Between the Lines: The Day War Broke Out (1991)

The Between the Lines column from the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Day War Broke Out

This was the most planned for war in history. The cameras were waiting in the desert, eager for the first fireworks display. CNN reporters locked themselves in their hotel room and described the bombing of Baghdad as it started, even poking their microphone out the window so that the viewers could hear the big bangs. This was televised warfare — murder by media.

When the bombing started (16 January) the TV reporters affected an air of surprise, as if the whole shooting match was out of the blue. Had they not spent five months previous to this telling the workers that such mass slaughter was inevitable and then that it would begin on the first night after 15 January?

The second night of the war saw the first Iraqi attack on Israel. CNN reported that it was a chemical missile attack. This misinformation was reported for over three hours. The CNN reporter in Jerusalem, asked to describe the attack, recalled hearing a huge explosion close to his office. It later turned out that there was no missile attack on Jerusalem.

The ITN reporter, trapped in his sealed room in Tel Aviv and reporting that there had been a chemical missile attack, was asked what Israeli TV was saying. He replied that he could not tell us because the TV messages were in Hebrew — the language of Israel. What qualifications do you need to be an ITV reporter? An Israeli journalist on the BBC was asked to tell the viewers how scared he felt. He replied that he was in his flat with his family whom he rarely managed to be with and that they were watching Monty Python on TV. Were they the only ones, we asked ourselves.

Agreement Time

We all know that there is little difference between capitalist politicians. In time of war the little turns into nothing.

On Question Time (BBC1, 10.10pm, 17 January) the two panels of politicians did nothing but tell each other how much they were on the same side. Hattersley, Labour’s deputy leader, praised Major for his war leadership; Clarke, the Tory Minister, said how pleasing it was to see all parties united in Britain's hour of need; Kaufman, Labour's Foreign Affairs man, was so eager to support the war that he sounded more like Thatcher than Major does; Ashdown, the Liberal leader, let it ^be known that he was the only party leader to have served in Kuwait as a'' marine. One woman in the audience heckled, saying that they were all boring politicians saying the same thing. The audience had a jolly good laugh — all good clean English fun.

Three days later the BBC issued an edict to all disc jockeys: no pro-peace records could be played while the war is on. Lennon’s Give Peace A Chance is now banned in British broadcasting. Playful heckling of capitalist politicians who have the whole of Question Time in which to spew out their vicious pro-war filth is permissible, but lyrics which might just change workers’ minds - No fear.

The Con that kills

Remember those cosy TV ads about joining the army and seeing the world? Didn’t they make you want to rush to the recruiting office and learn to be a chef? Those T.A. recruitment ads used to tell wage slaves how they could give up a few weekends and have fun playing "Bang, bang, you're dead" games.

There was even one newspaper ad which showed the Socialist Party platform in Hyde Park. London, and suggested that if you join the army you would be becoming a sort of special protector of free speech. What they did not tell you was about the chemical weapons, the sweltering desert heat, the body bags, the pointless murdering and being attacked all in the name of oil profits.

A war for their class

This war is being fought so that capitalists can stay rich. Every wage slave in uniform who dies, including the poor conscripts in the Iraqi killing force, will die in vain. It is a war, as all wars, about capitalist power - on this occasion, the power to own and control oil production.

Alas. Channel Four's Class By Class (Fridays. 8pm) did not have the first clue what class is about. The presenter, Ray Gosling, perpetuated the stale old fallacy that class is a matter of lifestyle.

A month earlier BBC's Forty Minutes was about prostitution in the King's Cross area of London. It was an unpretentious documentary which made no claim to offer any grand theory of class. A number of prostitute women were interviewed who made it abundantly clear that their reason for doing their dirty work was that they needed money — they were poor.

Also interviewed on the programme was a socialist, David Hines, who has written an excellent play about prostitution (it is called Bondage and is highly recommended). He explained that hookers were no different from taxi drivers — both had to sell themselves on the market to the first bidder. This is true of all workers: wage slavery is prostitution.

Having said that, there is prostitution and prostitution, and there is something more dignified about selling quick sexual thrills or taxi rides than spreading war propaganda.

                                                                                                                             Steve Coleman

50 Years Ago: The Suppression of the Communists (1991)

The 50 Years Ago column from the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

More recently (Daily Worker, March 30th, 1939) they were appealing by personal letter to Churchill, Sinclair and Attlee to get together to overthrow the Chamberlain Government and form a Government of their own in order "to save the country in the rapidly deepening crisis." It may well be said that they got the war they wanted (and then soon ceased to want it when Russia decided to be friends with Hitler) and got the Government they asked for and now it has got them.

So tortuous are the ways of the Communists that it is by no means impossible (the contents of the Daily Worker in recent weeks rather suggest this) that for some obscure reason they now no longer wanted the immunity from prosecution they sought last year by setting up a board of "influential persons" to run the Daily Worker but wanted to be suppressed.

All the same the S.P.G.B. is opposed to suppression of opinion. In our view the way to counter any kind of propaganda, and in the long the only way, is to meet it in the open in unfettered discussion. We are entitled to add that we practise what we preach and have always thrown open our platform to our opponents.

[From an article "The Suppression of the 'Daily Worker' ", Socialist Standard, February 1941.]

50 Years Ago: The War Office and the Socialist Standard (1966)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

When those in authority over us determined that no newspaper or books should be sent out of the country without the permission of the War Office, we made application to mail this journal to the Colonies and neutral countries. We have now been favoured with a reply the tenor of which b that the War Office has been compelled to stop our organ on some occasions in the past for the reason that a portion of its contents might be used by the enemy powers for “their propaganda". And we are further informed that, in consequence of this, instructions have been issued to stop in future all copies of the Socialist Standard addressed to places outside the United Kingdom.

Nothing that we publish can be used by our masters' enemies without being stripped from its context, for the simple reason that our criticism applies with just as much force to the German and Austrian capitalists as to British.  Our internationalism is so real a thing that we refuse to set national bounds even to our enemies. Not British capitalists or German capitalists are the foe, but capitalism and the capitalist class of the world.

[From the Socialist Standard, November, 1916].

By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the June 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nearly three years ago now, when the present international slaughter of the world’s workers commenced, we were informed that this was the “war to end war.” From that time onwards many have iterated the same silly phrase. Many have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the capitalist class and gone out of their way to inform the unwary that this war is different in its origin to past wars, that this time it is in order to put down “Prussianism” that they are called upon to give their services and, if necessary, their lives.

Slowly but surely numbers of our class are beginning to open their eyes and to realise that they have been deceived, and in order to facilitate this larger outlook I propose giving one or two quotations which possibly may help them in their search for truth and knowledge.

From a German source, quoted in a paper the proprietor of which is a keen supporter of the Lloyd Georgian (English-Prussian) Government, we read that General von Stein, Minister of War, said:

“I do not entertain the hope that the war will be followed by international peace. So long as the interests of nations conflict there will be wars. The prospects of an eternal peace are not very brilliant just now when two great peoples which hitherto did not think of maintaining large armies are beginning to create them. Consequently after the war it will be our duty to safeguard ourselves and preserve for our descendants what we have fought for.”—”Weekly Dispatch,” May 6th, 1917.

