This Month's Quotation: Socialist (1938)

The Front Page quote from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Real Enemy of the Working Class is the Master Class. Workers Unite!"

Socialist Standard, December 1914. 

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

Notes by the Way: What Wars are really About. (1938)

The Notes by the Way Column from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

What Wars are really About.

Germany and Britain were supposed to have gone to war in 1914 about the violation of Belgian neutrality and about the respective merits of democracy and Prussian militarism. Now they are supposed to be quarrelling about Fascism and democracy and the merits of the Czechoslovak dispute. In 1914 the Japs sided with “democracy” against “Prussianism” (and, incidentally, strengthened their position in China), but this time they are backing Germany in order, so they say, “to stem the tide of Bolshevism.”

The real reason now, as then, for these international conflicts is capitalist commercial rivalry. The German economic periodical, Wirtschaftsring, according to the Daily Telegraph (September 13th, 1938), “accuses Britain of attempting to throttle Germany’s trade with Eastern Europe and of encircling her in economic fields.”

Britain’s purchases of Rumanian corn, remarks the Journal sarcastically, were made for two reasons. First, she wished to cut Germany off from the Balkans, and secondly, to reduce the amount of corn available in Central Europe in the event of war.

Not content with ruling a quarter of the globe . . . Britain wants to acquire the trade of other countries. The economic strangulation of Germany has been attempted through the Scandinavian countries, it is alleged, and is now to be pursued through Finland and South-East Europe.

Then The Times (August 27th, 1938) publishes an article by its Tokyo correspondent on the reasons for Japanese hostility to Britain. Here is his conclusion: —

Anti-British elements are to be found not only in the Army and Navy but in every branch of the Civil Service and in business. Statistical appraisal of the strength of these elements is impossible, but the general statement may be hazarded that most people under, say, 46 years of age in these various departments of national life who are politically conscious, and even many who are not, are anti-British. These people are anti-British because of commercial rivalry in world markets and political rivalry in the Far East. But they are also anti-British on internal, political, and personal grounds.

The Times' editorial adds:—

Commercially all over the world, and politically in the Far East. Great Britain figures as Japan’s chief rival. That is now the Japanese see it.

The remedy is to get rid of capitalism.

#    #    #    #

Our Leaders (from their bomb-proof hide-outs) will ask us to stand firm.

The Daily Express (September 15th, 1938) | publishes a description of Hitler’s modest little bungalow at Berchtesgaden.

It began as “just a simple mountain chalet” ; but is now “ as sumptuously equipped as a luxury | hotel.”

In the event of a war it will be an ideal place from which this heroic leader of German cannon-fodder will be able to urge them to be brave and stand firm. In the woods around it “so many anti-aircraft guns are mounted . . . that no single aircraft could survive their fire,” and ”deep down beneath the woods are gas-proof, bomb-proof shelters.”

#    #    #    #

Pity the Poor Indian Capitalist.

It was to be expected (and was doubtless foreseen by the British ruling class) that when Indian Nationalist governments came to power in several Indian states the Congress Party would .begin to show signs of internal strain. It was one thing for Indian workers and peasants, landlords and capitalists, to unite in denouncing British rule, but quite another thing for a Congress Party government to please all of these diverse elements. Gandhi, who has never disguised his hostility towards Socialism and his belief in capitalism, is now sharply criticising working-class elements in the Congress Party. Although in the old days he himself advocated the occupation of salt works as part of the campaign against the Indian Government, he is horrified at the idea of Indian workers using similar tactics against Indian employers. In his journal, Harijan, of August 13th, 1938 (quoted in the Indian Labour Journal, August 21st), he writes as follows: —

One complaint is that, in the name of peaceful picketing, picketers are resorting to methods bordering on violence, such as making a living wall beyond which no one can pass without being hurt or hurting those who make the wall. As the author of peaceful picketing, I cannot recall a single instance in which I had encouraged such picketing.

A friend has quoted Dharsana against me. I had suggested the occupation of salt works. But that is wholly inapplicable to the case under consideration. In Dharsana the objective was the salt works of which possession had to be taken and maintained as against the Government. The action could hardly be called picketing, but, to prevent workers from going to their work by standing in front of them is pure violence and must be given up.

Blind worshippers of Gandhi will say that the above remarks are consistent with his advocacy of passive resistance as a means of dealing with all situations. But the next passage in his article shows how circumstances alter cases. He is telling his readers what the factory owners should do if threatened with mass picketing. Should they pray ? —or try persuasion and passive resistance? Not at all, they should call in the police!

The owners of mills or other factories would be fully justified in invoking the assistance of the police.

Another illuminating remark from Gandhi is this:—

I have before me a letter which bitterly complains that, whereas capitalists used to get justice during the old régime, now, under the Congress régime, they not only get no justice, but are even insulted and humiliated.

This is too bad. As any poor Indian millionaire, rich by the sweating of Indian textile operatives or iron and steel workers, might complain: ‘‘What is the use of getting rid of British rule unless India remains safe for exploitation?”

The attitude of Gandhi and his paymasters is easily understood, but what are we to think of the so-called "Socialists" in India, who continue to delude the Indian workers with the argument that Nationalism and independence will rid India of poverty ?

#    #    #    #

Bandits or Patriots?

