Letter: Who did what in the war? (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who did what in the war?

Going back to the year after the war I lived in London and used to come along to your meetings and debates with other parties. I used to come to Leicester Square to one on a Sunday evening. In London recently I bought one of the SPGB books, on war, and I must say I enjoyed reading it.

You state that the Communist Party supported the war at first, then in October 1939 they were against it. Well, didn’t the Communist Party give Harry Pollitt the sack during the changeover? I think I am right when I say that later on in the war Harry Pollitt put up in a by-election at Silvertown as a “Stop the War” candidate. And when did the Labour Party join Churchill’s government? They opposed them.

Now in your book Questions of the Day you write about Parliament and the elections. Well, does the ruling class go to the country when it suits them? From 1931 to 1945 the Tories only had two elections, and in 1910 and 1974 there were two elections in one year.

I must say there have been a lot of wars since the SPGB published the book War and the Working Class in 1936: all the killings going on in Ireland at the moment.

With best wishes to the SPGB.

L. J. Taylor 

Peterborough.

Reply:

The answer to your question about the Communist Party is as follows. In March 1939 the Daily Worker published an appeal to Attlee and Sinclair, the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties, and Churchill for the Conservatives, to get together and form a “Popular Front” government to oppose Germany. On 2nd September this demand was affirmed in a manifesto issued by the Central Committee of the CP for success in the war about to start. Harry Pollitt wrote a pamphlet How to Win the War, in which he said: “The Communist Party supports the war, believing it to be a just war”.

A month later the CP changed its mind and issued a fresh manifesto published in the Daily Worker on the 12th. It said: “The manifesto of October 7th corrects the declaration issued on September 2nd. The present war is not a just war, but an unjust and imperialist one.” Pollitt was relieved of his job as General Secretary of the CP, but continued as its leading propagandist after he had made an abject confession of error. The CP continued to oppose the war and, when the coalition government it had asked for was formed in May 1940, yelled indignantly: “What a man [Churchill] to take under the wing of the Labour Party!”

The reason for the change was, of course, keeping up with Russian foreign policy. Pollitt assumed that the CP would support a war against Germany without taking into account the Russo-German pact of August 1939. When Germany invaded Russia in May 1941 the CP again became vigorous supporters of the war and the Churchill government.

On your second question, the frequency with which governments “go to the country” depends on their assessment of the need to have the support of the working class demonstrated or reaffirmed. The chief reason why there was no general election from 1935 to 1945 was the war, in which the coalition government (not the Tories alone) assumed itself to have general support with a desire for as little disruption as possible.

Blogger's Note:

A later version of the Questions of the Day pamphlet is online on the SPGB website.

Money Must Come In. Our Crisis (1947)

Party News from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Except for very special purposes, it is many years since we have had to appeal to Socialist Standard readers for donations to Party Funds. We have to do so now. Our financial position at the moment is not critical in the sense that party activity is slowing down for want of money. The Party is, in fact, more active than at any time since it was formed. And it is because the Party is so active that our income is beginning to show signs that it might fail to meet the cost of the work the Party is doing and wants to do in the very near future.

Here is the position. During the war, whilst we were able to keep going, war-time circumstances tended to slow down expansion of propaganda and the publication of literature. Funds tended to accumulate. Every pound “saved” measured opportunities unfortunately and unavoidably missed. But such opportunities were not lost. When the war came to an end we found that our membership was nearly double pre-war. And so it remains. New Groups and Branches began to be formed. More propaganda was undertaken and more pamphlets were published. Full-time speakers were sent out to help the new Groups. We entered two Parliamentary elections. As we expanded so financial reserves began to decline. We were spending money for purposes for which it had been donated. We could not have our cake and eat it; and nor would we have it so. More money means more socialist propaganda. At the moment we have two very important projects that must be fulfilled. A new pamphlet on The Racial Question, and a new edition of the Communist Manifesto annotated by the Party in commemoration of the centenary of its publication. We need your help.

We earnestly urge all who are sympathetic to increase their contributions to the Party. It will be wisely used. Never did the Party more deserve it. Never were there more young, promising new speakers striving to fit themselves as able propagandists. Never were there more debates or better meetings, never more interest and enthusiasm for our case than today. Never was socialist propaganda more desperately necessary. Comrades and friends! Send in your donations quickly and send them regularly.

