More Blessings of British Imperialism (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the February issue of the Socialist Standard we gave evidence of the plight of the coloured workers in the West Indies. In the April issue we drew attention to the way natives were being suppressed in the British colonies of Cyprus and Kenya.

News of brutal suppression comes now from Sierra Leone. Mr. George Padmore, General Secretary of the International African Service Bureau, tells of the state of affairs in Sierra Leone in a letter to the Manchester Guardian Weekly (June 16th, 1939).

A few extracts from his letter seem to indicate that the freedom so often boasted of in connection with the British Empire is unknown in Sierra Leone. Here are a few points from his letter : —

“During the past months a number of strikes have occurred in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, British colonies in West Africa. In Sierra Leone the workers’ leaders were arrested and kept in prison for one month and eight days without trial, in order to demoralise the strikers and force them back to work. All these efforts at official intimidation have, however, been without success. In order to arrest the development of free trade unionism and to curb political activities of the workers, an attempt to impose upon the natives the most repressive legislation is now being made.”

Laws are about to be passed by the Legislative Council (“a body on which the workers have no representation on account of the property qualifications, which exclude them”). The results of these laws, says Padmore, will be : —

“1. Where natives of Sierra Leone are sentenced to deportation they will be segregated in special areas in concentration camps, and if they or their family are in possession of any kind of means compelled to contribute to their maintenance there.”

“2. Any British subject (Englishman, Scot, Australian, West Indian, etc.) who renders any assistance to native workers and peasants in Sierra Leone in forming trade unions or co-operative societies can be arrested and deported from the colony.”

“3. The Undesirable Literature Ordinance will empower the Governor to prohibit the publication, importation, circulation and reading in the colony of any book, pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or any other kind of literature which in his opinion is undesirable. The possession of such proscribed literature will constitute a criminal offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment.”

“4. The ordinance outlining penalties for incitement to disaffection is aimed at subduing agitation among the armed forces. In Sierra Leone unrest is widespread, not only among the industrial workers, but throughout the Civil Services and armed forces. The new ordinance will prevent any soldier from purchasing and reading of his own will any book even so remotely revolutionary as George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism.’ . . . All persons and premises may be searched upon suspicion of harbouring such literature or being connected with agitation, by force if necessary.”

It will be noticed that the authorities in Sierra Leone, in order to keep their coloured wage-slaves in subjection, are using methods which, we are told, are foreign to “the democratic spirit of Britain,” but peculiar to the Fascist states.

Mr. George Padmore ends his letter by asking those “British people who value their own liberties and respect those of other nationals” to send letters of protest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

We sympathise with the natives of Sierra Leone, but we are afraid that little can be achieved on their behalf by sending letters of protest.

The British are in Sierra Leone to exploit the natives, to make profits for a parasite capitalist class, and make profits they will, even if this means untold suffering for thousands.

If the workers of Britain wish to end the suffering now forced upon natives within the Empire, they will have to end their own sufferings also. They will have to take matters into their own hands. They will have to gain control of the machinery of government with the express purpose of abolishing capitalism, for, as long as capitalism lasts, brutality in many forms will be found. This is only to be expected when to-day there is a class in society which lives on the backs of the workers, which lives by exploiting them. Profits must be produced to enable our exploiters to live in idleness and luxury—that is a law of capitalism. What the consequences are for the millions of toilers is of little importance to the capitalists. As long as the profits are forthcoming, the workers can live in poverty, dwell in slums, be blown to bits in war. If the workers acquiesce in capitalism, they must expect brutalities, every day and everywhere.

Incidentally, what hope one can place in “protests” to help the natives of Sierra Leone can be seen from a letter to the Manchester Guardian Weekly, published in the very same issue as Mr. Padmore’s. It is from “A British Resident” in Cyprus and deals with affairs there. The writer complains that the intervention attempted by the Manchester Guardian on behalf of the natives some months ago has been fruitless. He writes: —

“In December last you called, in a leading article, for action by Parliament. Some questions were asked, which were more or less unsatisfactorily answered; but since then nothing has been done, though things have tended to become more and more repressive, especially in regard to attempts to form trade unions.”

In Cyprus, he says, “newspapers have been suppressed, partially and entirely, or placed under censorship, without the offence being specified, and without the offender being given a chance to argue his case before a responsible tribunal.”

It is clear that the British capitalist class is being hypocritical when it directs the attention of their workers to the brutalities performed in Germany, China and other states.

To those workers who are growing tired of their own exploitation and would like to bring a speedy end to the brutal suppression which capitalism causes everywhere, we extend an invitation. We invite them to join with us in our struggle for Socialism—a system of society which will bring to an end their own exploitation and “will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.”

Clifford Allen.

Since the above was written there comes news of still further strife within this glorious Empire of “ours.” The Evening Standard (June 17th, 1939) reports that: “Renewed strike troubles in Jamaica led to a pitched fight in one of Kingston’s main thoroughfares. The fighting lasted an hour, and I was ended when police fired warning shots over the heads of the crowd.”

And it is this “one big, happy family” (the British Empire) you are asked to lose your life in defending. Remember that, Fellow Worker !

Pseudo-Democracy and Dictatorship (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The lot of the Conscientious Objector is, as usual, no “Bed of Roses.” Witness the bitter facts of the first Birmingham Tribunal. One young wage slave who had the “Downright Impudence” to state his refusal to participate in any of the Government’s ALTERNATIVES was immediately entered for service with the Militia ! What a strange way of Administering Democracy?

All wage slaves are called upon to “Fight for Democracy” in order to preserve their Liberties, yet this self-same “Democracy” forces them into occupations which best serve the interests of the Capitalist “War Machine.” Farewell, Liberties !

Where then is the difference between Dictator­ship and Pseudo-Democracy?