In order to obviate the retort that might be put forward by some, that the previous spokesman was a German, and, therefore, what he says does not count, let me adduce the evidence of an Englishman who is a Liberal M.P., and as such must necessarily be possessed of all the virtues. Addressing the Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders in the British Westinghouse Co., Ltd., Mr. J. Annan Bryce said :

“It seems to be assumed by some well-meaning people that when peace is declared there will be an end of economic war also, and they deprecate any measures tending to perpetuate it. It is forgotten that this war is as much a war for commercial and industrials for military domination, and that there were no more enthusiastic advocates of it than the heads of the great German industries and financial establishments. It is forgotten that the military war is only the complement of the economic war which started half a century ago.”

Here we have supporters of the holy trinity of Rent, Interest, and Profit, or in other words, defenders of capitalist society, coolly admitting that this war is the result of an antagonism of capitalist interests.

The only war that will end war is the class war. Join, then, with us and assist in waging war for the abolition of classes and winning “The World for the Workers.”

* * *

An announcement recently appeared in the Press informing the public that “last year the British Board of Films Censors passed for universal exhibition 4,430 subjects and 904 for public exhibition.” It was further stated that among the grounds for the rejection of over 500 films were:

Impersonation of the King.

Irreverent treatment of death.

Nude figures.

Excessively passionate love scenes.

Scenes purporting to illustrate “night life.”

References to controversial or international politics.

Antagonistic relations of capital and labour.

Scenes tending to disparage public characters and to create public alarm.

Vampire women ; the drug habit ; white slave traffic.

Materialisation of the conventional figure of Christ.

Scenes depicting the realistic horrors of warfare.

Incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy.

Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies or to disturb friendly relations wkh them.

Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule.

Propaganda films of German origin.

—”Daily Chronicle,” April 3rd, 1917.

How carefully the agents of our masters choose what subjects their slaves shall see when they journey to the picture palace. The references to the “antagonistic relations of capital and labour” and the “realistic horrors of war” are distinctly good.

* * *

A study in directive ability ! Engineer for the cows. Mr. J. A. Morris Bew told the Westhampnett Tribunal at Chichester of the case of a farmer who applied to the military authorities for help.

“A man was sent to the farm on Friday night, but he left on Saturday morning.

“He was sent as a cowman, stockman, and milker, and turned out to be an electrical engineer who had never worked on a farm.”—”Star,” April 10th, 1917. Who said Business as usual?

* * *

In aid of soldiers blinded in the war a bazaar was a short time ago held at the Royal Albert Hall. Now functions of this order are not arranged for we wage slaves. No, indeed not ! Were we to absent ourselves from work, even on such an occasion as this when royalty were in attendance, doubtless we should be confronted with a notice informing us that in this time of crisis and national emergency it is highly unpatriotic to leave our masters’ business and that such a serious dereliction of duty was punishable under the D.O.R.A. And so it came to pass on the appointed day that many of the parasites of society did foregather in order to raise the wind for “our heroes blinded in the war” and whom a grateful country will ne’er forget (?) 

Now let me quote :

“Many Royal ladies are to assist in the selling. Princess Victoria has valuable lace and a wonderful fan worth £30 to offer, Princess Louise will sell Peking loot, coloured glass, a Chinese shawl, and an inlaid escritoire, Princess Beatrice presides over children’s garments, while the Princess Royal and her daughter, Princess Maud, will sell lingerie of the most lovely description. The great attraction at the Duchess of Somerset’s stall is potatoes.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” May 7th, 1917.

“Loot,” Ikey, my boy, “Loot” ! Now “loot,” according to the lexicographers is: “booty; plunder ; especially such as is taken in a sacked city.” If the purveyor of this said “loot” had been the Crown Prince, whose thieving activities we have heard so much about of late, one could understand this reference; but one shudders at the mention of Princess Louise.

* * *

The “Daily Chronicle” (8.5.17) had an editorial article on Food Rationing, and towards the close it dealt with the subject of the destruction of the house sparrow, advocated by the Board of Agriculture. By deleting the words “house sparrow” from the sentence and substituting the word “capitalist” we obtain a fine definition of that type of individual. It would then read as follows :

“The capitalist is undoubtedly a pest; he has few virtues ; he is virtually a parasite on man ; like a true parasite, he purloins much and serves us little; and all the characteristics which he has developed in the course of his denaturalised existence—his harsh voice, his quarrelsome manners, his filthy and untidy nest—mark his degeneration from the standards of true social (text wild-bird) life.”

We Socialists claim that the capitalist is unnecessary. To-day we have social production with individual ownership of the means of producing wealth and the product of our toil resulting therefrom. We suggest, therefore, the elimination of this parasite by an intelligent working class understanding its position in society, and working for the complete overthrow of the existing order of things through the conquest of political power, and the conversion of these individually owned means of wealth production into socially owned for the well being of all. Then we can commence the era of peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

* * *

The “glories of war” : Potatoe queues ; sugar queues ; margarine queues. The question of sugar is an interesting theme and affords a good object lesson of the methods of our “Business Government.” From the Northcliffe organ I cull the following :

“In certain shops—”The Evening News” has the name of one where it occurred last night—no sugar fit to eat is sold to any customer who does not buy tea.

A quantity of evil-looking sugar, full of black lumps and not without dirt and straw, is offered to customers who do not want tea.”

—”Evening News,” April 28th, 1917.

One is inclined to ask : Have all the public analysts and local medical officers of health gone to the war? Or is it a case of “one good turn deserves another” ?

* * *

An event of great importance to the workers, recently took place. Bearing in mind the scriptural injunction : “Ye cannot serve both God and Mammon,” I observed that that highly-democratic organ of the international working class, the “Weekly Dispatch” (29.4.17) vouchsafed the information that a little family gathering took place at Windsor. The touching story is thus told:

“Our Labour Ministers have had an opportunity during the week of seeing the King at Windsor Castle en famille, and it is gathered that they were delighted at the air of informality which characterised their reception.”

It is further added that Mr. George Barnes was also in the company of the elect, and “it is to be regretted that Mr. and Mrs. Henderson were unavoidably prevented from accepting his Majesty s invitation.” Strange, is it not, that these gentry who rejoice in the fact that one crowned head (the “Little Father,” better known as Bloody Nick) has received the “order of the boot,” are overjoyed at being the guests of another monarch. “By their fruits ye shall; know them” is the standard for measuring their value to the workers struggling to be free.

The “Dispatch” writer sums up this dust-throwing incident by adding :

“To be quite frank, everyone likes to see the King and Queen moving in an informal circle that includes honest, outspoken John Hodge and straight-­forward, plain-speaking George Barnes.”

* * *

The antics of these labour fakirs are excruciatingly funny. In the case of the engineers’ strike Hodge refers to “the irresponsible people of about 25” who, tiring of the dilatory methods of the accredited representatives of the union and the Ministry of Munitions, take matters into their own hands in order to force the pace, and he deplores their action, while on the other hand I read:

“Typists who earn 20s. a week in Government offices and the National Union of Clerks are grateful to Mr. John Hodge, Labour Minister, for complaining of the low wage.

