The Wealthy Socialist. (1921)

From the November 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

The general attitude of the worker towards those possessing wealth is amusingly paradoxical. It is the heritage of serfdom, together with his present servile existence, that engenders the attitude of respect he will always adopt. Yet let him learn of a member of the bourgeoisie who has taken up a stand on behalf of the workers and displayed a knowledge of working-class conditions, and he will regard him sceptically, as who should say: “He’s got money; how can he know anything of us who haven’t? ” Although that very same worker, and this is where the paradox comes in, refuses to think any other way than with the bourgeoisie. He reads and quotes the propaganda they disseminate in their press. He prefers to vote for a candidate who is of the master class, because he feels that such a candidate, being educated and well endowed with the world’s goods, must be, necessarily, better able to represent him in Parliament. It is still quite common to regard M.P.'s in the same category as "toffs,” and a little high-sounding rhetoric and an Oxford accent is a good deal more than half the battle at election time.

A grand example of the falsity of such a position is brought home to us when we consider the life and work of Frederick Engels. Engels was bourgeois by birth and environment, and died worth a considerable amount of money, yet no man, perhaps not even Marx himself, understood the proletarian psychology better. He was the son of an affluent Manchester merchant who needn’t have bothered a bit about the working-class had he chose. But the very fact that his studies and investigations had discovered to him the workings of the social system, forced him, being honest, to write the monumental works so invaluable to the student of Socialism, in spite of his wealth.

This must not be confused with the Fabian argument that the emancipation of the Working Class can only be accomplished by the ” intelligentsia ” of the middle class. The emancipation of the working class must be the work of that class itself. All that is necessary is that it shall become class-conscious and organise to capture the political machinery at present in the hands of the capitalist class. The slum workers and social reformers of the middle class do not understand the economic forces which dominate Society. If they did, they would not waste time in patching up a system which is rotten right at the roots.

It is not necessary to go down a mine, to understand that miners are exploited, nor is it impossible for. a millionaire to know that his millions come from the blood and sweat of a robbed proletariat. There is. nothing, save, of course, a misunderstanding of the. Socialist philosophy, to prevent any member of Society, of whatever social standing, proclaiming himself a Socialist and joining the Socialist Party to work for the emancipation of Society itself; The working class must take the trouble to think for themselves, not waste time wondering whether a man with unsoiled hands really can know anything about factory hells and slums, analyse their position, form their own conclusions, and act upon them, then the day of capitalism will close upon the horrors and terrors it has given birth to, and the morrow will, dawn brighter and happier for the whole human family.

S.

The Communist Farce (1929)

Editorial from the October 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the moment of going to press we find a notice in the Daily Herald (20th September) to the effect that there is a split in the Communist Party and that Pollitt, Campbell and Horner are denounced as “Right wingers.”

We are not yet in a position to state how far the report is true, but the situation again calls attention to the fundamental unsoundness of the main plank in the policy of the Communist Party, both here and abroad. That plank is “Trust in leaders.”

The movement of the Communist Party, abroad as well as at home, during the last eleven years has been like the movement of a film from “Right” to “Left” with new stars in every period, or like the childish game of “who would be king of the castle.” 

For a time each group of stars has occupied the stage, denouncing their forerunners as “Right” wingers and pushing them out. The last leaders, in their turn, then become the subject of denunciation as “Right” wingers. Each fallen.star is depicted in the blackest of colours, although he is in fact no different in mental attitude from his attitude in the starring period.

The attitude and methods of the Communist Party lend themselves to the job-hunting and wire-pulling methods of a type that has always been common in the working-class movement. And it was partly for this reason that Karl Marx and his associates insisted so strongly upon the fact that “the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.”

It is also well to remember that while the energies of earnest and active working men are thus brought to nothing by the wranglings among the. kings of the castle, the capitalists can look on and smile, secure in the knowledge that an army torn with dissension can never be successful in battle.