The mistake made by the wage slaves at Birmingham was in Objecting to War only. . . . The REAL Objection should have been AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF SOCIETY which produces Wars and not merely against ONE of the MANY evils of Capitalism.

Russell.

Cases from the Courts (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Re-Written for the Socialist Standard. (The original reports appeared in the “Evening Standard” of July 3rd and 24th.)

Sambo, the curly-haired negro worker, was not drunk. His work consisted of playing the guitar to theatre queues. But he had stolen one bottle of gin and one of whisky. He was sent to prison for a month.

Another gentleman did not steal any whisky. He did not need to, for he was a company director. The evidence added that he was a good-living, religious man. But he had some whisky at the house of a friend, and was later charged with driving while under the influence of drink. He was fined £5 (which he could afford) and was disqualified from driving for a year.

It will be noticed that Sambo’s offence was one against property. Hence the comparatively severe sentence of a month’s imprisonment. No to turn to the other case. Anyone driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drink is a potential manslaughterer. But human lives under capitalism are not valued very highly. Hence our friend the director got away with a nominal payment plus the inability to drive his own car for a twelvemonth. (Of course, there are chauffeurs!)

Under capitalism it is evidently much better to be a company director than to be a queue musician. We hope that Sambo, after his month’s rest cure, will line up for the blood transfusion test.

An old man, 76, entered the court. He was charged with being poor. The technical charge was “wandering and failing to give a satisfactory account of himself.” A policeman had found him sleeping on a bench in a park close to Mayfair. Asked if he had any money, he said, “No.” The policeman invited him to go to the London County Council institution at Charing Cross, but he re­fused to go, saying, “We don’t get enough to eat there.” (What do you say to that, Herbert Morrison?) In court it was disclosed that he lied when he said he had no money on him. Actually, he had twopence and a pair of scissors ! Nothing else. “A week in custody won’t do him any harm,” said the magistrate. So that was the end of Edward—for the time being. Capitalism—and the Law—had got out of their quandary.

This was the case of a man who, despite his poverty, had declined to be regimented into the meshes of the P.A.C., and preferred the compara­tive liberty of the streets, the parks, the pubs., and the police courts. Capitalism, however, is such that a poverty-stricken old man cannot choose the three former to the exclusion of the latter. Notice, inci­dentally, how he was not even allowed to sleep in peace in a public park.

Ramo.

Letter: Problems of Socialist Administration (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent, L. H. Tickner (N.13), referring to our reply to ” D.G.D.” in the February issue of the Socialist Standard, writes : —

“You say that (when the working class has gained political power) ‘changes will be introduced in orderly fashion … in co-operation with their fellows in other lands.’ (L.H.T.’s emphasis.)

“While this is right in theory, it occurs to me that, if this condition is essential, Socialism may be expected in, say, a hundred years’ time, or may be that is just a little pessimistic or optimistic?”

Reply.

Socialism in this country alone is impossible.

It is unthinkable from many points of view, one of which concerns our reader’s question.

It is unthinkable that capitalism will force the workers of England to become Socialists, and not have the same effect on the workers of other coun­tries. When the British worker is ready for Socialism, his fellow in the industrially advanced capitalist countries will also be ready. Workers of all countries are faced by the same problems, the solution to which is the same—Socialism.

Having gained political power in their respec­tive countries, Socialists will together plan the working of the new society. Obviously, it will be in their interests to do this in an efficient, orderly fashion. For instance, it will be necessary for them to ascertain, roughly, what things are required, and in what quantities. Then the necessary steps to fulfil these requirements can be taken. The required number of workers will be able to set to work on their different jobs.

As countries are dependent on one another for different articles, it will be necessary for Socialists of different countries to co-operate.

We are unable to oblige our correspond when he asks us to prophesy the date of the Socialist revolution.

We would, however, remind our reader that, nowadays, movements often grow quickly. For example, the German Nazis within a few years grew from a small divided minority into the largest party in the German State. Similarly, we believe that once the Socialist movement has got a firm footing, it will grow rapidly.

The question asked by our correspondent, and other questions of a similar nature, have been dealt with in the following issues of the Socialist Standard : —

August, 1927. November, 1931. September, 1933. June, 1932. February, 1938. February, 1923.

Clifford Allen

Outdoor Propaganda (September) (1939)

Party News from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Is the S.P.G.B. Afraid to Criticise Trade Unionism? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the April issue of the Socialist Standard, under the above heading, we replied to a letter from Mr. B. Marshall, who described himself as being "on tramp.” We publish a further letter below.

"No address".

Dear Sir,

You state in your reply that increased wages are a direct cut into profits. May be it is true, but the important point is, that a Socialist should not be concerned with winning higher wages, or even defending the present standard of living. Why not allow conditions to become worse, thereby making the workers more dissatisfied with capitalism? Trade unionism tends to divide the workers into sections; for example, some count their wages in pounds, while others count theirs in shillings. What the S.P. should, study is working-class psychology, then you will discover that the majority of workers think with their stomach rather than with their head. I maintain that constant raids on the wage packet would make the workers more receptive to Socialist propaganda.

Yours truly,

B. Marshall.

Reply.

If your theory were correct it would logically follow that the depressed areas would be centres of revolutionary activity, whereas the opposite is the case.

The lowest-paid section are generally the most reactionary: the apathy and indifference of the poverty-stricken to the facts underlying their miserable condition is one of the most appalling factors of the situation.

The insecurity of the worker’s employment, as a result of the means of production being owned by the capitalist class, is the secret of the latter's power and is the source of the mental and moral degradation of the working class.

The wage-slave, with any manhood left in him, feels instinctively the secret power of the chains which keep him in bondage, and he tries to break or weaken them by means of union with his fellows.

When he forces increased wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions from his exploiters he feels he has achieved something.

