Democracy—Fact or Slogan? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lady Rhondda, daughter of a South Wales coal owner, contributes an article entitled “The People’s Will Must Prevail,” in a recent issue of The Star (August 8th, 1941). The article commences with the following grandiloquently worded paragraph : —

 The intention of democracy is as Abraham Lincoln defined it, but the machine for achieving that intention can be fashioned in many different ways. Our model, for example, is quite unlike the American. Both are based on the ground-plan of universal suffrage and the election of representatives, but the superstructures are vastly different. Nor does either country suppose that its particular machine is yet perfect. Each is being gradually shaped to get better results in respect to the two tests by which every democratic machine must be judged : Does it enable the considered will of the people to prevail ? And does it work ?

The rest of the article is of minor importance. It suggests the necessity of speeding up legislation after the war, criticises the actions of certain “anti-democratic” cliques in influencing Government policy before the war and also criticises the dictatorial attitude of Civil Servants. In fact, a rather poor finish up tp a somewhat flamboyant start.

Let us see if we can develop Lady Rhondda’s introductory paragraph on more rational lines. Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy was “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” but we accept the definition of the Harmsworth (1906) Encyclopaedia, which says: “Democracy means, however, in its last analysis, popular control.” This corresponds to Lady Rhondda’s, query as to whether “it enables the. considered will of the people to prevail.”

Most people, if questioned as to what was meant by democracy, would probably reply—”the system of government as we know it in this country and the U.S.A., whereby means of periodical elections the people select those who shall rule over them for a given period.” In association with this idea it is also frequently stated that people with unpopular ideas in these countries are freely allowed to express them. Yet the same people will frequently state that for expressing certain ideas, certain people “ought to be shot.” This shows the weakness of the belief in the right of a minority to express and publish its opinion. Yet, in actual fact, the ability of minorities to express their opinion is at the very basis of the democratic idea, for how can a legislative body be said to be freely elected if the ability of the electors to consider the pros and cons is fettered by an inability to hear the whole of the arguments for and against? How, in such circumstances, is it possible for there to be even such a thing as the “considered” will of the people?

The next point to be considered is whether democratic capitalism does give minorities the ability to give full expression to their views.

The thing democracy cannot be considered in a vacuum. It can only be considered in relation to the system of society in which it functions, and as we are living in a capitalist era, in which the U.S.A. and Great Britain play two of the leading roles, consideration must of necessity be given to the manner in which it functions in either or both of these states. Our readers will be more familiar with conditions in this country, so let us confine ourselves to the United Kingdom. To what extent is the expression of opinion free and untrammelled? We do not think it is necessary to labour the point. What happens to the man in a provincial factory who is suspected by the local magnate or his toady hireling—the foreman—of holding “advanced” views? In the Metropolis conditions are not quite so bad; but how many workers feel that they can openly express unpopular opinions to their workmates without the fear that some seeker after promotion will run and tell the boss ? Here we get at the core of this question of the freedom of expression of opinion. It is the property basis of existing society which gives the boss the power to place the holder of disliked views into a state of semi-starvation; it is the desire to improve those living conditions which it is in the power of the boss to improve, which causes the tale-bearer to hurry to his boss. Again, if those who hold certain ideas are poorly paid workers, their ability to spread those ideas is seriously handicapped by their lack of means. But for the wealthy no such handicap exists. Newspapers can be bought and sold, and even operated at a loss, if the owning clique have certain ideas which they wish to put over. The whole of British industry is gradually getting into the control of fewer and fewer hands, but, within recent memory, the separate interests pursued separate policies, and so we had the spectacle of the News Chronicle continually hammering away at the necessity of “Free Trade” —really, of course, a campaign in favour of the shipping interests—for these were the people to whom unrestricted trade was an obvious advantage. Of course; it was never expressly stated that “Free Trade” was to benefit the shipping interests—instead we were told that it made food cheaper, prices lower, etc., etc. Not so long ago the wealthy Sir Oswald Mosley was able to lavish large sums on furthering his Fascist ideas. The running of a daily newspaper is an expensive business: only big capitalist concerns can operate the present type of newspaper; but the newspaper is regarded as a necessity by most workers. With the news goes the views, and so workers get their opinions, as well as their news, ready made. Not only this—but the news is frequently distorted or suppressed in order to colour the views. And the news and views, of course, must not be detrimental to the big advertisers—again the property influence. Furthermore, newspapers, being capitalist concerns themselves, are naturally interested in the preservation of capitalism, and so wealthy writers of harmless or amusing articles, such as Lady Rhondda or Lord Castlerosse, can get their articles accepted without much difficulty, whereas any article which endeavoured to show up the deficiencies of the existing form of society AND to point to the only logical alternative, would be extremely unlikely to be accepted. A recent example is the statement of the big business chief, who is now Minister of Food, to the effect that a number of small retailers had become such merely in order to get foodstuffs, etc., for supplying their family and friends. This statement was accorded quite a lot of publicity in the Press. One is inclined to think that a statement by a small retailer that he had been forced out of business owing to the reduction in trade, and that numbers of retailers, in order to make ends meet, had taken up air-raid precautions work, leaving their wives to look after the shop, would not be accorded so much publicity. You have to be a lord to get away with a statement like that.

In their attempts to arouse interest in wider circles, minority movements are to a great extent dependent upon advertisements in the national newspapers. Yet the ownership of a newspaper gives the proprietors the right to refuse such advertisements. Thus, the Daily Telegraph, after inspecting a copy of the Socialist Standard, which we had wished to advertise, declined the advertisement and refused to give any reason for their action.

Prior to and during a war newspapers get hints from so-called “official circles” as to what attitude to take up on certain questions. Why are these “official circles” so influential? The answer is that they are a department of the Government—which, under capitalism, is the executive committee of the ruling class, i.e., the employing or propertied class. The Government also controls the schools and the wireless, and is this able to exert an enormous influence in the moulding of people’s minds.

For those who have property, in order to preserve their rights over that property, it is essential that certain ideas should be put over into the heads of the propertyless—the proletariat. And the interesting thing is that it is this very fact of the possession of property winch makes it so much easier for them to get these ideas put over and accepted.

We think we have said sufficient to show that in a social system based on private property relationships, true democracy is an impossibility.

Under war conditions the power of minority expression is further restricted, not only by the aforesaid property qualifications, but also by special regulations issued under authority of Parliament, enabling not only the stoppage of certain publication but also the destruction of the printing press to be carried out by the authorities under certain conditions.

In Canada, our associated paper, The Western Socialist, which is produced in the U.S.A., has, together with five other papers, been banned. The action puts the last nail in the coffin of the assertion of Canadian ministers that they have entered the war in order to safeguard democracy.

A word or an idea can also be used as a slogan in the leading capitalist countries millions of workers are going more or less willingly to war for various mixed and hazy notions. One of these is that the war is one which is being fought to safeguard democracy. Since the inception of the war thousands of headlines and articles which have appeared in the popular Press have sledge-hammered this idea in their heads. In this sense the idea of democracy is being used as a slogan, and a very effective one that.

