The Emerging World Scene (1946)

From the November 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is no doubt that things are on the move. Incessant activity on the part of politicians leads one to speculate as to what is pending. The Nuremberg Trial is now a thing of the past, the U.N. is proposing to take a breathing spell, the Conservative Party holds a conference, the U.S. takes decisive action in Europe; in short, what we see in our master’s press leads to the belief that the decks are being cleared for action : the capitalist class have, in the main, decided upon what they are going to do.

The American Presidential election takes place in two years’ time, and all those aspiring to office in the United States act, and speak, under the spell of that important fact. Eisenhower, who recently spoke at Edinburgh, Byrnes, the representative at the U.N., Wallace, the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and many others are thinking when they speak not so much of the subject in hand as of the American election of 1948.

Eisenhower said in his speech of October 3rd : “World neighbourliness must be achieved or else, we shall, in a twinkling, travel a backward route over mankind’s long and laborious progress from his ancient caves to the present.”—(Daily Telegraph, 4/10/46.)

Mr. Byrnes says that if other Powers will agree to the 40-year Treaty proposed by him, this treaty will bind “not merely the present American administration, but its successors.”

Commenting on this, the Daily Telegraph of October 4th says : —

“Of the four Powers consulted upon this proposal, Britain, France and the United States are favourable, and it, is only from Russia that a refusal has so far come. This refusal is no doubt partly based upon those divergencies of view between the wartime Allies to which Mr. Byrnes made discreet reference. The prospect of a democratic Germany as seen by the State Department and by the Kremlin is strikingly different. Yet it is difficult not to surmise that Marshal Stalin’s objection to the Four-Power Treaty is mainly based on the fear, not that the United States will disinterest herself from Europe, but on the contrary, that the Treaty would serve to maintain her influence there. Mr. Byrnes’s reference to the Yalta declaration and the continued American interest in the Balkans indicates that this influence will, none the less, persist.”

Mr. Byrnes has a good election cry for 1948 : his rival, Mr. Wallace, who recently was rapped over the knuckles by President Truman and, as a consequence, lost his job, is losing out in the race; the policy of isolationism is no longer in favour in capitalist circles. 

Mr. Baruch, United States representative on the Atomic Control Commission, has vigorously attacked Wallace, and stated that the latter was totally ignorant of the facts underlying atomic control. Wallace is now trimming his sails, and states, in excuse for his attack on Mr. Byrnes’ policy in regard to Russia, “that he had obviously not been fully posted as to the facts.” The deadlock over atomic control, according to Wallace, results from absence of mutual trust between U.S. and Russia. He faces both ways, like all politicians placed in similar circumstances, by concluding that “the United States is in a better position to assume leadership which will lead,” but he has no plan except that of stopping the manufacture of atomic bombs.

If we read between the lines the general conclusion arrived at is that a peace treaty is going to be patched up. Russia is compelled to accept the U.N. decision on Trieste, and her policy regarding the Danubian Waterway has been opposed so strenuously by Britain, France and the United States that she is compelled temporarily to give way to them.

There is little likelihood of a long or permanent peace; however, the nations will, in all probability, prepare for what, under capitalism, is inevitable with what speed they may. Britain is evidently not going to be caught napping. Look at this: —

£12,000,000 FOB ROCKET TESTS.

AUSTRALIAN PLANT.

“The British and Australian Governments may be involved in an expenditure of between £12,000,000 and £14,000,000 in the construction of rocket-bomb workshops and testing ranges in Australia. The annual maintenance cost is expected to be about £3,000,000.

It is understood the Australian Government has received advice from Britain setting out proposals for research and development and for testing grounds in the centre of Australia. These are based on the recommendations of a mission of experts and scientists which visited Australia early this year”.—(Daily Telegraph, 4/10/46.)

It is against the above background we must judge the speeches of Sir Stafford Cripps at the Empire Trade Conference on October 3rd.

The Tories have recently laid stress on Imperial Preference; the following is Stafford Cripps’ reply.—

“It was an obvious and sensible course for us to pursue to endeavour to extend and consolidate our inter-Commonwealth trade.

"But that trade alone cannot fully meet any of our needs, and it would defeat our object of full employment and prosperity for our own people if we were to concentrate on Commonwealth trade alone and neglect those wider fields of world trade which we must cultivate.”

You are plainly told the Empire is not enough for British Capitalism; the Government must go hunting elsewhere for markets. The system compels expansion; the world is the limit; the clash between nations cannot be avoided. Socialism is the only means of saving mankind from destruction, and, unfortunately, Socialism is not yet fully understood by those who are called upon by history to establish it.

The Conservative Conference was held by men who observe the signs of the times, and are getting ready to deal with a situation they think will arise in the not far distant future.

The Labour Party is designated as the Socialist Party, but one statement made by Mr. Eden will be very interesting to the readers of the Socialist Standard.

“There is one principle underlying our approach to all these problems, a principle on which we stand in fundamental opposition to Socialism. The objective of Socialism is State ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange. Our objective is a nation-wide, property-owning democracy. (Cheers.)

These objectives are fundamentally opposed. Whereas the Socialist purpose is the concentration of ownership in the hands of the State, ours is the distribution of ownership over the widest practicable number of individuals. (Cheers.) Both parties believe in a form of capitalism, but whereas our opponents believe in State capitalism, we believe in the widest measure of individual capitalism.”—(Daily Telegraph, 4/10/46.)

Eden knows, and clearly shows, that the difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party is a difference in degree and not in kind.

The propaganda of the l.L.P. and kindred organisations have confounded Socialism with State Capitalism.

Mr. Eden is slated for the Premiership and the odds are in his favour.

Division in the Labour Party is probable, and the Communists may hasten it along. “For or against the Soviet Union” may arise as an issue out of the present political situation. The Cabinet will be up against it if they are forced to decide between Russia and the United States. The “Labour Progressives”, supported by Communists, will go wholeheartedly for Russia if such an issue develops, so will many of their followers in the Unions, and the question, is what will happen to the Labour Government in these circumstances?

Anthony Eden is the most likely man for the Premiership in the Coalition Government which it is anticipated would then spring into being as a matter of course.

The above is how the prophets have worked it out; they may be right, but, as Shaw says, “You never can tell.”

Meanwhile the wage slave plods his weary way. his meagre rations barely sufficient to enable him to carry on.

So Capitalism staggers along through the stages that precede its dissolution. It must live its life, but the end is drawing nearer every day.

Wherever you go nowadays you find working men not only discussing the political situation, but analysing it ably and well.

The war has not succeeded in blowing out the light within the brains of the members of our class; it has accelerated the growth of class consciousness, and increased the knowledge of the system that is its cause.

In the chain gang of wage slavery this knowledge is being passed from man to man and from woman to woman. The substance of Socialism is being absorbed by ever-increasing numbers.

The effects of this may be clearly revealed in the intelligence displayed by the workers in the strenuous conflicts that lie ahead.

The inherent antagonism between the exploited and their exploiters cannot be suppressed; it will become world wide; wherever Capitalism goes Socialist ideas cannot be prevented from appearing and playing their historic part.

The Capitalist class are bent on rejuvenating a system that is now senile. They cannot give it a new lease of life.

The working class will soon be forced to try and discover ways and means of ending it. We are with them because we are of them. There is no doubt as to the result. Society must establish Socialism or perish. The expropriation of the expropriators is the only way out.

Charles Lestor

Editorial: Labourism Proposes – Capitalism Disposes (1946)

Editorial from the November 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are not among those short-sighted electors who, having helped to elect a Labour Government to power, are now turning in astonished resentment to rend their idol of a year ago. We never had any illusions about Labour government.

Socialism cannot be achieved until there is a majority of socialists and they gain control of the machinery of government for the purpose of abolishing capitalism. Until then, notwithstanding all the efforts of reformers to improve the existing system and administer it differently, the evils of class society, based on the exploitation of the workers, will remain to throttle the progress of the human race. The Labour Party rejected this conception and holds that a Labour government, backed by non-Socialist voters, can administer capitalism on non-capitalist principles and mould it gradually so that in the ultimate a different system will emerge. Outlining his Party’s point of view, Mr. Attlee wrote in "The Labour Party in Perspective" (Gollancz, 1937, p. 138) : “Some future historian will not be able to point to a particular date as that on which the Socialist State was established . . .” That is the Labour Party’s view, but it is wrong. Socialist society is not being gradually introduced by Labour government; it will start when, and only when, a socialist working class comes to power. That will be the end of an epoch and the beginning of a new one and later historians will not be in any doubt when it happened.