His struggles cannot suspend the working of economic laws or prevent the downward tendency, but it can counteract the results of the economic process on the psychology of the working class.

In addition, the fight itself develops eventually the desire for ultimate freedom and educates the working man to an understanding of the causes and conditions of the struggle.

And, at the same time, the struggle must be growing more intense.

For the fight only affecting the results of the downward tendency, and being powerless to remove its cause, whatever gains are made cannot be kept unless the fight for them is kept up, and the fight must be intensified as the tendency increases.

Thus is brought about the "growing revolt” of the working class. Boudin deals with this in his “Theoretical System of Karl Marx.”

“At the same time,” says Boudin, "the working class is steadily advancing in economic power and independence, in the sense that it takes possession of more and more responsible positions in the economic life of the nation, diverts to itself, by means of the corporation and otherwise, all the growth of the concentration and centralisation of capital; and particularly with the development of the corporate form of economic activity, the capitalist class abdicates its functions, the proper functions of a ruling class, those of economic management, into the hands of the working class.
 The working class thus not only becomes revolutionary in its ideas, desires and aspirations, but it has the organised power to carry the revolution into effect, and is fully equipped to take hold of all social and economic activities and functions after the revolution and carry them out successfully.”

Charles Lestor

What is the true Position? (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The workers of all capitalist countries are faced with the SAME problems.

A worker, be he British, French, German, Italian or any other, is without the means of existence unless he can sell the only thing he possesses (i.e., his power to labour) to die capitalist class. All workers are alike in this respect. They possess no means and, to live, they must work to produce a profit for a capitalist.

The worker gets a wage which is, on an average, just sufficient to enable him to live and reproduce his kind (i.e., future wage-earners). This again applies equally to workers of all lands and colours. Often he is overworked, ill-clothed, badly housed. He finds it hard to make ends meet, so that at death, after a life of toil, he is just as he was at birth, i.e., without property.

The capitalist, however, is far from being in that position. To whatever race or nation he belongs he owns the machines and instruments which produce the means of life. Furthermore, he insists that whenever the wheels of production turn he gets a handsome profit. “No profit. No production!” that is the watchword of the capitalist. If his workers are of the same race and religion as himself, the rule still holds: if profits are not forthcoming from production he will close the doors of the factory and his' workers are left workless in the street.

The enemy, then, of the worker of any country, is not the worker of another. His enemy is the system of society—capitalism—which keeps him in poverty, overworks him and throws him on the scrap-heap when profits are not being produced.

Sooner or later, the workers will realise this. Capitalism itself will make them realise it, because capitalism can give them no solution to their problems. Then, the workers will be class-conscious, they will realise that all workers of all lands must join together against the common enemy, capitalism. They will scorn the attempts of the capitalists to stir up hatred between workers of different nations. Instead of slaughtering each other in the interests of the capitalist classes, they will unite to establish, in their own interests, a system of society which will bring security to every worker—Socialism.

Clifford Allen

The Only Way (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

"On horror’s head horrors accumulate"; Man’s inhumanity to man, after nineteen centuries of lip-service to a God-given command for “Peace on Earth, and Good will towards Men,” deepens in intensity and widens in scope.

Hitler’s bloody axe, Stalin "purges,” unnameable horrors in Spain, supply raucous harsh accompaniment to “the still sad music of humanity,” which arises from the frustrate ghosts of the past-hope unemployed, the sacrificed mother, and the starved child—butchered to make a capitalist holiday.

It is only too easy in these days for the working class to fall for ill-considered appeals for “action,” to succumb to the promises (not a few made in all sincerity) of “leaders” of "vanguard” organisations; it is quite understandable that uninformed impatience may mistake the calm argument of the Socialist Party of Great Britain for lack of “sympathy,” even for sheer philosophical callousness.

The Labour Party dismisses the S.P.G.B. as "armchair philosophers”—where does the present policy of the Labour Party on the question of war inevitably tend? Its proposed course of “action” leads to war; it has two strings to its bow, “Collective Security” and “Bluff Calling.” 

“Collective Security,” as far as the vague phrase can be interpreted, means alliance with "democratic” and “peace-loving” nations. Only as far back as the ’nineties of last century (older men will recollect) the English Press was severely upbraiding France with anything but "peaceful” intentions towards England when the “Fashoda” incident revealed the fact that France was anxious to have a part in the general carve-up of Africa, which was going on at such a merry rate in the days of Victoria the Good (peace, Mr. Greville, you and your nasty memoirs!); “democratic” is a joke. There is some appreciable content to the word as far as England and elsewhere is concerned, but Russia!!

As to the policy of "calling Hitler’s bluff,” “presenting a firm front," etc., etc., are the leaders of the Labour Party certain that one Dictator will not be prepared under stress of circumstances, to risk everything on one big throw? What a cool-headed Napoleon did is not unlikely with the screaming Berlin neurotic.

And . . .  let it not be forgotten that War means immediate deprivation of modicum of “democratic” rights, virtual Dictatorship, with a liberal supply of Labour toe-rags, who will ably assist the capitalist class in their dirty work, as did the Barnes’ and the Hodges in 1914.

The I.L.P. attitude in the present series of ever-recurring crises is relatively sound. At least, it is not whooping for the fray, it opposes National Service, exposes the futility and cunning of "A.R.P.,” but a glance at any New Leader will reveal the chasm that separates the I.L.P. from the S.P.G.B.—the unbridgeable chasm that yawns between Socialism and Reformism; the cartoon of March 17th (high art in the cartoon line; arresting; austere of line and content), but . . . the title! “The murder of Spain.” Apparently the I.L.P. stands for Nationalism.