For reasons connected with “war-time democracy,” many of the points of this article have not been developed to their logical conclusion. We must let the reader do that for himself. But, at a rate, we think we have made it clear, firstly, that the ability of minorities freely lo express themselves is the essence of democracy, and, secondly, that true democracy cannot possibly flourish under the existing social order.

Ramo.

Notes by the Way: No Politics in the Army (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

No Politics in the Army

Under the heading “Every Soldier Must Learn Why He Fights,” the News Chronicle (August 21st, 1941) reports a scheme of discussions now being arranged for soldiers by the Army authorities.

“Free discussion will be encouraged . . . but politics will not be introduced, and officers must not emphasise their political views.”

After they have solved the problem of explaining war without mentioning politics, they should turn their attention to explaining beer without mentioning alcohol, and explaining air raids without mentioning aeroplanes. It will be just about as profitable.

* * * *

The Poacher Comes into His Own

The following is from the Daily Herald (August 4th, 1941) : —

“The Army needs poachers and ex-poachers.

Gamekeepers and men with experience of poaching have been asked to give in their names to commanding officers.

The poachers need have no fear that their illegal activities will be charged against them. The Army will gladly take them for special duties.

Such men would be able to detect, by means of the movements of birds and animals and through broken twigs and tracks, the presence of concealed troops in woods and undergrowth.

They would be very valuable if there were an invasion.”

This should produce some entertaining back-chat in rural courts after the war, when poachers return to their normal pastimes.

* * * *

Those Who Direct Us

The classical defence of the present system is that, whatever its faults, it brings to the fore in industry and politics the best brains and best characters. Two newspaper editors who ought to know their subject don’t appear to be satisfied with the result.

There are more boneheads in positions of authority in this country at this moment than at any previous period in our history. We are suffering from national ossification of the brain. And unless we make some very swift and drastic changes we shall rue the day.—Mr. John Gorden (Sunday Express, July 20th, 1941.)

There is no doubt in my mind that the present system of selecting directors of these big corporations (banks and railways) is definitely bad.—Mr. O. R. Hobson, City Editor (News Chronicle, June 3rd, 1941.)

Mr. Hobson has to admit that some of the directors are “chosen for their military, political or social powers, and for their business connections rather than their business acumen.”

By the way. Mr. Hobson believes that the Capitalist era has already passed away : —

“Contrary to the belief of many people true Capitalism, the system under which the man who provides the capital runs the business, hardly exists any longer.”

* * * *

Hitler’s Dupes

Much argument has been going on as to whether any distinction should be made between Nazis and Germans, or whether all Germans should be held responsible for the crimes of Hitler. One German, a former County Court Judge, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (July 18th, 1941) made quite a telling point when he asked : —

“Shall they be blamed for trusting the words of a man who succeeded in cheating the informed, educated and scrutinising governments outside the Reich?”

After all, when it is remembered how many influential people in this country described themselves as trusting admirers of Adolf Hitler and his associates, it will be obvious that if all of Hitler’s sometime admirers and dupes are to be liquidated, there will be quite a lot of empty seats in the House of Lords and elsewhere.

* * * *

Sob-Stuff And Its Uses

Speaking in London recently, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree said: —

“Sob-stuff is no good in wages conditions. I have sobbed myself when telling employees I could not afford more wages.”

If this is meant to imply that employers as a whole could not pay higher wages than they do, it is, of course, all eyewash. Employers are primarily concerned with making profit, not with paying away as much as they can afford to their employees.

A recent report of a wine auction—published by the Daily Telegraph (June 10th, 1941)—indicates that quite a lot of people who do not work for wages have been able to sob themselves into a very comfortable taste for expensive wines.

 A wine auction, with attendants grave as priests carrying around sample glasses as gravely tasted, is always an enjoyable mixture of festivity and almost religious ceremonial.

 Yesterday’s was notable for enthusiasm, too. Men in the wine and catering trades had to reckon with spirited bidding from private connoisseurs, including several women and a bearded R.N.V.R. officer.

  “The prices,” said a representative of Christie’s, “delighted us, and I am sure they will delight the sellers.”

  By far the largest stock of champagne came from the cellar of Sir John Buchanan-Jardine. The prices for all the leading brands for a good year like 1921, and for Lord Moyne’s Pol Roger, 1915, were about the same—from 250s. to 260s. a dozen.

  Lot after lot, three dozen in each, were bought at this price by a white-haired man in a raincoat who might have been a rather austere farmer, but actually is a well-known figure in the catering world.

  Despite the popular notion that champagne should not be more than 12 or 15 years old, 260s. was paid for Perrier-Jouet, 1919; and even two dozen and 11 half-bottles of Bollinger, 1903, practically museum pieces, brought 75s. a dozen.

  Anyone with a less fastidious palate could have St. Marceaux, 1919, Brut, slightly ullaged—an ullaged bottle is not as full as it should be—for 135s., or Lemoine, 1911, for 115s.

  Among some distinguished clarets Chateau Latour, ’93, sold for 230s., Haut Brion, of the same year, 240s., and several lots of Cheval Blanc, 1921, 310s. and 320s., after very lively competition. By contrast, some Chateau Lafitte, 1870, ullaged, went for 135s.

  Good sherries averaged 130s. and ports 80s. to 94s., with some special Cockburn. 1900, reaching 180s.

  Cigars sold extraordinarily well, prices ranging from 260s. a hundred for first-class brands to 325s. for A. Allones “Lonsdales.”

* * * *

The Finnish Labour Party and The War

The attitude of the Finnish Labour Party in supporting the war against Russia is an example of the difficulties that are bound to arise when workers’ organisations are involved in international disputes under Capitalism. When the Soviet Government picked a quarrel with Finland in order to destroy the Mannerheim Line and push back the Finnish frontier further away from Leningrad, they were denounced by the British Labour Party, and the latter, along with the British Government, gave help to the Finns. Now the Russians claim (and rightly as far as purely military considerations are concerned) that subsequent events have fully justified their action in removing a potential German threat to Leningrad. But against the purely strategic argument is the fact that in so doing the Russians stirred up bitter enmity towards themselves in the minds of many Finnish workers and thus paved the way for the present situation, which sees the Finnish Labour leaders urging the British Labour Party to support their attitude even though Finland is associated with the German attack on Russia.

Mr. Tanner, who is now in the Finnish Cabinet, representing the Finnish Labour and Trade Union movement, says: —

“Surely Britain is not ignorant of the fact that Finland is fighting for all Democratic principles based on the right of self-determination which the Russian aim is to destroy.” — (Daily Telegraph, July 8th, 1941.)

Now comes another development. The reactionary Field Marshal Mannerheim has announced that in addition to trying to recover the territory lost to Russia, Finland should also take Karelia “to make the frontier easily defendable”—(Manchester Guardian, August 2nd, 1941.)