Funds Organiser.

Help! (1962)

Party News from the January 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The work for Socialism can never stand still.

There are meetings to be arranged, pamphlets and leaflets to be produced, the Socialist Standard to be got out each month. This is enjoyable work for the members who are engaged in it.

But it is also sometimes difficult work.

And the biggest difficulty is caused by lack of money.

We are planning more big indoor meetings.

We are in process of turning out two new pamphlets.

We are aiming at doubling the circulation of the Socialist Standard in the next twelve months.

All these activities are going to cost a lot of money.

So we are asking all our readers to help us by sending to our treasurer at Head Office as much as they can spare.

Day by day, capitalism itself is proving the urgency of propaganda for Socialism.

So this appeal is urgent, too.

Please help.

Blogger's Note:

"We are in process of turning out two new pamphlets."

According to the SPGB website, three pamphlets were published by the Party in 1962:

• Art, Labour and Socialism by Willam Morris (with a modern assessment) (February 1962)
• * The Capitalist * The Worker * The Class Struggle * Wages * Depression * Politics* (April 1962)
• The Case for Socialism (October 1962)

Islington branch. (1911)

Party News from the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

ISLINGTON BRANCH

Are holding the following lectures on Thurs. evenings at 8.15, at Co-operative Hall, 144, Seven Sisters Road (entrance in Thane Villas).

Feb. 2nd—”Socialism versus State and Militarism” …… T. W. Allen

„ 9th—”Society and the Genius”…… A. Reginald

„ 16th—”The Economic Position of the Workers” … J. Fitzgerald

„ 23rd—”The Futility of the Reform Movement” … H. J. Newman

„ 30th—”Socialism and the Religious Question” ……

Have you read “Socialism and Religion,” the latest S.P.G.B. pamphlet? It will interest and enlighten you, whatever may be your outlook on the religious question. It is an important addition to working-class literature.

New Pamphlet (1957)

 

Party News from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

A pamphlet, Socialist Comment, is now on sale (40 pages, 6d. , post free 8d.) It contains seven articles reprinted from issues of the Socialist Standard during the past year or two. It deals with the colour problem in South Africa; why Socialists oppose the Labour Party; Housing; boom and slump; the ownership of property; and the workers' ideas about their pay.

Cooking the Books: Wages for housework? (2026)

The Cooking the Books Column from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The BBC News website carried an article on 9 December headed ‘A wage for housework? India’s sweeping experiment in paying women’ which described schemes in various Indian states under which some poorer women were given a regular monthly payment by the state. The International Wages for Housework campaign trumpeted this as a victory for their campaign, issuing a media statement that ‘after more than 50 years of campaigning, wages for housework is becoming a reality – in India and elsewhere’.

They date the beginning of their campaign to when Selma James raised their demand at a women’s liberation conference in Manchester in March 1972 but went further back to ‘the work of Eleanor Rathbone, the Independent MP who won Family Allowances (now Child Benefit) in the UK’. The payments under the Indian schemes are not ‘wages’ at all but, like family allowances and child benefits, a handout from the state. The whole ‘wages for housework’ campaign is basically a campaign for this social reform; not necessarily a bad reform, as paying the money directly to the woman rather than her husband is an advance. Even so, it is still a social reform and, as with all reforms that involve the state paying workers money, one that has unintended consequences.

When, during the last world war, a scheme for family allowances became practical politics thanks in large part to Eleanor Rathbone, the Socialist Party brought out a pamphlet Family Allowances: A Socialist Analysis which argued that ‘family allowances will lower the workers’ standards of living instead of raising them’. This was based on what wages are and what ultimately determines their level.

Wages are a price of what workers have to sell: their mental and physical energies. Their amount reflects the cost of buying the goods and services required to produce and reproduce this. In the days before family allowances, this included an element to raise future workers and so covered, at least partially, the cost of maintaining a ‘housewife’ and bringing up children. The economic effect of paying family allowances would be to reduce the amount that the employer needed to pay workers to reproduce their labour power and raise a family. As the pamphlet put it:

‘Once it is established that the children (or some of the children) of the workers have been “provided for” by other means, the tendency will be for wage levels to sink to new standards which will not include the cost of maintaining such children’.