Worse remains behind. The issue of March 3rd calls on the working class for “Direct action” to “save Spain,” and makes the astounding statement that, in 1920, action on the part of dockers stopped intervention in Russia—which is not in accordance with the facts. In any case, behind "Direct Action” lurks the danger of blood-baths for workers who are so ill-advised as to mistake big phrases and “slogans” for practical politics.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, in 1939, as in 1914, stands by the policy implicit in its Declaration of Principles. Clause 6 states that “The working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of Government.” It repudiates uncompromisingly the suggestion that our class can be shepherded by an Attlee, a Bevin, a Stalin’s “Fifth Column” into Socialism.

It may appear drab, unattractive to the throaty politicians who think the walls of the capitalist Jericho can fall to the sound of leaders' trumpets and “mass” shouting, but the Party challenges any alternative as a firm basis for final Socialist triumph than the “conscious” political action of the working class. . . . socialist knowledge is the keystone of the future Socialist edifice.

Augustus Snellgrove

Forgings from the Furnace (1939)

Via the Marxists Internet Archive.

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is interesting to read some of the lesser known writings of Marx, interesting because you often come in contact with material that seems new to you. 

Otto Rühle’s work, “Karl Marx,” contains many quotations from “The Holy Family” and the earlier works of the old revolutionist. 

I selected a few of these that appealed to me; perhaps the readers of the Standard may find it worth their while to peruse them. It would be superfluous to comment. 

We will let the old red speak for himself:

Charles Lestor.

   "We shall not dogmatically anticipate the coming world, but shall begin by discovering the new world through criticism of the old one. . . . We are developing the principles of the new world. We do not say to the world 'cease your struggles, which are foolish, for we will give you the true battle-cry.’ We merely show the world for what it is really fighting, and the world must become self-conscious whether it will or no. Our motto must therefore be: Reform of the consciousness, not by dogmas, but by analyses of the mystical consciousness, of the consciousness which is not fully clarified, whether it be religious or political, ' To make the time fully understand its. struggles and its wishes.'

 “The weapon of criticism cannot replace the criticism of weapons. Physical force must be overthrown by physical force; but theory, too, becomes a physical force as soon as it takes possession of the masses. . . .

  “If the proletariat demands the negation of private property, it is only raising to the level of a principle of society that which society has made a principle of the proletariat.

   “Philosophy cannot be realised without the uprising of the proletariat; and the proletariat cannot rise without the realisation of philosophy.

  “Proletariat and wealth are opposites. As such, they form a whole. We are concerned with the definite position which the two assume in the contrast. It does not suffice to describe them as two aspects of one whole.

  “Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain its own existence, and therewith the existence of its opposite, the proletariat. It is the positive side of the contrast, private property satisfied with itself. The proletariat on the other hand, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself, and therewith to abolish private property, the opposite that has determined its own existence, that has made it into a proletariat. It is the negative side of the contrast, its discontent with itself, private property dissolved and dissolving itself. The possessing class and the class of the proletariat represent an identical human self-alienation. But the former class feels itself comfortable and assured in this self-alienation, recognises this alienation as its own power, and possesses in it the semblance of human existence; the latter feels itself annihilated by this alienation, regards in it its own impotence, and perceives in it the reality of an inhuman existence.

  “Beyond question, private property, in its economic movement, advances towards its own dissolution, but only through the development of an independent and unconscious character, which it undergoes without the exercise of its own will, and impelled by the nature of things; only inasmuch as it generates the proletariat as proletariat, creates poverty that is conscious of its own mental and physical poverty, creates dehumanisation that is conscious of itself and therefore abolishes itself. The proletariat fulfils the judgment which private property has brought upon itself by the creation of the proletariat, just as it fulfils the judgment which wage labour has brought upon itself by creating the wealth of others and its own poverty. When the proletariat is victorious, it has not thereby in any way become the absolute aspect of society, for it is only victorious inasmuch as it abolishes itself and its opposite. Then both the proletariat and its conditioning opposite will disappear. . . .

   “We are not concerned, therefore, with what this or that proletarian, or even the proletariat as a whole may regard as an aim. What we are concerned with is, what the proletariat actually is: and what the proletariat will, in accordance with the nature of its own being, be historically compelled to do. Its goal and its historical action are obvious, are irrevocably indicated, in the vital situation of the proletariat, and also in the whole organisation of contemporary bourgeois society. . . .

   “We may distinguish human beings from animals by consciousness, by religion, by anything you please. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their own means of subsistence, a step which is necessitated by their own bodily organisation. Inasmuch as human beings produce their own means of subsistence, they indirectly produce their own material life.

   “The necessaries of life are, above all, food, drink, shelter, clothing and a few others. Hence the first historical act is the production of the means for the satisfaction of these needs, the production of material life itself, and thus one historical fact is a fundamental determinant of all history.

As individuals express their lives, so they are. Thus, what they are coincides with what they produce: and not only with what they produce, but with how they produce. Consequently, what individuals are, depends upon the material conditions of production.

   “Social classification and the State are continually proceeding out of the life process of determinate individuals, not, however, of these individuals as they may appear to themselves or others, but as they really are; that is to say, as they work, as they are engaged in material production, as they are active under determinate material limitations, presuppositions and conditions which are independent of their will.

 “Morality, religion, metaphysics, and ideology in general, with their appropriate forms of consciousness, thus forfeit the semblance of independence.

  “They have no history, no evolution of their own. Human beings developing material production and material intercourse, and thus altering the real world that environs them, alter therewith their own thought and the products of their thought. Consciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness

    “Once reality has been demonstrated, philosophy as an independent discipline loses its existence.

     Not criticism, but revolution, is the motive force of history."

   “For us, Communism is not a condition of affairs which 'ought’ to be established, not an ‘ideal’ toward which reality has to direct itself. When we speak of Communism we mean the actual movement which makes an end of the present state of affairs. The determinants of this movement arise out of the extant presupposition . . .  ”

   “Economic conditions begin by transforming the masses of the population into (manual wage) workers. The regime of Capital has created for this mass a common situation, joint interests. Thus this mass is already a class confronting capital, though not yet aware of its own position as a class. . . . The interests it defends become class interests. Now, a struggle of class against class is a political struggle.