If all the girls were to decline to work any longer for 20s. a week, said Mr. Hodge at Sheffield, what a powerful lever he would have. It would give him the bludgeon necessary to go to the Treasury.

“I am very glad,” said Mr. Herbert H. Elvin, general secretary of the National Union of Clerks, “that Mr. Hodge, as a Minister, has advocated a general strike on the part of women.”

—”Evening News,” April 28th, 1917.

Here we see John Hodge advocating for the women what he condemns in the case of the men. Will Hodge be proceeded against under some regulation of the Defence of the Realm Act, or is such distinction reserved for “people of about twenty-five,” and whose earnings do not yet suffice to support a triple, hodge-podge chin?

* * *

The Government have to blame themselves entirely for the chaotic conditions which they have brought into being in the engineering trades. With the deliberate suppression of news from the storm centres, the cutting off from communication of one section of men with those in other parts of the country, the one sided and meagre reports such as were allowed to be published, all tended to exasperate those concerned. The Munitions Act (Amendment) Bill still before the House, with its purposely ambiguous wording (a common feature of all Bills), also intensified the trouble that was brewing. So complex and incomprehensible is this Bill that the powers that be went to the length of issuing an explanatory poster to reassure the workers that the Bill was not designed to trespass on their hard-won rights as trade unionists, and so on ad nauseam.

From newspaper reports it first appears that Dr. Addison refused to recognise the Shop Stewards Committee, which obviously understands the local conditions better than the Central Executive, but afterwards changes his mind and agrees to see the Shop Stewards’ Committee if they agree to “act in unison with the trade union Executives.” Later we are informed that the Ministry of Munitions replied to the engineers’ delegates, who were in session at Walworth, that: “We shall be glad, if asked to do so by your Executives, to meet them accompanied by yourselves or by any other body your Executives may desire to bring with them, but we cannot receive you under other circumstances.” Then comes the arrest of certain men on a charge of promoting strikes. Commenting on this the “Daily News“ of Saturday (19.5.1917) says :

“A number of the leaders in the engineers’ strike have been arrested, and one more step has been taken by that action on the perilous path down which the Government are being driven. We have never defended this strike. But no one acquainted at all with the circumstances which have led to this dispute, and the real history of how it has been allowed to grow to its present proportions, can doubt where the real responsibility lies for the gloomy prospect with which the whole nation finds itself to-day confronted.

“In respect of most of the men,” says the “Morning Post,” “they have been irritated and worried by the authorities. The fact is, the Ministry of Munitions have made a sad business of it ; and the sooner the Government recognise the fact the better.”

Evidently “the fact” has been recognised by the Government at last, and a meeting has taken place at which Lld. George attended and at which what appears to be a temporary peace was arranged.

* * *

The Archbishop of Canterbury has authorised special prayers for “God’s blessing on the crops and the fruits of the earth in this time of sowing,” runs an announcement in the Press. Then follows a passage from the prayer telling the All-knowing that we have some Allies and some ships which the Archbishop wants protected. It is to be hoped that the recording angel has duly noted this petition.

* * *

The King has been on tour and at one of the works he visited we are informed in all seriousness that he “clocked on” as if he were an ordinary employee. Doubtless after seeing other people work he “clocked off,” and was duly thankful that his lot had been cast in smoother places.

* * *

“One of the liveliest and noisiest meetings in Glasgow for many years was that held last night when Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P., Pensions Minister, met with a distinctly hostile reception on the occasion of his addressing his constituents in the Blackfriars Division.” (“Daily News,” 12.4.17.) The storm in the tea-cup was over this gent’s reference to “veritable weeds” in the House on the Pensions problem. He now regretted having used the phrase as it seemed to indicate a lack of sympathy on his part.

Mr. Barnes need not worry his guts into fiddle-strings over this matter. Far from indicating a lack of sympathy on his part, his whole handling of the Pensions problem has shown him to be a very sympathetic man—but his sympathy is reserved, not for disabled soldiers, broken in the war, but for those who pay him for it—the blood-reeking masters.

* * *

The War Office recently announced its intention of opening two new groups for attestation, the age limit being from 41 to 50 years. A kind of Derby Scheme is thus once again in operation, with the promise of an armlet slightly different in design from that issued in the earlier campaign, for those who hurry along and volunteer. According to figures given in the Press there is quite a large amount of recruitable material. This card waits to see how many respond to the call. What a fine opportunity is now presented to those who a short time ago were dying to enlist were they within the age limit. Having urged the younger men to hasten forth to battle for King and Country, it is now up to them to honour the obligation they were prepared to impose upon others.

* * *

“Nine British soldiers are dying every hour.”—Gen. Baden-Powell. But, “There are worse things than bloodshed.”—Windy Churchill.

The Scout.

Those war books! (1952)

From the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

If one studies the large illustrated histories of the first and second World Wars, it becomes obvious that there are many differences in the propaganda, ideas and methods of the various capitalist governments. These changes in putting out their “War Propaganda" probably took origin in the fact that the working class had in the meantime learnt a thing or two.

If we refer to the well known “ Illustrated ” of the First World War (the Great War as it was called), edited by H. W. Wilson, who incidentally also edited “Japan Fights for Freedom,” and “ Following the Flag to Pretoria,” the recognised histories of the Russo-Japanese and Boer Wars respectively, we find that flag waving was a dominant factor, with God, King, and Country closely wrapped up with the flags. Apparently these things made a far greater impression on the people than during the Second World War, for in Sir John Hammerton’s "History of the Second World War", this flag waving type of propaganda is given little scope, and God scarcely gets a mention. Even the Germans thought fit to drop their famous motto of the First War “ Gott mit uns ” after the Almighty had so badly let them down in the first round.

The German propaganda differed little in the two wars so far as flag waving intensity was concerned, while the Russian propaganda stuff merely had to replace the "Divine Little Father” by Infallible Uncle Joe!

The dominant idea in these history books of the First War, was that the Kaiser was ambitious, and at a later stage that he was mad. Many photos of him had the caption that he was looking obviously old and tired and suffering from war strain. Such words occurred early in 1915. The awkward point which the ruling class had to skirt around was that our own Royalty were German in origin and close blood relations with the Kaiser, who incidentally was born in Buckingham Palace and narrowly missed becoming King of England. This ticklish point did not arise in the Second War and it was easy to get at Hitler because he was, like so many members of the working class, once a corporal. Indeed such propaganda was slung at Napoleon by the bucketful. But don’t worry there is plenty of time for the ruling class to discover one day that Stalin was once a bank robber, not to mention the murderer of the "Old Guard.”

In the first World War Books, great play was made on the “devilish zeppelin raids,” for deliberately dropping bombs on women and children—an innovation in those days, whilst in the Second War, raids on civilians and towns, although met with by an outcry at first (Rotterdam, Coventry, etc.), were soon taken as a matter of course, and dealt with by “If you bomb our towns, we will bomb yours.” This principle followed along the lines of Baldwin when he declared (about 1935), that there was no defence against the bombing aeroplane, so the only thing to do was to bomb as many of the enemy’s towns as he did of yours. In other words, to concentrate on attack and destruction at all costs, and to justify your actions afterwards.

