Notes by the Way: “Financial Sacrifices from Both Sides” (1932)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Financial Sacrifices from Both Sides”

United Dairies, Ltd., is a very prosperous concern. The Directors’ report for the year 1931-32 stated that “the business of the Company continues to expand.” Net profit rose from £518,000 in 1929-30 to £549,000 in 1930-31, and to £592,000 in 1931-32 ; which is not too bad in these hard times. The rate of dividend on ordinary shares rose from 10 per cent. in 1929-30 to 11 per cent. in 1930-31 and to 12½ per cent. in 1931-32. So much for the shareholders. What about the workers ? During the past year, after considering the matter for several years, the firm decided to extend to the milk distributing stall a six-day week, hitherto confined to the bottling stalls. Doubtless it was, as the Chairman said, of benefit to the “health and happiness” of the workers not to have to work seven days a week. He also stated (Times, October 29th, 1932) that. “the efficiency of the service has been maintained and increased,” but the change-over to a six-day week “involved certain financial sacrifices from both sides.”

Now we are able to see what is meant by “sacrifices on both sides.” The workers make financial sacrifices and get a six-day week, while the shareholders get increased efficiency, plus the “sacrifice” of seeing their dividend raised from 11 per cent. to 12½ per cent.

Death from the Air

Mr. Baldwin, in a speech on war, in the House of Commons on November 10th, reminded us of the way in which we shall be bombed to pieces in any future war. He said: —

“I think it is well, also, for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed, whatever people may tell him. The bomber will always get through. …. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have got to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves….. How have the nations tried to deal with this terror of the air ? I confess that the more I have studied this question the more depressed I have been at the perfectly futile attempts that have been made to deal with this problem. The amount of time that has been wasted at Geneva in discussing questions such as the reductions of the size of aeroplanes, the prohibition of bombardment of the civil population, the prohibition of bombing, has really reduced me lo despair.” (Times, November 11th, 1932.)

In the meantime, attention was drawn by the Daily Express to the fact that British armament manufacturers advertise in German and other newspapers their willingness to supply tanks, bombing ‘planes, etc., to foreign Governments. Mr. T. O. M. Sopwith, the aircraft designer and manufacturer of the Hawker “bomber,” defended this. He said (Daily Express, November 12th, 1932) that aeroplanes of recent design are not allowed to leave the country, but that he sells Hawker bombers both to the Air Ministry and to foreign Governments because “no foreign Government will buy British machines unless they are identical with those sold to the Air Ministry.”

If another war comes, and, in Mr. Baldwin’s words, “European civilisation is wiped out,” it will be cheering to know that the bombers on both sides are of identical make and the product of a home industry !

Lenin and Trade Unionism: A Correction

In the November Socialist Standard, under the heading “Tall Stories from Russia,” the statement was made that Lenin advocated “lying and subterfuge” as a means of gaining control of the trade unions.

Although the words used by Lenin in this connection make it quite clear that he recommended using all kinds of deception, he did not actually use the word “lying.” His words (reproduced in the Australian Communist, (April 22nd, 1921) were:

“It is necessary to be able to withstand all this (i.e., expulsion) and to go the whole length of sacrifice if need be, to resort to strategy and adroitness, illegal proceedings, reticence and subterfuge, to anything in order to penetrate into Trade Unions, remain in them and carry out communist work within them at any cost.”

The utter failure of the Communists to gain tangible results by this policy shows how unsound it is.

The Inequalities of Pay in Russia

Nowadays the Soviet Government and the Communists pretend that their policy of increasing inequality of pay as between one individual and. another according to output at the same work, or according to the grading of the work, is in line with Marxian teaching and is compatible with Socialism. Socialists recognise that these inequalities are features of capitalism and can have no place under Socialism, which involves the abolition of the wages system altogether. It is interesting to recall that Lenin shared our view and did not put forward the arguments now used by the Communists. In “The Soviets at Work,” an address delivered in April, 1918, Lenin admitted that the need to attract specialists at high rate’s of pay was a sign of Russia’s backwardness and was accepted only under necessity. He said:—

“Furthermore, it is clear that such a measure is not merely a halt in a certain part and to a certain degree of the offensive against Capitalism …. but also a step backward by our Socialist Soviet State, which has from the very beginning proclaimed and carried on a policy of reducing high salaries to the standard of wages of the average worker. . . . Of course there is another side to this question. The corrupting influence of high salaries is beyond dispute–both on the Soviets . . . and on the mass of the workers.”

He also said: –

“We were forced now to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed to a very high remuneration for the services of the biggest of the bourgeois specialists. All those who are acquainted with the facts understand this, but not all give sufficient thought to the significance of such a measure on the part of the proletarian state. It is clear that such a measure is a compromise, that it is a deflection from the principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule, which demand the reduction of salaries to the standard of remuneration of the average worker—principles which demand that career-hunting; be fought by deeds not by words.”