   “The existence of an oppressed class is the vital condition of every society based upon class oppositions. Consequently, the liberation of the oppressed class necessarily involves the creation of a new society. If the oppressed class is to be able to liberate itself, it must have reached a stage at which the already acquired form of production and the extant social institutions can no longer continue to exist side by side. Of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive force is the revolutionary class itself.

   "The organisation of the revolutionary elements as a class presupposes the existence of all the forces of production which can develop within the womb of the old society . . . "

   “Capital is not only what Adam Smith calls it, the command over labour. Fundamentally, it is the command of unpaid labour. All surplus value, whatever the form into which it may subsequently become crystallized—as profit, land-rent, interest, etc.—is substantially the materialisation of unpaid labour time. The secret of the self-expansion of capital finds its explanation in this, that capital has at its disposal a definite quantity of other people's unpaid labour."

Karl Marx

While Rome Burns (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the Evening Standard (August 21st, 1939), in the midst of the international crisis:

 "There was a formidable disregard of crisis scares at Le Touquet over the week-end.
 "The English ruling classes had assembled in hundreds, even thousands, to risk their wealth throughout the night in the Turkish bath atmosphere of the Casino . . . Nobody lost much more than a cool £5,000."

Communists want Conscription (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is an extract from a letter written by Mr. H. F. Gee, District Organiser of the Harrow Young Communist League, published in the Harrow Observer & Gazette (July 7th, 1939): —

  “Our policy, then, is perfectly clear. We stand for a peace front of the democracies against Fascism, the removal of the National Government and the establishment of a Government of the people, which will carry out the obligations of the pact to the letter. Furthermore, given such a real stand against Fascist aggression, we would not only accept universal military service for all, but would mobilise the whole of the youth for the defence of democracy."

Obituary: Death of Comrade E. Wade (1939)

Obituary from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce the death of Comrade E. Wade, who belonged for 14 years to the Tottenham Branch. He died on Saturday 22nd July at the age of 70, worn out after his hard life. In his earlier years in the Party he was a sailor and preached Socialism at every port of call. At home he was one of those who always attended propaganda meetings, and was a willing helper of the Party in every way within his powers. He will be greatly missed by his Socialist Comrades.

This Month's Quotation: Jan Bloch (1939)

The Front Page quote from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

   "There is a possibility of a European War in the future . . . .  What basis is there for the supposition that the next war will definitely settle this or that question, or what is more, settle all quarrels between nations?"

Jan Bloch (1899)

The Mongol or the Hun (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Japanese Ministry of War acts in accordance with a certain policy which, if persisted in, must eventually lead to a clash between East and West; the capitalisms of the two hemispheres are heading for a conflict in which a thousand millions may be embroiled. We are within measurable distance of the time when “Asia for the Asiatics” will become more than a battle-cry; the slaves of the East are shortly to be pitted against the slaves of the West, and millions are likely to perish on both sides, utterly unconscious of the fact that the real issue involved is, which group of exploiters shall have predominance in Asia, the yellow or the white?

The Japanese Ministry of War is a clear-eyed power. This is how they size the situation up—the quotation is obtained from one of their publications which circulate amongst the military clique.

  “From the point of view of the masses which represent the majority of consumers in the entire world, it is desirable that products should be available on the most favourable conditions possible. From this point of view, a country so recently industrialised as Japan enjoys the great advantage of a lower standard of living, whereas countries such as England or the Netherlands are in an unfavourable position. The English and the Dutch favour a small controlling minority in industry and sell their goods at a high price to the coloured population of the colonies: this procedure is contrary to the interests of the masses and to a spirit of fairness. Economic conditions in our Empire, on the other hand, correspond perfectly with the interests of the masses all over the world so that we must, logically become predominant in economic competition. If English and Dutch competition should persist in their methods of unlawful competition, the Empire will eventually be obliged to use armed force so that a spirit of fairness may triumph."

The basis of the quarrel in the Far East is therefore a conflict between two different groups of exploiters; it is as a result of the fierceness of this competition that the dictatorship became more ruthless. In following this development we shall be able to perceive how state capitalism, Fascism and Nazi-ism evolve as a result of the struggle going on amongst the exploiters.

To quote again from the Ministry of War: —

   “We must consider that the commercial drive of England and other countries will be intensified in future. It is easy to predict that the Powers will fling themselves on to the Chinese market in order to offset the difficulties into which the Western world has been plunged. We must therefore reorganise and control the policies governing our foreign trade in the shape of national concentration; private interests must no longer be considered, and at the same time we must decide on counter policies which enable us to meet the crises by finding new markets and recovering our old market in China."

Now we will see what those counter-policies are. Enough has been written to show that the State decided to cease consideration of the interests of private capitalists: it was forced to do so. We will continue and endeavour to show by means of the next quotation how the ideology of a dictatorship is born.

   “It is desirable that the people should abandon their individualistic economic conceptions; instead, they should recognise the importance of a collective economy; they should work towards the creation of an economic system which will rapidly realise the Empire’s ideal. The State should rigidly control the entire national economy."

Here we have an explanation of the appearance of so-called “National Socialism" in not only Japan but Germany, Russia, Italy and, if we look closely, we shall find the same thing developing in the United States, France and even Great Britain.

We have arrived at that stage in capitalist development when the State is compelled to take charge in all advanced countries; the people now exist solely for the benefit of the State.

It is an indication of the fact that capitalism is moving towards its end, much in the same manner as Engels stated it would in his “Landmarks of Scientific Socialism."

What part will Russia play in the scrap that is pending, will she go with the East or with the West? Russia's foreign policy, like that of her rivals, is determined by conditions.