Thirty years later we made the same point in commenting on James’s pamphlet Women, the Unions and Work. Her demand for ‘wages for housework’, the May 1973 Socialist Standard said, ‘seems a little naive’:

‘Wages are the price for which workers sell their labour power. That price will be generally sufficient to keep a worker, and his family, at a socially accepted standard. Payment made for housework, like family allowances or free transport, would act as a brake on wages’.

The payments to poor women in India are likely in time to put a brake on wages too, even if, through being paid directly to women, they represent an improvement for the women concerned in making them less dependent on a man.

Selma James had been a Trotskyist (though of a group that recognised that Russia was state capitalist) and quoted Marx, but Marxian economics was not her strong point. Marx would have advised her to change the reformist slogan ‘Wages for Housework’ to the revolutionary watchword ‘Abolish The Wages System’. Then both men and women would have access on the same basis to what they needed to live and enjoy life.

Books received. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Inner Mission," J. B. Paton, D. D. (J. Clarke & Co,. Fleet-st. 1s. 6d.)

"The Basis of Christian Socialism," H. O. Thompson. (Henderson, Charing Cross-rd, London. 3d)

Blogger's Note:

Directly underneath this notice of books received on religion and socialism was the following party notice:

Have you read “Socialism and Religion,” the latest S.P.G.B. pamphlet ? It will interest and enlighten you, whatever be your outlook on the religious question. It is an important addition to working-class literature.

The Socialist Party versus The Liberal Party. (1912)

Party News from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The text of this pamphlet is available on the SPGB website. Albion Richardson was the MP for Peckham from 1910 until he stood down at the 1922 General Election.

Light, More Light ! (1912)

Party News from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Economic Class is held at the Head Office on Friday nights at 8.

* * *

A Central Speakers’ Class has been established in order to equip more comrades for the platform. The classes are held at the Head Office, 193, Grays Inn Road, every Saturday evening at 7.30. It is urged upon all comrades to attend.

* * *

BATTERSEA BRANCH are holding a course of economic lessons on Wednesday evenings at 8, at 184, High Street, Battersea. Non-members invited. No charge.

* * *

TOTTENHAM BRANCH are holding discussion classes every Wednesday evening at 8.30 in Branch Rooms at 224, High Road, Tottenham. Strangers welcome.

* * *

TOOTING BRANCH are holding an Educationn Class on Saturday evenings at 8 o’clock, at 15, Gassiott Road, Tooting, commencing on November 30. Comrades from other branches invited.

* * *

NEW S.P.G.B. PUBLICATION. We have to announce that we have in the Press for publication in the course of a few days, a report of the debate which took place at Tooting on May 21st between our comrade, J. Fitzgerald and Mr. Samuel Samuel, prospective Conservative candidate for Wandsworth, on the subject of “Socialism v. Tariff Reform.” The pamphlet consist of 48 pages, and the price is—for democracy sale, 1d.

Letter: Thomas Piketty (2025)

Letter to the Editors from the December 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Practical proposals"

Dear Editors

I have read Socialism as a Practical Alternative, this is very interesting, although I would like it to know more about voting rights and other decision making processes in the political sphere and in the economic sphere, in particular regarding the rights to use capital assets, both for housing and for equipment in small production units vs large production units, etc. I make some practical proposals on my Brief History of Equality (see eg, tinyurl.com/5xbapcn5), but of course they are highly imperfect and the only way to make progress is to compare with other proposals and learn from them!

Thomas Piketty

Reply:

At this stage, when there are so few who want a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control of the means to produce what society needs to survive, it is premature to draw up detailed plans as to how things will be arranged in such a society. That is something for those around at the time to decide when capitalism is about to be replaced by socialism; in other words, when a majority of the population want socialism. All we can do is to come up with some suggestions and even then not going into the detail that your proposals do. But we don’t doubt that when that time comes detailed plans will be drawn up.

We are approaching the question from a different position from yours. You see a different kind of society coming about gradually through a serious of reform measures, to be implemented now under capitalism. Hence the need to come up with a detailed proposal. We don’t see that a gradual transition to socialism is possible as, in the end, what decides what happens is the operation of the uncontrollable economic laws of capitalist society which impose that the priority must be profit-making and the accumulation of capital. They rule out detailed reform measures working as planned. Our view is that, before anything constructive and lasting can be done, the basis of society needs to be changed root and branch from class ownership of the means of life to their common ownership and democratic control by society as a whole.