Once grant the necessity for nations to have rival interests necessitating the existence of armed forces, there is no answer to the argument that frontiers must be rectified in order to make them more easily defendable, and no escaping the fact that there is no limit to such claims, quite apart from the certainty that every movement of a frontier in one direction stiffens the demand in the country affected to have it shifted back again and more also.

* * * *

A Squint-Eyed Parson

The following is taken from the Sunday Express (July 20th, 1941): —

Was This Our Life?

Criticising life in the pre-war years, the Rector of Eynesbury, Hunts, the Rev. J. E. Cowgill, in his parish magazine, says:—”We have taken the Beatitudes in St. Matthew’s fifth chapter and altered them somewhat, thus:—

  Blessed is he who looks after himself, for he shall collect many pennies.

  Blessed is he who wins a pool or a sweep, for he shall have something for nothing.

  Blessed is he who makes a promise, for when he breaks it it costs him naught.

  Blessed is he who oils his tongue, for he can deceive other people.

  Blessed is he who scamps his work, for he shall be looked on as clever.”

The Rev. J. E. Cowgill, though perhaps he does not realise it, is condemning an attitude that is the outcome of Capitalism, for it has always been Capitalist doctrine to praise the accumulation of wealth and to condone the tricky ways in which it is done; not to mention the basic fact that the whole system is based on the exploitation of the workers.

Notice in particular the things that escape the attention of this parson. He has not observed other Capitalist Beatitudes, such as : —

  “Blessed is he whose father was a millionaire and who was thus able to live in luxurious idleness all the days of his life.”

  “Blessed is he who gambled on the Stock Exchange or made a fortune in the last war.”

 “Blessed is he who sold shoddy goods and became universally recognised as a public benefactor through his gifts to charitable institutions.”

 “Blessed is the politician who wins an election for his party by promising to solve the unemployment problem.”

* * * *

Mr. Pollitt Again

Mr. Harry Pollitt, of the Communist Party, who supported, opposed, and now again supports the war, has been telling the workers at a meeting in Manchester that “even now this country was only playing at war. . . . How long, were the Russians to be allowed to fight in isolation? The way effectively to help them was by the opening of a second military front in the West.”—(Manchester- Guardian, August 25th, 1941.)

During the eighteen months or so that Mr. Pollitt opposed the war, he and other Communists (echoing Moscow propaganda) had one simple formula which they applied to every fresh outbreak of fighting. They opposed it on the ground that it was an extension of the area of war, and urged their then policy of opening peace negotiations. Now it is Mr. Pollitt who wants to extend the area of war by invasion of the Continent.

Those who appreciate how closely Communist policy and Communist explanations and apologies adhere to Russian foreign policy, will notice, for possible future reference, Mr. Pollitt’s further statement : —

 “Unless we were prepared to organise something .that would take a great part of the German pressure away from the Eastern Front we would have no right to be surprised at anything that might happen on that front.”

Mr. Pollitt also had a word for the workers in the factories: —

  “They would have to set a personal example, in the way they did their job. There must be no limit to what they produced in the way of munitions of war, and they must produce them in the shortest possible time.”

* * * *

Not Too Old at 60

Men and women workers have, in peace-time, always had to view with apprehension the oncoming of age. Instead of being able to count on easier conditions as they became older, they had to fear losing their jobs to younger workers. Now there is a shortage of labour, and the Press is full of items like the following : —

 The position is becoming serious, and, in my opinion, could be greatly eased if more of the “over-forty” women would volunteer to become shop assistants.

 There are tens of thousands of women between the ages of 40 and 60 who could easily do this kind of work, even without experience.

  But they are not coming forward as we had hoped.”— Mr. J. M. Paynton, Secretary of the Drapers Chamber of Trade (Evening Standard, August 23rd, 1941.)

  “The employable age limit for women in City offices has advanced at least ten years within the past few months. This is due to the increasing shortage of office staff.

   Now, London secretarial employment agencies report that good posts are being given to women up to 45, provided they have had good experience within recent years or have other good qualifications.

  One London agency is proud of having placed a 65-year old woman clerk this week.”—(Evening Standard, August 23, 1941.)

What will be the position when the war is over ? Will employers then be willing to ignore the age of applicants for jobs ? Will they and the Government come forward to make provision for workers who are too old in recognition of their services during the war ?

If there were no other evil result of Capitalism than the callous treatment of workers past their prime, it would stand condemned as a system of society.

It is one of the ironies of Reformism that one of the changes demanded by reformers (the institution of pension schemes for clerical, etc., workers, in order to provide a pension on retirement) has actually had the effect in recent years of making things harder for workers no longer young. It is a condition of many of the pension schemes that staff shall not be eligible to join and make contributions unless they are juveniles, with the result that many firms which previously were willing to recruit staff without special regard to age now refuse to take anyone on the permanent staff unless their age is about 16-18. All that is left for them is temporary work.

* * * *

The Big Trader Calls The Little One “Dishonest”

When the Capitalist system was younger, and the small trader and small manufacturer were typical, it was customary for economists and business men to praise the virtues of the little business man. Now the case is altered, as witness the following from the Sunday Express (July 27th, 1941) : —

 One of the big London stores has, in its annual report, made an extraordinary attack on the small trader.

After a grudging admission that the elimination of the small trader is “certainly regrettable from some stand-points,” the report says:—

  “Many a man and woman who as an independent trader would be dishonest or extortionate or a petty tyrant is a far better citizen in a position in which he is under less severe economic pressure or not free to give way to bad tendencies in his own character.” It states also that the small trader “has tended to become a byword for petty knavery and for cringing deference to his customers.” He is “obviously destined to disappear.”

The Express condemns this and assures us that small traders are still the backbone of a free, independent and efficient State; “they keep alive healthy competition and a spirit of comradeship.”

It would seem that the Express has been missing a lot of things going on around it. If the war is, as the Express says, a war against the day “when big business has killed the little man,” many little men would have to conclude that the war, for them, has already been lost.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Glance Backward — and Forward (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many of our readers who, as young men, full of vigour and enthusiasm for life, fought in the last Great War, will remember the adulations lavished upon them by the many admirers of their heroic exploits. There were organisations to welcome their home-coming and to cheer their departure, and no effort was spared in arranging for their entertainment while at home on leave for convalescence. Well-to-do young ladies were among those who “sacrificed” their leisure to “do their bit for the boys” by feting and hero-worshipping them.

Nothing was too good for them; no praise was too high; and John Smith, the factory hand, and Bill Brown, the clerk, became heroes, endowed with all the virtues of which human beings are capable. It was good to be young and in uniform !

Special sympathy was extended to the “boys in blue,” such sympathy being equalled only by the gifts of cigarettes, comforts and delicacies heaped upon them by people no doubt motivated by generous impulses and genuine sympathy for the sufferings of these men. They were heroes, every one of them. Men of tremendous courage and reckless daring, who had responded to their country’s call in her hour of need, and, as such, they were feted, lauded and praised by a grateful community in a manner befitting a nation’s heroes.