Sharing Mr. Attlee’s belief, millions of workers, who last year gloried in the Labour electoral triumph, thought that at last they would have a government able to control, improve and gradually to eliminate the capitalist system of society. Never did anyone cherish a more baseless illusion. Having no mandate to introduce Socialism, Mr. Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues have no alternative, even if they desired one, but to administer capitalism. They are riding the tiger and have to go where it takes them.

In the book quoted above Mr. Attlee said “The Labour Party is, of course, opposed to imperialism  . . .” (p.230); but opposed or not, the Labour Government is committed to the maintenance of the British Colonial Empire, to the policy of protecting British “spheres of influence,” to the policy of using military force to keep control over strategic bases, trade routes and foreign territories where vital raw materials are found. British Forces prop up the Greek Monarchy, stand in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere, and British capitalist interests clash in all quarters of the world with the like-minded imperialisms of Russia, U.S.A. and other powers. The Labour Party in opposition dreamed dreams of world brotherhood, but the Labour Government in power must willy-nilly pursue a policy suited to the needs of British capitalism. Thrusting a vastly increased flood of British exports into the markets of the world may look like a friendly act to the British exporter, but it has a more sinister aspect to the rival powers trying to keep or to conquer the same markets for their own exports.

Linked up with the export drive is the Labour Government’s pledge to provide “full employment.” Those who have eyes to see can already glimpse the shape of things to come. More and more workers are being employed on producing goods for export, and we are told there is an unlimited demand for these goods. But what will happen when capitalism lurches into its next inevitable crisis of “over-production ‘? Already we have seen the writing on the wall in the shape of the stock exchange depression in U.S.A. in September. The City editors of the London and New York papers were all at sixes and sevens about the immediate cause and likely duration of the depression but on one thing they nearly all agreed – that the crisis of “over-production ” is bound to come. A typical comment was that of the New York Correspondent of the Observer (8/9/46) —

“Americans generally . . . take it for granted that there will eventually be a crash of some kind to offset the present boom. Their hope is that the crash will be brief …”

Another appeared in the Daily Express (23/9/46) : 

“The Wall Street slump marks the end of the first post-war boom just as the similar break of November, 1919, signalled the world trade depression of 1920-21. That is the view of some of the best brains in the City.”

A world trade crisis is bound to come, and the more the Labour Government succeeds in increasing the dependence of British industry on selling goods abroad, the more certain it will be that the full effect of the crisis will be felt here immediately.

Another example of the way Labour Party policy has swerved away from its early preachings is in the forms taken by nationalisation. A book that was once very popular in Labour circles was "The Case for Socialism", by Mr. Fred Henderson. In it he frankly, faced up to the fact that Socialism involves dispossessing the capitalist class and that it is mere self-deception to suppose that you can both make over their property in the means of production to the community and at the same time give them full compensation for it. “If the nation gave them compensation, in the sense of giving them an equivalent for what it is proposed to take from them, we should fail in our purpose” (p. 20-21). A later, modified view, Mr. Attlee’s, for example, in his "Labour Party in Perspective", was that it would be unfair to expropriate the capitalists gradually, industry by industry, because the first to fall would have a legitimate grievance; also it would be better tactics to give them all “reasonable and just compensation” and then rely on taxation to eliminate the gulf between the capitalist class and the working class.

In practice the capitalists in the nationalised industries are being given what even Cabinet Ministers call “generous” compensation and at the same time Mr. Dalton’s first budget did not increase, but decreased taxation on companies in the form of the Excess Profits Tax. Taxing the rich out of existence may look all right in an election programme, but capitalism will only function if the capitalist has confidence in his ability to make a profit, so the Labour Government has had to safeguard profits and warn the workers against pressing too much for higher wages The rich are still with us in full force and nothing the Labour Government will do will alter it. Mr. Attlee may say “The abolition of classes is fundamental to the Socialist conception of society ” (p. 145) just as the Conservative Party can now give lip service to the same idea – “Mr. Churchill was telling them that England was moving towards a classless society and that the Conservative Party should not just accept the fact but actively promote this historic change” (Mr. D. Eccles, Conservative M.P., Times, 14/10/46) – but capitalism and classes are here to stay until Socialism ends them.

Also on nationalisation of industries, it used to be a Labour Party demand that the workers should be in control. Mr. Attlee ("Socialism for Trade Unionists", 1922) declared that “the general direction . . . will be in the hands of representatives of the workers in the industry in consultation with representatives of the users of the service.” Another Labour writer, Mr. E. E. Hunter, particularly warned against “the danger of national ownership being given over to committees of business experts.” “Democratic control,” he said, was an “essential part of any ideal scheme of nationalisation” ("Socialism at Work", I.L.P., 1921)

Nowhere in the nationalisation schemes now being put into operation will any vestige of these allegedly essential principles be found — they are incompatible with the functioning of capitalism and have had to go.

So one by one the Labour Party’s well-intentioned but ill-conceived schemes for bettering the capitalist system are sacrificed by the Labour Government in office. It could not be otherwise. The idea was that on taking office a Labour Government goes forward with the work of undermining capitalism and encroaching on the powers and wealth of the capitalists. The reality is that on the day a Labour Government takes office to administer capitalism it is forced to turn about arid begin the retreat from its beliefs so that capitalism may be kept running. The Labour voters believe that the Labour Government is in command of the situation. In truth — and doubtless by now even the most obtuse Labour minister begins to realise it — capitalism has the Labour Government in an iron grip. The Labour Government hoped to serve two masters, what they call the policy of serving the interests of all sections of the community. As time goes on and the working class become restive about the non-appearing fruits of labourism the Government will find itself more and more divorced from the workers and from its own pre-election promises.

North Paddington bye-election (1946)

Party News from the November 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

In view of the forthcoming bye-election in North Paddington and the decision of the Party to contest it, we make an urgent appeal for funds. Elections need not only active work, but money for posters, literature, etc. What we can do is largely dependent on your support.

Please send Donations to:—

E. LAKE, S.P.G.B., Rugby Chambers, Rugby St., Great James St., W.C.1.

Election Committee Rooms are not yet available. Will members and sympathisers willing to assist in election work please communicate with Parliamentary Committee at the above address.

Parliamentary Committee

Blogger's Note:

The December 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard carried a report by Gilbert McClatchie ('Gilmac') about the Party contesting the North Paddington bye-election.

SPGB Meetings (1946)

Party News from the November 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Notes by the Way: South Africa the Golden (1946)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

South Africa the Golden

Gold mining is by far the largest industry in South Africa. It employs 40,000 Europeans and 360,000 natives. It pays more than £17,000,000 a year dividends to the shareholders. What it pays to the natives and how they are treated has been described in an article by E. S. Sachs, South African Workers’ Delegate to the I.L.O. (Manchester Guardian, 19/8/46).

“They receive an average cash wage of 2s. 2d. per shift . . . Part of this meagre wage is deducted to repay advances made to the worker on recruitment for boots and other purposes. The African worker must also buy a cheap mattress or sacking for use on the concrete bunk on which he sleeps in the compound where he is forced to live. He must also buy some clothing . . . There is no extra pay for overtime or Sunday work. He is provided with food and medical attention free, but receives no sick pay. The Chamber of Mines estimates the cost of food to be 5.28d. and medical services 1.15d. per shift per man. The only paid leave the worker gets is on Good Friday and Christmas Day.”

In 1943 a Government Commission recommended an increase of 3d. a shift, but the owners refused to pay it, and “the Government did nothing except introduce an emergency regulation prohibiting meetings of Africans on land proclaimed as a mining area.”

They are not forbidden by law to form trade unions, and many are organised, but they “may not leave their compounds without a special pass from their employer and are subject to severe penalties, including imprisonment with hard labour, for absenting themselves from work or for any breach of their contract.”

The natives have had no increase of pay since 1914 and their union has pointed out that their wages were actually much higher 60 years ago than to-day.

We wonder if the native workers derive much comfort from the United Nations Charter, of which South Africa is a signatory, proclaiming the determination of the upholders “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom!”

An appropriate footnote is the following news item in The Star (July 24th, 1946) announcing the arrival by ‘plane of a cargo of very important persons from South Africa, on official and private business in London.

“In the silver Skymasler “Drakensburg,” belonging to South African Airways, were 34 millionaires, multi-millionaires, or near millionaires, including Van der Byl, Field-Marshal Smuts’ right-hand man and a leading figure in South African industry. The party, most of them from Johannesburg, were met by Sir Eric Crankshaw, Secretary of the Government’s Hospitality Fund."

Russia, Turkey and the Dardanelles

While British Imperialism seeks to safeguard capitalist interests in the Middle East by keeping troops in Transjordan and Palestine and by military agreements with Egypt and Iraq, Russian Imperialism counters with a demand that Turkey shall permit the setting up of Russian military forces on Turkish territory in the Dardanelles area and by promoting its own puppet movement in Persian Azerbaijan. Russia has also been carrying on propaganda to secure the support of Arabs in the Middle East countries as a means of reducing British influence there. In short, the two old firms carry on as all through the 19th century notwithstanding that Russia is now labelled “Communist” and Britain “Labour.”