When both wars were over we learnt through these semi-official books the experiences of different countries in getting men to fight, and how nearly each side came to open revolt. In the spring of 1918 there were big revolts among the French troops during the critical German offensive, and British troops had to take over to check what would have an immediate disaster to the allies. In the second war Rumanian troops under German leadership were thrust mercilessly against the Russians with such enormous losses, causing sporadic revolts, that their use had to be discontinued because the Nazis had to devote so much time to driving them on that it was not worth it. It was the Rumanians who put down Soviet Hungary under Bela Kun, and Czech armies who marched right across Russia and had to be helped out by allied forces in Vladivostock.

The horrors of gas warfare were made the object of great play in the First War books, but in those of the Second, received only a casual mention in comparison. True in this case preparation beforehand did what was required.

One obvious difference in die two wars was due to the introduction of the Radio. Each nation poured out its stuff in as many languages as it could. The B.B.C. was in some respects well up to all the tricks, and not only encouraged listening to German stations, but actually on one occasion at least, re-broadcast one of Hitler's speeches while it was going on, doubtlessly without his permission. True, very few could understand a word of it, except the thousands of refugees, but it probably had its intended influence on the “democratic propaganda” on which the B.B.C. prided itself.

The Germans were confronted with many difficulties in the radio direction and had told so many lies about events abroad that they had to make it a punishable offence if foreign broadcasts were listened to. But the B.B.C. were well in advance of this by a special station “Atlantic” that broadcast news and views along with gramophone records and "letters from home," to German soldiers at the fronts. The news bulletins were such that they showed that a few more German planes were lost and a few more prisoners captured than Allied, while the pretence to be a German station was kept up very successfully.

The Russfcui rulers were even more scared than were those of the Germans, and went so far as to call in all the radio sets (Kravchencko “I chose Freedom”) thereby permitting only the massive state and factory sets for workers to listen to their beloved leaders.

The B.B.Cs. motto, “When nations can speak to one another there will be no wars," seems to have fallen into disuse. Perhaps it is because there are other causes of war than those arising from being unable to speak to one another.

Those cruder methods of working up hatred such as the “ Corpse factory," Babies being stuck on the end of bayonets" “Women with their breasts cut off,” “ Crucified Canadians,” or even the “ Angel of Mons ” all of First War origin, made no appearance in the Second War, although similar things are alleged to have been put out on the German side in both wars. In the Second war no Russians were seen arriving in England with snow on their boots. Bolsheviks and Commu-Nazis became over night heroes and before the last shots of the Second War were fired, the Soviet heroes became once again Bolsheviks and Commu-Nazis, Red Fascists, and with the same ruthless dictatorship regime with all its spying, secret police and rigid propaganda as that formerly existing in Germany. In other words we had an ally whose political system consisted of those very evils which Chamberlain told us we were fighting against.

Do the workers notice all these things, or some of them ? Naturally it doesn’t all stick, if it did our mission would be largely fulfilled. The fact that the ruling class was compelled to modify its propaganda to the extent in which it did in the Second War, is sufficient indication that they are not too sure of themselves and of how the workers are going to take it all. In the event of another world war they will have an even more difficult task to deal with, that of having to live down two world wars, and finding fresh excuses for why they can't get their system to work harmoniously.

Horace Jarvis.

The Passing Show: The Truth about the Arandora Star (1960)

The Passing Show Column from the August 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Truth about the Arandora Star

What a low opinion our rulers have of us! As the Second World War recedes into history, they tell us openly of the lies they fed us on during the war. Yet, no doubt, they expect us to believe implicitly anything they tell us in any future war. To disbelieve what the ruling class says in time of war ranks, in fact, as sedition.

Sometimes it is the same organ of ruling class propaganda which helped to tell us the lie in the first place which now coolly lets us know what did really happen. For example, the case of the Arandora Star. This was a liner which had been converted into a prison ship to take German and Italian internees, prisoners-of-war, and anyone else who in ruling class terminology was “an alien” across to interment camps in Canada. On one of these voyages, in July, 1940, the Arandora Star was sunk by a U-boat. Of the 1,600 prisoners and crew, half were drowned. Many of us remember what we were told at that time—the high death-roll was due to panic among “the aliens,” the lifeboats were rushed, it was every man for himself, and so on. If you have forgotten, the Sunday Express (19/6/60) obligingly reprints the headlines which appeared at the time in its sister paper, the Daily Express of the 4th July, 1940. “ 1,500 aliens panic,” the Daily Express told its readers: “Germans torpedo Germans—mad rush for the lifeboats.”

Complete nonsense

Why does the Sunday Express remind us of these (in its own words) “officially-blessed reports that the heavy loss of life was due to the panic-stricken cowardice of Germans and Italians who fought madly for priority in the lifeboats ”? Why, in order to tell us that they were all lies! The article goes on: “All of a picked group of recently interviewed survivors are unanimous in dismissing this allegation as complete nonsense.”

The real reasons for the heavy loss of life among the great majority who survived the explosion, despite the fact that the sea was calm and the visibility excellent, were three. The ship was grossly overcrowded; some even of the inadequate number of lifeboats had had oars, emergency provisions and plugs removed; and, above all, barbed wire had been expertly erected on the decks, cutting off access to what seaworthy lifeboats there were.

Magnificent propaganda

The captain of the Arandora Star protested strongly to the Admiralty against the ship going to sea in this condition. He pointed out that the lives not only of the internees, but also of his crew, might depend on—for example— the barbed wire being removed. But such humanitarian considerations did not move the chiefs of the Admiralty. The captain's protests were rejected, and the ship sailed as it was. It sank with many of its passengers, who were prevented by the barbed wire from getting to the lifeboats or even from jumping over the side, still on board. And the resultant death by drowning of eight hundred human beings was ascribed by the British authorities (who knew the truth themselves) to “panic among aliens.”

But don't suppose that the Sunday Express disapproves of this lie told by the ruling class. On the contrary, it points out what “magnificent propaganda” the truth would have made for the Axis powers. So, clearly, one only tells the truth when it won't put one at a disadvantage. The lies about the Arandora Star were told by those who claim to uphold the current politico-moral beliefs of society, including the conception of Truth as an Absolute. One could at least credit the ruling class with sincerity if it acted or the beliefs it professed to hold.

Love, honour and obey

While some apologists for capitalism attempt to explain away what they consider the less justifiable parts of our political and social superstructure, there are always the fundamentalists who embarrass these good souls by taking up an extreme dogmatic position. The promise of the wife in the Church's marriage service to “love, honour and obey” her husband is a case in point. We are told in some quarters that this “obey” clause isn’t as brutally primitive as it sounds—it is merely figurative, metaphorical and so forth. But there are others, including the two clergymen who wrote to the Guardian on June 11th, who defend it to the hilt. According to these gentlemen, in a Christian marriage, if there is any disagreement the wife must obey her husband. As a commentary on Christian marriage, these contributions may be allowed to speak for themselves.