Patriotism has been described as “the last refuge of a scoundrel’’; but everybody does not take that view. Some of those who do not are the London newspapers, also the Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties. They all say that patriotism is a very fine and noble thing, and that we should honour the courage and devotion of the patriot who fights to defend the land he was born in against foreign invaders. There is Abyssinia, for example. The Manchester Guardian reports that widespread guerrilla warfare is still bring waged against the Italians, and the writer in the Guardian (September 8th, 1938) goes to some trouble to explain that the Abyssinian patriots are not just “bandits." But if we turn from Abyssinia to Palestine, where the Arabs are trying by force of arms to overthrow the detested British rule and oust the Jewish settlers, we find a remarkable difference. All the London daily papers, with hardly an exception, habitually report the efforts of the Arabs as the activities of “bandits." Actually the Arab fighters talk the same kind of language as all the other patriots. Here is a sample:—

Were it not for the justice of our cause, the holiness of our demands and the victory promised to us by God, the enemy would have succeeded in its intentions. —(Daily Telegraph, September 8th, 1938.)

Not that we wish to idealise the Arabs, but it would be more fitting if the gangs of patriots in all countries recognised that they are all worshipping the same barbarous ideals in the same bloodthirsty way.

#    #    #    #

That's a Commissar—that was!

The Russian dictatorship goes on its way not a bit changed by the introduction of its “democratic” constitution. The Supreme Soviet, which the Russian Press claims to be the "world’s newest and most democratic Parliament," met for the first time in January. It held its second session at the end of August. The Moscow correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (September 16th, 1938) says that: "What could not escape observant eyes when the two Houses met for the first time since January was the absence of a number of faces which had been prominent during the historical first session"—they had been quietly "liquidated" in the meantime. Some leading figures thus removed from the scene had only been appointed in January. One of them, Chubar, had actually been employed then on denouncing "wreckers" to the Members of Parliament.

The Moscow correspondent expresses the opinion that the Government now has difficulty in finding/reliable and experienced men to fill the more prominent positions, but there is no dearth of urgent problems waiting to be dealt with. He only repeats what is widely known when he says, for instance, the Russian railway system is in a "chronically chaotic’’ condition. What then had Russia’s mock Parliament to say about the counties troubles and the way to remove them ? They met almost daily for a period of twelve days and this is what they did :—

The time was devoted almost entirely to hearing reports from Government officials and to discussions of them, which amounted to amplifications of the reports. The discussions never could have been said to have developed into debate, and there was no record of a negative vote having been cast throughout the proceedings.

Yet our Communists, who praise the Soviet Constitution, profess to have a new-found enthusiasm for Parliamentary government. Even Mussolini’s Yes-men dare to open their mouths occasionally in the Italian Parliament, as recently when there was some serious discussion of the Government’s financial policy.

                                                                  #    #    #    #

How Bolshevism discourages foreign working-class movements.

The Communists always talk in terms of Russia helping the working class in other countries, ignoring completely the widespread discouragement that events in Russia have caused. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian in Poland (Manchester Guardian, August 22nd, 1938) describes how the Polish Communist movement has been undermined through Russian events.

Meanwhile Poles—or rather the Polish governing class—feel a certain relief because Stalin has destroyed the Polish Communist movement. The Polish Communists were an élite  in so far as their older leaders played a big part in the Russian Revolution. The immense poverty of the Polish peasant masses is favourable to Communism, which has been kept down by a ruthless terror. But so many Polish Communists have been shot or imprisoned in Russia during the last few years that the Polish Communist movement has been almost completely destroyed from within, so to speak, and a terrible disarray has spread amongst its remaining members.

#    #    #    #

An Economist Exposes Capitalism.

Sir William Beveridge may be described as one of the best-informed and least shoddy of the economists who stand for capitalism. He has a respect for facts and for scientific method rather unusual among modern economists; and has on occasion remained firm in his views when the tide of ignorant but influential prejudice was running strongly against him. His study of capitalist industrial crises has now led him to an interesting admission. The following report of his speech is taken from the Manchester Guardian (August 23rd, 1938): —

Besides satisfying himself completely that the trade cycle is a real phenomenon, he finds that there is singular faithfulness in the maintenance on each occasion of the order in which individual industries decline and the degrees of intensity with which the depression affects each of them.

He is sure that the basic causes lie in human institutions.

During the last ten years, the trade cycle had shown a striking disregard for the actions and attitudes of Governments. In 1931 land 1932 Great Britain, U.S.A. and Sweden were alike in depression. All three had changes of Government. The directions of change differed widely, yet all three recovered and prospered for several years and now, with its type of Government unchanged, was entering a new depression. It would be hardly possible to find a stronger illustration of the apparent impotence of Governments in face of the trade cycle as long as they did not abolish the economic system, altogether.

In spite of this admission that crises do not take any notice of the kind of government that is trying to administer capitalism, Beveridge is, as he always was, a Liberal who holds that we must not “abolish the (capitalist) economic system altogether.”