(The quotations above are from pages 17, 18 and 19 of the edition published in 1919 by the Socialist Information and Research Bureau, Glasgow.)

Now, when the inequality is rapidly increasing, the Russian rulers pretend that it is a feature of Socialism. Lenin, however, said, “To pay unequal salaries is really a step backward; we will not cheat the people by pretending otherwise.”

Viscount Snowden on the Labour Programme

Rather late in the day, Viscount Snowden tells his former Labour Party associates something which the S.P.G.B. told them (and Snowden) many years ago. In an article in the Sunday Express (October 16th) he wrote as follows of the Labour Party:-—

“It gained its former political strength neither from its Socialist idealism nor its election programme. It was an electoral refuge for a vague discontent.

The old political parties had failed. Here was a new party which made the social condition of the people its claim to popular support.

. . . . . .

Millions of men and women who know nothing about Socialism, and who have never read the Labour programme, vote for Labour candidates because they believe that this is a party which is going to do something—they don’t know what-—to improve their condition.

. . . . . .

I have been in this programme-making business for forty years. I have always realised its futility. Every programme in which I have had a hand I have seen discarded and another put in its place, later to share the fate of its predecessor.”

He finished the article with a very cruel blow, he told the Labour Party, which has always rejected Socialism in favour of “something now,” that it ought, to drop its silly promises to establish the millennium by Acts of Parliament immediately, and find “a practical policy.”

Mr. Cole Scores 30

The following is from the Star (October 18th, 1932) and refers to Mr. G. D. H. Cole:–

“A leading Socialist who has been busily counting up the number of organisations Mr. G. D. H. Cole has had a hand in starting tells me he has checked off thirty !

‘The latest he is connected with is the Socialist League,’ he said ‘and some of us are wondering how long it will hold Mr. Cole’s affection before another body is created’.”

Mr. Cole’s past loves have included the Fabian Society, the I.L.P., the National Guilds League, and, of course, the Labour Party. Recently he shared in the formation of the Society for Socialist Inquiry and Propaganda, which, after only 18 months, has been wound up alter a conference had failed to give a sufficient majority for merging with the Socialist League.

Mr. Cole is an example of the so-called “intellectuals” who have invaded the working-class movement in recent years, much to their own pecuniary benefit and to the detriment of the working-class movement. Surrounded by worshipping students and trade unionists, Mr. Cole reaps the double reward of adulation and large sales for his books, a new one appearing at frequent intervals each time he changes his mind and takes up another unsound theory.

Mr. Cole is a bad judge of political parties. It is interesting to recall what he wrote about the S.P.G.B. and about his own organisation, the National Guilds League, in the “Encyclopaedia Britanmca” (Twelfth Edition, 1922, Vol. XXXI, page 324, and Vol. XXXII, page 507).

Of the S.P.G.B. he wrote: —

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain is a very small and unimportant body of rigid Marxians of the extreme left wing.” (Vol. XXXII., p. 507.)

At that time he was full of the idea of Guild Capitalism (miscalled Guild Socialism), and recorded with gusto the growth of the Guild Movement and the formation of Guilds like the Building Guild.

Within a year or so, the Building Guild was hopelessly bankrupt, and the mushroom crop of Guilds which had sprung up in many other industries had completely disappeared. The National Guilds League, like many other of Mr. Cole’s enthusiasms, is now as dead as the Dodo, and even when it was alive its organ (The Guild Socialist) had a much smaller circulation than the organ of the S.P.G.B.

The Labour Leaders and the “Intellectuals”

Just at the moment, Mr. Cole, in his foreword to the new edition of his “British Working Class Movement,” is telling the trade unions that their policy and methods of organisation should be changed. We agree; but Mr. Cole is one of the least likely persons to have any sound ideas on the subject. Although never constant for long to any idea, he shows no sign of having learned from his past mistakes.

It is popularly believed that the workers gain through having the so-called intellectuals available to advise the Labour Leaders how to lead. What actually happens is rather like this. The trade union official, who is generally far better able to form sound opinions on trade union policy than are the academic Coles and Laskis, observes a stirring among his members in the form of interest in some new or resuscitated theory. Mistrusting his own judgment, he dashes off to seek the guidance of the “intellectuals.” The “intellectuals,” who are equally hesitant about putting forward definite suggestions, lest they should clash with the prevailing sentiment among the workers (and thus spoil their popularity and book sales), promptly set about discovering which way the wind is blowing and how strong it is likely to be. Having made up their minds on this, they then offer their advice, suitably tricked out in university jargon, the advice consisting of whatever theory they believe the workers are beginning to take up. The trade union official and the “intellectual” then feel mutually reinforced and comforted in their beliefs, and jointly offer their new wisdom to their members, the members being under the two-fold illusion that they are being given a lead and that the lead is the outcome of some solid thought by a reliable guide.