Twenty-four years ago, when Russia was weak, it was Russian and British Communist Party policy to pose as the friends of the Turks because Turkey was then in conflict with Britain, and British troops were in occupation of Constantinople and the Dardanelles. The Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain accordingly produced a declaration demanding that Turkey be freed from the Imperialist occupation forces.

“The E.C. of the C.P.G.B. sends its greeting to the British Muslim Association and desires to join with it in the demand . . . that Constantinople and Adrianople shall be restored unconditionally to the custody of the Turkish people.” 

(The Communist, September 23rd, 1922.)

Now Russia is stronger so the old policy goes on the scrap heap and the demand is made that Russia have forces on Turkish soil.

The same resolution went on to demand that North Africa, including Tripoli, be given complete independence. It also opposed the “insidious regime” of the League of Nations mandatory system.

In view of this it is entertaining to observe that at the Paris meeting of the Big Four Powers in May of this year Russia put in a claim for a United Nations Trusteeship or Mandate for herself over Tripoli, a claim that was later abandoned in face of opposition and watered down to a claim for the appointment of a Russian Administrator with an Italian deputy and an international advisory committee. (Daily Telegraph, 11/5/46).

Longer Life—and Shorter

While one body of the scientist hirelings ot capitalism are busy improving atom bombs, germ warfare and other means of destruction, we read the following (Evening Standard, 16/8/46): —

“First details are disclosed to-day of the existence in Britain of research on making people live longer and becoming more useful . . . the possibility of increasing life to as much as 200 year has been freely discussed.”

3 Per Cent. by Another Name

“New York, Friday.—A U.S. agreement to lend £2,500,000 to Saudi Arabia, announced to-day, contains no mention of interest payments. 

The word ‘interest’ was omitted because Moslems oppose on religious grounds the charging or paying of interest. Under the heading ‘Thanksgiving,’ however. Saudi Arabia will pay the usual 3 per cent.”

(Daily Mail, 10/8/46.)

German Social Democrats and the Russian Zone Election

Elections are being held in the Russian Zone of Germany, and as, under what the Communists call democracy, they are prevented by the Russians from putting up candidates, the S.D.P. has advised its members to spoil their voting papers. The following appeal was published in their journal, the “Social Democrat” :–

“The election in your zone is not a democratic election. Should you, therefore, stay away from the poll altogether? That would really be best. but for many of you it might have heavy consequences. Our advice is, therefore, that you should take part in the poll but demonstrate against constraint of conscience by making your voting papers clearly invalid. Make this action a united and powerful demonstration for freedom. Do not divide yourselves by voting here or there for some other party that appears to you as a lesser evil.”

The Manchester Guardian correspondent (20/8/46) who quotes this, describes it as “political folly,” on the ground that it would be better to vote for the Christian Democratic Union or some other group in order to strengthen the opposition to the Communists (now calling themselves “United Socialist Party”).

While we are opposed to the reformism of the German Social-Democrats, this refusal any longer to vote for the “lesser evil” indicates a marked improvement on their past behaviour.

Plenty—For Those Who Have the Money

The following quotations, one from the Daily Worker on British capitalism and the other by Mr. Hugh Chevins on Russian State Capitalism, need no comment: —

“Luxury Feeders. Why should there be, to all intents and purposes, no limitation at all on the amount and variety of food which luxury purchasers can acquire, while the bulk of the families in the country have to prepare for still further sacrifices on the food front?” (Daily Worker, 8/7/46.)

“It was once said that anyone may dine at the Ritz in London—if he can pay the price. The same remark applies with equal truth and more irony to eating at the smart hotels and restaurants in Communist Moscow. . . . The average money wage is reliably estimated to be about 350 roubles a month. That amount can be spent in a single meal with the utmost ease at the Metropole, National, Moscow or Savoy Hotels, and at the Astoria, Caucasus or Europa restaurants, but only by the privileged class.” (Mr. Hugh Chevins, Industrial Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 9/8/46, after a recent visit to Moscow.)

Shades of the Versailles Treaty

It was common talk early in the recent war that at least the politicians would remember the errors, the cynicism and the idiocies of the Versailles Treaty after last war and avoid them this time. Here is the lament of the Manchester Guardian on the outcome of the labours of the foreign ministers of the Allied

Powers to date : —

“That it is a bad job few will deny. As they stand the draft treaties are deplorable. They follow no accepted political or economic principles. They are both unjust and inconsistent. No attempt has been made to discover the facts or consult the will of the inhabitants by commissions of inquiry or plebiscites. Each one is a compromise between rival Powers who openly fear and distrust each other. Even so they represent the best that can be done by patient and enduring diplomacy, and as such they will be welcomed by a weary Europe. Blessed are the peacemakers—even if the peace in this case is one which passeth all understanding.” 

(Manchester Guardian, 10/7/46.)

Edgar Hardcastle

Oil and the Arab World (1946)

From the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The appearance of the Atomic Bomb has not eliminated oil from the field of production and destruction. The modern nations are controlled by men who have an eye on the main chance. . Everything, no matter how ancient, “holy” or beautiful, is ruthlessly sacrificed to the God of Profit. The system has worked out in such a way that it has brought to the surface all that is vile in human nature : the worst man has the best opportunity: As the Americans say, it is not the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the slickest: the cunning and treacherous are able to take advantage of those who are straight: the latter are looked upon as simpletons, fish to be hooked by the anglers of the market: one by one they are kicked into the gutter: the religious world bemoans the fact that their dope no longer works and look around everywhere for more enticing bait, Christianity has so little confidence in its adherents that the keys of the Holy Sepulchre can only be trusted to the hands of the Moslems. The Methodists report a decline of 83,000 in their membership in 10 years. They don’t know why, but we do.

In the early days of Capitalism they preached Hell and Damnation to the children working 16 hours a day in the factories. The fear of hell no longer exists; the wage slave has too much experience of the reality. Religion is a fantastic reflection of the real world; a product of the imagination; it dies in proportion as the real world is understood. Material conditions, and not religious illusions, determine the course of history. Man will be better morally when the economic foundation of the society in which he lives is such that the bias is on the right side. Professor Jenks hit the nail on the head when he said “Morality is the result, not the cause, of social amelioration.”

The countries where civilisation first made its appearance are being brought under capitalist influence as a result of oil, etc., being discovered in these regions. As they are adjacent to what Jews, Christians and Moslems describe as the holy land, it is interesting to ponder over the fact that we shall soon see greater miracles performed there than the followers of Christ ever imagined possible.

A writer in the Sunday Times (July 13th, 1946) quotes from Arabia Phoenix, by Gerald de Gaury, a passage which gives us a vivid picture of the changing scene:

“The transforming properties of magical petrol transcend the most powerful incantations of the Arabian nights; yet its common result is not to make the desert blossom as the rose, but to change an oasis or what not into concrete and tarmac. This comes about through the logic of necessity, though other names have been found for it. Where we landed from a sailing ship on the edge of the virgin dunes of the east coast is now an American industrial town; the centre of the oilfield of the American Oil Company . . .”

“The Wahhabis are going to learn something not in the Koran, evidently. Not date palms, goats, camels, mosques and the smell of herbs and charcoal fires, but quays, derricks, rigs, sheds, pipe lines, power plants, automobiles rushing about and hurrying gangs of workmen. Not the salutation ‘ Peace be with you,’ but ‘ O-kay, boy.’ Irrigation experts from America are busy; the towns of Arabia are linked by wireless stations; the royal camp of hundreds of tents is mechanised; six-wheel lorries rumble through the Wadis. ‘The vast wilds of wild Arabia are as thoroughfares now.’ ”

In the World Review of July, Gerald de Gaury gives us a little more information.

“The main industrial development in Saudi Arabia is at the oilfield at the extreme eastern province of Al Hasa, on the Persian Gulf coast. The Arabian American Oil Company (formerly known as the California Arabian Standard Oil Company), of Delaware, U.S.A., was granted a concession for sixty years in May, 1933, for an area of 300,000 square miles. When oil was struck in 1941 the Company began to make payments on account of royalties, which are paid at the rate of 4s. ‘gold’ per ton of oil produced. The area conceded has since been extended to both the North and South, the whole area now forming a crescent shape along the northern frontier down the Eastern Coast and southwards towards the empty quarters. A refinery with a capacity of 2,500,000 tons a year is nearing completion at the small town of Tannra, on the Eastern Coast. There has been a tentative exploration for oil elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, and for a time a concession was held by Petroleum Development (Western Arabia), Limited, an associated company of the Iraq Petroleum Company, but this was abandoned during the war, when the obligation undertaken could not be fulfilled. There has been a project for a pipeline across Arabia from the oilfield to the Mediterranean, but it is unlikely to hold any economic advantage unless the oil output reaches some 6,000,000 tons per annum. The company has had as many as 8,000 Arab workmen on its books at one time, and it is already having a marked effect on the social life of the people of Eastern Arabia.”