In 1918 the war came to an end. Thousands of men who had been through four years of mud and slime, blood and slaughter, filth and brutality, four years of hell, were demobilised.

All over the country there were scenes of wild enthusiasm and joy. The war was over ! All praise to the heroes who had given their lives and limbs in the defence of the Motherland. Cheering crowds met the mud-stained, war-weary men who returned to resume their interrupted lives in a country bursting with gratitude. Tears were shed and monuments erected for the dead; promises were given to the living, to the men whose noble sacrifice had saved the country. Some of those who returned remained “boys in blue” for many years after the cessation of hostilities, forgotten by those who had been most ardent in their hero-worship. Inevitably so, for an emotion which had amounted almost to hysteria cannot be maintained for many years, it must wane with the passage of time and eventually die.

When the last victory parade was over, the last triumphant flags waved and the cheering died away, men began to settle down to a life which somehow seemed strange to them. They needed jobs, but it seemed there were not enough jobs to go round. They found that women had been absorbed into many industries and many of them continued to do jobs formerly carried out by men who had left them to join the Colours.

With the impetus given to trade by the needs of the war, methods of production had changed, rendering the skill of many workers obsolete. Men who had interrupted their training to “join up” found themselves unfitted for any particular trade.

This was indeed a strange and tragic homecoming. No more were they honoured, feted and admired; no longer were they heroes; they were units in the industrial machine, some to be absorbed in the process of reconstruction, some to be rejected, thrown on to the .reserve supply of labour, to be used when “better times” came along.

Unemployment, anxiety and insecurity were their lot, and even their medals, tangible evidence of the sacrifices they had made, failed to gain for them the jobs they so desperately needed.

They remembered the promises of a “better world,” “homes for heroes,” “equality of sacrifice,” and they looked around and saw that the rich were still rich and the poor, still poor, and they wondered what it meant.

Bitterness and disillusionment was the reaction of some, while others asked the whys and wherefors, and pondered in an effort to seek a solution for their problems.

Some of them came into contact with the S.P.G.B. and discovered, as a result, of their study of Socialism, that war, unemployment and poverty are social evils which arise out of the system of society under which we live.

That in order to abolish these social evils it is necessary to abolish the system which produces them, namely, capitalism, which is, briefly, a system which has as its basis the ownership and control of the means and instruments of production by a tiny minority, i.e., the propertied class, who, by virtue of their ownership have accumulated enormous wealth, privilege and power at the expense of the majority, i.e., the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced. The exploitation of the working class is a necessary condition of capitalism.

The alternative to this system, which gives rise to the anomaly of poverty in the midst of plenty, wars and periodically recurring crises, is Socialism; that is to say, the common ownership of the means of production, by and in the interests of the whole of society.

Production of goods solely for use will replace the wasteful, contradictory and brutal method of production for profit, involving the ruthless exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.

To bring about such a system involves the emancipation of the working class, and this task must be the work of the working class itself. The task of the S.P.G.B. is clear and uncompromising; that is, to continue at all times to propagate the cause for which we are organised (the establishment of Socialism), whatever the difficulties and however powerful the forces of reaction may be.

Let us, then, go forward to the accomplishment of our task, sure in the knowledge of our ultimate triumph, spurred by the memory of fighters of former days; cheered by the response to the Socialist message in all parts of the capitalist world, and steeled by the difficulties and formidableness of the task confronting us. This, comrades, is a battle worth fighting !

Arthur Price

Editorial: The Peace Settlement : Back to 1815 or on to Socialism? (1941)

Editorial from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Times, in a recent editorial, was discussing the kind of settlement that should be made when the war is over. Comparison was made between the Versailles Peace Treaty made after the last war and the settlement made in 1815, when Napoleon’s armies had been disposed of, and the comparison was wholly in favour of 1815 !

 Neither ingenious formulas nor noble aspirations will of themselves suffice. Those who made the Vienna settlement of 1815 were less affected by sentiment and took less account of abstract ideals than the peace-makers of Versailles. But the settlement proved more enduring because it was based on a shrewder estimate of the relative strength of the principal European Powers. No peace settlement can last which is not rooted in the realities of power. Mr. Eden was right, in his speech last Tuesday, to set down as the first of peace requirements the military measures necessary “to prevent a repetition of Germany’s misdeeds.”— (Times, August 1st, 1941.)

Thus does the Capitalist world progress. During and after the last war the keynote of the utterances of most of the leaders of the Liberal and Labour Parties was that the mistakes of 1815 must not be repeated. Instead of a peace based on the balance of force we must have, they said, a peace based on principles and ideals. Now that it is popular in the same quarters to ascribe the present war to the last peace, there is a revulsion of feeling, and back we go to the good old principles of the reactionaries who disposed of the boundaries of Europe 126 years ago. And what will that mean?

One thing the Times does not attempt to hide is that even when the Peace is settled, trouble will still be round the corner.

  “The danger point is likely to occur not at the moment when the settlement is made, but some 15 to 20 years after . . . when a new generation rises to challenge it.”

Indeed, the Times need not have postponed the trouble for so long a period. In accordance with its newfound enthusiasm for 1815, the Times pointed out that after this war.

  “Leadership in Eastern Europe is essential if the disorganisation of the past 20 years is to be avoided … This leadership can fall only to Germany or to Russia.”

This line naturally caused some apprehension in the minds of the Governments of the smaller Powers, notably Turkey and Poland, especially in view of the Times’ further remark that “an enforced disruption of Germany would run athwart the modern trend towards larger and more integrated units, and would be unlikely to endure.”

The rulers of the smaller Powers anxious to preserve independence can see the difficulty of doing so whether Germany or Russia rules the roost in Eastern Europe.

Then, a few weeks later, came a Times report about the growth of a Pan-Slav movement in Russia: —

  “Hence to-day virtually the whole Russian nation— and, indeed, all the Soviet peoples—stand in conscious solidarity behind the Government. They believe that a greater Russia may arise, destined to be the nucleus of the Slav peoples, and to play the same unifying role as Prussia did in Germany.”—(Times, August 25th, 1941.)

What with the existing Empires and new Russian and Chinese Empires in process of formation, or at least being thought about, will the new world be any better than the old? Let there be no mistake about it, there is no formula or principle, new or old, Prussian or Russian, British or American, which will solve the nationality problems of Europe and the rest of the world under Capitalism. Capitalism breeds conflict, and conflict leads on to war even though a Napoleon gives place to a Kaiser or a Hitler.

Think on these things (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Henry Longhurst concludes an article on Douglas Bader (the legless airman) in the Sunday Express (August 17th, 1941), with the following paragraph: —

“I never thought the Germans would get him. I was so convinced that he was destined to be head of Fighter Command in the next war! Maybe he still is (Italics ours.)

The last paragraph in the editorial column of the Evening Standard (August 19th, 1941) commences as follows :—

  “Soviet Russia must never go down. All our own prospects are governed by her endurance.”

On August 21st, 1941, the Evening Standard editorial concluded with the following words : —

  “If the great dam of the Russian armies now holding back the Nazi avalanche should ever fall, a vast darkness and blight would descend on the hopes of all mankind.”