A Confusion of Parties

A few years ago the final argument of the Labour Party supporter who could not make headway against the case of the S.P.G.B. was a complaint that our separate existence confused the seeker after Socialist knowledge. “Why could we not all get together inside one big party?” The answer is that it would be fatal and absurd for a Socialist Party to lose its identity inside a conglomeration of reformists like the Labour Party. And it is curious to notice how loath are even the reformist groups to give up their separate existence in the great family party. In addition to the I.L.P. (Maxton), which left the Labour Party over the matter of Standing Orders, and the Communist Party, which wanted to get in the Labour Party but was rejected, there are now the following competing bodies all under the Labour umbrella: The Social Democratic Federation, the Fabian Society, the Socialist League (formerly the affiliationist wing of the I.L.P.), the Society for Socialist Inquiry and Propaganda (now dissolved after a short life), the Scottish Socialist Party (the Scottish wing of the League), the Clarion Fellowship, and the Co-operative Party.

And in face of this medley the reformists still have the impudence to tell us that the way to unite the workers is on reform programmes !

Incidentally, how William Morris, of the old Socialist League, with its fierce opposition to reforms and to Parliamentary action, would snort if he could hear the new Leaguers claiming that they have inherited the spirit of Morris.

Edgar Hardcastle

Dr. Eismann’s Last Word (1934)

From the April 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dr. Eismann, writing in the Beamten-Jahrbuch (Berlin, February), says his last word on the question of Marxism and the Labour Party. (For previous references to Dr. Eismann, see ” S.S.” December, 1933, and February, 1934.)

In his present contribution, Dr. Eismann charges us with having abused him, and misrepresented him. He says that he stands by what he said and will decline to discuss the matter further.

What is and what is not abuse is largely a matter of individual taste, and our readers must judge for themselves whether we have abused Dr. Eismann. We would, however, say this: We hold that the Socialist case is correct and can be proved to be correct. We have nothing to gain by burking discussion and we would therefore not wish Dr. Eismann or any other opponent to think that he cannot get a reasoned reply to his criticisms, free alike from abuse and misrepresentation.

We would therefore assure him that he is at liberty to have reasonable space in our columns to put his case, if he wishes to do so.

On the points at issue we have a few remarks to make in the light of Dr. Eismann’s present statement. If he were arguing nothing more than that there are inside the Labour Party some individuals or scattered groups of people professing to be Marxists, who are trying to influence Labour Party policy in their direction, we would not dream of disputing it. That has always been the case. There have even been such people in the Liberal Party, and there are some in the Nazi movement in Germany. But Dr. Eismann claims more than that. In his present contribution, for example, he repeats the statement that “the agitation of radical groups in the English Labour movement . . . is changing the attitude of the great Labour Party on this point.”

We therefore repeat our statement that the Labour Party is a reformist body from top to bottom, and that it is not changing towards Marxian Socialism. , The "radical groups ” now gaining influence, such as the Socialist League, are not in any respect different from the active and influential so-called “left-wing” groups which preceded them. They are not Marxist in aim, method, or philosophy, even although a few individuals toy with phrases which they believe to be Marxist.

The difference here between us and Dr. Eismann is one of terms, and it is on that ground that we originally criticised him and the leading Nazis. In his latest article he says that Marxism has two expressions—the Social-Democrats and the Communists. And he concludes that the S.P.G.B. belongs to the Communist tendency. The whole of this conception is a mistaken one. The Social- Democrats (like the English Labour Party) represent not Socialism but reformism, and State Capitalism in various forms. The Communists represent the same main body of' reformist ideas, with, however, one outstanding difference. Whereas the Labourites believe in striving for reforms and State control by peaceful and constitutional methods, the Communists fight for the same general objects by methods of violence and minority action.

The S.P.G.B. stands, not for reform and State Capitalism, but for Socialism and nothing else. It is, therefore, equally opposed to both movements.

One thing alone should cause Dr. Eismann to recognise the weakness of his case and the unsoundness of his classification, that is the fact that, during the thirty years of its existence, the S.P.G.B. has never at any time or in any way supported either the Labour Party, the Communists or any other reformist party, nor has it allowed any members to support them. Throughout its history the S.P.G.B. has maintained an attitude of unbroken opposition to both reformist movements. That is one answer to Dr. Eismann’s contention that Marxian Socialism can mix with Labourism and Communism.