So while you are proposing measures to be implemented now under capitalism, we are envisaging possible measures to be implemented after capitalism has been replaced by socialism.

Nevertheless, to try to answer your specific questions. By ‘the rights to use capital assets’, by which we assume you mean the physical means to produce wealth. These won’t belong to anyone; they will simply be there to be used in accordance with democratically decided rules. We imagine that the day-to-day operation of them will be in the hands of those who operate them, through some democratically chosen management committee. This could be chosen by any number of different voting systems or even by lot (now called ‘sortition’). And there is no reason why this needs to be the same everywhere and in every workplace.

Housing: houses and flats won’t belong to anyone either. They wouldn’t be privately owned, not even by individuals; but this wouldn’t rule out people having the right to use a house or flat for a prolonged period. One possible arrangement would for their allocation to be in the hands of a local council in accordance with some democratically agreed criteria. These would have to be fairly complicated, allowing for appeals and settlement of disputes, but we can’t say much more today about them other than that they would have to exist and that it will be up to those living in socialism to decide the details which, once again, need not be the same everywhere.

Editors.

The Forum: From Capitalism to Handicraft. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Open Discussions.

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

Dear Sir,

The first of the Kautsky pamphlets published by your Party under the title of “From Handicraft to Capitalism,” treats in a masterly manner with the earlier stages of capitalist development, with the transformation of the sturdy handicraftsman, owning and controlling his own implements of industry, and producing for his own use and enjoyment, into the stunted, anaemic, flat-chested, narrow-gutted wage-slave, tending machinery which, although produced by labour, belongs to the master class, and turning out commodities for the world’s market, being permitted to consume a small fraction of the value of what he produces. Most of us are aware of recent developments in machinery, and can see quite easily the extent to which it is not only rendering it possible for the necessary labour to be performed by women and children instead of by men, but also making it easy to displace human labour, a displacement which is largely responsible for the acuteness of the unemployed question at this moment. Probably the time is not very far distant when such improvements will have been introduced as will make it quite easy for trained monkeys to do very much of the tending, and then—what is to happen to the bulk of the human race may perhaps form the subject of a discussion at a later date.

My object in writing now is to draw attention to a matter upon which I think some of your members as well as others claiming to be Socialists are taking a wrong turning—like the girl in the play. I know that, as a rule, they are wise enough not to be drawn into giving forth schemes or plans as to how this or that will be managed under Socialism, but content themselves with advocating the principle and pointing out that a people intelligent enough to declare the Socialist Republic will also be intelligent enough to settle in their own way any little questions which may seem difficult problems to some folk to-day. But I have sometimes heard it said that under Socialism we shall utilise the most scientific machinery for producing wealth, thus reducing the necessary human labour to the minimum and giving ample leisure to all. Now it occurs to me that there is here just a danger that under Socialism the people may be even greater victims of machine domination than they are to-day, and that all the joy in labour which William Morris so beautifully describes in your pamphlet “Art, Labour, and Socialism” will be conspicuous by its absence. Obviously, if under Socialism the test of the value of an improvement in machinery is to be its utility as a saver of human labour, many machines not now in use, because they are not savers of wages, will be taken advantage of. As no machinery can be run without organisation and strict discipline on the part of those concerned in its manipulation, it would seem that under Socialism there will not only be perpetuated that fetish of punctuality by which the profit mongers very naturally set such store, but that it will be seated upon even a higher throne than now. (The metaphor may be mixed but I think my meaning will be clear.) Now, is this desirable ? Are we to be “the touch the button” automatons which Edward Bellamy’s ”Looking Backward” depicts, or are we to be free men and free women, securing our livelihood in our own way ? Are we to be called to do our turn of machine minding by the shriek of the Government’s hooter, or are we to be allowed to have a “lay in” if we want it, pleasing ourselves as to how, when and where, if at all, we shall delve and spin?