How circumstances change attitudes !

Gilmac.

Socialism Will Forge Ahead (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is obvious to the students of Socialism that the material conditions engendered by the war will have much to do with advancing or retarding the well-being of mankind. The situation in which the various nations will find themselves at the cessation of hostilities cannot now be gauged with any degree of accuracy, and, therefore, it is only within certain limits that we may venture to speak of the future.

In the piping times of peace the forces of mass production are throttled by narrowing markets, and therefore do not produce to their capacity, but when the dogs of war are at their heels the flood-gates are opened and in certain branches of capitalism everything is accelerated.

The discovery and utilisation of more and better means of producing commodities simply means, other things remaining the same, that we shall, at the end of the war, have unemployment on a larger scale than we had before. So long as the system of ownership and control is not changed nothing accrues to the advantage of the working class, and our masters have not the slightest intention of renouncing their class privileges or foregoing their right to exploit those who are dispossessed.

There is, however, one thing that our rulers will be unable to prevent, and that is the enlightenment of their victims as to the cause of their sufferings. The exigencies of the conflict will help to bring into the open, clear of all camouflage, the basic cause of class antagonisms and convey both to the working class and the capitalist class a full understanding of what the situation demands: both sides will then know what to do.

Enrico Ferri, in his book “Socialism and Positive Science,” can be quoted here: —

 “Political life will have no fresh birth except through the development of the Socialist Party, because when the historical figures of the patriots and the personal reasons for differences between the representatives of the various political shades have disappeared from the political arena, the formation of a single individualist party will become necessary. The historical duel will then be fought and the class struggle will then unfold on the political arena all its beneficient influences, not in the paltry sense of of pugilism and outrages, malice and personal violence, but in the grand meaning of social drama. With all my soul I desire that this conflict may be solved for the sake of the progress of civilisation without bloody convulsions; but historical fatality has initiated it, and it is given neither to us nor to others to avoid or retard it.

  “As a result of all we have just said, these ideas of political Socialism, because they are scientific, dispose to personal tolerance at the same time as to theoretical disagreement. That is also a conclusion of scientific psychology in the philosophical domain. Whatever may be our personal sympathies for such or such representative of the radical fraction of the individualist party (as also for every honest and sincere representative, of no matter what scientific, religious or political opinion), we ought to recognise that there is not by the side of Socialism any party organically connected with it. We must be on one side or the other—individualist or socialist. There is no intermediate situation, and I am more and more persuaded that the only useful tactic for the formation of a Socialist Party that will live, is precisely this theoretical independence and the refusal of every ‘alliance’ with the partiti affini, who only constitute for Socialism a ‘false placenta’ for a foetus unlikely to live.”—(Page 148.)

The political truce between the Labour Party and the Government is likely to meet with increasing opposition from the rank and file of the former. Many of the Labour Leaders will be discredited because of the actions they are compelled to do owing to the circumstances in which they find themselves. A Socialist policy is called for, but they cannot deliver the goods.

Read the following from the Daily Express, of June 12th : —

CALL-UP GIRLS SACKED.

From Hilde Marchant.

Hundreds of girls between 20 and 21 who have registered for employment under the new order, have been sacked. Mr. Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour, describes this as “disgusting.”

The Ministry has sent inspectors to try to reinstate the girls, but they have no powers over employers who wish to get rid of them. 

“All we can do is appeal to their decency to keep these girls in jobs until they are needed,” an official said yesterday. 

Girls are already being called up on the first registration, but to spread them out smoothly, the call-up is slow. Each case has to be investigated. In the meantime, some are being sacked as “dead” labour. 

There was one case of a large lingerie factory. Most of the girls were within the registration age. 

They were given notice, for they were still learning their trade. Older women were brought in, but when clothes rationing was announced many of these were sacked. 

These are girls in clerical jobs who have been told they are under notice, and have to teach older women their jobs. The girls are sent on the dole, for it will be some time before they can be called up. 

The Ministry of Labour says it can do little but appeal to the patriotism of employers. Meantime, many hundreds of girls are being thrown on to a floating labour population, with no work to do.”

What I wish to call the attention of the reader to is the fact that Mr. Ernest Bevin is unable to do more than appeal to the patriotism of the exploiters of the working girls.

We will give him credit for the best intentions and say he would reinstate the girls if he could, but he can’t in face of the opposition of employers.

It is interesting to note how those who apparently think they are not of the working class consider the Government should act when some of the wage slaves take advantage of the fact that their services are at present in demand. The Daily Sketch had a letter in the other day which illustrates the point: —

  “Sir,—I see four men have been fined £5 each for gambling in an air-raid shelter when they should have been at work in a factory. All were of military age.

  I also see that Mr. Bevin is creating a flying squad of 100,000 men for the building trade—picked workers, exempt from military service, with a “guaranteed week,” one day’s holiday every six weeks and week-end leave with free rail passes every eight weeks.

  Is it not time this ridiculous squandering of public money was stopped?

  Remark heard in a public-house: “Oh, we go a bit slow during the day, as if we work too hard there would not be so much overtime pay.”

  Can nothing be done to bring the wage of the factory and munition worker more in keeping with that of the man in the Forces? Is it not time that we conscripted labour?

Sybil Tufnell 

Sunninghill.”

The lady evidently, unlike the Government, does not rely upon an appeal to patriotism; her wish is plain: she wants the Government to become dictatorial and conscript labour in order to compel the workers to work more cheaply. If someone asked the Government to conscript all employers and compel them to run their business for a soldier’s pay the request would be looked upon as absurd, but there are many members of the “middle class” who will no doubt agree with the lady and consider her letter worthy of the sincere attention of Mr. Bevin’s department.

While the war is going on the Government is assuming ever-increasing powers over the means of life: the ruling class are pooling their interests and heading for State capitalism.

In order to run State capitalism in their interests the ruling class will be tempted to curtail political democracy, because under State capitalism the intelligent section of the workers will in ever increasing numbers not only perceive more clearly how they are exploited, but also how it is possible to put an end to the exploiting process. We must stand ready to oppose any attempt to restrict present-day political privileges.

It is our duty as Socialists to continue our work of education, time and tide are with us from now on.

The encouragement we are now receiving is the logical outcome of present-day developments. Let us be worthy of the job we are called upon to accomplish and do our utmost to get those who incline a willing ear to understand that the only economic foundation of a peaceful world is Socialism.

Charles Lestor

Synthetic Socialism (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Society’s emancipation from the chaos of war, want-amid-waste and mental stagnation, must await the Socialist education of the working class, for which purpose the Socialist Party of Great Britain exists. Logically expected is the colossal opposition of avowed capitalist propoganda; but what irony, what tragedy, that working-class organisations should set up a further barrier.