Woe to the Victors (1934)

From the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party Conference this year was held in an atmosphere of expectancy and confidence of triumphs to come. Rightly or wrongly, the delegates felt that the rule of the National Government, coming to a close, is not to be renewed, and that the defeats and desertions of 1931 will be forgotten in a sweeping electoral victory not far ahead. Then, with a majority to back up its decisions, a Labour Government will inaugurate a new era in British politics. That is the belief, but Socialists do not share it. Electoral victory maybe—though improbable without a Labour-Liberal alliance of some sort or other—but that victory will be more than perilous; it may well be one of the most disastrous episodes in working-class history, comparable with the post-war “victories” of the Social-Democrats in Germany and Austria, with all their aftermath of violence, despair and savage reaction. Such victory will be not a development towards Socialism, but yet another check to the growth of the Socialist movement. These are hard words. Let us justify them in the light of what was by far the most instructive of the resolutions of the Conference. It was a resolution which the Labour Party's official organ, the Daily Herald, regarded as of such importance as to merit being featured on the front page. It was carried “by the largest majority that has been polled at the present Conference" (Daily Herald, October 5th). What was this question which divided the votes into a stupendous majority of 2,118,000 on the one side and the tiny minority of 149,000 on the other? Surprising as it may appear to those who regard the Labour Party as a party of Socialists, this huge majority came together in order to demonstrate the Labour Party's abhorrence of anything smacking of Socialism. It was, to be explicit, a recommendation of the Executive Committee in favour of “fair compensation" for owners and shareholders whose property is nationalised by a Labour Government, the compensation to be based roughly on the present valuation of the property. The proposal which the majority rejected was one put forward by the Socialist League which would have meant depriving the owners of one-half to two-thirds of their property.

Let us, first of all, make it perfectly clear that the Socialist League’s proposal is not Socialism, and that the League, in our view, is almost as muddled in its views as the I.L.P., from which it sprang, and as the Labour Party, to which it is uneasily affiliated. Socialism does not mean State industries run on capitalist lines, either with or without compensation of the existing owners. Socialism means a system of society in which the means of production are owned by society as a whole, a system in which goods will really be produced for use, not for sale and profit-making, and in which there will be no such thing as an income from the ownership of property, whether as land, buildings, plant, shares or Government bonds. These things are plain enough to Socialists, but at present utterly beyond the comprehension of the great majority of members of the Socialist League and Labour Party.

It follows that Socialists are not at all interested in the issue which divides the Socialist League and the Labour Party, as to whether or not the owners should receive full or only part compensation. There can be no such thing as compensation if Socialism is to replace Capitalism. What the owners now possess is the right to an income from property, the right to live without working, the right to exploit the labour of the working-class. There can be no Socialism unless and until the means of production and distribution are taken from them and made over to society for the use of all. The former owners will then enjoy the fruits of associated labour on an equal footing with all other members of society, neither privileged nor suppressed, but as equals. But there can be no compensation. You cannot abolish exploitation and at the same time give the exploiters something equivalent to their former right of exploitation. A slave-owner, deprived of his slaves, could be given property rights of another kind under capitalism. But abolish capitalist wage-slavery and you end exploitation for all time and for all persons.

These elementary truths of Socialism are, of course, unknown to the delegates at Labour Party Conferences, but in their groping, muddle-headed way the Socialist League members feel that there must be some catch in the Labour Party's bland assurance that there is going to be more of the cake for the workers without decreasing the share of the capitalists—hence their attempt at revolt, which was crushed with such devastating completeness.

It means that the Labour Party has reiterated its belief in “compensation," that is, in capitalism. It will take office if opportunity arises, determined to apply its numerous and complicated schemes for reorganising industry, raising wages, abolishing unemployment, etc., while retaining all the essentials of capitalism. It will retain rent, interest and profit, the wages system, buying and selling, and the struggle for foreign markets, and will leave the capitalist class still possessed of their property rights, their right to exploit the working class.

The result will be another tragic collapse, tragic because many workers will believe it to be a collapse of Socialism, or proof that political methods are useless. Every individual who lends a hand in the establishment of the Labour Party in power is contributing to that collapse, and is helping to ensure a further lease of life for capitalism, with the likelihood that the subsequent Government may be one of iron-handed, panic-stricken repression.

Before concluding, we may usefully devote a little space to the arguments of those who opposed the Socialist League. Mr. Herbert Morrison, an astute Labour politician, put the case cogently from a Labour Party standpoint when he said that to adopt the Socialist League amendment would frighten the electors, and "You would keep yourself out of political power " (Daily Herald, October 5th). Mr. Morrison here, as elsewhere, shows himself a clever exponent of half-truths. He will say, as we do, that there can be no Socialism without political power, and no political power without the support of the electors. He knows, too (but is very careful not to proclaim it at times and in places where it may prove embarrassing to the electoral prospects of the Labour Party), that there is no solution to the poverty problem other than Socialism, that all the highfalutin schemes of his Party will leave the problem unsolved. That is where the Morrisons— those who are interested in political careers—necessarily part company from the Socialist. We face up to the logic of the situation. Mr. Morrison and his Party dare not do so. They dare not proclaim from the public platform that there can be no Socialism without an organised majority of Socialists, with its logical corollary that any acquirement of political power before that organised Socialist majority exists is a snare and delusion to the working class. Mr. Morrison knows, and admits, that a Government cannot go beyond the mandate and understanding of the electorate. He knows that a Labour Government cannot introduce Socialism, which the electorate and the bulk of its own members neither want nor understand. He knows that the reform measures the electorate will permit and endorse are not Socialism, and will not solve the problems facing the working class, who form the overwhelming majority of the electorate. He knows, therefore, that a Labour Government cannot do the one thing which alone can solve the problems it is promising to solve. Only Mr. Morrison and his colleagues can say why they play this double game. Is it vaulting ambition, reckless of consequences? Is it the insane over-confidence of the “leader," persuading himself against his own knowledge and experience, that his god-like gifts will enable him to lead the "mob" to impossible victory ? Is it, after all, merely that underneath the surface-smartness of the successful Labour politician there is a profound stupidity and ignorance about the realities of capitalism and Socialism?