I know, of course, some will say that in view of the leisure for all, possible only under Socialism, the slight restrictions upon individual liberty involved in punctually responding to the Government’s factory bell will be quite bearable and few will be found to grumble. Well, I think I shall be one of the few. After all, what is leisure and what should be employment ? They should both be synonymous terms for enjoyment. I take pleasure in pushing a plane and handling other implements associated with carpentry and cabinet-making. I may take three or four days to make a door which, with the aid of the most up-to-date and scientific machinery which is to be employed under Socialism could be produced, no doubt, in less than an hour. Am I to be compelled to forego the pleasure of producing my door by handicraft so that I may have “leisure” to do something I may be less inclined to ?

In my own particular case I know that when in health I require an outlet for my physical and mental powers. If I feel unfit for say, chopping wood (a favourite pastime of mine, but, of course, a waste of time when wood could be much more easily and expeditiously prepared for tho domestic hearth by machinery), if I don’t feel up to arguing with a Tariff Reformer or a Total Abstainer I know I’m not well, and I am certain I should feel damnably unwell if, under Socialism, I should be compelled to enter the Government factory at a particular time and to assist in producing articles by machinery which, if produced by handicraft would probably be superior in every respect, and which would certainly mean real leisure, that is, enjoyment to the producers.

Under Socialism there will be no parasites. There will, of course, be dependents. But as all the able bodied will be producers and as all useless labour will be avoided, the effort required to satisfy human needs will be so small that very little machinery will be needed. The tendency will be toward the “simple life” in production, in other words, as Society passed from Handicraft to Capitalism, so, in my opinion, it will revert to Handicraft after the transition stage from Capitalism to State Socialism. But I should like to hear the views of some member of the S.P.G.B.

Yours, etc.,

Kendrick Johns

_____________

Reply:

As the great Artemus has very forcefully pointed out, it is unwise to prophecy unless you knew. We do not know the precise form of organisation that will control industry in the Socialist Republic, nor the exact details of the working. We do not know whether the worker then, will be summoned to a factory by a State “hooter” or aroused from his slumbers by a direct electrical current established between the workshop and his bedpost. Not knowing, we do not prophecy. We only hold it highly improbable that the elimination of the conditions governing present day production for profit will leave the worker the slave of the machine. The manipulation of machinery in an atmosphere of comparative industrial liberty may well provide the manipulator with as great a joy as our correspondent can derive from the sight of a door growing slowly to recognisability under his hand—in four days. The machine is often a marvel of ingenuity, a veritable fairy story told in mechanics. Its control may easily be a dear delight. At the same time it is probable that the people of the Commonwealth may prefer a form of production, in special cases, that will allow the character of the worker to express itself more or less adequately in the work of his hand. Generally, however, we do not suppose that the worker then, will be prepared to relinquish the advantages of greater leisure that the machine offers—although he may occupy that leisure in some form of handicraftsmanship. Doubtless the present revolt against machine work is due to the crushing sense of the domination of the machine over the man—an inevitable result of the capitalist mode of production. Given the subserviency of the machine to the requirements of the man, and the whole aspect changes.

However this may be the subject is one we may well leave to the society of the future. A broader, saner view of productive processes and their relation to the life of the community will inevitably result from the removal of the restrictions that at present cramp the soul of the worker, and will reflect itself in the character of the product. It is a pleasing subject for speculation, anyhow, although the question of far greater and more immediate importance to us has to do with the education and organisation of the workers for the control of the means of their own livelihood. As to what they will do after then we do not pretend to have any particular knowledge. Nor is it a matter to worry about. They will doubtless make mistakes, but if they do they will have to bear the result of the error. Out of their experience they may be relied upon to, sooner or later, devise a means of satisfying their own desires within the means of their development. Then, at any rate, they will have the opportunity of profiting to the full from the lessons of their mistakes.

And that is all there is to it.—Ed. S.S.

New pamphlet on Racism (1966)

Party News from the November 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new Socialist Party pamphlet, entitled The Problem of Racism, is available. The previous pamphlet on this subject, The Racial Problem, published in 1947 has been out of print for some time. The Problem of Racism is not just a revision; it is a completely new pamphlet. In 1947 it was the Jewish Question that was prominent. Today it is the Colour Question. This change is taken into account in the new pamphlet which examines the colour question in Britain, America, South Africa and Rhodesia. There are chapters too on the scientific theory of race, the historical origins of racist theories and on African nationalism.

There is one unfortunate error. The reference on page 41 to Guyana should, of course, be to Guinea.

Pamphlet obtainable from Socialist Party, (Dept. SR), 52 Clapham High St, London. SW4. Price 1/6.

