allen & Unwin, 1928) Arthur Ponsonby (now Lord Ponsonby) published an interesting collection of the irresponsible or deliberately fabricated stories used on both sides in the last war as an aid to war-propaganda. On the title page he quotes a saying, "When war is declared. Truth is the first casualty.” Wars do not change in that respect, and John Bright's statement of a century ago is still true: "You will find wars are supported by a class of argument which, after the war is over, the people find were arguments they should never have listened to.”

A small illustration of the ease with which news can be coloured occurred recently in the Sunday Pictorial (March 28, 1943). On the front page is a picture of a woman tearfully waving farewell to someone in a departing train at a railway station. The description provided by the Pictorial is that she is "a young Parisienne wife” at a Paris station. ". . . for her the tearful agony of farewell is made all the more bitter by the fact that her man has been brutally torn from her side by Hitler's order to make munitions for use against her friends.”

A very plausible story, but the picture (suitably altered from the original) had already appeared in Picture Post, May 23, 1942. Only there the lady was waving farewell to her husband, an English soldier, who had gone off for his training. So the English wife, who started weeping on Paddington station in May, 1942, was still weeping 11 months later, but now miraculously transformed into a Frenchwoman, in Paris, watching a train, (with "Third Class” blacked out) on its way to Germany. Large numbers of readers of Picture Post (like The Socialist Standard reader who informed us) had spotted the fake, and Picture Post (April 10) drew attention to it. The Sunday Pictorial explained that they had taken the picture from a Swiss newspaper.

The incident itself is unimportant, but it should serve to remind readers of the capitalist Press and listeners to the wireless of the possibility of news being, distorted and falsified. Though it should also be remembered that the really harmful distortions are not usually crude fakes like this photo. What is much more serious is the permanent (and often unconscious) twist given to information by colouring, selecting and suppressing, in line with the class interests of those who control the sources of information.

P. S.

A Trouble-Saver for Communists (1936)

From the June 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the moment we are receiving a steady stream of letters from Communists and their sympathisers explaining why the case for joining the Labour Party is absolutely unanswerable. In 1929 the same people-were proving that it was absolutely necessary to oppose the Labour Party. In 1923 they proved why it was absolutely necessary to support the Labour Party. To save trouble when the Communist Party stands on its head (or its feet) at the next somersault, we print below brief extracts from their statements of policy of 1923 and 1929. 

From the Communist Party General Election Address, 1923: —

  Therefore our immediate object in the present struggle must be the establishment of a Labour Government. . . . Vote Labour and Communist. No Divided Ranks!

From the Communist Labour Monthly, January, 1929: —

  Until a comparatively recent period many revolutionary workers still believed in the possibility of a constitutional conquest of the Labour Party and its eventual transformation, as the workers became disillusioned in the reformist leadership, into a revolutionary party by a change of leadership . . . To-day, however, the facts are clear to all. The Labour Party is . . .  a machine of reformism, devised by reformism, for the control of the mass organisations, and which is prepared abundantly to protect itself against any danger of transformation. The decisive fight of the revolutionary workers is and can only be outside that machine and against it . . . The conception of a Socialistic transformation of the Labour Party needs to be denounced, not only as a Utopian dream, but as a reactionary deception and misleading of the workers, and passive support of MacDonald. With this goes equally the conception of the advance of the workers through a Labour Government, or a Left Labour Government, or Left pressure from within the Labour Party upon a Labour Government. The path of advance lies through the independent leadership of the revolutionary workers.

1936. (Same as (1923.)

193—?. (Same as 1929.)

P. S.

Facts for Socialists (1937)

Pamphlet Review from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fabian Society have just published the 14th edition, revised and enlarged, of "Facts for Socialists" (46 pages, 6d.). It contains the usual valuable collection of figures as to the unequal distribution of incomes and property, together with information about the extent of malnutrition, the volume of pauperism and unemployment, the condition of the depressed areas, overcrowding, industrial accidents, hours of work, strikes, trade union membership, etc. It is marred by the usual Fabian misconceptions about the nature of Socialism, but its facts and figures make it a first-rate aid to propagandists. 

P. S.

The Flimsy Bond of Nationalism (1932)

From the October 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some of the supporters of the movement for Indian independence cherish the illusion that the brutal treatment meted out to them by the British authorities is peculiar to British rule over subject countries, and that such brutality will disappear when Indians govern in India. A wider knowledge would teach them that brutality marks the actions of every ruling class defending its privileges against uprisings from below.