Whatever the answer, the penalty for the working class is appalling to contemplate. Let the leaders and followers alike stop and consider the spectacle of savage Hitlerite capitalism before launching out blindly on the path which led the German Social-Democrats to destruction, and may lead to a similar end in this country.

Edgar Hardcastle

Review (1933)

Pamphlet Review from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"A Countryman Talks About Socialism," a pamphlet of 20 pages by H. B. Pointing and published by the Socialist League, 23, Abingdon Street, S.W.l. Price 2d.

This pamphlet is written in. the form of conversations between a ploughman and three villagers who are Socialists. Through their mouths is traced, for the benefit of the enquiring ploughman, the origin of private property in land and its changing form and developments through its various stages up to the breakdown of the feudal agricultural system and the growth of peasant holdings and capitalist farming. It is explained in a simple and clear way how a propertyless class of wage-earners, whose only means of living is the ability to sell their labour-power for wages, came into existence. There is, however, a vagueness about certain points. For example, on page 10 one character is made to say to the other: “ You've got some of the gild’s functions left in your trade union." What these functions are is left unsaid, and it is possible that readers would interpret such a statement as meaning that there is a common basis for, or connecting link between, the mediaeval craft gild and the modern trade union. It is impossible to accept that view in the light of modern researches.

The gilds, which were associations of masters and apprentices, died before the rise of the capitalist industrial conditions which gave birth to trade unions.

On the same page the same character says: “ The employer, as time went on, invented the idea of the factory." This credits the early capitalists with much more foresight than they possessed. Factory production was not an invention of the capitalists, but a growth which was forced upon them by the changing processes of production. In fact, in certain industries such as weaving, even after factories were fairly widely established in other trades, factory production lagged behind because the weaving process had not evolved beyond the domestic stage of production.

On page 14 capitalism is likened to an aged donkey which, being overladen with goods, might collapse under the strain. Anyhow, it is said, the donkey must die. Here, again, there is no explanation, and the reader could easily interpret from it what the author does not intend. The analogy is weak and rather dangerous.

Except for the points enumerated, the general historical analysis and. the conclusions are sound. Mr. Pointing should remember, however, that to represent the case for Socialism, as stated in his pamphlet as being identical with the policy of the Labour Party, is undoing what good effect such a pamphlet might otherwise have. It is significant that the publishers, the Socialist League, say that: "It must not be taken that all the views expressed by individual authors are necessarily those of the Socialist League."

The Socialist League is affiliated to the Labour Party and has taken the place which was, until recently, occupied by the I.L.P. This pamphlet gets nearer to a correct conception of Socialism than is usual with pamphlets published by the I.L.P., which, despite its eagerness to prove itself to be a real red (shirts and all) revolutionary party, never got beyond the conception that Socialism means State controlled butchers' shops undercutting private traders, as exemplified in their pamphlet; “Socialism at Work in Queensland."

Harry Waite

Editorial: The Evolution of Sir Stafford Cripps, The "Revolutionary" (1944)

Editorial from the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists are not concerned about the career of Sir Stafford Cripps and his success in the world of capitalist politics. There is, however, a value in observing the evolution of his political ideas because he represents a type with which Socialists have long been familiar. Forty years ago, when the S.P.G.B. first laid it down that Socialism could never be brought about except by the conscious act of a Socialist majority, this principle was criticised by all the reformists because it meant, they said, long postponement of the emancipation of the working class. There were quicker ways, we were told, and the Socialist Party year after year has had to show the fallacy of the advocates of short cuts to Socialism, whether they were preaching the general strike, the seizure of power by a minority, or the formation of Labour Governments which would introduce so-called "revolutionary" reforms to speed us on the way. Nothing daunted by a succession of past failures, there are always new men coming along to preach the same doctrine. Always, as they make their spectacular way, their career takes the same general course. First they denounce the slowness of the S.P.G.B. and demand action to get "Socialism now"; then they climb to high office in the Labour movement or the capitalist State, only to find that they cannot deliver the goods: then they fall back into the ranks of those who accept capitalism and merely advocate the petty reforms that have always been the stock-in-trade of the capitalist parties. Ten years ago Cripps was in full and furious fight. He was in a hurry. Everyone else was holding back the Socialist triumph. He attacked them all and gained the reputation of being the hundred per cent. revolutionary. He declared he wanted Socialism now and nothing but Socialism. He had no time for compromise and compromisers, and no time for the S.P.G.B. view that the laborious task had first to be carried out of making Socialists. Attacking the Labour Party, he declared in his pamphlet “The Choice for Britain," “ We must . . . firmly and definitely abandon any idea of working in association with any other political group or party that denies the absolute necessity of Socialism." In particular, he rejected as dangerous the idea that some temporary alliance of pro-democratic forces should be brought about not based on the achievement of Socialism."