Letter: Marx and economics (2002)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and economics

Dear Editors,

I purchased, and enjoyed, amongst others the pamphlet Marxism Revisited and Some Aspects of Marxian Economics. Now, thankfully, my understanding of economics isn’t all that strong, but I could just about follow what you were saying there. But could I just ask you to explain about socially necessary labour. I understand, that according to Marx, the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour that is contained in it. But I always understood that this concept was no longer academically respectable. How can socialists still believe in this concept today?

In the Marxism Revisited pamphlet you talk of being opposed to all wars. Which is fine to take a principled stand but how could a socialist stand back and not take a stand in the Spanish Civil War or, in, what the Russians rightly call The Great Patriotic War, WWII. Surely socialists should have (did) support the Republic and should have been against fascism in WWII.

I just want to know how you could be opposed to the Republic fighting against Franco? Back then socialists should have urged Britain to join forces with the Spanish government instead of turning their backs and worse, by allowing the Italians and Germans to police the waters around Spain on the pretext to stop supplies to Franco. They damn well helped him!

That all said, I have enjoyed what I read, particularly the Market System Must Go. But there I detected a nostalgia for the Gold Standard, surely not!

Steven Johnston, 

Stockport

Reply:

Regarding socially necessary labour time (and the labour theory of value of which it is a key component) we do not really care whether it is academically respectable or not. Most concepts and theories which are academically respectable at some point – especially in the arts and social sciences – are not necessarily those which will stand the test of time. Indeed, academic respectability in these fields is largely a transient phenomenon which is far more reflective of ideological developments within capitalist society than it is of anything else.

Few disciplines demonstrate this more transparently than economics. Theories taken for granted thirty or forty years ago (the wholly beneficial effects of the Keynesian multiplier, the use of interest rates as a policy instrument for Balance of Payments control, the Phillips Curve, etc) are now oddities only to be found in textbooks of economic history. Much of monetarist theory (and even more recently, neo-classical theory) has been going the same way.

The ultimate test of any economic theory is whether it is able, over time, to accurately account for what happens in the real world. We contend that Marxian economics has been able to do this in a way none of the other theories have as the fashion for them has waxed and waned.

For over a century now, conventional economic theory has been unable to even remotely explain something as essential to the market economy as the prices at which various commodities sell. Demand and supply tells us why strawberries at local convenience stores are selling at £1.50 a punnet this week as opposed to £1.30 last week but it certainly doesn’t explain why a bicycle persistently costs more to buy than a strawberry, a car persistently costs many times more to buy than a bicycle and an oil tanker several more times again than a car. How could it?

Conventional demand and supply theory as found in modern economics textbooks certainly helps to explain short-term price movements for commodities, but to say that demand and supply determines commodity prices as a whole is like saying that the fluctuations of the waves on the sea determines the depths of the ocean.

The labour theory of value, with its concept of socially necessary labour time, is the only explanation that fits: commodities tend to exchange in certain value relationships because of the amount of labour time it takes to produce them from start to finish. It is around this value that prices tend to fluctuate, as influenced by demand and supply. You will no doubt have read in our pamphlets that because the labour theory of value also points to the fact that workers are exploited in capitalist society, giving unpaid labour (surplus value) to the capitalists when they produce commodities for them, it is a theory that the supporters of capitalism are happy to try and bury.

We might also add that it is through applying the labour theory of value that Marxian socialists have been able to explain the economic phenomenon of inflation which has beset the capitalist world since the Second World War. Our pamphlet The Market System Must Go – Why Reformism Doesn’t Work has more detail on this and other applications of Marxian economics, though we should add that we certainly have no nostalgia for the Gold Standard. While this had both advantages and disadvantages to the capitalists as an international trading system, we as revolutionary socialists are interested in the abolition of all the defining characteristics of the capitalist economy (wages, capital, prices, money, etc) including the paraphernalia of international trade.

Finally, you raise the issue of the Second World War and its precursor in Spain. The socialist position is that that worst thing the working class can do politically is put its class enemies in control of the machinery of government and the armed forces, as sooner or later they will be used against them. Both sides in the Spanish Civil War and both sides in the Second World War were pro-capitalist and anti-working class and socialists would not – and did not – support a capitalist government of either complexion. Socialists would of course prefer to operate under conditions of limited bourgeois political democracy than outright fascism and political dictatorship but history demonstrates that even elementary political democracy in capitalism cannot be defended through wars (for one thing, that is never their purpose – not in Iraq now, nor as in western Europe then).