Congratulations

At the recent wedding of Mussolini’s daughter, a message of congratulations was received from the Pope. The Catholic Church has always tried to explain away its sympathy for Fascism in Italy—although this is particularly difficult in view of its present close relations with and support for Fascism in Spain. No doubt Catholics would say that this was simply a gesture made by the Pope towards a member of his Church, without any political or social significance. But how many Catholic girls, who are not the daughters of rich men or Fascist leaders, get a telegram of congratulations from the Pope when they marry?

Alwyn Edgar

Can there be Freedom of the Press? (1941)

From the April 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The suppression of the Daily Worker by the Home Secretary has led to lively arguments about the whole question of the freedom of the Press, freedom of meetings and freedom of discussion, and it is something on which the S.P.G.B. has a unique contribution to make. The attitude taken up by the various persons concerned can be briefly summarised as follows. The Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, says that while he wishes to interfere as little as possible with the freedom of the Press, a line has to be drawn when there is “systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue.” The Liberal Manchester Guardian, while recalling John Stuart Mill’s famous defence of freedom of the Press, nevertheless finds itself in agreement with the suppression. To the extent that there is criticism of the Home Secretary it has, in the main, turned only on the method, not the suppression itself. These critics would have preferred that the Daily Worker, instead of being suppressed by order of the Home Secretary, should have been charged with some specific offence and brought before the Courts, where it could have defended itself. The News Chronicle went so far as to say that “if it had been any other paper …. suppression without proceedings would have raised a storm of protest” (News Chronicle, January 29th, 1941). The Daily Worker itself, through its editor, Mr. W. Rust, retorted that though quite prepared to face a Court of Law, “for our part we object to the assassination of liberty whatever the method employed” (News Chronicle, January 28th, 1941).

Since there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary, the Manchester Guardian and the News Chronicle, when they say that they have not wanted a policy of suppression but have been led by circumstances to support it in a particular case, it is at once apparent that they find it in practice impossible to apply their professed principle of freedom. Is it the principle that is wrong or must the circumstances be changed? In other words, is the S.P.G.B. right in its claim that there is not and never can be unfettered freedom of expression until Socialism has been established?

John Stuart Mill on Liberty

John Stuart Mill, in his essay “On Liberty,” written in 1849, stated the classic case for freedom of discussion, etc. He considered all the arguments for and against suppression and firmly declared his conclusion that “There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” (See Everyman edition—”Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government.” Page 78.)

“We can never be sure,” he wrote, “that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still” (p. 79).

His argument was not concerned primarily with the right of the individual, but with the loss to society, for, he said, it is in the interest of mankind that every view should be freely stated and every criticism of accepted opinions heard and considered. Only by such a clash of views can the truth be established. Among many interesting points in his essay is his demonstration of the falsity of the sentimental opinion that “truth always triumphs over persecution” (p. 89). With many examples, he shows that history “teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries.”

He did not forget to stress the obligation of minorities to state their unpopular views temperately and with restraint if they wish them to make their way against prejudice and inertia.

Communists always against Freedom of Speech

When the editor of the Daily Worker stated that the Communists’ “object to the assassination of liberty, whatever the method employed,” he must have been counting on the ignorance of those who read his statement. It is utterly untrue. From first to last, and in every place where they have had the opportunity, the Communists have sought to prevent their opponents, of whatever kind, from expressing their views. In the early days Lenin was frankly contemptuous of the facilities that exist under capitalist democracy for workers’ organisations to exist and to express their views. In a document presented to the First Congress of the Communist International at Moscow, March 6th, 1919, Lenin describes “freedom of meeting” as “an empty phrase,” “Liberty of the Press” as “a delusion,” and roundly declared that “even in the most democratic republics there reigns in practice the terrorism and dictatorship ol the bourgeoisie.” (“The Bolshevik Theory,” Postgate, 1920, pages 205-207). He was able to reach these conclusions by taking the handicaps that actually do exist for workers’ organisations under capitalist democracy and exaggerating and distorting them to the degree necessary to fit his description. It all helped to justify his and Trotsky’s defence of terrorism and dictatorship in Russia. It was only in later years that the Communists in Great Britain quietly shelved their talk of dictatorship, civil war, etc., and posed as defenders of the workers’ “democratic rights.” In 1920, however, when the Communist, Mr. R. Palme Dutt, wrote his “The Two Internationals,” he had no hesitation in saying that the Communist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat meant the exclusion of any conceptions of ‘liberty’ which militate against it and therefore capitalist interests.”

He went on to say: —

“Against the “ideologies” of “liberty,” “democracy,” individual rights,” etc., which have always formed the historical cover of capitalist activity . . . must be set the concrete principle of the proletarian state . . .” (Page 32.)

The Communists nowadays talk a different language and do not openly avow their preference for dictatorship and suppression and contempt for democratic methods and tolerance. Posing as democrats and as representatives of working-class interests, they put forward a more cautiously phrased policy. To start with, they are in favour of suppressing Fascist papers and organisations on the ground that the Fascists are “enemies of the people”; but, as Mr. Frank Owen records, when Mr. Rust, editor of the Daily Worker was asked to be more explicit about this, he replied “that he regarded all capitalist newspapers as enemies of the people, too ” (Evening Standard, January 28th, 1941). So, it appears, as Mr. Frank Owen puts it, “my colleagues and I are due for a short, sharp ride if ever Comrade Rust comes to sit in Home Secretary Morrison’s seat.”

Then Mr. Harry Pollitt has on occasion amplified the scope of “enemies of the people.” In his election address, when he stood as Parliamentary candidate at Whitechapel a few years ago, he lumped the Labour Party along with Liberals, Tories and Fascists. His cry was: “Away with these enemies of the workers !”

And in the Daily Worker of January 29th, 1930, Mr. Pollitt issued a stirring call to action He urged the workers to smash up meetings of the Labour Party.

“. . . The mere passing uf resolutions is not enough. There should not be a Labour meeting held anywhere but what the revolutionary workers in that district attend such meetings and fight against the speakers whoever they are, so-called “left,”‘ “right,” or “centre.”

They should never be allowed to address the workers. This will bring us into conflict with the authorities, but this must be done. The fight can no longer be conducted in a passive manner.”

Needless to say, Communists have often told us that if they got power the Socialist Standard would naturally be “dealt with.”

In short, the Communist idea of freedom of the Press is the suppression of every journal except those approved by themselves, all on the model of the Soviet dictatorship.

The Socialist Point of View

While accepting broadly the arguments of John Stuart Mill, Socialists point out how impossible it is to expect his case to be accepted under capitalism. The S.P.G.B. has always taken its stand on the method of argument and persuasion to gain acceptance of the Socialist case. Knowing that there can be no Socialism except through the use of democratic methods, we need to win over the majority to our side. The Socialist case is true and can be shown to be true. It is in line with the discernible facts of the modern world, and what has convinced us will in due time convince the majority of the workers. It is for this reason that the S.P.G.B. allows and invites opposition and discussion on our platform and at our meetings. We do not believe, as do the Communists, that Socialism can be attained by a minority who do understand Socialism acting as guides and leaders to a majority who do not understand. We reject as dangerous and impracticable the Communist policy enunciated in 1920 by Mr. Palme Dutt: —

“The workers as a whole rebel against a regime of which they feel the pricks, without any pre-conceived doctrinaire theory. It is the business of the communist to guide their movement into its realisation in the dictatorship of the proletariat.”—(“Two Internationals,” page 32.)