We have recently read of British warships being in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The great Powers are unable to agree about anything anywhere for long. As capitalism concentrates, the causes of conflict are forced to the surface. Read carefully from La France Libre in the periodical quoted above : —

“Russia has always been considered as being one of the largest oil reservoirs in the world. Her known reserves, according to Professor Gubkine, amounted to 1,000 million tons. But the imperfect exploitation of Russia’s sub-soil lends weight to Gubkine’s further assertion that the certain, and probable reserves amount to 4,600 million tons, thus exceeding those of the United States by 50 per cent. On the other hand consumption has risen to not more than 25 million tons a year; even if it were to rise to the same level as in England it would not appreciably exceed 60 million tons. Of all the great powers Russia was the only one that had no oil problem. But recently her attitude has completely changed. The new orientation shows itself not only in the tracing of new frontiers (the annexation of the oil deposits of Poland and Sakhalin), but also in the strenuous efforts which Russia is now making to obtain a predominant position in the oil industry of Roumania, in Hungary and, above all, in Northern Persia.

Here, according to the recent agreement, half of the production will belong by right to Russia; the other half Persia will have to sell to the highest bidder, which will, no doubt, be Russia, since she offers the natural and most easily accessible market. It should be noted that the concession zone does not touch the frontiers of Turkey or Irak or of Afghanistan—an arrangement intended to allay suspicion as to Russia’s intention in these regions. Given the tension caused by the Russo-Persian dispute in international relations, the new treaty may appear satisfactory, but the crisis serves to remind us that, oil has lost nothing of its powers to engender political conflicts even though that power is to-day confined to the Near East. It is its oil as much as its geography that is making this region the nerve centre of the world.”

The Poets of Persia, sang hundreds of years ago of the tinkling of the camel bells, the song of the nightingale, the beauty of the crescent moon, and the fragrance of the rose.

Then had they time to sit and ponder over the mysteries of the desert. Gone now for ever is the romanticism of this region; the Arab steed is now outpaced by the jeep, the caravan gives place to the railway, the free wild men of the plains are caught in the net of wage slavery.

They will shortly be as bewitched and bewildered by close contact with the mechanism of Capitalism as their forefathers were by the conjuring tricks of the ancient seers.

But they will learn quickly and repeat as they are trying to comprehend the words of our old friend Omar : —

“Could thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire.

Would we not shatter it to bits

And then remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

Charles Lestor

“Money Must Go”: Letter from the authors (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The authors of “Money Must Go” write the following letter about the review published in our July issue : —

Dear Comrades,

We were pleased to see the review of our book, “Money Must Go,” in the July issue of the Socialist Standard. May we draw attention to several statements made by the reviewer, L.J., which might give a wrong impression?

(1) The book is not intended to be “an attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism,” if by this is meant the critical analysis of Capitalism, etc., which is the basis of Scientific Socialism and constitutes the bulk of its teaching. It is intended to suggest to the Socialist propagandist a different mode of approach to the problem of interesting workers in fundamental social change. It does this by (a) giving a general picture of Socialist society in order to induce interest in Socialism as a practical project; and (b) by emphasising the moneyless character of that society, which factor sharply demarcates the Socialist aim from those of all pseudo-socialist factions. On the other hand it provides a means of implanting the idea of Socialism as a working system of society in the mind of the non-socialist without using “that blessed word.” We are of the opinion that the word “Socialism” has become so debased through constant use by reformist organisations and “political tricksters” that the use of the word can well be delayed until the idea has sunk in. For the use of the term “World Commonwealth” we have a precedent in the Socialist Standard of May, 1922.

(2) We think that the charge of “over-insistence that money is ‘the root of all evil'” is unjustified. This dictum is referred to but once (p. 15), and there we merely point out that such an idea was current about a hundred years ago. We do refer to the ownership of the means of wealth production by a small minority as the cause of the poverty of the majority (p. 7) and to the class division of society as the source of social evils (p. 13). Neither do we “make a direct attack on money” nor propose its simple abolition. We advocate, and in this book supply a positive approach to the idea of a world without money and in which goods are produced solely for use and/or free distribution as an alternative to the present system of production for profit (p. 16). That with the achievement of such a system the means of production would simultaneously become commonly owned by the whole of the community is implied in unorthodox fashion on page 17. Nevertheless, the statement at the top of page 17 (incompletely quoted by L.J.) is quite true. A statement of the same nature which accords with L.J.’s version is given on page 132. We have found that this approach induces interest, whereas the use of the economic and more precise terminology does not. Interest precedes desire. Workers can themselves easily see the possibilities of life in such a world organisation. It is so simple to visualise a world in which all capable of working take their part in the world’s work and in which all the goods produced are distributed to stores and warehouses from which the people will take according to their needs without payment of any kind. True, money is a medium of exchange. Then surely if there is to be no exchange there will be no need for a medium of exchange. Is not this as simple to understand as the four characteristics of capitalism, given by L.J. ?

(3) We do not define Socialism—we explain it. We conceive it as a system of society. On page 25, and again on the back cover, we concisely sum up the essential characteristics of a Moneyless World Commonwealth. The term “common ownership” may be precise in meaning to those who know what it really means. This did not prevent the Common Wealth Party from using it—to mean something quite different.

(4) To most workers the State appears as an abstraction, an intangible power above society, but controlling it and manifesting itself through the individuals that compose it. Similarly the “heavy hand of ‘the law,'” referred to by L.J. To them, more concrete is the heavy hand of the policeman, and later, the heavier hand of the gaoler. As a “public power of coercion” we do explain the State adequately on page 121.

(5) We deny our “misreading of the class struggle.” In its first and present phase the class struggle is only over the question of the division of the workers’ product. The “wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc.,” referred to by L.J. are essentially aspects of this. There is hardly as yet a “political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.” That is yet to come, and we show its necessity in Chapter 18.

(6) “Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism.” We do that. But almost all Socialist propaganda is devoted to explaining capitalism and neglects to explain the features of Socialism as an alternative system of society. It is that we deplore, and we have tried to show how this shortcoming can be made good. The important question directed to Socialist propagandists to-day is, “How will Socialism work?”, and this should be seized upon as a potent means of agitation. Explaining capitalism can well come later.

(7) “Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism.” Again true. And it is for this reason we avoid the use of those precise terms, “capitalism,” ”working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle.” In spite of their precision in use by Socialists these words have been and still are used by every confusionist party claiming working-class support. Every schoolboy “knows” what Socialism means—so does the Evening Standard ! Precise terms can be used by opponents to spread confusion. We have found mental pictures more useful for our purpose.

(8) “The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism.” In “Money Must Go!” we do not once refer to “Commonwealth” alone; always to “World Commonwealth,” and at least once in each chapter we add the adjective “Moneyless.” The comment that “its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character” therefore does not apply to “World Commonwealth.” The comment as it stands can be applied aptly to the word “Socialism.” Even Hitler used it !

Fraternally,

PHILOREN.

Philo—

—Ren.

Reply:

“Philoren” has swopped horses. In his preface to “Money Must Go” he says that the “main purpose” and the “only justification” for the book is that he is sure that the “great mass of the people” will accept the ideal of World Commonwealth, “would they but take the trouble of understanding the barest essentials of the idea.” His suggestion that it was intended to show Socialist propagandists a different “approach” is only an afterthought. We are answering paragraphs 1, 3, 7 and 8 in one section as they deal largely with the same subject matter.

He does not deny that he avoids using definite terms; on the contrary, he states, “Precise terms can be used by opponents to spread confusion.” Is that a good reason for substituting confusing and vague terms in place of words that have a definite meaning? Why do political parties which serve capitalist interests use such words as “the people” or “the Commonwealth”? Simply because they are vague, abstract and indefinite terms. In 1940-41 a “People’s Convention” was organised, which demanded a “People’s Peace”; others described the war as a “people’s war”; an ex-Liberal formed a “Commonwealth Party,” while apologists refer to the Empire as the “British Commonwealth of Nations”; many other instances could be given of this use of abstract Language, which hides more than it reveals. That “Philoren” had to go to a Socialist Standard of 24 years ago to find the term “World Commonwealth” is a sign that it has fallen out of use with Socialists, while it is increasingly used by non-socialists. Socialism is clear enough without using the ponderous “Moneyless World Commonwealth.” If others use the name of Socialism to spread confusion, that is all the greater reason for us to insist on its real meaning and to increase our efforts to get it understood by workers. The task of doing “long and persistent” educational work cannot be evaded by dropping scientific methods and using the slovenly jargon of our enemies.