From then till now is not a very long period, but long enough for Sir Stafford to have abandoned most of his ideas. As a member of a Coalition Government facing the problem of post-war reconstruction he now quite frankly accepts the fact that capitalism will continue after the war, and that reconstruction will be strictly within the limits imposed by capitalism. In a speech at Belfast (reported in the Times, August 19, ), 1944), he forecast a fall in the standard of living after the war “unless we could get back all our pre-war export trade and add something like another 50 per cent. pretty quickly . . . " This, though he may have forgotten the fact, has been in the line of Conservative and Liberal propaganda for upwards of a century, as also was his further plea for increased efficiency. Finally, he let the cat out of the bag entirely when he admitted that it is to be the same old capitalism—"we shall embark upon the solution of our post-war difficulties largely under the aegis of private enterprise in this country, and that system will have to justify its own continuance by showing that it has the enterprise to meet the new circumstances and to overcome them."

This last pronouncement about capitalism justifying its continued existence comes strangely from one who ten years ago was proclaiming from the housetop that capitalism had long proved its own failure and unfitness to survive. In the same speech Sir Stafford thought that this country might fail to handle post-war problems satisfactorily “because of our innate conservatism.” "What was good enough for my father is good enough for me" is, he said, a “fatal slogan for industry."

The only serious conservatism from which the workers suffer is their habit of clinging to capitalism when Socialism is within their reach if they would have it, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who is now saying in effect, “Capitalism which was good enough for my father is good enough for me," is aiding the capitalist class to keep the workers conservative.

In the post-war years there will be many more self styled saviours of the working class seeking votes and support, shouting urgently for speedy action while they are climbing and then, when they have arrived, imploring the workers to go slow and be content with capitalism. These men are the successors of a long line stretching back to the earliest days of the reformist movement. No matter what their good intentions may be, they will not and cannot do anything for the emancipation of the working class.

The Socialist Party versus The Labour Party (1937)

From the March 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the so-called Socialist League was recently expelled from the Labour Party it was stated in certain sections of the capitalist Press that the expulsion was effected by the “National Executive of the Socialist Party." But we of the Socialist Party emphatically deny that statement.

Sir Stafford Cripps and his “Socialist League" have never been part of the Socialist movement in this country and, therefore, could not have been expelled by our Executive.

It was from the Labour Party that these people were expelled, and that organisation is no more Socialist than the old Radical-Liberal Party, whose political position the Labour Party inherited, extended and has largely practised throughout its history. In point of actual fact it is only within recent years that the Labour Party has taken to use the name of Socialism. For many years it openly repudiated any allegiance to Socialist principles. As recently as 1934 the National Executive of the Labour Party, in its report to the Annual Conference at Southport, said: —

It considers no useful purpose would be served in changing the name of the party to “The Socialist Party,” because an enormous amount of goodwill and propaganda had been built up round “The Labour Party,” and it has become honourably known to the electorate at large.