Such bodies not only put forward the demonstrably false idea that a revised capitalism could operate in the interests of the workers, but also perpetrate the additional and even greater crime of tagging “Socialism” to such proposals. More : despite the S.P.G.B. example of nearly thirty-eight years of political integrity, these parties manifest such inconsistencies that the worker, confused and disillusioned, loses his progressive urge, and either returns to political apathy or else goes as far as active antagonism to any movement styling itself working-class.

An outstanding instance is that of the Labour Party—non-Socialist, according to the scientific exposition of the S.P.G.B. Further misconceptions, unfortunately common, are that “Socialist” can be applicable to schemes for “public ownership” and to the regime in Soviet Russia. Particularly significant are, such statements as : —

The difference between common ownership and public ownership is metaphysical. The Post Office is an example of common ownership”.—(Mr. John Paton, Labour Party prospective Parliamentary candidate, Welwyn Garden City, February 12th, 1941.) 

“. . . there should be public ownership of the land, banks, and industry, for only then is planning in the public interest possible.”—(Mr. Pat Sloan, “Russia Has a Plan” Series, No. 1, p. 15; his black.) 

“Emergency powers to be used to take over the banks, land, transport, armaments, and other large industries in order to organise our economic life in the interests of the people.”—(People’s Convention Program, point 4.) 

“The one essential thing is that all the various forms of socialist organisation should involve the public ownership of the means of production.”—(Mr. John Strachey, “Why You Should be a Socialist,” p. 65.) 

“The Soviet Union represents planning for human welfare, on a basis of common ownership (p. 39). Socialist Planning—The U.S.S.R. (title, Chapter II)”.—(Mr. G. D. H. Cole, ” Practical Economics,” Penguin Edition.)

To the S.P.G.B. alone can the worker turn for unwavering and scientific political enlightenment. In 1917 we stated that the Russian revolution could not achieve Socialism, and thereafter have consistently indicated and explained the rise in that land of a form of State capitalism, evolutionarily consequent upon feudal backwardness. It should here be noted that rapidly increasing production, industrialisation, widely extended education, improved health services and other public welfares—claimed by pro-Soviet propagandists as evidence of Socialism—are in fact normal features of capitalist growth in many countries.

Regarding nationalisation, or public ownership, its quality is State capitalist, not Socialist; so, axiomatically, its function is not in the interests of the workers. What fundamental working-class problems were solved by, say, the German State institutions from Bismarck to the Nazis ? Turning to Great Britain, is that not equally true of such bodies as the London Passenger Transport Board ? Then, too, the conditions of Government and Municipal employees are basically typical of capitalism.

It is essential to understand that the State, often presented as being identical with society, is, on the contrary, a superstructure thrown up by society and seized upon for the purpose of rulership and exploitation.

With the advent of Socialism it will go the same way as the bow and arrow, the tinderbox, the penny-farthing, the yoyo and other things society decides it has no use for.

“Russia is Socialist!” “Public ownership is Socialist!” Oh, for William Shakespeare to pronounce: “Call any other flower a rose, and it will not smell as sweet.” Or for Donald Duck to squawk “Phooie!”

Richard Tatham

Two and two make—? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I guarantee,” said the Bishop, “to be able to teach geography or history, or even mathematics, in such a way as to leave the impression that there is a God or to teach these subjects in a different way which will leave the impression that there is no God at all.”—(The Bishop of Grimsby, in an address at Market Rasen Parish Church.—Lincolnshire Echo, July 2nd, 1941.)

Hopes and Fears for Democracy (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the present war the word democracy is continually being used by many who have different ideas as to its meaning. We are supposed in this country to have developed a means of democratic expression to a point beyond that reached by the people of other lands, but so long as the means of production are owned by the capitalist class democracy is worked in the interest of the exploiter. Bertrand Russell, in his book “Power,” brings out a point or two in this connection.

  In democratic countries the most important private organisations are economic. Unlike secret societies, they are able to exercise their terrorism without illegality since they do not threaten to kill their enemies but only to starve them. By means of such threats, which do not need to be explicitly uttered, they have frequently defeated even governments, for example, recently in France.

The above is interesting and induces one to recall certain incidents nearer home, but the most striking statement in the book is the author’s contention that exploitation can take place in a country where the means of production are in appearance “commonly” owned if there is not full and free political democracy.

 Under any form of Socialism which is not democratic those who control economic power can, without ‘owning’ anything, have palatial official residences, the use of the best cars, a princely entertainment allowance, holidays at public expense in official holiday resorts, and so on and on. And why should they have any more concern for the ordinary worker than those in control have now? There can be no reason why they should have, unless the ordinary worker has power to deprive them of their positions. . . . To suppose that irresponsible power, just because it is called Socialist or Communist, will be freed miraculously from the bad qualities of all arbitrary power in the past is merely childish nursery psychology.

Of course the author is wrong in calling this a “form of Socialism.” The old Socialist was not far out when he wrote : “There can be no Socialism without democracy and there can be no democracy without Socialism.”

The suppression of democracy in Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain is an attempt to turn the clock back, and we are interested in the matter inasmuch as we are desirous of knowing to what extent the dictatorships are in line with the economic development. In other words, is there to be a curtailment of democratic privileges even in the so-called democratic countries? Capitalism is a system that will last until it is replaced, and those who live by exploiting labour power will not hesitate to use any means they may possess to safeguard their ownership of the means of life.

Who would have thought even five years ago that the French people, after over a century of democracy, would be compelled to submit to decrees of a dictator ?

Things slip back very quickly under certain conditions ; the privileges the working class are supposed to have enjoyed for generations may disappear overnight.

Some three years ago there appeared a book by Aurel Kolnai, “The War against the West,” which clearly depicted the dangers of “National Socialism.” The literature published by German writers was little read here before the present war, but a study of it shows that “National Socialism” is, and prides itself on being, the great counter-revolution against the Western revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

It is, according to Auriel Kolnai, an uprising against the ideas of 1789.

 Against liberalism and the rights of man, against any rational universal order and against the bare attitudes of Christian and Greek civilisation. The doctrines of National Socialism are deeply rooted in German history and expressive of some aspects of the German mind. Nazism is more than Prussianism has ever been, it is more than National Chauvinism. It bears within itself the seeds of pan-German Imperialism as well as a semi-religious pan-Fascist Imperialism. It is therefore not only a menace of war but a fountain head of propaganda. All economic and social issues in Germany have since the rise of Hitler been subordinated to one central thought—the approach of the epoch of the Germans on world history.

With the victory of the counter-revolution over the West, the nation “that will crush the humanitarian life of Europe and hoist the banner of true order,” will necessarily become the undisputed head and leader of Europe and all mankind—so runs the Nazi creed.

He concludes with Masaryk’s words: “Democracy is still in its infancy.” If we had to probe the subject more thoroughly we should in all probability find that the material conditions prevailing in Europe, and in Germany in particular, after the war 1914-1918, were in the main largely responsible for the appearance of Nazism and Fascism, but the ordinary writer does not look at things from a Socialist standpoint and considers that a particular ideology is responsible instead of reasoning the other way round.