(2) If words mean anything, then we are right in saying that “Philoren” insists on money being the cause of social problems. He describes the present system as a “money-based system.” On page 96 he says, “Think of all the misery, the worry and the illness all caused by these funny pieces of metal,” while later, we are told that, “In a sense woman is doubly enslaved—to man and to money” (page 99). We showed that money is not the basis of capitalism and he has not troubled to answer that point. He claims that he refers to the class division as the source of social evils (page 13), but, as a matter of fact, it is the “ever-widening division of the people into rich and poor” that he states gives rise to social problems; a view held by the Labour Party and other reformists who seek to narrow the gulf between rich and poor. “Philoren” knows that nothing was omitted from the quotation from Page 17, which altered its meaning.

(4) Because, it is claimed, most workers regard the State as an “abstraction,” are we to call it that? A feeble reason to give for an incorrect view. The explanation on Page 121 is not adequate but most sketchy. He merely deals with the State as a deterrent to “crime” ; its function as a power holding in check the disruptive force of class struggles is not touched upon.

(5) Because the working class is not class conscious in the sense of understanding the full implications and significance of the class struggle, “Philoren” assumes that the “present phase” of the struggle is only over wages, etc. This, we repeat, is a misreading of the class struggle. The class struggle exists, otherwise how could a political party whose purpose is to end the private ownership of the means of wealth production come into existence? What is the Socialist Party but the expression of the class struggle on the political field. He states that he advocates political action in Chapter 18, but it is after suggesting political action that he refers to the class struggle as “no more” than a struggle over a “bone.” In any case, to state that political action is “yet to come” is simply ignoring the existence and activities of the S.P.G.B.

(6) Both here and in the latter part of section 2 (Workers can themselves easily . . . without payment of any kind) he shows that he is nothing more than an Utopian Socialist. He wants us to cut down our criticism of the ugly economic system under which we live and draw up beautiful schemes of the new society in the hope that they will attract workers. Many Utopian Socialists did this in the past and their beautiful schemes are infantile in relation to modern conditions. Not merely that; Socialists are not building a “brave new world” from any “blue prints”; they have, in the words of Marx, “to set free the elements of the new society with which the old bourgeois society itself is pregnant.” Capitalism fetters the free production of goods—and it is through explaining the nature of those fetters, the economic laws of capitalism, that we create amongst workers the desire to break those fetters. The problems that face workers are the problems of capitalism, and we concentrate on explaining capitalism in order to pave the way to Socialist understanding. Workers who understand capitalism, generally desire and work for Socialism; they want no fanciful dreams to stimulate them to play their part in ending the hideous reality of capitalism.

L. J.

SPGB Meetings (1946)

Party News from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: The Spectre at the Labour Party Conference (1946)

Editorial from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Labour Party is not the Government, Labour Party conferences can happily agree to denounce whatever government is in power. When the Labour Party is itself in power the tune changes; delegates are then brought face to face with the fact—surprising to them, though not to Socialists —that capitalism is just as much the enemy of the workers, even though the Prime Minister is a MacDonald or an Attlee instead of a Baldwin or a Churchill. Out of office the Labour leaders shout “forward.” In office they exhort their followers to rest on their oars or at least to refrain from rocking the boat. In this respect history repeats itself. Just as, in 1924, Labour's official organ hoped that the miners ‘‘will not embarrass the first Labour Government by pressing untimely demands ” (‘‘Labour Magazine,” January, 1924), so at the Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth in June, 1946, Mr. Shinwell and other Government spokesmen found themselves at variance with miners' delegates who were pressing for the five-day forty-hour week and other demands that have long been in the Labour programme. This time the Labour leaders had a new plea with which to fob off the workers, the plea that as nationalisation has been achieved, the miners are now working for themselves, not for the capitalists, and must subordinate their demands to the paramount need of making nationalisation a success. Mr. Shinwell laid down the principle, "Nationalisation must pay. Nationalisation schemes taken by and large must not be subsidised by the Exchequer” (Daily Express, 12/6/46). Mr. Morrison, speaking on the Government's general policy for wages, amplified with the trite remark, “We have to remember as a nation that we cannot spend what we do not earn” (Daily Telegraph, 14/6/46.). The thing is a transparent fraud. Making nationalisation pay means making it pay the millions that the Government is handing out to the former owners. The exploiters are still living on the backs of the workers, with the difference that the Labour Party, as the Government, undertakes official responsibility for maintaining the exploitation.

Mr. Morrison spoke to the Conference about the Government’s policy for unemployment. Listening to his statement that ‘‘full employment has never yet been attempted as a policy in peacetime Britain. It has never been attempted by any country in the world with our form of democratic government .  . . ” (Telegraph, 14/6/46), delegates must have wondered what the two previous Labour Governments were attempting to do when they said they had a policy to cure unemployment. This Government will fail like other Labour Governments. Mr. Morrison, unlike some of his less cautious colleagues, does not pretend that world depression will not happen again and would only commit himself to the promise that, if it does, ‘‘the Government was preparing to do what was possible to avoid repercussions on the economic life of this country.” Delegates who cheered this were no doubt reading into "what was possible” much more than Mr. Morrison believes. In the meantime unemployment grows, and dole queues are back in Jarrow, the town that Labourites so often quote in their denunciation of the Tories. On the day of Mr. Morrison’s speech an event occurred that showed the gulf separating Labour Government planners from the workers who suffer from their plans. The Government are transferring Short Brothers' seaplane works from Rochester to Belfast. Even if the thousands of workers wanted to be uprooted, only a few hundred of them are to be allowed to transfer. Instead they are offered the project that other industries will eventually be set up in Rochester. Dissatisfied with this, the men walked out and held a protest demonstration, at which local Labour M.P.s came in for denunciation. "During a stormy meeting complaints were made that local Socialist M.P.s had acted as buffers between the Government and the workers’ representatives instead of putting the workers’ case forward : (Telegraph, 14/6/ 46). The men at Rochester have discovered what Labour Government administration of capitalism really is and what, of course, it must be. Some capitalist spokesmen are aware of the function of Labour Government to act as buffers and are duly grateful. On May 27th the Manchester Guardian, in an editorial, contrasted the bitter and widespread strikes in U.S.A., with Truman threatening to call up strikers for the Army, with the comparatively easy and smooth transition from war to peace in this country. Mr. Morrison, at the Labour Party Conference, made a similar point by comparing the few strikes in the past 12 months under Labour Government with what happened under Lloyd George in 1920. Because the workers do not realise that Labour Government cannot serve their interests, the Labour Ministers are able to persuade them to accept quietly hardships that would stir up violent protest and resistance if a Tory Government were in power.

Conference not only overwhelmingly rejected the Communist plea for affiliation, but altered the constitution to rule out the affiliation of any political party not already affiliated. This is a formal recognition of the change that has taken place in the make-up of the Labour Party since 1918. In the early days, affiliated bodies, notably the I.L.P. and Fabians, provided many of the Executive Committee members and officials of the Party. Now the place of the affiliated outside political bodies has been taken by the local labour parties. In 1910 affiliated trade unions constituted 1,394,000 out of the total membership of 1,431,000. Now, with a Party membership of over 3,000,000, trade unions account for 2½  million and individual membership through local labour parties amounts to nearly 500,000. Although the trade unions still provide all but a relatively small part of the funds, they have lost their former predominating position on the Executive. In 1910 there were 11 elected trade union representatives on an executive committee of 15. Now the constitution provides for 12 trade union E.C. members out of a total of 27, the remaining 15 being nominees of local labour parties, except one who represents the outside affiliated parties. In none of the three Labour Governments have trade union officials held more than a minority of Cabinet posts, and it will be observed that when the trade unionist, Sir Ben Smith, resigned from the Ministry of Food his place was taken by Mr. Strachey, one of the Labour Party’s so-called intellectuals.

What has happened since 1918 is that the Labour Party has fully established itself as the heir of the Liberal Party, but in so doing has moved away from the old conception that it was first and foremost the party of the trade unions. It is safe to predict that the gulf between the Labour Government and the workers will widen. To the extent that the discontent of their members makes itself felt the trade unions will become more and more critical of the Labour Ministers and will voice their criticisms at Labour Party conferences. The Ministers will be lucky if they receive in succeeding years anything like the amount of approval shown at the Bournemouth Conference. The Communists will exploit the discontent and try to gain control of the trade unions here as they have already done with greater success on the Continent. In France, the reformist party, corresponding to the Labour Party, has, like the British Party, inherited the place once occupied by the Radicals, but it has not thereby become the governing party, because, in the meantime, it has lost control of the trade unions to the Communists. Léon Blum made a revealing statement on the French situation to the Bournemouth Conference.