Lenin once stated that he was the logical successor of Peter the Great; Peter personified the spirit of the Russian people, as Lenin did. Bolshevism is simply pan-Slavism with a red shirt on.

“A burning thirst for conquest is as prevalent a passion in Russia as democratic ambition is in the free states of Western Europe. This passion is the unseen spring which, while it retains the Russians in the strictest discipline, unceasingly impels their united forces against all adjoining states.

"The national energy, which is as great as the national territory, rarely wastes itself in disputes about domestic grievances. For all internal evils, how great soever, the Russians hope to find a compensation, and more than a compensation, in the conquest of the world."

The above statement was made by a celebrated writer in, 1902, and it then expressed the current view of Russia's policy. In 1904, Arthur Diósy, Chairman of Council of the Japan Society in London, writing in his book, “The New Far East,” said: ” Russia first, and the rest nowhere?” ”That is the idea implanted in every Russian mind, the wish embedded in every Russian heart, but not in the manner of theoretical Chauvinism, that sentimental patriotism that makes the people of every great nation desire to see their’s placed first amongst the Powers; no, this Russian patriotism is more of the ardent, irresistible, Japanese type; it is more than a national feeling, because it is a religion.”

In 1920 the Bolshevik armies were held up by the Polish troops and smashed at the gates of Warsaw.

Russia has since modernised her industrial system and will soon be ready to resume her march to warm water ports and the open sea.

The foreign policy of a country is the outcome of her geographical position and her material interests: so long as the wages system prevails in the land of the Soviets, Russia will act internationally much on the same lines as she did in the days of Czardom.

Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Poland are well aware of her real intentions; the embrace of the bear that walks like a man is apt to be lasting; the above mentioned nations know by experience the fatal results of contact.

The quibbling going on about the Russian alliance is largely due to a desire on the part of Britain to avoid it, if possible; by Britain I mean the present Government: Stalin is demanding too high a price.

Russia would gain much if her rivals in Europe were engaged in slaughtering one another; she would then be free to act in the Far East.

Russia is playing a strong hand in the Chino- Japanese war.

The Chinese Communists are under the control of Moscow and carry out the instructions of the Soviet Government.

The policy is to eulogise the Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-shek, at every opportunity, but to disintegrate his party, the Kuomingtang.

At every place where they have influence this policy is energetically pursued: the leader is lauded to the skies but the Party to which he belongs is mercilessly attacked with the idea of undermining it. It is thought by the Communists that when Chiang dies, or retires, the Communist Party can replace the Kuomingtang: in this way Russia hopes to control to some extent the future destinies of China.

The foreign policy of Britain is largely determined by one word—India. Japan now threatens India and all observant minds know that the major conflicts of the future will be fought out on the shores of the Pacific.

Should Germany and Italy fight Britain and France, European capitalism would be very much weakened when it was over, whichever side won. Japan or Russia could then launch the East against the West with every hope of success.

The masses of India joined to those of China, armed by Russia, Japan, or others, could then soon make a rag-shop of Europe. This is what the ruling class of Britain, who take a long view, are beginning to perceive; they want to make terms with Italy and Germany, so that when the major clash comes, European capitalism will speak as one. It is essential that those forces amongst the ruling class making for a European coalition should be taken into consideration, otherwise the diplomacy of our masters cannot be understood.

Whatever they do or say, nothing can save their system; the wheel of the capitalist machine now whirls over the whole world, the markets get relatively narrower and the powers of production wider: war cannot avert the economic crisis or enable capitalism to run on an even keel.

The Japanese, Chinese, Hindoo, or Malay wage-slaves have the same troubles as ourselves: they look at life much the same as we do: they endure similar agonies when on the job and suffer in a similar way when unemployed.

They have imbibed the message of Socialism to some extent, but, like the working class of Britain, many are still made to move and act in capitalism’s interest because of the blinkers of nationalism.

It is our duty to do our best to get them to realise that we have no quarrel with them, that their oppressors and ours are of the same class.

The proletariat come into their own when they have the will to be free and the courage to extend the hands of fraternity.

Charles Lestor

Who Divides the Workers? (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a recent debate with the Labour Party, one of the points raised was, that we divide the workers by separate parties. From this the workers are led to assume that the Labour Party unites them. Now, before anything can be divided it must first have been united. When making this charge Labour men conveniently forget to mention on what the workers as a class are united. Socialists know that the working-class has one common interest around which it can be united—its status as a wage-earning propertyless class. In order to unite the workers on their class basis, it is obvious that only one thing can be taught them—the abolition of class ownership, which keeps them a wage-slave class. Thus, a party teaching this is teaching that which will unite the workers as a class. This the Socialist Party does. How about the Labour Party and its teaching? The propaganda of the Labour Party is not one of unity, it is not even united about what reforms it shall advocate. Not only does the Labour Party obscure the class struggle by its reformism, but it advocates contradictory measures at the same time. In order to obtain votes anyhow, the Labour candidates advocate anything and play upon the ignorance and petty prejudices of the workers, and in this way prevent unity of outlook.

Let us consider how it works out.