He is quite right in stressing the impotence of governments in the matter of ridding capitalism of crises, but he has surely had enough experience of politics to know that even if governments can't do anything they have to pretend they can. Ex-President Hoover, of the U.S.A., was apparently one of those who believed that the best thing for the capitalists to do about a crisis is to do nothing, just let it take its course. But it lost him all chance of re-election, and his place was taken by Roosevelt, the persuasive, opportunist, glib-tongued wholesale manufacturer of promises. He affected the crisis no more than Hoover, but he made a show of dynamic activity, and that is what the trustful electorate likes.

#    #    #    #

Good Sense from Geneva.

Small organisations from Britain, France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Sweden, Holland, Spain, Greece and Palestine recently held a conference at Geneva, presided over by Mr. Fenner Brockway, of the I.L.P., at which it was decided to establish an international organisation for the purpose of preventing the threatening war. A manifesto was issued, declaring that—

the coming war will be neither a war for the liberation of an oppressed people nor a war for the defence of u democracy ” against Fascism. It will be a war in which two groups of brigands will come to grips for a new partition of the earth. The conflict between the Sudeten Germans and the Czecho-Slovakian Government is only the pretext for a settlement of accounts between German Imperialism on the one hand and British and French Imperialism on the other. Our class interests are neither the one side nor the other. Workers of all countries, all races, and all colours, this war will not be our war. Let us unite to bar its way while there is still time. Only our class action can drive it back.—(Manchester Guardian, September 15th. 1938.)

Whatever illusions these organisations, one of which is the I.L.P., may hold about other matters, they have certainly seen through the appeal of the war-makers. They take it for granted, however, that Britain intends to be involved in war with Germany over the Czech question, and this seems to be improbable, to say the least of it. Chamberlain seems to have other ideas as to the best way of protecting British capitalist interests.

#    #    #    #

Peace and War at the Marble Arch Front.

The crowds which throng the public meeting place at the Marble Arch end of Hyde Park are becoming more and more familiar with the S.P.G.B. and its message, and they use their opportunity of stating their own case against the S.P.G.B.’s. At one meeting, recently, two incidents occurred which cast a vivid light on the futility of Labourism. The first was an interruption by two German girls: They were enthusiastic Nazis and heil-Hitlered as they left the meeting. But before they went they explained why they are Nazis. It is all because of the glorious things they believe Hitler has done, and will do, for the German workers, which they contrasted with the sorry failure of Labourism, i.e., the activities since 1918 of the German and Austrian Social Democratic Parties. But the tragedy is that these two Nazi girls believed that the plight of the German workers up to 1933 was due to Socialism! They shouted to our speaker: “Look what Socialism did for us!” Of course they are quite wrong, but who taught them that Socialism means the administration of capitalism by a Labour Government ? Nobody but the German and Austrian Labourites.

The second incident was a question thoughtfully put by a member of the audience, who was plainly not a member of any party but was looking round to see what he could best do to prevent war. This was his question:—

In view of the fact that the Left Wing parties are at the present time more war-minded than the National Government parties, would you. advise the workers to vote for the Chamberlain candidate in the next General Election in constituencies where there is not a Socialist candidate, and thus help to prevent war?

All members of the S.P.G.B. will recognise that the question is an old friend, hurled at Party speakers for years, and yet it appears in a strangely inverted form. Always before it was in the form: “Ought not. the workers to vote for the Labour Party candidate in constituencies where there is no S.P.G.B. candidate, because the Labour Party, while not a Socialist Party, is the next best thing?”

So capitalist politics have their revenge on the reformist parties (including the Communists). They all played at the game of capitalist politics, trying to outsmart the Tories, only to find that Chamberlain has manoeuvred them into such a position that great masses of the electorate feel that the only way to avoid war is to vote against the Labour Party and other “Left Wing” groups. What a confirmation of the S.P.G.B.’s insistence on a straight Socialist policy all the time!

It need hardly be added that voting for Chamberlain to keep out of war is about as safe as voting for Hitler to keep out of war, in spite of the fact that at present British capitalism will do much to avoid war.

#    #    #    #

The German Tactic in Czechoslovakia is not new.

People who wax very indignant about the German tactic of provoking disturbances in Czechoslovakia, as a prelude to intervention and conquest, should spread their indignation a little. It is the time-honoured tactic of British Imperialism in its dealings with native races. It was used with splendid success against the Boer republics forty years ago. It was used by Italy in Abyssinia, by many governments in Africa and China, and it closely resembles a move made by France only fifteen years ago in the Rhine provinces of Germany. When France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr in 1923 one of their activities was to finance a movement for separating Germany’s Rhine provinces and forming them into an u "independent" State, under French protection. Along with some Rhinelanders who really thought the idea was a good one, were others who were paid hirelings of French capitalism.

The Ruhr occupation is worth remembering for the parallel it provides with the Czechoslovak problem. Then the Labour Party and the Communists were all on the side of Germany, and France was the u "mad dog of Europe" against whom they threatened war. The Labour Party and T.U.C. issued a manifesto on January. 15th, 1923, describing the action of the French and Belgian Governments as an act of war and "an attack on the self-determination of the German people." They demanded that the British Government take  "all possible steps to secure the withdrawal of the Armies of Occupation."

The demands of the Communist Party, in a manifesto issued by them, included “an immediate conference of Labour organisations of the world to put an end to the Imperialist aggression" and “immediate scrapping of the Versailles Treaty." Now that Hitler is duly scrapping the Versailles Treaty the Communists have changed their position and are not so keen.