“He said that on the Continent the Socialist principles for which they had always stood were now opposed by scarcely anyone. The action of the true Socialist parties had become most difficult because of two other parties claiming to be both Socialist and democratic, the Communists and the Christian Democrats.”

(Times, 14/6/46). 

Oscar Wilde once remarked “nothing succeeds like excess.” It might he said of Blum that nothing succeeds like moderation—but just at the moment of success, when ‘‘scarcely anyone” opposes what Blum all his life has preached, the success turns out to be a tragic and pathetic failure. If the French Party really preached Socialism they would he glorying in the fact that almost everyone had been won over to it. Instead they preached reformism and State capitalism, and now find that it turns bitter in their mouths. They taught the workers to believe in a fraudulent “Socialism” and now find that Catholics and Communists can do the same with even greater success in the way of vote-catching at elections. If events had not taken quite the same course in this country, at least not yet, no-one need doubt that the workers who have put their trust in Labourism will some day rue their error.

Blum, a visitor, appears from the published reports to have been the only speaker at the Conference who correctly described the position occupied by Labour Governments and the dangerous path they are treading. Like a spectre at the feast, he warned the revellers who had come to toast their victory that they have not destroyed capitalism.

“For 25 years I have studied how you can exercise governmental power within the framework of a capitalist society. I know how much its action must be limited by the continuance of the capitalist framework. I know that is true even when a party holds power, as you do, with an absolute majority. It may lead to confusion of thought on the exercise of power as a prelude to and a condition of social transformation. That confusion leads by iron logic to disappointment, and, indeed so long as the capitalist structure remains any Socialist government is condemned to disappoint some hopes.”

(Manchester Guardian, 14/6/46).

It is to he hoped that the delegates will remember Blum’s words when, a few years ahead, they are meeting to discover why the Labour Government failed.

The bear on the rampage (1946)

From the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Delcassé once said “There are two diplomacies in this world that really count, the British and the Russian, for the simple reason that they are the only ones which plan in generations and not in months, in centuries and not in years.”

The unobservant man appears to be under the impression that the foreign policy of a capitalist government is determined by the party in power at the moment, whereas the truth is the track was probably laid down in the dim and distant past. The Labour Party is forced to foster and defend the interests of the Empire, and Stalin is the logical descendant of Peter the Great, the imperialist who laid the foundations of modern Russia. Capitalism has a ruthless code, and, so long as the system lasts., rulers and ruled are compelled to obey its mandate.

Gilbert Murray, in an article, “The Rule—The Lie,” in the current number of the “Contemporary Review,” says that “ When Nansen was distributing relief in Russia in 1921-22, one of the Soviet Government’s stipulations was that he should not reveal that the food came as a good will gift from foreign ‘capitalist' countries.”

The supplies that went from Britain to Russia during the late war are thought by countless numbers of Soviet citizens to have been sent from one part of Russia to the other. The Soviet Government rules by keeping its subjects in the dark, but events are helping to enlighten them. Edgar Bruce, in the “World Review” of May, tells of his experiences with the Russians in Europe who do not wish to go back to Soviet Russia. He was engaged in repatriation work and tried all be could to induce them to return to their native land. He wanted to know why many had no desire to go home. They sent him the following explanation : —

“We object to going back to the Soviet Union, it is all lies what they told us about our better living conditions in the Soviet Union.”

“ As peasants (on collective farms) the Government imposes taxes as follows on each individual: Milk contribution up to 500 litres, meat up to 32 kilo, eggs up to 120 eggs. If we keep our own cow a tax of 350 litres of milk from that cow has to be paid to the State. As workers the Government deducts 10 per cent, compulsory loan and then income tax and culture tax from our wages.

“The Stakhanovite system is a rate-cutting system. The Government gives an outstanding workman the best tools and materials. He sets up a production record which the Government expects the ordinary worker to attain.

“The average pay for a qualified man is 320 roubles a month, for the unskilled 80 or 90 roubles. Out of this ho must buy—black bread at 1 rouble a kilo, meat 12 roubles a kilo, butter 28 roubles a kilo, sugar 6.5 roubles a Kilo.

“The cost to the Government of these commodities is one-tenth and one-fourteenth of what we pay. Punishment for late arrival at work can be six months’ imprisonment. Private work outside the factory is forbidden, espionage is rampant, and one is not safe from denunciation even by a member of one’s own family. Nobody is allowed to choose his work or place of work.” Both peasants and workers in the deputation that came to interview Edgar Bruce stated that the standard of living was at starvation level."

In fairness to Stalin & Co. it must be pointed out. that the above statements are from men who were fed up with life in Russia, and may be overdrawn. This is somewhat different, however, from what we read in Communist publications and contradicts what is said in all countries by the “Friends of the Soviet Union.”

The Soviet Government is making a bid for expansion in Europe and Asia. It is now a matter of life and death for the Kremlin to continue its policy of world deception, it must conceal from the workers in countries outside Russia an understanding of what is happening in the Soviet Union, and also keep from its own wage slaves a real knowledge of the state of things existing in the other parks of the capitalist world. The Russian rulers, having control of the organs of publicity, are at present able to make their dupes believe what they want them to believe, but when disillusionment comes, as come it inevitably will, there may be a dreadful reckoning.

The Soviet Government is, like all capitalist governments, an enemy of Socialism, and aims at using its influence over the workers of other lands as a means of spreading its imperial power. The facts cry beware. What are the aspirations of Stalin & Co.? Let us first take Persia and judge what they are after by what they are doing. Azerbaijan contains oil. During the Russian occupation of the province they started exploiting that oil (they actually bored no less than thirty-five wells) without Teheran’s desire or permission. When, later, Teheran was consulted and refused the oil concessions, an autonomous Azerbaijan Government was set up for the express purpose of ceding those rights. British capitalism is already entrenched in the oilfields of Southern Persia and, of course, sees danger to its position and profits in the Russian incursion.

As Léon Blum says in the Manchester Guardian of May 21st: “The Communists sacrifice liberty to discipline to such an extent that liberty is in danger of disappearance. The Communists always take it for granted that Moscow is right. Communist methods of propaganda are so unscrupulous that they endanger the very fabric of democracy.”

On the last day in March, in Germany, a plebiscite was held to see whether the Social Democrats should amalgamate with the Communists. The result of the voting being a foregone conclusion in an anti-Communist sense, the Russian authorities, in their own particular zone, forbade the plebiscite to be held (they held a separate and special plebiscite in their own zone when the desired result had been well and truly assured). They, incidentally, thereby gave another definition of what they mean by the word “Democratic.”

The Russian spokesman who made, this announcement to the head polling office coined a new masterpiece of Bolshevik jargon: “The plebiscite is not prohibited, but it is not permitted.”

Mr. Voigt, a well known writer on international affairs, says: “ The time will come when Russia will in Western Germany promote a German national ‘proletarian’ revolution against the Western Powers. The revolution, if it succeeds, will inaugurate the anti-Western and more especially the anti-British armed alliance between Russia and Germany ” (“Nineteenth Century,” May).

Mr. Byrnes, speaking on the radio, May 20th, said “The Balkan treaties were blocked mainly by the Council’s inability to agree upon economic clauses and particularly by the Soviet refusal to allow inclusion in the treaties of any provision promising freedom of commerce on the Danube.”

It was German capitalism’s determination to control the inland waterways of Europe that was one of the causes of Anglo-American opposition leading to the late war.

Another writer in the same magazine says: “The information and facts available show that Russia considers herself to possess exclusive rights for economic expansion in the countries of the middle zone. She has concluded with several states at present occupied by Russian military forces trade agreements which would practically bar any outside trade and would eventually lead to melting these regions into the economic system of Soviet Russia. The Soviet trade policy strongly reminds us of that of pre-war Germany, with the difference that it is very much more brutal and thorough.”

The real reason why Russia is so persistent in her attacks on Franco Spain is connected with her ambitions in the Mediterranean. How little it is concerned with combatting a government with Nazi sympathies is shown by the sudden somersault in the Russian attitude to the similar government in the Argentine.

Another sphere of Russian penetration is Manchuria, about which it may be possible to deal in a further article.

Marx said “We should obtain a knowledge of international politics. It is essential if we are to accomplish our task that we should also participate.” Russia is in the new armaments race.

The likely line-up in the next scrap can already he perceived.