One of the most heated controversies of recent times was the much-boosted “popular front.” Was the Labour Party united on this? In my own city we had prominent Labour Councillors speaking to working-class audiences both for and against this Moscow manoeuvre, and then asking the workers to vote for them. Some years ago Mr. John Scurr introduced into Parliament the “Catholic Education Bill.” In one of our constituencies (mainly Catholic) the Labour member declined to support the measure and a Labour Councillor then resigned from the Labour Party—as a Catholic. During the election of 1929 the writer was busy in a Northern constituency, and the Labour candidate proudly proclaimed: “I am the only Free Trader ”; at the same time the Labour candidate for a cotton area was advocating a measure of “protection.” Such double-crossing was made possible because of the distance dividing the two regions. Were these two men to speak in the same area, the game would be up. When the Government launched a shipbuilding programme the Labour members on the Clyde and the Tyne fell over each other in their competition to show why the orders should be placed in their shipyards, because each M.P. was considering his own votes. In the war of 1914-18 the Labour Party advocated policies ranging from the stunt Jingo war support of the Tillett-Clynes group to pacifism of the Lansbury end. To-day, on Conscription, National Service and other aspects of Capitalism, you cannot obtain a single pronouncement endorsed by the whole Party. Their speakers get away with it by announcing beforehand that they only express their own views, in spite of the fact that they speak on their Party platform. When attending Labour Party lectures our local comrades never fail to ask: ” Is the Labour Party a Socialist Party?” and we never get the same answer. We then point out the lack of unity in the speakers’ reply, shattering the workers’ belief in the Labour Party’s claim to be out for unity.

This pose of unity by the Labour Party has got to be exposed, and they must be shown up as “dividers” of the working class, not ”uniters.” Unity can only come about when the workers agree on a common aim; before they can do that they must understand their common interest. That party which teaches Socialism is, therefore, the uniter of the workers. The Labour Party does not teach Socialism, but hinders those who do by teaching a multitude of reforms. The answer to the question, then, as to who divides the workers is—the Labour Party.

Lew Jones

Editorial: Birds of a Feather: The Russo-German Bombshell (1939)

Editorial from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

THE London newspapers on Tuesday, August 22nd (except the Communist Daily Worker, which was busy ringing up Moscow) reported with astonishment the announcement from Berlin that Germany and Russia had negotiated a non-aggression pact, and that Herr von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister, was flying at once to Moscow for the formal signature of the Treaty. This announcement, which came immediately after the completion of a trade agreement between the two Governments, was confirmed by the official Russian Tass News Agency in the following terms : —

After the conclusion of the Soviet-German trade and credit agreement there arose the problem of improving political relations between Germany and the U.S.S.R.
An exchange of views on this subject, which took place between the Government of Germany and the U.S.S.R., established that both parties desire to relieve the tension in their political relations, eliminate the war menace, and conclude a non-aggression pact.
Consequently, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Ribbentrop, will arrive in Moscow in a few days for corresponding negotiations. —(Evening Standard, August 22nd, 1939.)

The Pact was duly signed in Moscow on August 23rd, thus realising a possibility suggested in these columns more than once.

That the capitalist Press was, for the most part, genuinely surprised is undoubtedly true — though this betrays some simplicity on their part and remarkably short memories. They had reasoned on the basis that Russia and Germany were fundamentally divided over the issue of Communism and that, consequently, Russia could be counted on to help British capitalism in its difficulties with Germany, Italy and Japan, the three principal members of the Anti-Comintern Pact. The reasoning was superficial in the extreme and overlooked the ease with which Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini had arranged pacts of friendship on earlier occasions, for example, the Russo-Italian "Pact of Friendship, Non-Aggression and Neutrality" of September 2nd, 1933, and the ratification and continuation on May 5th, 1933, of a German-Russian Agreement of earlier date. Though Hitler was then in power and was ferociously crushing Communists in Germany, the Russian Government could put its signature to an agreement which affirmed that the two Governments, by prolonging the Berlin 1926 treaty of neutrality and non-aggression, " intend to continue the existing friendly relations between the Soviet Union and Germany."

The Press should also have remembered Stalin's speech of March 10th, 1939, in which he made it very plain that Russia had no intention of falling a victim to what he declared was British-French policy, the policy of enmeshing Russia in war with Germany and Japan.

Yet when all these facts have been allowed for, it cannot be denied that, for Stalin to choose this moment, when a German army waits on the Polish border, to enter into a new 10-year Pact with Hitler represented a staggering affront to all those people who had believed that the Russian Government was above the disreputable ways of traditional diplomacy and that for that Government opposition to Fascism and aggression was a matter of principle. As Mr. Lloyd George — a supporter of the policy of alliance with Russia, who has been much praised by the Communists — says, the German - Russian Pact "is a stunning blow to Britain's Peace Front " (News Chronicle, August 22nd). It was so regarded by supporters of the "Peace Front" in Britain and other countries and, according to Press accounts, was received with jubilation in official circles in Germany and Italy.

Sordid Pacts Secretly Arrived At

The method by which the Stalin-Hitler Pact was reached merits a little attention, if only to expose the Communist hypocrisy of denouncing "secret diplomacy." Without being so naive as the Evening News (August 22nd), which says that the Pact "appears to have, been arranged without the (British) Foreign Office having the slightest inkling of what was going on," it is unquestionable that Germany and Russia must have been negotiating secretly for some considerable time, simultaneously with public declarations by Russia that all they wanted was the Peace Pact with Britain and France against aggression. The Daily Herald (August 22nd) reports from Berlin that, according to German accounts, the secret negotiations began in June, though the Evening News thinks they probably began even earlier, in April, when the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was denounced by Germany. Here we have an example of the cynical indifference of the Nazi and Bolshevik rulers to the views of the masses, so cynical that they can arrange in secret a Pact which must shock millions of simple-minded Germans and Russians alike. These rulers will, however, live to regret their action, for it will have repercussions as yet undreamt of by them.

Taking a long view, this is the outstandingly important feature of the Russo-German Pact, in spite of the fact that at no distant date both signatories to the Pact, having served their immediate purpose, may seek to explain it away as of no particular significance. The fact remains that Hitler, who built himself up on the slogan of protecting Germany against Bolshevism, and Stalin, who built himself up on the slogan of anti-Fascism, will have exposed themselves to their own sincere followers as being prepared to shake hands with their allegedly implacable foes, and to compromise with what they have denounced as the worst of all evils. From this realisation may flow the progressive demoralisation of both the dictatorships, with resulting revived hopes for democracy and Socialism.