For the Communist, the idea of suppression and controlling the ideas of the workers fits in naturally with the idea of the “intelligent minority” who lead the non-Socialist masses. Rejecting the latter policy, the Socialist likewise rejects the doctrine of suppression and control of ideas.

But what chance have Mill’s principles of being applied under capitalism ? Obviously no Government at war (and no Government which holds Communist views of political struggle being of the nature of “heavy civil war”) will ever consent to completely unfettered freedom of the Press in wartime. To do so would be to risk endangering war effort. Even in peace-time it is unthinkable that all the various restrictions on publication and utterance in the shape of laws against libel, blasphemy, publication of official secrets, etc., could be removed ; if only for the reason that the libel laws are based on property rights, and capitalism is a system in which property rights are of supreme importance. Moreover, no amendment of laws directly affecting the Press can serve to redress the inequality that must exist between the propertied class, who can go to any expenditure to finance the publication of journals representing their interests and point of view, and the propertyless working-class, who must make do with publishing organs of opinion within the limit of their meagre resources.

Socialism alone will bring about conditions in which all will enjoy the rights and obligations of free utterance and discussion, and the human race will gain to the full the benefits of such freedom.

Edgar Hardcastle

The New Defence Regulations (1940)

From the June 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May 9th the Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, announced in the House of Commons that the Defence Regulations affecting propaganda had been amended. The amendment had taken place after consultation with members of the opposition parties, but it was pointed out by Mr. Attlee for the Labour Party that the consultations “in no way implied that those members either approved or disapproved of the regulations, which were, necessarily; put forward on the sole responsibility of the Government.”

The relevant part of the Home Secretary’s speech is reproduced below : —

The Home Secretary’s Statement

“The second group of Regulations is concerned with the activities of individuals and organisations who, by spreading defeatist or anti-war propaganda, are seeking to undermine public morale and to weaken the resolution of the people to prosecute the war to a successful issue. As I said in my reply to Questions on 25th April, there is a risk that our traditional reluctance to limit the free expression of minority opinions may be exploited by persons whose real purpose is to hamper, for ulterior motives, the war effort of the nation. The Defence Regulations introduced on the outbreak of war included stringent provisions dealing with propaganda, under which it would have been an offence for any person to endeavour to influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of the war; but after the Debate on the Regulations which took place in this House on 31st October last there was a drastic curtailment of those provisions of the Regulations which had attracted special opposition on the ground that they were capable of being used for the suppression of minority opinions. The Government are anxious to avoid any unnecessary interference with our traditional liberties, but they feel that a distinction can and must now be drawn between the mere expression of honest opinion on the one hand and, on the other, the deliberate and systematic advocacy of defeatist or antiwar policies with intent to weaken the national resolution to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.

Legal provisions on this subject must necessarily be cast in somewhat general terms if they are to cover all forms of propagandist activity which are prejudicial to the national interests; and the difficulty has always been to find a form of words which will suffice to check the really mischievous activities without at the same time penalising expressions of opinion, with which we should all desire to avoid interference, however much we may disagree with the opinion expressed. The consultations which I have held have led me to the conclusion that this point cannot be fully met except by giving, to a responsible Minister answerable to Parliament, an administrative discretion to determine in what cases individuals or organisations should be made liable to criminal proceedings for engaging in mischievous activities of this kind; and in the new Regulation which has now been made a novel procedure has been adopted in order to secure that the sanctions of the criminal law shall be applied only to persons acting with deliberate intent to prejudice the national interest. The Regulation provides for the issue of a warning to any person or organisation who appears to the Secretary of State to be concerned in the systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue. The warning will draw attention to the matter objected to and will make it clear that if after the warning there is any future publication of matter calculated to foment such opposition the person or persons concerned will become liable to prosecution under the Regulation. Until a warning has been issued no person can be prosecuted for an offence under the Regulation; but if after receiving such a warning there is a continuance of mischievous activities those responsible then become liable to prosecution and, if convicted, to heavy penalties—namely, seven years’ penal servitude or a fine of £500, or both.

The Regulation provides ample safeguards against any misuse of the new powers which it confers. In the first place the Secretary of State must be satisfied, not by an isolated remark but by a consistent course of conduct, that there is systematic publication of matter which is calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue, and further that the continuance of these activities may cause serious mischief. Then there must be a formal warning by a notice in writing of the consequences of persistence in this course of conduct. Then, if such conduct is persisted in, proceedings based on a specific contravention of the Regulation can be instituted only with the consent of the Attorney-General and can be taken only at Assizes or courts of corresponding jurisdiction; and the defendant cannot be convicted if he can show to the satisfaction of the court that he had no intent to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue and had no reasonable cause to believe that his activities were calculated to foment such opposition. I hope that what I have said will suffice to satisfy the House that this new Regulation is so drawn as to penalise only deliberate, organised and systematic efforts to undermine the national morale; and I need hardly add that it is the firm intention of the Government to apply the criminal sanctions provided by this Regulation only in cases of real gravity where the national interests may be seriously threatened.

A second Regulation in this group is designed to extend and strengthen the provisions of Defence Regulation 39A, under which it is already an offence to endeavour to seduce from their duty persons in His Majesty’s service or in the various services of Civil Defence. Experience has shown that it is not enough to restrict this provision to persons already embodied in the various services. The efforts of those who wish to undermine the efficiency of these services may be directed not to persons already serving but to those who are shortly to be called up for service; and the Regulation has therefore been amended so as to make it equally an offence to endeavour to incite persons liable to such service to evade their duties or to endeavour to incite persons to abstain from enrolling voluntarily in any of the defence services. Here again care has been taken to avoid penalising the mere expression of opinion. It will be no offence merely to state the statutory rights of men liable to military service to claim exemption on conscientious grounds, nor will the Regulation prevent the giving of guidance to a young man who is troubled in conscience and seeks advice from a priest or a friend. The Regulation is aimed at those who try to incite young men liable to military service to simulate conscientious objections for the purpose of evading their duties. I am satisfied that this limited provision is necessary and that it will command general support.

Finally, power has been taken to apply really effective sanctions against the use of printing presses for the production of publications which contravene either the new Regulation dealing with the corruption of public morale, or the expanded provisions of Regulation 39A regarding attempts to cause disaffection or Regulation 39B dealing generally with the publication of false statements prejudical to the national interests. Under this new Regulation the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that any printing press has been used for the production of any document in respect of which any person has been convicted of an offence under any of these three Regulations, direct that the press shall not be used for any purpose until the leave of the High Court has been obtained for its further use. The High Court may grant such leave if satisfied that the use of the printing press for the production of the offending document was due to a mistake, or even though not so satisfied may grant leave for its future use subject to conditions, or may if it thinks fit order that the printing press shall be destroyed. In many cases documents constituting an offence under these Regulations will have been printed, by persons other than those convicted of distributing or publishing them; and in serious cases it is desirable that there should be power to bring it home to the printer that his plant cannot be used with impunity for the production of mischievous documents of this character which contravene the law. A power to seal up the printer’s plant is likely to operate as a more effective deterrent than criminal proceedings leading to a fine; and this new power should materially reduce the extent to which printing presses will be made available for the production of documents of this type.”