Edgar Hardcastle

Why Jew-baiting? (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is nothing new about Jew-baiting. As a pastime and a political subterfuge it has been practised since the Jews became distributed over the world's surface. Likewise, the arguments advanced in defence of this time-honoured practice are far from original. They have been trotted out with monotonous repetition for centuries. The Jews are represented as money-grabbers, sweaters of labour, price-cutters, and unscrupulous exploiters, and their suppression is advocated in order to prevent these practices. There is no lack of evidence to prove that Jews indulge in these undesirable practices. The tailoring sweat-shops in the East End of London, and the many cut-price shops with Jewish proprietors, are the illustrations usually given. What the “Down with Jews" advocates overlook is that these practices are not confined to Jews. There is no monopoly of. exploitation by any particular Jewish confraternity. It is the prerogative, of any native or alien, if he owns sufficient wealth, to use that wealth in the exploitation of others, and the degree of such exploitation is in no way determined by the race, nationality or religion of the exploiter.

Unfortunately, many workers are prepared to give a willing and attentive ear to the passion-inflaming hocus of the anti-Semitics. The natural resentment of the worker towards exploitation, being himself a victim, makes it a comparatively simple matter to enlist his sympathy in an attack upon any particularly vicious aspect of his greatest grievance. Knowing this, there are politicians and political parties prepared to pander to working-class sentiments in this direction in order to further their own ends. In this way the vilifying and. howling out against Jews has become the chief means employed by the Fascist parties to attract attention and support to themselves.

Most workers realise that they are exploited, but what they do not realise is the process of that exploitation and in what way it is possible to. remove it. The worker, owning nothing more than his ability to work, must, perforce, sell that ability in order to acquire the needs of life. When he is fortunate enough to find a buyer for his energies he receives, as the price of those energies, a wage. The wages of the working class must be less than the total of the values added in the process of creating wealth. Workers, by applying their energies to raw materials, create wealth which has value. If the wages received were equal to the values produced, then, quite obviously, there would be nothing for the purchaser of working-class energies. It is the amount of values created, over and above the amount received by the creators in the form of wages, which constitutes the surplus that is taken by the non-producing class, the class that owns the raw materials and the machinery which is used in the process of production. Here we have the process by which the worker is exploited.

The capitalist class, having taken the surplus value, then proceed to divide it amongst themselves according to the particular form of the wealth which they have invested. The landlord, the industrialist and the financier, each struggles for a larger share of the spoils of working-class exploitation. In their attempts to score over one another they strive for control of the political machine, because that control means power to the section which wields it. To obtain control of the political machine the support of the working class is needed, particularly at election time, and to get the support of the working class it is necessary to promise to ease the degree of exploitation.

One group of capitalist interests will represent other groups as being the villains of the piece. At one time the industrialists will claim that the high rent taken by the landowners is crippling their industry, and that, in consequence, wages must be low in order that their trade may not suffer. They advocate the subduing of the landowner and the royalty-taker as a means of improving working-class conditions. At another time the financier is the villain who, by the extortion of a high rate of interest on the money he has advanced, is slowing up the wheels of industry and causing unemployment and increased poverty.

The Jews, because they have become dispersed throughout the world, and because in the past they have been, to a great extent, kept on the move, have had to convert any property that they have acquired into some portable form. Money is the most portable form of wealth, and, as many Jews have accumulated money, they have become moneylenders. Financier is the modern name for a moneylender on a large scale.

In most capitalist countries a number of Jews will be found among the finance section of the capitalist class. Also, in most capitalist countries, a far larger number of Jews will be found among the working class. The Jews, just like the English, or the Americans, or the Hindoos, are divided into classes, exploited and exploiting. They differ, in that respect, not a bit from any other nationality or race (it is difficult to define them as either). The fact that a few of their number are to be found amongst the most wealthy and powerful groups of capitalists means little to the workers.

The other instances of excesses, such as price-cutting and labour sweating, are likewise not confined to Jews. All cut-price shops are not owned by Jews, and all Jewish-owned shops are not cut-price shops. Price cutting is an inevitable consequence of the competition of capital. That the tailoring trade is a sweated one is not due to the fact there are many Jews engaged in it but to the competition and other factors which prevail. Many of the sweated ones are themselves Jews.

All political parties are but the expression of class interests. All political parties that have not as their object the overthrow of the capitalist system must represent, to a greater or less degree, the interests of capital, even though the members do not realise it. For the workers to take sides in the struggles of different groups of capitalists for the spoils that have been wrung from themselves will help them not a bit. It is very much like a man taking sides in a struggle between a group of pickpockets, who have robbed him, to decide which of die thieves should have the lion's share of his property. Of course, if the thieves can enlist him on one side or another he can become a great help. His real concern should be to regain his property. An attempt to do that would unite the thieves against him.

The dividing line between capitalist sectional interests may not be so dear as in days that are past, but they still remain. Hiding these interests behind promises of reforms which are supposed to benefit the workers is an old game. So is the trick of cloaking the struggle behind religious or racial differences. That is what is being done by those who attempt to inflame workers against Jews. The discontent of the working class, instead of being marshalled into channels where the workers would become Socialists, where they would be converted from rebels into revolutionaries, is turned to serve the purpose of one or the other conflicting interests of the capitalist trinity, rent, interest or profit.