Thieves Falling Out

Behind these negotiations are intrigues involving all of the Great Powers, an all in game of international blackmail. It is easy enough to reconstruct what has been going on, with reasonable confidence of substantial accuracy. The British and French capitalists, with interests in Europe, but with great interests in and on the way to the East, have long been vulnerable to an attack in both quarters at once. How, then, to gain the greatest measure of security? Equally the game of the German and Italian capitalists was to mass as many allies and potential allies as possible to keep the ring for their expansion. Russia's rulers, on the other hand, have feared that both groups might settle at the expense of Russian territory when various small nations had been gobbled up. After Munich, and the disappearance of Czecho-Slovakia, British policy veered towards a Russian alliance (though this still did not prevent private and "unofficial" conversations between the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, Mr. Hudson, and Herr Wohltat, Economic Adviser to General Goering, about possible economic assistance and a loan to Germany, these discussions being suddenly brought to light towards the end of July.) Nevertheless, British capitalist interests in and about China necessitated some action against, or compromise with Japan. Russia not desiring to be isolated, has retaliated with the Russo-German Pact, intended no doubt as a final warning to the British Government of a real Russo-German alliance unless the British Government would line up definitely with Russia and against the German-Japanese group. But in the international scramble every new alignment of forces provokes further jostling for position, so now Japan will have an increased fear of herself being isolated through loss of German backing, and the Japanese capitalists will have to ask themselves whether to crusade under the banner "Asia for the Asiatics," line up still closer in the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany against Russia, or revert to the British alliance, and divide the Chinese market with the British Empire. Germany, having used the Russian Pact to try to bring Japan to heel, may drop it as quickly as it was taken up, in which case Russia, Britain and France may yet be forced into a close alliance. At the moment this still seems the most likely outcome, with, as a minor phase, a further attempt by Britain and France to detach Italy and Spain from the Axis. That the Pact is supposed to endure for 10 years will not disturb either party for 10 minutes if they want to break it.

One feature of the situation which has received less attention than it deserves is the trade agreement which preceded the German-Russian Pact. The Manchester Guardian's Moscow Correspondent (August 22nd) states that the trade agreement, under which Germany advances Russia a trade credit of £16,000,000, was delayed because Russia insisted on being supplied by Germany with "equipment of a strictly military nature" in return for Russian exports to Germany. The Guardian's Berlin correspondent states that, according to German accounts, the agreement arose out of Russia's great need of industrial machinery, which Germany can supply," and out of Germany's need for Russian exports. It may well be that economic difficulties in both countries are forcing the two Governments to revise their policies of recent years and, indeed, one German newspaper states that the Russian Government has recently decided to reorganise its foreign trade and aim at expanding it. (Quoted in Daily Express, August 22nd.)

In the meantime, the rights and wrongs of Danzig and Poland fall into their true perspective as mere counters in the sordid international scramble of the capitalist Powers — not omitting the Bolsheviks. One thing at least should be gained, a growing refusal by the workers to be influenced by the shoddy propaganda alike of "big-business democrats" and Nazi-Bolshevik believers in totalitarian capitalism.

The Apologies of the Communist Party

After their first reaction—one of utter consternation—the British Communist Party Central Committee published a remarkable statement in the Daily Worker (August 23rd). Its claims were so amazing and the evidence on which they were based is so negligible that the statement is no less amazing than if the Communist Party had decided to deny everything and declare the whole affair to be an invention of the capitalist Press. (They might just as well have taken this line for all the effect their apologetics seem to have had on most of their followers.)

During recent weeks the News Chronicle has several times reported statements that the German Government was making approaches to Russia for a Pact. Each time the Daily Worker has ridiculed the suggestion and put it down to pro-Nazi influences in Great Britain. Now, when it transpires that the statements were correct, and the Russian Government had secretly been negotiating such a Pact, the Daily Worker (August 23rd) blares forth in great headlines that the German-Russian talks are a "Victory for Peace and Socialism," a "Blow to Fascist War Plans and the Policy of Chamberlain." In brief, the argument is that Mr. Chamberlain's policy was that "of endeavouring to strengthen Germany to attack the U.S.S.R., and to refuse the Peace Front," and that "the action of the Soviet Union in its present negotiations with Germany has spiked the guns of the pro-Fascist intrigues of Chamberlain and has strengthened the hands of the British people in their fight for the Anglo-Soviet Pact. Now is the time and the hour to develop the mass movement for the immediate signing of the Anglo-Soviet Pact."

The statement further declares that it represents a climb-down and defeat for Hitler, and that the Pact is fully in line with past declarations of Russian foreign policy. To show this the statements made by Stalin in March last are quoted. One in particular will show the hollowness of the Communist Party's defence. Stalin is quoted as having said : —

We stand for the support of nations which are the victims of aggression and are fighting for the independence of their country.

To justify the present attitude Stalin should have added, "We also stand for Pacts of Non-Aggression with the aggressor State (Germany)." He did not do so, but that is what the Communists are now seeking lamely to defend.

If, as the Communist Party say, the Pact means defeat and "capitulation," of Hitler and the Axis Powers, they signally fail to explain why, in their own words, "the Berlin papers spread the news in the largest of type across their front pages. "

Altogether, the whole of the Communist Party's explanation fails to explain away the glaring impossibility of reconciling the action of the Russian Government with the propaganda of the Communist Party.

One true statement—but only half the truth—is this : —

What kind of discussions are proceeding to-day in German factories, shipyards and mines ? What a strengthening of the mass opposition to the Hitler regime the negotiations will present ? What an exposure of Hitler they represent.

For the other half of the truth read "Russia" for German and "Stalin" for Hitler, for it will be just as disconcerting in Russia as in Germany.