Text of the Regulation regarding publications

The following is taken from the Manchester Guardian, May 31st, 1940.

“Power to suppress a newspaper is provided by a new Emergency Powers (Defence) Regulation, issued yesterday, which reads: 

1. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is, in any newspaper, a systematic publication of matter which is, in his opinion, calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful issue of any war in which his Majesty is engaged, he may by order apply the provisions of this regulation to that newspaper.

2. No person shall print, publish, or distribute or be in anyway concerned in the printing, publication, or distribution of any newspaper to which this regulation applies.

3. An order of the Secretary of State under this regulation specifying a newspaper by name shall have effect not only with respect to any newspaper published under that name but with respect to any newspaper published under any other name if the publication thereof is in any respect in continuation of, or in substitution for, the publication of the news¬ paper named in the order.”

Another regulation empowers the Secretary of State to seize printing presses used in the production of a newspaper it he is satisfied that the newspaper is one in which there has been a systematic publication of matter which is, in his opinion, calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful issue of any war in which his Majesty is engaged.

Editorial: How will the Defence Regulations be Used? (1940)

Editorial from the June 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Elsewhere in this issue we reproduce the Home Secretary’s statement on the new Defence Regulations. The Home Secretary declared that it was his desire to avoid “penalising expressions of opinion, with which we should all desire to avoid interference, however much we may disagree with the opinion expressed.” Elsewhere he referred to “mere expression of honest opinion.” Much depends of course on how the regulations are used and what the Government regards as honest opinion. As far as the S.P.G.B. is concerned it should be clear even to the most embittered opponent of Socialism that there could be no better indication of honest opinion than the fact that, unbrokenly for 36 years, the members of the S.P.G.B. have constitutionally and democratically propagated the same unchanged Socialist principles. It is our claim now, as always, that we are Socialists and we preach Socialism. And if the declaration made by Mr. Justice Stable in a recent libel action holds good we shall continue to do so : —

“The expression of views, no matter how unpopular, how fantastic, or how wrong-headed they might appear to the majority, was a right, and a right which he (the judge) was paid to see was observed”.— (Reproduced in Manchester Guardian, May 10th, 1940.)

As was however to be expected, certain newspapers (including some which for years were expressing admiration of odious aspects of Fascist regimes abroad) are using the fierce feeling against Quislings to support action against every opinion uncongenial to themselves. The following appeared in a Times editorial on May 23rd, 1940:- —

“But public indignation and suspicion are undoubtedly being aroused also against the activities of British citizens who, consciously or unconsciously, ally themselves with the evil forces against which their country is fighting. The Defence Regulations have already been amended to give the Home Secretary powers to deal with such people. They provide heavy penalties for persistence in anti-war propaganda and for attempts to dissuade men from undertaking defence duties. They give power also to require persons to reside within a specified area and not to travel outside it without permission. No one would be sorry to see these powers exercised immediately against those responsible for publications or activities which seek to traduce or to impede the high purposes of their country in waging this war, and many would prefer to see such persons confined to their own society in internment camps. They have a right to their own opinions, if indeed these opinions are their own and not manufactured or procured by the nation’s enemies : but they have no right to inflict them on others at such a time.”

It will be observed that The Times proclaims the principle of “right to their own opinions”—“in internment camps.”

It can hardly be supposed that this specious doctrine is held by the Labour Party representatives now in the Government. If it were it would be against their own long-proclaimed Party tradition.

We may add that, in the matter of forming opinions of our own, “not manufactured or procured” by any other person, party or government, here or abroad, the S.P.G.B. and the Socialist Standard, during the period of their existence, have not had to take guidance from The Times.

Proper Gander: The Media as Intermediary (2022)

The Proper Gander Column from the April 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard 

While the current tensions between ‘East’ and ‘West’ are in many ways a return to those of the Cold War years, one difference between then and now is that our awareness of events comes through countless more media outlets than in the last century. Alongside TV news on multiple channels and print journalism we have all the footage, testimony and opinions spread online, especially through social media. In theory, this gives us a wide pool of information in which we can swim around to find the truth as it rises to the surface. In practice, we have to wade through a swamp of biased and incomplete narratives too murky to reveal a clear picture.

The main TV news channels in the UK – BBC News, Sky News and Al Jazeera – have been largely similar to each other in how they have reported on the invasion of Ukraine, each focusing on the effects of the bombing, including the vast numbers of people displaced, alongside the pronouncements of governments and analysts. The BBC has probably devoted more time than the other channels to how the war is affecting people, including those interviewed while struggling to live under attack from Russian forces. Coverage of the relief effort for refugees has been prominent, maybe to try and counterbalance the distressing accounts of the devastation with something more positive about people’s willingness to help those in need. GB News has taken a characteristically conservative perspective, with little emphasis on the refugees’ plight, and pundits such as Dan Wootton applauding Boris Johnson’s handling of the crisis.

Having a near-consensus in the mainstream media doesn’t mean that it is comprehensive. TV news channels have examined economic aspects of the war only to the extent of the impact of sanctions on Russia or whether a side effect will be further increases to energy prices in the UK and Europe. Economic factors behind the situation aren’t generally discussed, such as the dilemma Ukraine was in over whether to develop trade links with the EU or Russia, alongside those with China. In recent years, the UK’s mainstream TV news programmes haven’t reported much on events in Eastern Europe, making the invasion of Ukraine appear more unexpected than it should have been. The Russian state’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 received media attention in the UK at the time, unlike the contemporaneous takeover of the government and police in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions by pro-Russian separatist forces. And neither issue has been covered much in the intervening years, when attention instead went to Brexit and then the pandemic. Nor has NATO’s expansion eastwards been critiqued, and there haven’t been comparisons drawn between the Russian army’s attacks on hospitals and homes and NATO’s bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War in 1999. The impression given is that Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was a sudden event, prompted only by him finally deciding to show his true colours. The lack of recognition of NATO’s actions as contributory factors helps to simplify the mainstream media’s narrative.

UK news channels have been consistent in presenting the war in a conveniently black and white way. It is difficult to imagine them being at all critical of Volodymyr Zelensky’s actions or giving prominence to any allegations of wrongdoing by the Ukrainian army, which includes the far-right Azov regiment. In fact, not much at all has been reported about how they are fighting the war. Russia Today, on the other hand, was keen to depict Ukraine as the sole aggressor, following the narrative of its owner, the Russian state. Before its broadcast in the UK ended, RT’s emphasis was firmly on reports of Ukrainian forces bombing ‘the two Donbass republics’ as it called them, echoing the Russian state’s view that Donetsk and Luhansk have separated from Ukraine, where they are officially defined as ‘temporarily occupied territories’. These reports included allegations that the Ukrainian army has been using phosphorus in weapons, banned by the UN. RT’s policy was to promote the Russian state’s description of a ‘special military operation’ to ‘demilitarise and denazify’ Ukraine, with words such as ‘war’ and ‘invasion’ forbidden. Ironically, one of RT’s slogans has been ‘truth over narrative’. Regulator Ofcom investigated whether the channel was breaching its rules about ‘due impartiality’, according to which some political bias is allowed provided that alternative views are mentioned. Consequently, RT’s licence to broadcast in the UK was revoked on 18 March, although the EU had already pulled the plug on the channel on 2nd March, cutting its stream to the UK. Restricting RT limits access to different opinions (albeit ones heavily biased in favour of Putin’s brutal regime) from which people can make their own judgements. The Kremlin’s crackdown on independent journalism and dissenting voices within Russia is doing the same in a more extreme way.