The claim of the Fascists that the Jews in this country constitute a state within a state is nonsense. Such an idea can only arise from a misconception of the nature and function of a state and an exaggerated notion of the purpose of Jewish organisations. Any group of nationals in a foreign land, if they are persecuted, will seek to protect themselves and attempt to organise for the purpose. Such organisation does not constitute a state, neither does it necessarily imply a hostility to the state of the country in which they reside.

If the proposals of the rabid nationalists of the world were carried to their logical conclusion, and all aliens were deported, there would be a terrible crush when all the Britons from abroad were returned to their native shore.

From whatever angle the arguments of the anti-Semitics are examined, they will reveal nothing which will materially benefit the working class. The political activities of workers are side-tracked. Instead of organising consciously for the overthrow of capitalism, they fight one another within the framework of that system. Their masters sit tight and enjoy the privileges which accrue from the system. Racial, national or religious differences count for nought. The fact that men and women are members of a dispossessed class gives them a common cause. The converting of the means of wealth production and distribution to the common ownership of society as a whole is the cause, and the Socialist Party of Great Britain works to achieve that end.

W. Waters

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

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

More About A.R.P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Controversy article touches this point:—

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

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

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

Fools and Democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks as though Mr. Brailsford is being fooled.

“Progress" of the Communist Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no Communist Party in anything but name.

Communists are so misunderstood.

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

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

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

Another Lost Leader.

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

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

On Coat-turning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unemployment in India.

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

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

Fine place the British Empire—for the capitalists!

Robbery with Impudence.

 

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

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

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

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

A case of selling the swag before it is stolen.

Harry Waite

Germany Stages a Come-Back (1938)

From the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

The simple rule, the golden plan.

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

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

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

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

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

Lew.

SPGB Meetings (1938)

Party News from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Donations to general account (1938)

Party News from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

General Open Air Propaganda (October) (1938)

Party News from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The SPGB had every intention in contesting a seat in East Ham at the next General Election, but war intervened.

This Month's Quotation: A Prominent Communist. (1938)

The Front Page quote from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

"There are no such things as defensive or aggressive wars under capitalism . . . Wars are not caused to 'defend democracy' . . . Wars are caused in the search for profit”

This Month's Quotation

Our Panel this month is taken from the New Leader (20/5/1938), who quote from the pamphlet, Labour & War, by Harry Pollitt, published by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1934.

Our Practical Policy (1938)

From the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the Socialist Standard are far greater in numbers than the membership of the “Socialist Party.” At this time of the year especially, when more meetings are held and more of our literature is sold, the official organ of our Party reaches a still wider circle. The result of this activity reflects itself in wider discussions at our meetings and in the letters we receive from critics.

Now there is one very curious thing about certain of our critics, whether well or ill-acquainted with the Socialist Party’s case. They show as keen a desire to agree with the Party position as they do to disagree with the Party’s exposition of it. A few words in explanation will illustrate the apparently unconscious mental contradiction. Every issue of the “S.S,” includes a statement of our Object and of our Declaration of Principles. The latter, to all but very simple minds, is bound up with , the Object — Socialism. These are a lucid and logical statement of the essential facts about capitalist society, and describe the basic action necessary for its removal and for the establishing of Socialism.

The type of critic referred to often shows some acquaintance with the doctrines and teachings of Socialism to the extent that they will not quarrel with our definition of Socialism nor our Declaration of principles. They will even compliment us on their clarity and will express approval of them —“but” and it is the qualifying ‘‘but” which exposes our critics. In fact, they show that what they agree with is a form of words. They completely fail to interpret the Declaration of Principles in the light of the realities of the modern political world.

What is Policy ?

Consider some of the familiar arguments of our opponents, remembering, too, that they are also the arguments of some professing friends. “The Socialist Party has been in existence for thirty-four years and has done nothing . . .” “After thirty-four years the S.P. has only one candidate for. Parliament . . . ." “The Socialist Party has no policy—has never had a policy.” Like the proverbial Irishman who is “agin the Government,” the obstinate negator offers the same difficulty as trying to get to grips with a shadow. But never let it be said that we evaded the job. We will try to be simple, to avoid phrases, to avoid giving offence by appearing to be clever when really we are merely stating an accurately tested truth. Now: The Socialist Party is organised for Socialism. It has defined Socialism. The definition of our Object, “. . . the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth . . . " appears in every Party publication. The attaining of that Object is the task of the Socialist Party. Logically there could be no other. To achieve this object the Socialist Party must first concentrate upon the making of Socialists. There can be no other policy at this stage, because, simply, there can be no Socialism without first there are Socialists. Nor do our critics who profess to agree with us, "but”— tell us what they consider the policy of a Socialist Party should be. They do not because they cannot or dare not. They cannot because to deny the obvious necessity for the making of Socialists before Socialism can be established would stamp them as being incapable of interpreting the political world with the .weapons of Socialist understanding. They dare not because any alternative policy would reveal its reformist and capitalist character and expose the ignorance of its supporters. Let us not be misunderstood. The making of Socialists is not the end all in Socialist policy. But it is the only policy for the moment. There will come a time when the detailed working out of the necessary steps for the dispossessing of the capitalist class will have to be made. But this will only be practical policy when there are sufficient Socialists for the task. The need for it will, in fact, quite obviously, arise out of the conditions of the time. Just as now the first essentials of Socialist policy, the making of Socialists, arises out of the conditions of the present. Doubtless the working out of a detailed policy for the future, aimed at and showing the step-by-step process by which a Socialist working class would effect the dispossession of the capitalists and the overthrow of their system, would be an interesting task. It would, however, in view of the smallness of the Socialist movement and the fact that the structural administration of capitalism is subject to change, be almost purely academic, and most certainly useless. Even the working out of a tactical policy for pursuing the fight with our opponents in the political field is not even an immediate practicable question because: (1) there can be little struggle with opponents who mostly choose to ignore us and (2) because we have little effective backing from the workers. With regret, but without pessimism, it must be admitted that the immediate task of Socialists is chiefly propagandist, that is to say, explaining and interpreting the events of the capitalist world with Socialist knowledge and understanding. This burden we carry out with all the difficulties of voluntary organisation. We have, therefore, no time for unreal grandiose planning. We are busy working-men who, with Engels, would say: "The man who has something serious to say cannot compete with those who have all day to gossip in.” It is, however, the absence of detailed plans which confuse would-be critics (many who style themselves Socialists) of the Socialist Party.