Some of the Irish Nationalists used to talk in similar strain when the Irish movement was being suppressed by the British Government. In their minds the brutalities of the Black and Tans and other British forces were regarded as characteristics of alien rule. In due course, however, the Irish movement split into the Free State Party (the Government) and the Republicans. It was then found that the methods of the Black and Tans were fairly faithfully copied by the Irish in their treatment of each other. When an Indian ruling class gets hold of the reins of government, the Indian workers will find that there is little to choose between the brutality of Indian and English authorities.

A Nationalist publication, the India Bulletin, gives publicity to accounts of the harsh treatment of Indian political prisoners in Indian jails. Quite unintentionally these accounts support our argument and show what the Indian workers may expect at the hands of these wealthy Indians who finance and lead the Nationalist movement.

Like all national movements, the Indian nationalists make use of the cant that the idea of independence is one which binds all Indians in a close fraternity against the foreign tyrant. Yet one of the most persistent notes in the complaints of the political prisoners is that the wicked British authorities actually compel them to associate with their own fellow countrymen, the criminals. One lady writes as follows (Bulletin, June, 1932): —

  The fundamental fault lies with the (jail) system, and with a Government which can fling hundreds upon hundreds of well-bred ladies into the class assigned to the lowest criminals of the land.

It is no doubt unpleasant for “well-bred ladies" to have to mix with their less fortunate Indian sisters. But there is nothing to prevent these Nationalists, with their boasted sympathy for the victims of British rule from demanding better treatment for the non-politicals as well as for themselves. But no; the letters in the Bulletin betray not the slightest hint of fellow feeling for the victims of the social system, many of whom have no prospect before them except the choice between harsh treatment in prison and treatment hardly less harsh outside. Gandhi and the other nationalist leaders are as vigorous as the British ruling class in upholding private ownership of the means of life, so the political prisoners make the claim for special treatment as befits the members of a privileged class. They resent having their precious bodies brought into proximity with the victims of the social system from which their privilege is derived, and of which they are defenders.

The Indian workers will discover this when the Indian capitalists enter into unrestricted or less restricted control. The capitalist ladies and their men-folk who have no sympathy for non-political prisoners will not find it difficult to adopt towards the workers the brutality inseparable from the suppression of one class by another. By that time they will have finished using the Indian workers as tools in the campaign against the British Government, and the mask will be taken off.

What the non-political prisoners think of the well-bred inhumanity of the arrogant ladies we do not know.

P. S.

The Press and the Election (1935)

From the December 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Beaverbrook and Rothermere Press played its usual game in this election. The formula is simple. Between elections Rothermere’s Daily Mail attacks the Conservative or National Government bitterly from one quarter while Beaverbrook’s Daily Express attacks it from another—right up to election time. This enables them to influence the policy of the Government and the party, and get measures through suitable to their ideas and the interests they represent. It also leaves them free to repudiate responsibility for unpopular Government policy and to take up every variety of stunt, from Fascism (Lord Rothermere) to nationalising the banks (Lord Beaverbrook). Then, when the election comes round, the joint Beaverbrook-Rothermere Press rallies round the Government candidates, still waving the flag of independence which has facilitated their duping of the readers.

Observant readers will at once notice that this policy of the Press Lords is very much the same as that of the I.L.P., the Communists, and the Socialist League. The I.L.P. and Communists helped build up the reputations of MacDonald, Snowden, and company, and helped them to power, but repudiated all responsibility for their actions. The same will happen again with any future Labour Government.

One curiosity of the campaign was the Sunday Referee. That journal, which boasted of its independence, its open forum, and its non-party policy, was much admired by “left-wingers," because it was "different." When the election came round the Referee announced that it "is the only national newspaper that is free of Party Politics," and that it believes in the League of Nations," "Pensions at 60," "Nationalisation of the Mines," and " Cheaper Money."

Mr. Isidore Ostrer explained in the Referee (November 10th) that by "cheaper money" he means the abolition of usury, and that on this question, which he regards as fundamental, "there is no difference between the parties." Then, with a logic all its own, the Referee plumped for the National Government, which, it will be noticed, is not in favour of pensions at 60, nationalisation of the mines, or the abolition of usury. To cover its open support of capitalism, the Referee threw up a smoke-screen in the form of an attack on the Daily Herald, because it, too, is alleged to be lukewarm about the useless proposal of nationalising the mines.

P. S.

Election Brevities (1935)

From the December 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

There were the usual attempts to stampede electors with last-minute scares. One of them — the Conservative warning that Socialism means the end of the Building Societies — has a certain humour. The Labour Party proclaimed that its aim is Socialism, and those of the Labour leaders who know anything about Socialism know that under Socialism there will be no need for banks, building societies, pawnbrokers, and other organisations for borrowing and lending money. But the Labour Party wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to claim that they are Socialists, but that they do not intend to introduce Socialism. So they protested indignantly against this mean accusation!