The mainstream media in capitalism is never going to give us the full story, especially during a war. It doesn’t have the full story to give: any state is bound to curb what information about its strategies the media has access to. Each media outlet selects what to use from the material it obtains and explains events according to its own ethos, creating a narrative which news bulletins disguise under the pretence of objectivity. The language which the media uses also shapes our interpretation. While it is easy to see through the term ‘special military operation’, other expressions are more subtle in how they frame events. For instance, journalists use phrases like ‘Russia invading’ or ‘Ukraine negotiating’, as do many people. It’s recognised that this is just shorthand for the army or government rather than meaning Russia or Ukraine as a whole, but the wording lazily conflates the state with the people under it. This distracts from the reality that the war is between states, not the peoples of Russia and Ukraine who are both pawns and victims. Despite any slant given by the media, footage of families grieving or missiles hitting tower blocks speaks for itself.

Mike Foster

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: The Communist Yes—No—Yes Policy on Colonial Peoples (1939)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist Yes—No—Yes Policy on Colonial Peoples

The following pronouncements by Communists need no comment. Made at different dates, they reflect the Communist double-somersault on war.

Mr. T. A. Jackson, Communist writer and speaker, in 1937 : —

 “I have neither love nor liking for that evil thing—the British Empire. But rather than see a single African, Asiatic, American or Polynesian pass under the control of Fascism (whither Hitlerite, Mussolinite, or of any other brand), I would fight in the same way, and urge others to fight to preserve the British Empire. . . .—(Plebs, February, 1937.)

* * *

Communist Party Central Committee, September 2nd, 1939.

The Manifesto which the Central Committee issued on September 2nd, 1939, giving reasons why they supported the war, contained, as one of the Communist war aims : —

“Extension of full democratic rights to the Colonial peoples.”

* * *

Mr. Harry Pollitt, in “How to Win the War” (September 16th, 1939).

  “When Abyssinia was attacked by Italian Fascism some people in Britain said it was not our business to do anything about it; Abyssinia was an autocratic and feudal state, and it made no difference to the Abyssinian people whether they were ruled by their own monarch or by the Italian imperialists. The Communist Party did not accept this standpoint.”

* * *

The Daily Worker, October 7th, 1939 (after the Communists had stopped supporting the war) : —

  “And now Hitler repeats his demand for colonies. Shall British workers fight to decide whether the colonial people are to be oppressed by the imperialists of London or of Berlin ? The only fight we will wage is for the freedom of the colonies from all imperialistic masters, for democracy in the colonies, and the right of self-determination.”

War-Time Powers of the Government

The following Editorial was published by the Sunday Express (October 22nd, 1939): —

“Under Section 18B of the Order in Council amending the Defence Regulations, a Secretary of State can make an order—

(a) Prohibiting or restricting the possession or use by any person of any specified articles;

(b) Imposing on any individual such restrictions as may be specified in respect of his employment or business, in respect of his association or communication with other persons, and in respect of his activities in relation to the dissemination of news or the propagation of opinions;

(c) Directing that he be detained.

“So long as such an order is active against any individual he may—according to the regulations—be detained in such a place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine and shall while so detained be deemed to be in legal custody.

“Such an order obviously destroys at the will of a Secretary of State the Habeas Corpus Act, which is the basis of the liberty and freedom of the citizen.

“In past wars there have been restrictions on liberty, but nothing so sweeping and so potentially dangerous as this.

“M.P.s ought to demand some limitation of these powers before it is too late. They might also ask whether any persons have already been detained in such circumstances—and why.”

* * *

The Times, October 27th, 1939, published further details :—

 "Another regulation deals with the causing of disaffection, and provides that no person shall “endeavour to cause disaffection among any persons engaged (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in his Majesty’s service.” A regulation on the subject of “propaganda” begins by laying it down that no person shall “endeavour, whether orally or otherwise, to influence public opinion (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of the war.” The expression “public opinion” is denned as “including the opinion of any section of the public.”

This regulation also includes the following sections: —

(2) The Secretary of State may make provision by order for preventing or restricting the publication in the United Kingdom of matters as to which he is satisfied that the publication, or, as the case may be, the unrestricted publication, thereof would or might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of war . . . .

Yes, But Which Attitude ?

From the Daily Worker (October 16th. 1939):-

“The Communist Party’s attitude towards the war is attracting a flow of new members to the Party.”

The Strange Case of “Professor Mamlock”

“Professor Mamlock” is a powerful anti-Nazi film produced in Russia, and shown to 30 million Russians since it was made in 1937. It was banned by the British Censor before the war, but in the first week of the war the Censor reversed his decision and it is now being shown in London.

In the meantime, Russia had signed her Pact with Nazi Germany, and according to the Daily Herald (October 7th, 1939) the film has now been banned in Russia !

The Man Who Did Not Know There Was a War On

The newspapers have been satirical about the German prisoners taken by the French, who said they did not know they were at war. They were told by the German authorities that they were on manoeuvres, and the explosions they heard were blasting and target practice. A strange but true story.

We know another equally strange. We know of millions of workers who have been suffering from capitalism all their lives, and yet, so powerful are the uses of advertisement, they are convinced that capitalism does not exist, and that poverty is an act of nature.

Suppose There is a Military Revolt Against Hitler, What Then ?

Mr. Duff Cooper, former First Lord of the Admiralty, recently gave an interview in New York in which he predicted that Hitler’s dealings with Russia would finally produce a revolution in Germany (Daily Telegraph, October 23rd, 1939). According to the Telegraph’s correspondent, he said that “it was likely that the revolution, although originating in the army, would produce a new monarchy rather than a military dictatorship.”

All of which looks very much like re-creating in Germany a military-bureaucratic Government like the Kaiser’s Government, against which the war of 1914 was said to be waged.

Children, We Have Need of You

  “Germany is returning to the employment of child labour on farms, according to an agricultural expert, speaking on the German radio.

  “On my own farm,” he said, “I employ children whose average age is 12.”—(Daily Telegraph, October 30th, 1939.)

* * *

  “The Isle of Ely Education Committee have decided that, owing to the serious scarcity of labour, they will raise no objection to boys and girls of 12 years of age and over being absent from elementary schools in the Isle of Ely at any time from September 27th to November 17th, to assist in agricultural work. “—(Times, September 28th, 1939.)

Truth, The First Casualty in War

From an article on Nurse Cavell, in the Evening Standard (October 10th, 1939): — 

“Her terrible inability to tell a lie.”

Edgar Hardcastle