If illustration of this is needed, how grateful the Spanish working class (including those elements struggling towards taking up socialist positions) must have been when the side of democracy won the war in 1945 . . . and then proceeded to protect and nurture the Franco dictatorship in Spain and the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal. They must have been almost as delirious as those freed from the yoke of the Nazi tyranny in Germany were when they were subsequently delivered into the hands of one of the worst police states in history (the mis-named German Democratic Republic) by those friends of the workers and arch-democrats themselves, F. D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin.

Editors.

Your help needed (1956)

Party News from the October 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

The purpose for which the S.P.G.B. publishes the Socialist Standard and pamphlets is to bring the Socialist case to the attention of workers who so far do not know it. The cheaper the price the easier it is to sell and the aim has always been to keep prices as low as possible. But keeping the price of the Socialist Standard at 4d. necessarily results in a heavy loss. Readers will have noticed that in order to save costs we recently reduced the quality of the paper. Even so the loss is running at well over £20 a month.

The best sort of help you can give us is to push up the circulation. If we sold more copies each copy would cost a little less than it does and the loss would be smaller.

The other help you can give is financial. You can give us donations to help cover the monthly deficit, and thus free our ordinary income to meet other propaganda expenditure.

At present we also need over £200 to reprint our pamphlet “The Socialist Party: its Principles and Policy,” and to publish a collection of articles from the Socialist Standard under the title “Socialist Comments.” Other pamphlets are contemplated. If you want to help, send your donations to the Treasurer, E. Lake, S.P.G.B.. 52, Clapham High Street, Clapham, S.W.4. Postal orders, cheques, etc., should be crossed and made payable to the S.P.G.B.

Blogger's Note:

According to this link on the Libcom website a new edition of “The Socialist Party: its Principles and Policy” pamphlet was published by the SPGB in 1956, and a pamphlet under the title of "Socialist Comment" was also published by the Party in 1956. (It should be noted that "Socialist Comment" wasn't advertised in the Standard until 1957.)

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

Blogger's Note:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

What part has Chamberlain really played in this dangerous business?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(. . .)

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

(. . .)

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

(. . .)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Pamphlet: An Inconvenient Question. Socialism and the Environment (2008)

Party News from the October 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

In recent years the environment has become a major political issue. And rightly so, because a serious environmental crisis really does exist. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat have all become contaminated to a greater or lesser extent. Ecology - the branch of biology that studies the relationships of living organisms to their environment - is important, as it is concerned with explaining exactly what has been happening and what is likely to happen if present trends continue.

Since the publication of our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet in 1990 environmental problems facing the planet have got much worse. We said then that attempts to solve those problems within capitalism would meet with failure, and that is precisely what has happened. Recent research on increasing environmental degradation has painted an alarming picture of the likely future if the profit system continues to hold sway. Voices claiming that the proper use of market forces will solve the problem can still be heard, but as time goes on the emerging facts of what is happening serve only to contradict those voices.

In this pamphlet we begin with a brief review of the development of Earth and of humankind’s progress on it so far. We then examine the mounting evidence that the planet is now under threat of a worsening, dangerous environment for human and other forms of life. The motor of capitalism is profit for the minority capitalist class to add to their capital, or capital accumulation. Environmental concerns, if considered at all, always come a poor second. The waste of human and other resources used in the market system is prodigious, adding to the problems and standing in the way of their solution.

Earth Summits over the last few decades show a consistent record of failure - unjustifiably high hopes and pitifully poor results sum them up. The Green Party and other environmental bodies propose reforms of capitalism that haven’t worked or have made very little real difference in the past. Socialists can see no reason why it should be any different in the future. Finally we discuss the need, with respect to the ecology of the planet, for a revolution that is both based on socialist principles of common ownership and production solely for needs, and environmental principles of conserving — not destroying — the wealth and amenities of the planet.

Contents

Introduction

What is ecology?

Earth under threat

Profit wins, the environment also ran The waste of capitalism

Earth Summits - a record of failure Green reformism

Socialism - an inconvenient question?