That statement is symptomatic of many things. If it were in reality a Socialist Party, why does it shirk the title? We suggest that those who really run the Labour Party know well enough that its past political history has been so much enmeshed in capitalist politics, upon which it has gained much of its support, that it has thus become “honourably known" as a party aiming at no fundamental change of the present form of society. As Socialists, we prefer that the Labour Party should not only refuse the title of Socialist but likewise should drop its false claim to be striving for Socialism. The rise of the Labour Party has been largely conditioned by its exploitation of the political and economic ignorance of the workers, as this in turn has expressed itself in the workers finding nothing fundamentally wrong in the capitalist form of society. Let us take a glance at the position. The condition of the working class, despite its traditional persuasion to the contrary, is that of a slave class. Its dependence under existing conditions upon the permission of the capitalist class for its livelihood is a fact. Class economic dependence means class subjection, no matter how much freedom may be apparent on the surface of the lives of those enslaved. It is a law of history that a class subjected must, if it is to win its emancipation, gain power, political power, from those who hold it in subjection, so as to build up a set of social conditions in harmony with its own interest. In other words, a dominant class simply does not run human society to suit the interests of those whom it dominates; to attempt to do so would result in its social suicide. But a ruling class does, because of its desire to retain its supremacy, placate its subject class with measures of “social amelioration." And this is one of the most potent forces for obscuring the basic cause of the class division. What is ambiguously styled as "the inertia of the human mind," when taken to mean the slowness of the human mind to move along lines of social change, is also one of the contributory causes of the persistence of class society. But how does the Labour Party, an organisation which claims to represent the interests of a slave class, respond to the facts of the situation? As indicated above, it finds, in the first place, a working class ready to “kick against the pricks” of class oppression. But instead of insisting upon a basic understanding of the root causes of class subjection and exploitation it proceeds upon the principle of dealing with the effects of the system instead of with its causes. Hence, instead of the workers being trained to think along lines of the abolition of the private property institution they centre their minds upon unemployment, low wages, high rents, war, bad housing, relief schemes, etc., all of which, no matter how they might be dealt with by the capitalist class, leave the source of working-class evils intact. Thus a valuable opportunity of exposing the foundations of the class division is lost and a consequent perpetuation of a “capitalist mentality" among the workers is maintained. The failure of the Labour Party to stress the class struggle feature of real working-class interest marks it off as an organisation unsuitable to the emancipation of the working class, and one which can only end in class collaboration and compromise. There is nothing like ignoring an elementary and basic principle as a means of distorting the real issues of the social problem—or any other problem for that matter. Thus does the Labour Party give us the key to its “mind" in the following pronouncement. Speaking of its appeal for support from all and sundry, the National Executive of the Labour Party has declared : —

Its call is to all men and women of goodwill and understanding to rally to its ranks as the one sure way of converting class antagonism into true community of spirit.—(Italics ours.)

This is after saying that "Labour's creed is based" not on any “narrow class appeal." Goodwill and understanding! Community of spirit! As though the problem were on a par with the mission of the Charity Organisation Society. The goodwill of the capitalists will never dissuade them from being capitalists however much they may be inclined to soften the effects of their exploitation of the workers. Whilst the "community of spirit" is something with which nearly all capitalists will agree and is, in fact, what they have always hankered after. It seems that it is entirely beyond the vision of the Labour Party to appreciate the science of class distinctions at all. Hence their entire outlook is vitiated by the illusion that they can build within the framework of capitalist society a state of affairs favourable to the workers. But the thing cannot be done. And we suggest that many a Labour leader knows this to be a fact, but other “reasons" compel them to “think" otherwise. For various reasons, personal and otherwise, they shirk not only the facts of the present situation but also the lessons of history. Yet, tragically enough, they are permitted to persist in this through the immature class understanding of those upon whose backs they have advanced to "social prominence."

Were it otherwise we would not have experienced the latest utterance of one of their leading lights, Mr. Ernest Bevin. Speaking at a luncheon (how these Labour blokes do like their luncheons) of the Foreign Press Association, Mr. Bevin said: “If there is a resort to war for dominance do not take the Labour movement too cheaply; we would defend our country. Labour wanted a planned world, but if that meant breaking up the British Commonwealth in a mad scramble of war amongst the nations they would oppose it. If, however, it meant a world movement with all the nations co-operating they would support it. As a means towards world stability raw materials should be socialised all over the world. They should be placed under public ownership and control and obtainable by all by purchase instead of conquest." (News Chronicle, February 5th, 1937.)

The vagaries and confusion of this statement would be hard to beat, apart from the fact that Mr. Bevin did not disclose his authority for partly pledging the Labour movement in the event of a war. But we take it that Mr. Bevin knows the supporters of the “Labour movement." Anyhow, what does the British Commonwealth mean to the working class except as a name to be worshipped? It doesn't belong to the workers but to the capitalists, whose sole interest in it is one of profit. We contend that if Mr. Bevin and his associates are so much concerned with the British Commonwealth (that word “Commonwealth" does make us laugh) then they should be compelled to face the guns of those who want to steal it. But we fancy that Labour leaders would be far removed from the danger zone. They are more likely to be found in the Government, as they were in the late European War. And what does Mr. Bevin mean by the raw materials being socialised, to be obtained by purchase? Does he know what he is talking about? Buying and selling is impossible under socialisation, for both imply the exchange of things which are privately owned. We can only presume that Mr. Bevin has in mind the State-ownership of things, each State buying and selling from the other. But that is totally different from socialisation, and is in reality nothing more than State capitalism. The workers employed in any State concern, such as the British Post Office, will fail to see the advantages of the so-called socialisation except to the capitalists. It is this theory which the Labour Party has spuriously called Socialism and which we have exposed time and again. Even supporters of capitalism have exposed the shallowness of the Labour Party’s "socialisation'’ and "public utility corporation" schemes. When the London Passenger Transport Act, which was introduced by a Labour Government, was passing through its final stages under the control of a Conservative Government, the Times (reputable organ of British capitalism) had to say of this so-called "Socialist" Act:—