#    #    #    #

The Putney Ward of the Labour Party, which recently broke away and assured us that their aim is Socialism, not reformism, sent a telegram of support to the I.L.P. candidates, who were, of course, standing on a reform programme, as usual.

#    #    #    #

A dishonest Conservative manoeuvre was to pretend that the Labour Party fought the election in alliance with the Communists, although the Conservative speakers nowhere appear to have had any evidence that such pact had been entered into. Labour Party headquarters flatly rejected the proposal.

#    #    #    #

The Labour Party was unlucky in respect of its various splinter parties. It lost the fairly considerable I.L.P. vote in Scotland because the I.L.P. in many constituencies opposed the Labour candidates, and it lost a considerable number of timid Lib.-Lab. votes because the Communists and Stafford Cripps supported it.

#    #    #    #

During the election the miners’ leaders were asking that the mines be nationalised, like the Post Office, and that miners have a minimum wage of £3 a week. The Postal workers who are already nationalised would like to hear from the miners how this helps them in getting £3 a week, for well over half of the adult Post Office workers get less than £3.

#    #    #    #

The Co-operative movement excelled itself in the pettiness of its appeal to the electors. Reynolds's Illustrated News (November 3rd) published an appeal which condemned the Government for the reason, among others, that the tax on Co-operative reserves cost each member 3/5 a year. Imagine Marx’s slogan re-written for Co-operators, “Workers of all lands, unite. You have nothing to lose hut your chains. You have 3/5 per annum, or four-fifths of a penny a week, to win!”

#    #    #    #

Mr. W. J. Brown, who failed to get returned as an Independent at East Wolverhampton this time, had the backing of Lord Snowden (Daily Express, November 12th). Previously he has been in the Labour Party and I.L.P., hunted with the Communists, was associated with Mosley in the formation of the New Party, but immediately dropped out, and dabbled in currency-mongering and backing a worker-industrial-capitalist alliance against the bankers.

#    #    #    #

The Labour Party said they were fighting for Socialism. Lord Snowden said they weren’t (The Times, October 3rd). He told Liberals to vote Labour in the absence of a Liberal candidate, provided the Labour man was one of the large number who backed the Peace and Reconstruction Council. In his own old constituency (Colne Valley) he backed the Liberal against the Labour man. One of the erstwhile “revolutionaries ” who went begging for the Peace and Reconstruction vote was Miss Ellen Wilkinson, one-time Communist. But she failed. They would not give it to her.

#    #    #    #

The Labour Party’s headquarters election fund, most of which came in big donations from the Unions, totalled nearly £20,000 about a week before polling day (see Daily Herald, November 9th). The Transport Workers’ Union gave £2,000. 

#    #    #    #

Sir Oswald Mosley, for the British Union of Fascists, stated in a letter to The Times (November 7th) that his organisation is preparing for the next General Election, their motto being “ Fascism next time.” The intervening period is to be used for preparing their electoral machinery.

#    #    #    #

Mrs. Tennant, who fought as National Conservative candidate against  Mr. Jack Jones at Silvertown, was one of the few who stood frankly for the capitalist system. Her reason is that the workers ”would suffer more than anyone else” if the Labour Party’s present programme were to be applied. It is interesting to see Mrs. Tennant admitting that after generations of capitalism (plus a long stretch of Labour rule on the local councils), local conditions as regards housing and unemployment are very bad. Mrs. Tennant also "admits that capitalism, to be successful, ought to be able to provide everyone with a job, and a decent job.” It is surely late in the day for capitalism to be promising decent jobs for all. It has never provided that, and will not do so, however long it lasts, or by whomsoever it is administered.

#    #    #    #

Lord Allen (formerly Mr. Clifford Allen, pacifist member of the I.L.P.) supported Sir Herbert Samuel, the leader of the opposition Liberal Party at Darwen, on the ground that he is a man of integrity and experience.

#    #    #    #

The Independent Labour Party was able to boast of one unique achievement in the election. The manifesto of the National Government was signed by one former I.L.P. leader, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Two others, Lord Snowden and Lord Allen, backed the Liberals. Others, including Mr. Attlee and Mr. Clynes, led the Labour Party. Sir Oswald Mosley leads the Fascists, a number of ex-I.L.P.ers are prominent in the Communist Party, and others in the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist League, and the Independent Socialist Party. Lastly, the small remnant round Mr. Maxton still lead the I.L.P. Another former I.L.P.’er, Mr. Walton Newbold, supported Winston Churchill at Epping.

P. S.