No plan appears to them to mean no policy.' They are wrong and misled by interested leaders whose positions depend upon producing plausible plans purporting to aim at a short cut to social salvations What is not recognised is the irrefutable fact that the subject social position of the worker is bound up with' the Capitalist social system and will only disappear with capitalism, and that any policy which is not directed to bringing capitalism to an end is useless from the Socialist point of view.

The Day-to-Day Struggle

Almost a term of abuse now is the charge that the Socialist Party does not take part in the “day-to-day struggle.” The charge is, of course, untrue. In relation to our numbers our members are engaged in trade union activity comparable to those in any other political organisation. Some of our members hold official positions in their trade unions. Heavy demands are made on the time of our speakers in visiting trade union branches in order to state the case for the Party. Trade union activity is encouraged to its fullest extent. At all times Socialists enter the struggle on the economic field conscious of its limitations. But more often our critics have in mind the struggle on the political field when they charge us with ignoring “the day-to-day struggle.” In that field the struggle is represented to centre around the struggle for peace, democracy, and so forth. We are represented as having no interest in these things because we refuse to line up with the conglomeration of parties in the Labour Movement which is organising to demand them. It is not understood that the amount of democracy possessed by any section of the workers is the result of its struggles with its own capitalist class and independent of the struggles between sections of the capitalists; that when workers are able to impose peace upon the capitalist world they will have achieved such a degree of understanding that they will be in a position to impose far more than that. There is never peace in the capitalist world, only Socialism can guarantee peace. But let us look at the so-called working-class parties with whom it is assumed we should have some common interests and a common policy.

The Communist Party: It is committed to the policy of advocating the military alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia. This has been interpreted by one British Communist writer (T. A. Jackson) as willingness to defend the British Empire. In France the same policy found its expression in Communist advocacy of a Popular Front, which in reality is a premature anticipation of the war-time need of a coalition of all parties in order to defend French capitalism. Though Maurice Thorez has gone further and has said: 

“ Our policy of the People’s Front was not a transitory or temporary tactic, or an electoral pact, but an application of the fundamental principles of Marxism and Leninism, an alliance that will last between the working class and the middle classes'' (Discussion [Communist monthly], July, 1937).

Imagine a parallel picture applied to England. The Communist Party, the Liberals (including Mr. Lloyd George), and “progressive” Conservatives, like the Communist Party’s new sweetheart, the Duchess of Atholl, all included in a Popular Front which is represented to be an alliance between the working class and the middle classes that will last, and as an application of Marxism!

So far as the Labour Party is concerned its difference with the Communists seems to be that it will not have anything to do with them. But, like the Communist Party, it is committed to "Collective Security.” What that means can be measured by the statement of the Minister of War in the British Government that “Britain would only fight in ? future war with allies, that is to say, within a system of Collective Security.” All that need be said about the I.L.P. is that they are at present attempting to negotiate electoral arrangements with the Labour Party. These “working-class” parties are certainly engaged in the day-to-day struggle— but for the benefit of the capitalist class, not for the working class.

It is sheer self-delusion and a misrepresentation of Socialist principles to suggest that because these parties have their origin in the working-class struggle and screen their reform activities with high-sounding working-class sentiment and what appear to be Socialist phrases and slogans, that Socialists can make common cause with them.

The Socialist attitude on war, as on other major questions, is so fundamentally different from that of these parties that it would be a betrayal of Socialist principles and working-class interests to pretend that there could be any point of contact between them and us which could provide a basis for common policy, and no Socialist has any illusions about it. This position, we know, results in our isolation and prevents us engaging in activity which to masses of workers appears to be in their interests. The plaudits provoked by demagogic appeals to political ignorance and popular sentiment are attractive to the weak and the unstable. For us, for the moment, lies apparent isolation and unpopularity—but independence. The ability to endure it in the face of the attractions of demagogy is a test for real virility.