To get a copy by post send a cheque or postal order for £2.50 (made out to “The Socialist Party of Great Britain”) to: The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN.

The pamphlet will be launched at a public meeting: Saturday 25 October, 6pm

SOCIALISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

Speakers: Brian Morris (guest speaker) and Adam Buick (Socialist Party)

Chair: Gwynn Thomas (Socialist Party)

Forum followed by discussion.

Socialist Party Head Office, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 (nearest tube: Clapham North).

New pamphlet on Racism (1966)

Party News from the October 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new Socialist Party pamphlet, entitled The Problem of Racism, is available. The previous pamphlet on this subject The Racial Problem, published in 1947 has been out of print for some time. The Problem of Racism is not just a revision it is a completely new pamphlet. In 1947 it was the Jewish Question that was prominent. Today it is the Colour Question. This change is taken into account in the new pamphlet which examines the colour question in Britain, America, South Africa and Rhodesia. There are chapters too on the scientific theory of race, the historical origins of racist theories and on African nationalism.

There is an unfortunate error. The reference on page 41 to Guyana should, of course, be to Guinea.

Pamphlet obtainable from Socialist Party (Dept SR), 52 Clapham High St., London, SW4. Price 1/6.

Blogger's Note:

Unfortunately, the text of The Problem of Racism pamphlet is not currently on the SPGB website. Hopefully that can be rectified in the future.

New pamphlet: Women and Socialism (1986)

Party News from the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Available from Literature Dept, SPGB, 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 7UN. Price (inc. postage) 55p.

Blogger's Note:

The text of this pamphlet is available at the following link.

New pamphlet: The Strike Weapon (1986)

Party News from the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Available from Literature Dept, SPGB, 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 7UN. Price (inc. postage) 45p.

Blogger's Note:

The text of this pamphlet is available at the following link.

What is religion? (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most people think they know what religion is, but nearly everybody has different ideas, even more so than with economic terms like Socialism, Capitalism, etc.

The pamphlet “Socialism and Religion” published by the party in 1911, and reprinted in 1925, and since then out of print, states that the fundamental idea of religion is a belief in the persistence of life after death. It goes on to say “ Originally, and in essence throughout, religion is a belief in the existence of supernatural beings, and the observance of rites and ceremonies in order to avert their anger or gain their good-will. ‘Corpse-worship’ as it has been tersely called, is the protoplasm of religion.” This is more a description of the salient points of religion than a definition.

In the chapter on religion in the pamphlet “Questions of the Day” the following statement on religion occurs at its commencement “Religion is woven like a thread into the texture of human society from early times to the present day. It is based upon man’s ignorance of natural forces and has been propped up by rulers as a means of keeping slaves in subjection.” This again is scarcely a definition, but explains (quite correctly) what religion does.

Marx’s well-known statement that “Religion is the opiate of the people ” (or a more correct translation “opium for the people”) which occurs in his letters to Kugelmann and his essay on Hegel, is scarcely a definition, but rather a statement on an aspect of religion.

Thousands of divines have had a shot at giving a definition of religion, but most of them define religion as “appreciating God’s love to mankind” or “accepting Jesus as our Savour,” etc. All such ideas could never be accepted as a basis of discussion if we wished to examine religion and its influence.

Matthew Arnold defined religion as “Morality touched with emotion.” But Matthew Arnold was himself touched with religion, and therefore somewhat unreliable.

One thing is very certain, and that is that all ideas of religion are bound up with belief in God or gods. God of some kind is essential to religion, and next to a God or gods, something which God does, i.e., performs miracles, gives us or promises after fife, writes or inspires men to write religious literature, and accepts prayers from those he has made or created. Religion, then can be said to consist of five things:—

1. Belief in God or gods.
2. Belief in Miracles.
3. Belief in Life after Death.
4. Belief in the Efficacy of Prayer.
5. Belief in Holy or Inspired Books.

It is true that not all religions have all these five characteristics. Buddhism for instance does not have a personal God or Deity as does the Christian religion and in that sense can be claimed as somewhat Agnostic although not Atheistic. But most religions have these characteristics, while Christianity—that cemetery of dead religions—is endowed with them all.

We do not place these in order of their importance, although everything emanates from the Belief in God or gods.

Horace Jarvis

(To be continued.)