The interests of the working class are not served by fostering imperialism, whether practiced by Britain, the United Stales or Soviet Russia. The workers can achieve their emancipation when they refuse to be led by politicians whose object, like that of the Labour Party, is simply to perpetuate existing capitalist institutions. The continuation of capitalism in any form means another world war. The establishment of Socialism means permanent world peace, but this requires a majority of Socialists to bring about. The making of Socialists is the only way it can be done. Therefore, keep on the job.

Charles Lestor

"Money Must Go": A Review (1946)

Book Review from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been asked to review a booklet, “Money Must Go” (Published by J. Phillips, 203, Lordship Lane, N.17. Price 2s. 6d.). The subject matter is dealt with in the form of conversations between “Professor” and “George.” It is a genuine attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism, although the writer, instead of using the word “Socialism,” uses the vague term “World Commonwealth.” Some of the ideas are all right, but we haven’t the space to deal with them here. There are, however, weaknesses, due to the over-insistence that money is “the root of all evil.”

The writer apparently holds the view that it is easier to make Socialists by a direct attack on money than by a direct attack on Capitalism. We do not hold this view. In our experience it is most difficult for workers to see that it is possible to produce and distribute wealth without the use of money, unless they have some knowledge of the elementary facts of capitalist production. Most workers regard money simply as a means of exchange, and nothing in this book will remove that idea. Money is a means of exchange, but, as gold in its metallic form, it is also a commodity, and it will be abolished as money only when commodity production is abolished. The expression “a money-based world” is repeatedly used, and if it is intended as a simple definition of capitalism it gives a wrong impression. Money is not peculiar to capitalism, nor is it the basis of capitalism. The essential characteristics of capitalism are: (a) Private ownership of the means of production and distribution ; b) a dispossessed or propertyless working class; (c) the production of goods for sale (commodities) ; (d) large-scale industrial production. These elementary facts can be grasped by any worker and cannot be easily simplified without becoming meaningless. The term “money-based world” is meaningless.

Another difficulty is the mixture of right and wrong ideas in the book. It is slated that “the abolition of money alone would solve no problems” (page 16), but on the next page we read, ” . . . . since money would not exist …. no person could say that he owned a share …. in the people’s means of production. In fact, all the world’s means of production would, then belong to the people of the world.” In this passage it is clearly implied that it is the abolition of money that will lead to common ownership. The correct position is that when the means of wealth production and distribution are commonly owned and democratically controlled there will be no exchange of goods and the need for money disappears. On both these pages efforts are made to define Socialism, but somehow the author leaves out the term “common ownership.” Also, while he states that every form of slavery will disappear, he fails to state that the present form of slavery is wage-slavery.

There are also serious theoretical errors. The, State is called an “abstraction” (page 120). This will appear strange to those who have felt the “heavy hand” of the law. The State is the public power of coercion used by the dominant class against the subject class. Later he explains, the “civil war” raging in society as a struggle over the goods produced by the workers. He says, “This war — or perhaps more accurately — this struggle is nothing more than a conflict between two dogs for the same bone” (our emphasis). The bone is the wealth produced by the workers. This is a misreading of the class struggle. In the industrial field the class struggle is a struggle over wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc., but it is something more than that; it is a political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.

If the purpose of the book was to present a simple statement of the Socialist case, it is by no means a success. Subjects can be so over-simplified that they lose meaning. We can be sparing with words, but we cannot be sparing with sound definitions and clearly understood terms. Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism. Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism. It is strange, therefore, that, the writer avoids using such precise terms as “capitalism,” “working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle,” but uses vague words such as “the people ” and the “World Commonwealth.” The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism. Its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character.

L. J.

Blogger's Note:

An excerpt from Money Must Go was reprinted in the World Socialist No.4 Winter (1985-86).

A PDF of the book is available over at Libcom.

By The Way (1946)

The By The Way Column from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Socialist" Britain

“These other May Day campaigns were calling us to rise and unite. We had nothing to lose but our chains. And by our unity we would one day—in the far-off future—achieve a Socialist Britain, where the nation would be run for the greatest good of the greatest number.

“Today we have achieved that Socialist State.” 

(Daily Herald, 20/4/46.)

The Exploiters' Rake-off

“The private owner can have his rake off so long as his rake-off is not too expensive . . ."

(Mr. Shinwell, Minister of Fuel and Power, at Leeds. Sunday Express, 7/4/46.) 

Viscount St. Davids commented that City firms which hitherto “went into a panic whenever the Labour Government so much as blinked an eyelid, now take a second look at everything the Labour Government does, and then shout for joy, and up go the share values."

(News Chronicle, 16/5/46.)

12 Months After

“Famine will soon be killing civilians and turning out future Fascists more quickly than Hitler and Mussolini ever could.”

(Mr. Herbert Morrison to President. Truman. Daily Herald, 14/5/46.)

 

"You voted Left—You did Right! ”

Under this title the Labour Party has published its own account of its first six months’ record. It enumerates the following: —

1. Control of Finance.
2. Nationalisation of Coal Mines, Transport, Electricity, Gas, Cables and Wireless.
3. Working Parties for efficiency of private industry.
4. An Export Drive.
5. 24,000 Permanent Houses.
6. Social Services: Health Insurance.

Socialists have only one comment. Not one nor all these measures have any connection with Socialism — neither do they lead to it,

“ Workers Control ” of the Mines

“Salary of the chairman of the National Coal Board—Lord Hyndley—will be £8,500, and other members of the Board will receive £5,000.

“ Salary of the vice-chairman—not yet named—has not yet been fixed.

“ Other members of the Board so far appointed are: Sir Walter Citrine, Mr. Ebby Edwards, Prof. Sir Charles Ellis, Mr. J. C. Gridley, Mr. L. H. Lowe, Sir Charles Reid and Mr. T. E. B. Young.”

(Daily Herald, 13/3/46.)

Strachey—Before and After

Mr. John Strachey, M.P., formerly Under-Secretary for Air and now Minister of Food, now backs the programme and policy of the Labour Government. In his “The Nature of Capitalist Crisis” he showed why Labourism must fail.

“Capitalism is now, we are told, well on the road to permanent recovery; all talk of breakdown, of impending wars and revolutions is now happily out of date.; an epoch of peace and plenty is opening out before us.

What, are we to say of scientists who give way to such ‘wishful thinking'? A dozen times now the cycle of boom, crisis, depression, recovery, boom, crisis, has gone through its phases, and as each crisis has passed into depression, and then as symptoms of recovery have appeared to lighten the depression, the shallower prophets of capitalism have, told us that at length, but now for ever, all was well. Do they still believe it? Certainly we cannot.”

(“The Nature of Capitalist Crisis,” p. 19.)

“The whole of the present official leadership of the British workers looks forward, like Mr. G. D. H. Cole, to the possibility of an organised or planned, high wage paying, and centrally controlled capitalism. . . .”

“Nor is this the programme of all the leaders of the British Labour Party alone. It is the professed programme of all Fascist parties. . . .

“It is the professed objective of all those 'progressive' Conservatives and 'modern-minded' Liberals (of all nations and the League of Nations), who believe in what is called 'planning'—and form everywhere little societies for the study of their plans. . . .”

"All these parties, movements and groupings are, in fact, holding out to us (with, in some cases, perfect sincerity) the possibility of (establishing an economy which retains the essential principles of the present system, viz., the private ownership of the predominant part of the mean of production, their operation for profit, and distribution of the products by means of exchanges mediated by a monetary circulation, but which eliminates the crises and convulsions, with their consequent miseries, which this system at present produces.

“Nor is this aim any the worse for the number of diverse groups which subscribe to it.

“Unfortunately, however, as we have seen, whatever else may happen upon this uncertain planet, the establishment of a planned, stable and high wage paying capitalism is impossible.”

(The Nature of Capitalist Crisis, p. 354.)

Horatio.

The Coal Owners and the Clergy (1946)

From the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The use the propertied class make of Religion, to keep the workers content with their servitude is an old story. An interesting disclosure on the relationship of the coal owners and the Church was made by the Archdeacon of Derby when he forecast that nationalisation of the mines would adversely affect the incomes of the Clergy in the Derby Diocese. He said

"The coal and iron companies have shown a very generous appreciation of the spiritual needs of their workpeople, and in many cases have paid a large part of the stipend of the incumbent in whose parish their works were situated.” 

(Derby Evening Telegraph, 7/5/46.)

London Outdoor Meetings (1946)

Party News from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russia and Democracy (1946)

From the June 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

On March 23rd, under the title “True Democracy,” the Manchester Guardian opened a discussion on democracy when reviewing a recently published lecture by Professor E. H. Carr. This review was followed by contributors from Lord Lindsay, Mr. Laski and Mr. Bertrand Russell on April 20th and May 4th respectively.