The Making of Socialists

Spontaneous discontent with capitalism rarely in itself makes a Socialist. Something else is necessary. That something is the assimilation of ideas—Socialist ideas. The extent to which the workers are able to do this depends on many factors, but the chief one is propaganda. In a clear field, without the strains and stresses of capitalist propaganda pulling in the opposite direction, Socialist propaganda would easily win a rapid and decisive victory. Whilst all prophecy is speculative, the facts of history are pertinent. In the earlier days of capitalism capitalist propaganda was brutally anti-Socialist. When the Labour movement came into existence (after two hundred years of capitalism) a gradual change took place. Capitalist propaganda is now more subtle and has learned how to use pseudo-Socialist phraseology to serve capitalist interests. Hitler and Mussolini are excellent examples of the use of this trick. The British capitalist class are able to use the British Labour Party and its doctrines for the same purpose. How far the working class will have to acquire Socialist knowledge to nullify the influence of capitalist propaganda will depend upon how far that propaganda exposes itself. Enough to say that at the moment a worker has to be well grounded to escape that influence. But the capitalist has to be everlastingly on the look-out for new ways of preventing the worker from seeing his social relationship as it really is.

Each new effort on the part of the capitalist class expresses a weakening of its influence. As this goes on it will be easier for the worker to interpret the world in the light of his interests. The stresses and strains of capitalist propaganda will lessen their pull. At a given point the acceptance of Socialist ideas must become more general and consequently develop more rapidly. No one with a knowledge of historical movement would deny the possibility of reaching that historical stage within our lifetime. Those who are Socialists will work for it as tenaciously as the Socialist Party has worked for it for 30 years. We have worked for it, never once betraying Socialist principles nor obscuring the immensity of the task. We have maintained our existence on a voluntary basis and have outlived organisations which had far greater resources in finance and membership. We have never been guilty of fostering disillusionment, like the Communists in 1919, when they prophesied the end of capitalism in Europe in a few months and in America in a few years.

In short, the Socialist Party’s policy is based upon a sound understanding and application of Socialist principles, which expresses itself in the immediate and urgent task of making Socialists.

Harry Waite

Who are the malingerers? (1938)

From the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

To be unemployed means to be without work to do. But who is likely to worry much about that ? Does work give us such a grand and glorious feeling that we need lose sleep over its absence?

It may be true, it certainly is true, that labour is “an eternal nature-imposed necessity” to secure the continued existence of the human race, but it is equally true that the march of humanity from savagery to civilisation has been largely motivated by the desire to avoid “work" or to lighten its load. That in this process more and more work has been effected is another side of the story. Whichever way one cares to look at the matter the fact is that work in modern society has assumed such paramount importance that people have actually demanded the "right to work.” It was this that prompted Paul Lafargue, the able and witty son-in-law of Marx, to summon the working class to proclaim the “right to be lazy.”

The Unemployment Assistance Board has undertaken an enquiry into the "causes of prolonged unemployment in individual cases.” Lord Rushcliffe, chairman of the Board, in his report for the year 1937, says that—"It is expected that, as a result of this enquiry, information of great practical importance will be obtained. It has already become clear that there is a considerable number of men and women who have lost interest and are content to remain on unemployment allowance.” The report goes on to point out that—"There are those whose unemployment is due to wilful idleness, who avoid or refuse work when it is obtainable, or throw up jobs upon some flimsy pretext.” It is admitted in this report that the percentage of such cases is small, “but the number is sufficiently large to cause the Board much concern.” That ”much concern” is ominous! From inquiries made in December over 250,000 of the male applicants to the Board were 45 years of age or over, and of such men about 140,000 were 55 years of age or over. Nearly one-third of the men of these ages have been unemployed continuously for three years or more. But the significance of another statement contained in this report may, we are afraid, pass unnoticed. “It is obviously against good policy,” says the report, “that an able-bodied person when out of work and dependent upon public funds for support should be as well off as or, indeed, better off than he would be in work.” What a handsome reward for work there must be that it can be so bluntly stated that men are better off without it.

We are told that half the male applicants declare normal wages of less than fifty shillings per week. In about six per cent., or over 30,000 of the cases, the applicant was receiving an allowance from the Board which was within four shillings of his normal wages. And what is normal wages? The following instances are given in the report. Applicant, aged 48, wife and eight children—scale allowance, 54s., normal wages, 38s., allowance paid, 45s. Applicant, aged 31, wife and seven children—scale allowance, 48s. 7d., normal wages, 40s. 6d., allowance paid, 45s. These are figures that tell their own story, but let us leave it at that for the moment, we have some comments to make. This Britain, which is called ours, but which in reality does not belong to 90 per cent. of the population, is one of the richest parts of the world. Yet, significantly enough, this is but another way of saying that poverty is as commonplace here as anywhere on the earth's surface. For riches and poverty exist side by side under capitalism as surely as night follows day; the one lives, leech-like, on the other’s existence. The wealth of this country or of the world does not descend from heaven, nor does it grow from the earth in the manner of a tropical vegetation.