The present struggle is spreading to every portion of the planet, and the ruling class of the democratic countries can only hope by arousing the working class of their own countries to be able to wage war whole-heartedly against the dictatorships.

To do this they must offer them something worth striving to attain, something worth the sacrifice, and Capitalism has nothing to offer. The question now arises, will democracy be maintained by the momentum of history by those people that are striving to subdue Hitler? Or will the working class of the democratic countries not only line up and fight Nazism but strive in the process to put an end to Capitalism and bring into being Socialism ?

We confess we do not know. Society springs many surprises upon us. Those who live by selling their labour power often take a course of action (generally a wrong one) which even Socialists do not anticipate. As stated before in these columns, events have taken charge and society is largely at their mercy. We cannot tell what is coming in the immediate future, but we know that Socialism must emerge in the long run. We also know what is our duty, and that is to boldly put forward Socialism as the only possible solution to the world’s problems. The common ownership of the means of life is now an economic necessity, and this, together with production solely for use under a democratic administration eliminates Nazism, war and economic worry.

When Socialism comes then is man free. Under Capitalism “the commodities control the producers.” Man is the creature of the mechanism of his own creation.

The war at bottom and in the last analysis is a blind attempt on the part of society to escape being crushed by the forces which man himself has developed and set in motion. Forces which he does not, and, under Capitalism, cannot control. He must understand the nature of these forces, and by understanding transform them from merciless masters into willing servants.

A knowledge of Socialism enables man to command by knowledge these social forces and change society for the benefit of all.

Charles Lestor

Where Did They Get Their Wealth ? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is an extract from a pamphlet, “The Origin of Great Private Fortunes,” by Gustavus Myers, published by Charles H. Kerr and Co., Chicago. It is summarised from the larger work, “History of the Great American Fortunes,” by the same author.

Many fanciful descriptions have been written of the origin of these great fortunes. Usually these narratives are so much alike, so consistent in their alluring and gorgeous colouring, that the suspicion naturally occurs that well-regulated press agencies are doing their effective work. Always it is skilfully explained how these great magnates amassed their immense fortunes by industry, thrift and ability. It is further glibly explained how they created wealth and were, therefore, signal benefactors of the human race. If, incidentally, some hundreds of millions of dollars adhered to their hands, that was only the just reward of their prodigious labours.

Flowery phrases, of course, explain nothing. It is facts that count, and facts alone; and somehow it is to be invariably noted that facts are lacking in these seductive eulogies. No explanation is ever offered as to how the magnate’s got their first millions. After a man gets a few millions, it is comparatively easy, as the present system goes, to get more. But—and this is the crucial point—how does he contrive to gather in his first millions ? It does not suffice, also, to say airily that on such and such a date he acquired this railroad or that plant. What we want to know is how he obtained the resources with which to do it, and what methods he used. None of the eulogies tell us this.

To indulge in glittering statements is easy, but they leave us no more informed than we were before. They simply inebriate us with words, while all the time we are hungering for the actual facts.

If we stop to reason a moment it becomes evident that the exercise of industry, thrift and ability does not produce fortunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of millions of people work very hard, save money (when they can) and lead temperate and useful lives. But they have no fortune, except bad fortune. Vast numbers literally live from hand to mouth; they begin life in poverty, and after a lifetime of toil, end it in poverty. Others manage to acquire a little competence which is always precariously threatened by being out of work, sickness or business disaster. Obviously, if industry, thrift and ability produced great wealth, America’s working people would all have multi-millionaire fortunes.

This explanation, it is clear, does not hold, and cannot, for a second, stand the test of reason and experience.

Even, however, if one does not give serious thought to the matter, a striking circumstance is of itself sufficient to make him suspicious of the usual run of explanations. If our magnates are so honest and honourable and such pure and lofty patriots and philanthropists, why should they be so sensitive to criticism ? Why should they be so eager to purchase eulogy by contributions to charities and colleges and universities, and by owning or subsidising so many newspapers, periodicals and magazines ?

Where Are We ? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war on Russia is the manifestation of the dire straits in which German capitalism finds itself. It is an admission of the eventual success of the British blockade which has forced the swashbuckling gangsters into an Eastern war for essential resources. Stalin is now allied to the Churchill Government, and no longer do we hear of the need for a “People’s” Government. Of course the time-serving Communist Party and its Left Book Club merchants will rally the masses, because, according to Molotov, the Germans are “treacherous dogs” and it is now a workers’ war. In August, 1939, Molotov signed a pact of “friendship.'” with these “treacherous dogs.” She followed this up by war on Finland and the seizure of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and part of Rumania. All this was done on grounds of military defence, at a time when Germany was busy on the Western Front. Russia became the great “appeaser” by repudiating the Norwegian and Belgian consuls and thus officially recognising the Nazi occupation of those countries, even going so far as to recognise the Fifth Column coup of Rashid Ali in Irak.

Now that the Soviet-Nazi pact is ended, will Russia restore the territory gained by that pact to their former “independence”? Will the Communist Party still demand to know Britain’s “war aims” ? And will they still demand “independence” for India?

How their chickens came home to roost. The feather-brained Communists used to say, “Who supplied Hitler?” and they replied: “Chamberlain.” The same question, “Who has since supplied Hitler?” could now be asked, and the answer is— Russia. Now that the Nazis have become “treacherous dogs,” will the Communist Party assure that Russian bombs will only drop on German capitalists and not on German workers ?

Lew.

Tit-Bits from the Press (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Journalism – Twentieth Century

The dishing up of news in the newspaper world is a complicated one with many facets, but in general it may be said, particularly with regard to articles and news items prepared in this country for home consumption, that they have to be written up in such a way that they will appear to support the policy advocated by the newspaper in which they appear. The quizzical attitude in which journalists have come to look upon their profession is exemplified in the following paragraph from the Newspaper World, of June 28th last: —

 The vindication of King Leopold of the Belgians is a perfect example of the need to walk warily the difficult path of newspaper criticism in war-time. Many writers must be wondering now how long it will be before they must think up nice things to say about Stalin. You never know where you are these days. It is not wise to put out the tongue which should be left in its neat resting place—the cheek.

It was on June 22nd that Germany attacked Russia, and prior to this date it was definitely not the fashion to “write up” the wonderful qualities of the Russian dictator.

R.M.

A Tribute from the I.L.P. (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain is right in its insistence that Socialism will come, not as the result of impersonal economic processes, not in consequence of the manipulation of the masses by astute demagogues, but only when the majority of the workers consciously desire Socialism.”—(New Leader, March 29th, 1941.)

This Month's Quotation: J. F. Bray (1941)

The Front Page quote from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “Look back from our days to the days of our forefathers, and ask if any of the many powerful endeavours to prevent changes ever succeeded ”

J. F. Bray (“Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedies" p. 12)

News From The U.S.A. (1941)

Party News from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

We feel sure that news of the activities of our Companion Parties abroad will prove interesting to our readers.

A recent letter from the Headquarters of the Workers' Socialist Party of the U.S.A. contains information which reveals that their activity and influence are expanding steadily.