The principal objections which have been raised may be grouped under three main heads—namely, that the Bill is a “Socialist” measure; that it creates a dangerous monopoly; and that it will raise the cost of transport. None of these criticisms will really bear very prolonged examination. It is true that the Bill in its original form was produced by a Socialist Government, and that the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Morrison, nearly succeeded in damning it for ever by claiming it as a triumph of Socialism. But where in fact does the Socialism come in? In what point of principle will the new transport undertaking differ from the Central Electricity Board or from Imperial Communications Company, both of which were created by a Conservative Government? Like them, indeed, it is a statutory monopoly, and therefore subject to a certain degree of public control; but it is privately, not publicly, owned.—(Italics ours.)

Thus, Lord Ashfield and his class can well enjoy the "public utility corporationism” of the Labour Party and well may they sigh with the Victorian statesmen who declared "we are all Socialists now." The workers have got to learn the distinction between the Labour Party and the Socialist Party if they are to be rid of the evils which afflict them. They have first to learn that they are the producers of the world's wealth and that this is in no way due to the so-called superior intelligence of their masters. Next that their position of poverty and insecurity of existence is due to capitalist control of the means of life. That this class can only be removed from power by the workers themselves gaining power and changing the system completely. This is no purely national affair but an international one comprising practically the whole world. Upon their own efforts must the workers rely for their emancipation from wage slavery. For "trust" in the Labour leader is but a substitute for trust in the capitalists, their Press and their priests. The Socialist Party urges the workers to think below the surface of things and they will find that many of the ideas they have are but based upon the mere appearance of conditions instead of upon their underlying causes. If they will do that they will see the barren nonsense of the Bevins, who talk of defending "our country" and preserving the "British .Commonwealth." The world can be theirs if they will it. Not the Labour Party but the Socialist Party points the way.

Robert Reynolds

Snapshots. (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "Sentimental" Claironette 

For several years “before the War” there was a paper called the Clarion. There still is. There is a contrast, however, in its present tone, which expresses the degeneracy of the Labour movement, with which it is associated.

The old Clarion sent forth a shrill and challenging blast. Its economics were decidedly “wonky” and its excursions into philosophy were somewhat crude, but compare “Britain for the British,” or “God and my Neighbour,” with the near-deathbed confessions of J. C. Lansbury, commencing in its issue of April 14th. “The foundation of all true reform or revolutionary change must start with this ‘that ye love one another,’” says old George; and, confronted with the question, “How am I to do it, placed as I am in the midst of a world of strife?” continues: “This is our problem, and it can only really be solved by us all individually.”

“Ker-ist!” and one is asked to pay twopence a week to listen to the apologetic squeak of this tin-trumpet! “Odham’s—bodikins!’’

The “Intellectual” Conspirators.

A document has fallen into our hands contrary to the wishes of its authors. It is labelled “Forward to Socialism” and is issued by the National Council of the Socialist League for discussion at that body’s forthcoming Annual Conference (May 20th and 21st), and at the foot of the title-page occurs this tit-bit: —

“Members and branches are requested by the National Council of the League to take the greatest care to secure that the contents of this document are not divulged in whole or in part to other than League members.”

Needless to say, the proverbial wild horses shall not drag from the writer the secret of how he came into possession of this precious document with its solemnly futile attempt at secrecy. Let us glance at its pages. About halfway through we encountered the phrase, “We must have Socialism!” in capital letters, repeated seven times. It is, of course, common knowledge that seven is a number of mystic potency, but this hardly explains the jargon which occurs after each repetition of the phrase. One of the alleged reasons for having Socialism is ”that society as a whole shall be responsible for the health, well-being and education of its people.” Does not capitalist society pull down slums and build banks and departmental stores? Does it not provide us with a water supply and drains, hospitals and convalescent homes, and free education for all? And are not these things done in order to facilitate the working of a system for the production of profit?

This little spasm ends with a reference to "all those financial institutions necessary for the maintenance of a highly-organised industrial life.” This reads somewhat like an auctioneer’s advertisement, but we are left guessing what necessary function financial institutions will fulfil under Socialism.

On the same page, our dear old friend, the House of Lords, is severely dealt with, and we are assured, in italics, that “the will of the people must prevail.” Shades of 1910! Play me those "Limehouse Blues”!

These Socialist Leaguers are hot-stuff. The final agenda (which descended from heaven along with the document) contains a resolution on Policy in the name of three branches, one clause of which (15) demands "Compensation of the existing owners of socialised industries or compulsorily closed units by the issue of State fixed-interest bearing bonds, based on the assessed capital value of their holdings.” There are several amendments to this, all of which safeguard the interests of "the present holders.”

All of which goes to show what practical people these chaps are. No foolish upsetting of the existing capitalists and their dependents for them.

Eric Boden