The rich or ruling class lives, as it can only live, on the proceeds of the labour of the poor, and the poor are the people who are known as workers. They work for the benefit of others because, as things are, they have no other means of obtaining a livelihood. But our highly industrialised, civilised form of society is such that not even all those who are able and willing to work have the opportunity of so doing. At the moment there are roughly about 1,750,000 men and women in this country unemployed. This means that the rich, or employing class, can find no profitable use for them. But the time is past when the ruling class can with safety to itself leave so vast a number of people to starve, they cannot be left to rot and die. Hence we have the “dole” and Poor Law Relief, besides various charity societies ministering to “the poor and needy.” Of course, the whole thing is at bottom a gigantic swindle. For take a glance at the position of those who have need of the dole or Poor Law Relief and charity. They belong to the only useful class in modern society, the only class which actually produces the wealth of the world. The wheels of industry and commerce are dependent for their motion not upon the rich but upon the poor. But what is their reward for all this under capitalism? If the average worker is fortunate enough to be in employment for the major portion of his life, he generally finishes up much as he began, without means and often in debt. Throughout their entire lifetime the workers’ experience is usually a “hand-to-mouth” existence. It has been calculated that out of a total population of 47 millions 13½ millions are seriously undernourished, are compelled to eke out a miserable existence on less than six shillings per week to spend on food.

As we are writing these notes there comes to hand a Press report of a woman charged with stealing goods valued £8 10s. She stated in defence that she stole the goods to sell them to buy food for her children. Two years ago her husband had to go into hospital through eye trouble, the eye was finally removed. Meanwhile, she fell into arrears with the rent and her home was taken from her. When the husband left the hospital he was confronted with the double problem of finding work and a home.

On being asked by the magistrate what she had for dinner the previous day the woman replied—” The children had an egg, I had a corned beef sandwich, and my husband had nothing.”

The woman was placed on probation for twelve months!

The Grand Contrast

But the above state of affairs does not apply to all. The ten per cent. of the population who practically own “this England of ours” experience no such sensations. They live without fear of economic insecurity, in luxury, are never “out of work”—and never in. The same editions of the capitalist Press reporting the case mentioned above and the “concerns” of the Public Assistance Board display picture after picture of the grand scenes at Ascot, that historical annual parade ground of every conceivable kind of social parasite.

“Ascot,” says a leader writer in the Daily Telegraph, “is like the King’s Birthday, the Tower Bridge, the cliffs of Dover, It has a purpose and a meaning. Do not run away with the idea that it is merely a race meeting. It is part of the English scene, as integral as a pack of hounds, a coster in his pearlies or a field of buttercups.” May we say that we haven't the slightest doubt about the integrity of it all. Ascot is as much an integral part of our great British tradition as the poverty of the woman who was placed on twelve months’ probation or that of the workers in general.

The King and Queen lead the way in the Ascot procession, not the stable lads who were recently on strike for a wage barely above the subsistence level. As a prelude a large dinner party was held in the Waterloo chamber of Windsor Castle. At this function the Press announced that the famous Windsor gold plate was in view on a specially-constructed stand and illuminated with tubular lighting. On the racecourse itself, “Beautifully-tailored coats and skirts of pastel-tinted silks were a dress feature.” The Duchess of Kent “wore a triple row of large pearls round her throat, after the style of a choker necklace, and had diamond clips in her hair.” And so on is one celebrity after another described in these Ascot scenes, which might conjure up to the mind the Arabian Nights or a horde of painted savages, whichever way one cares to look at it.

Shortly the King and Queen will visit Paris and their visit is to be marked by a banquet to be held in the Hall of Mirrors.

“M. Carton, President of the Association of the Chefs of France, has called for ten of the best-known chefs to collaborate with him in the preparation of the meal,” There is no mention in this forthcoming event about corned beef sandwiches. Perhaps those are reserved for the French waiters, to remind them of the great slogan of the French Revolution: "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.”

Now the Public Assistance Board have nothing to do with the class of people who dominate the Ascot parades. It is not they who are referred to as malingerers. Yet they are the people who “toil not, neither do they spin.” The wealth they enjoy is obtained from the blood and sweat of the working class. Among the men who are described by the Public Assistance Board as having been continuously unemployed for three years are those who have helped to make possible the wonderful clothes and ornamentation of these Ascot and other “society” gatherings. Malingering is a disease arising from the anarchy generated in human relationships through class exploitation. To live without working, to live above the standard of those who have to work, that is the hall-mark of “success” in capitalist society. Parasitism is an essential part of social life to-day, therefore, the fact that here and there a few who belong to the working class may sometimes attempt to “get by” without work is but mere child's-play when it is compared with the gigantic exploitation by ten per cent. of the population of the other ninety per cent. Socialism will end social parasitism in every form. Experience proves that when people are given decent and reasonably healthy conditions in which to work they do not shrink from the task. Even the report of the Public Assistance Board is compelled to admit that “of the 451,700 homes covered by the inquiry, 415,060, or 91.9 per cent., were described as well-kept, and only 36,640, or 8.1 per cent., ill-kept.” Further, the percentage of “ill-kept homes is, as might be expected, lowest where the dwelling is of good type."

When the workers awaken to an understanding of the causes of their social conditions they will realise the mockery and insults heaped upon them by the real malingerers, those who live upon the proceeds of their exploitation. The Socialist Party urges the working class to study their position to-day and to end it through Socialism.

Robert Reynolds