In recent months, for instance, W.S.P. speakers have successfully debated with the representatives of Harvard University, Federal Union, Social Justice Guild, America First Committee, and other bodies, all of which are attracting a great deal of the American public's attention just now.

The Boston, Mass., branch reports large attendances at their indoor meetings, and that their outdoor meeting are breaking all records, especially in regard to literature sales and collections. In addition, they state, “audiences are unusually attentive and orderly." Also two Marxian study classes are conducted weekly, and mid-week discussion meetings are another successful feature of this live branch. Reports from New York, etc., also reveal increased activity.

Publicity Drive

Perhaps the most significant news is the W.S.P.’s intense efforts to advance the sales of the Western Socialist, which is the joint organ of the W.S.P. of U.S.A. and the Socialist Party of Canada. Despite a severe setback to its circulation, resulting from Customs restrictions in Canada, the sales and. influence of the Western Socialist continue to grow in the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

“We are constantly making new contacts throughout the country," they inform us, “far more than at any time in our history." Scores of City and University libraries in all parts of the country now display the Western Socialist, and a campaign is in full swing to multiply the number.

Our comrades in America are indeed full of “ pep." Simultaneously with the drive to step up the sales of the Western Socialist, they launched an advertising campaign to increase the circulation of The Socialist Standard in the U.S.A. In connection with this, we have received a two-column clipping, taken from the Boston Daily Globe, which describes vividly for the American public the activities of the (Socialist Party of Great Britain in war-time. Frequent quotations from The Socialist Standard appear in the article, together with details of our recent successful meetings, etc.

This will perhaps convey to our readers something of the interest with which our comrades in America are following our activities in these significant times.

They, like us, are alive to the immense opportunities which post-war conditions are likely to provide for the development and strengthening of the real Socialist International, which at present comprises the Socialist Parties of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and, of course, the W.S.P. of U.S.A.

“The Western Socialist”

A few words about the Western Socialist. It is a worthy counterpart of The Socialist Standard, and has been fittingly described as the “Journal of Scientific Socialism in the Western Hemisphere." No Socialist or student of the working-class movement should be without it. The articles it carries are informative, and, in the light of the role which the American capitalist class is playing, and likely to play in the present world conflict, this searchlight of Socialist knowledge and understanding is invaluable.

To our readers in Great Britain, and our many , subscribers in all parts of the world, particularly those in the U.S.A., we, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, urge you to become readers of the Western Socialist. You will not be disappointed. Below are details of the subscription rates, etc.

How about sending your order, right now ?

H. G. Holt,

Foreign Secretary, 

S.P.G.B.

“Western Socialist."

Subscription Rates.

Great Britain : —

        3 issues (post free) 1/-

6 issues (post free)  2/-

      12 issues (post free) 4/-

Send your order to: —

S.P.G.B., 33, Gloucester Place, London, W.1.

U.S.A., Central and South America, British Dominions and Foreign: —

       18 issues (post free)    1 dollar

       12 issues (post free)    75 cents

         4 issues (post free)    25 cents

(Bundle rates on application.)

Send your order to: —

     Workers’ Socialist Party, 12, Hayward Place, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.

"Two Years." (1941)

Party News from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

September, 1939, to September, 1941: two years of warfare on an unprecedented scale. Death and devastation rained from the sky on countless cities, with appalling consequences for the working class of this and other lands.

Looking back to the early days of this vast and terrible conflict, few of us in the Socialist Party then dared hope that conditions, even for a few months ahead, would permit us to continue propaganda for Socialism. But, here we are, after two years of war, still proclaiming that Socialism is the only way by which the working class can achieve a genuine “New Order” out of the present chaos of Capitalism.

It is true that in this period our meetings are not as numerous or as widespread as they were just prior to the war, but we can record that wherever they are held larger and more appreciative audiences are the result. Further, our literature sales are being effected in every part of the country.

Our difficulties, though, have been many and hard to overcome. The majority of branches were seriously dislocated as a consequence of the air raids. Many of the most active of our comrades were, through force of circumstances, compelled to leave the main centres of Party activity in order to follow their employment in distant parts of Britain.

Our Headquarters were bombed and demolished, causing us much extra work and not a little anxiety about meeting the inevitable expenses of transferring to new premises and the replacement of ruined equipment. 

Despite the long winter of night raids, which are not exactly conducive to study and research, our writers somehow contrived to pen their articles in order that THE STANDARD might go forward each month as a challenge and an inspiration to the working class in the present gigantic upheaval of world Capitalism.

Comrades and friends—you got your STANDARD every month, and you were grateful for it. You proved it by your generous contributions to the Party’s coffers, by your efforts to increase our literature sales, and, not least, by your splendid support of the Party’s great mass meetings in London, Glasgow, etc.

We face another winter, perhaps even more trying than the last; Nevertheless, Socialist propaganda must go on, Socialist literature and THE STANDARD must reach the working class from one end of Britain to the other.

You, comrades and friends, can help to make this possible if you will act NOW.

Give us the money to pay our way. Place your orders with the Literature Department for bundles of current STANDARDS and pamphlets for distribution amongst your friends and workmates. In this way you will help to ensure that the Socialist Party will emerge from this war stronger and better equipped to wage the struggle to establish the International Socialist Commonwealth.

H. G. Holt,

Party Funds Organiser.

Obituary: Eva Torf Judd (1941)

Obituary from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Executive Committee of the Party deeply regret to announce the death of Comrade Eva Torf Judd, who was a victim of a recent air raid.

Comrade Judd had been a member of the Party since 1935 and was well known to the London membership.

Born in London of Lithuanian immigrants, her early childhood, which she remembered vividly, was spent in the dingy Metropolitan borough which bears the pleasant name of Bethnal Green. Later, Comrade Judd emigrated with her parents to the U.S.A., and it was there that her interest in Socialism was developed.

Before the last war; whilst living in Boston, Mass., she took part in the struggle for Trades Union rights for the garment workers of that city. But it was in San Francisco, during the post-war years, that she first played an active part on the political field by lecturing at the Labour College.

Although not agreeing entirely with the I.W.W., Comrade Judd gave lectures on Socialism for that organisation in San Francisco and Seattle. Also she addressed many meetings in other cities in the U.S.A.

Returning to London after a sojourn of nearly 25 years in the U.S.A., our late comrade made contact with the Socialist Party, whose members welcomed her valuable assistance in the work of spreading Socialist knowledge. During her residence in London she addressed many successful outdoor meetings for the Party and was a shrewd and lively contributor at Party Conferences.

From 1938 until the time of her death she was active in the Party's cause in Southampton, in which town she met her tragic end.

About two years ago the MSS. of her autobiography was completed, and, in the opinion of those who have read it, it deserves a niche in the records of working-class literature.

To her husband in Southampton, England, and her daughter Judith in Los Angeles, Calif., the Executive Committee, on behalf of her comrades and many friends in the Socialist Party, express their deepest sympathy. Comrade Judd was another good comrade we are sorry to lose.

H. G. H.