The striking thing about all the contributions was that they distinguished an entirely different outlook on democracy between Russia and the Western Countries, but, to all of them, the Russian outlook is accepted as a sincere one, tied up with the view that the Russian rulers are acting on behalf of one section of society alone, the workers, and that their dictatorship signifies the rule of the workers. This, the writers agree, explains the difference between “Proletarian Democracy” and “Bourgeois Democracy.” This, for instance, is the reviewer puts it:-

“It is important, as Professor Carr points out, to realize that the Russians are just as sincere in their use of the word democracy as we and the Americans are in ours.”

We have not the space to examine the many misleading ideas that are foisted upon the Marxian point of view by these writers, but must confine ourselves to the alleged basic difference between the Russian and the Western definition of democracy.

Cutting away all trimmings, democracy simply means a state of affairs in which the will of the majority of a group, a nation, or an international society, shall always prevail. The will of the majority cannot prevail unless circumstances exist which make it possible to know at any time what the will of the majority really is and whether, for any reason, it has changed. This cannot be known unless there is at least freedom of discussion and means existing for this purpose; freedom of equality of voting; freedom to select those who are to carry out the will of the majority; and equality of electoral conditions.

Although in theory these four fundamental conditions exist in the Western democratic states, in fact there are considerable limitations. One needs only to remember the private and business votes processed by some, the enormous influence of a press owned by a propertied minority, the economic penalties suffered by the workers who express their opinion too freely; and the governments who coalesce instead of dissolving. In spite of the limitations, however, there is sufficient democracy in most of the European states and in America to enable the majority of the people to change the basis of society if, and when, they wish to do so. The point is to get them to wish it. It is therefore to the interest of the workers, who form the great majority in the nations, to use these democratic avenues and not to ignore or destroy them.

The Russian Government was, and is, fundamentally undemocratic, and under its inspiration Communist parties of the other countries have worked to discredit democratic institutions. Sometimes the plea has been that these democratic institutions were barrier to the taking over of power by the working class. In fact, however, they were simply the barrier to the taking over of power by the tiny minority, the Communist Party. The workers did not want to take over power because they had not sufficient confidence in themselves and would not know what to do with power if they got it.

At the time of the Russian Revolution the Bolshevik or Communist Party was a small minority in a largely peasant country. By taking advantage of the favourable circumstances and by carefully planned manoeuvres they succeeded in getting control of government power; every action since that date has had behind it the aim of strengthening the hold on power of the leaders of the Communist Party. Some statements of Marx and Engels on the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” were misused to support the false claim that the workers were in control in Russia. In fact the Russian dictatorship is at present the rule of a small group, with Stalin at their head, who have so tightly organised their autocracy that it is difficult to dislodge them. In this, certain peculiar circumstances have played directly into their hands. From the beginning there was a bitter struggle between members of the ruling clique, and the successful ones imprisoned, deported or executed their rivals. The secret police, as in Germany and Italy, was, and still is, one of the principal of props of power. Lately the church is also taking a hand in the game.

With such background, to write of the Russian idea of democracy as being a sincere one is just nonsense. The rulers of Russia are solely interested in keeping their privileged position as rulers and, like the capitalist rulers here, are only concerned with democracy to the extent that it achieves this object. To write of the Russian dictatorship, as the contributors to the Manchester Guardian have done, as being a dictatorship exercised in the interests of the workers is contrary to the facts. On similar grounds they could as logically argue that Capitalists rule in the interests of the worker.

The business of the Communist parties of different countries has been to serve the interests of the Russian Government, and their “day-to-day” policies have twisted and turned and been reversed merrily in tune with the needs of Russia. On this question of democracy, so far as it concerns the parliament, their somersaults have been particularly spectacular. Starting twenty-five years ago with fierce denunciation of parliament as a sham and a snare, they have alternately denounced and applauded participation in parliamentary action. We will extricate two examples of this lunatic policy:-

In 1932 the Communist Party published a 20-page pamphlet entitled “Report on the Crisis Policy of the Labour Party, the T.U.C. General Council and I.L.P.” This report was submitted to the twelfth Congress of the Communist Party. It repudiates parliamentary democracy in the following manner:-

“Revolution for the Communists means the forceful overthrow of the capitalist and the establishment of the workers’ dictatorship, this to be achieved by the organisation of the daily struggle of the workers as the road to the seizure of power” (p. 17).

Any Party which accepts parliamentary democracy, however revolutionary its phrases is an instrument of the capitalists” (p. 20).

“We must expose the sham of parliamentary democracy, and show the positive results of the workers’ dictatorship based upon the workers’ councils. …” (p. 20).

The Daily Worker of March 6th, 1943, tells an opposite story. It opened its columns to a discussion of the oft-recurring enigma “Communist Affiliation to the Labour Party.” Mr. James Walker put the case of the Labour Party and Mr. William Gallacher replied for the Communist Party. In his reply Mr. Gallacher made the following bland statement:-

“Of course we believe in parliamentary democracy. That is why I am in Parliament. That is why I am such a regular attender, and why the Party is so anxious that I should a good account of myself.”

Could blatant impudence and political perfidy go further? It might, but not very much!

In the West the capitalists find that they can rule under democracy. In Russia the Bolsheviks found they could not do so. To veil their dictatorship and obtain support at home and abroad they rigorously applied the censorship and produced quantities of literature urging the claim that the workers are the real rulers who endow their leaders with supreme power and authority on the ground that the leaders know better than they do themselves what is best to be done. This autocracy was then labelled as a new form of democracy, proletarian democracy, though the proletarians have, at the most, only the influence of the dumb, obstinate cattle who may stray this way and that along the road but are always driven home in the end. In social systems based on chattel slavery the slave either acquiesced in his slavery or went under. In Russia the position of the worker is fundamentally similar. No one before has had the brass to suggest that the slaves participated in democracy. It has been left to the twentieth-century dictatorships, with the unbounded cheek of the confidence man, to foist his fantastic view upon an apprehensive and credulous world.

With an extraordinary tenderness towards Russia the contributors to the Manchester Guardian discussion find a basis for Russian views in an idea that has been revived again. Russia, they urge, has not political democracy, but it has economic democracy. This is how Mr. Laski puts the idea:-

“Soviet Russia is a more democratic society than Great Britain. No special privilege attaches either to birth or to wealth, to race or to creed. There is a wider and more profound attempt to satisfy maximum demand than in this country. … The maddening distinction which we make between the high social prestige attached to intellectual labour and the low social prestige attached to manual labour has no meaning. … Access to the courts is not dependent upon the wealth of the parties to an action.”

Democracy is a term that is used to signify the opposite of privilege. Whatever it is called, political or economic, it either means, in the circumstances that are being considered, that everyone has an equal standing or it is meaningless. Mr. Laski is out of touch with the practical world and, consequently, his description of the economic position in Russia is a travesty of the real position.

What economic equality is there between Soviet millionaires, who can command the best food and everything else, and the average poorly paid Russian worker; between the rich, who can take their holidays in pleasant surroundings, and the poor, who must stew or freeze in the cities; between the wealthy writers and the poor manual workers; between the trembling critic of the Government and the ruling group with its ruthless instruments of oppression; between the rich, to whom all the avenues of divorce are open, and the poor, who cannot afford to pay the court procedure, between Soviet ambassadors giving sumptuous feasts and Soviet workers who can barely get enough to live on; between the prisoners in the labour camps and the Secret Police? If there is economic equality in Russia, why, and for whom, do the black markets flourish? The economic democracy that critics and servile adherents alike admire in an illusion, as the ugly facts testify.

While conditions remain such that modern society is composed of capitalists and workers, two classes with antagonistic interest, then the modern democratic state is the capitalist state, the executive committee of the ruling class, no matter what name is applied to the party in power nor what theory it masquerades under.

But the democratic state has been forced, against its will, to bring into being methods, institutions, and procedure which have left open the road to power for workers to travel upon when they know what to do and how to do it. In this country the central institution through which power is exercised is Parliament. To merely send working-class nominees there to control it is not sufficient. The purpose must be to accomplish a revolutionary reorganisation of society, a revolution, in its basis, which will put everybody on an equal footing as participants in the production, distribution and consumption of social requirements as well as in the control of society itself. So that all may participate equally, democracy is an essential condition. Free discussion, full and free access to information, means to implement the wishes of the majority which have been arrived at after free discussion, and the means to alter decisions if the wishes of the majority change.

Conditions such as these have no room to grow in Russia at present. Those who rule there to-day are essentially anti-democratic. They rule by the secret police, the concentration camp, and the executioner. They hoodwink their subjects into believing that that is the best of all possible worlds.

Gilmac.