Let the working class give up this slavish and sheep-like acceptance of leaders and themselves set about solving the social problem. The problem and the solution are comparatively simple, but they cannot be wafted away by phrases or slogans. The budding leader can always be recognised by his predilection for such things. Phrases and slogans have always been the stock-in-trade of the men who have striven to rise on the crest of waves of popularity to positions either of economic security or positions that flatter the vanity of the lover of power for its own sake.

The society we aim at building in the future is one wherein all will have a free and equal hand in the ordering of affairs. How can such a society be built on foundations such as the blind worship of the leaders of a day?

We repeat, therefore, again the lesson we have been repeating, monotonously for the last twenty-five years: No leader, however honest, clever or well-intentioned can lead the workers out of slavery. No man or group of men, however intellectual, can found a new society which depends for its success upon the knowledge and understanding of the bulk of the population. There is no royal road to Socialism. It can only be attained by working men and women who know what Socialism means and how it is to be obtained. Therefore, it is necessary for working men and women to do the comparatively small amount of thinking that is necessary to understand Socialism. When they have done so they will know the steps to be taken, and will no longer need to rely on the weak reed of leadership. In that day the utterer of cheap, choice and false phrases will find eloquence wasted and will be forced to go and find some useful occupation.

"The Mixture as Before" (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

German Social Democracy Today 

We are in receipt of the “Action Programme” of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, adopted at the Party Conference at Dortmund in 1952, and revised by the Party Conference at Berlin in July, 1954.

If the date had not been appended to the title page nobody outside would have known.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany has not changed.

It remains what it was, a nationalistic capitalist outfit, peddling a typically Labourite programme of reforms, while professing to be Socialist.

Indeed, without the vague introductory references to Socialism in the foreword to the programme, it would hardly differ from its opponents at all.

Those with knowledge of the facts will read with amusement that

  “The Social-Democratic Party of Germany commits itself more definitely than ever to file great ideas of Socialism and Democracy."—(p. 7).
  “It remains for ever committed to . . .  its great leaders from Karl Marx Frederick Engels, Ferdinand Lassalle and August Bebel down to Kurt Schumacher, Hans Boeckler and Ernst Reuter."—(p. 8).

Nobody would be more amazed at the cool effrontery of this than Marx and Engels themselves, who were so angry with their friends in Germany for having anything to do with Lassalle’s “Union of German Workers” (which they amalgamated with in 1875 at Gotha) that they warned them that they would publicly break with official German Social-Democracy, and denounce it

Marx’s language was so strong that when publishing his “Criticism of the Gotha Programme,” 15 years later, Engels had to insert dots for some of the more unparliamentary expressions.

Why was it that a man of Marx's calibre should be so incensed at what the Social-Democrats in Germany were doing?

After all, he had endured outrageous slander and calumny for years without complaint.

Examination of the facts shows that they started then, what they are still doing now, supporting capitalism by advocating reforms.

Marx wrote a detailed criticism (which he said was more than the doctor had allowed) to W. Bracke, saying that the reason he was so annoyed was because the tale was spread about Europe (especially by Bakunin) that he and Engels secretly ran the Eisenach (or Social Democratic) Party from London, and were therefore personally responsible for a collection of daft rubbish which was actually quite meaningless.

This rubbish was the stock-in-trade of Ferdinand Lassalle, a romantic figure of the day who became an agitator, before being killed in a duel, at an early age.

He was a Malthusian and advocated State regulation of Labour to operate the “Iron Law of Wages.”

F. Engels, in his letter of protest, wrote to Bebel

“Our people have allowed the Lassallean iron law of wages to be foisted on them, a law based on a quite antiquated economic view, namely, that the worker receives, on the average, only the minimum of the labour wage, because, according to Malthus theory of population there are always too many workers. Now, Marx has proved in ‘Capital' that the laws regulating wages are very complicated, that sometimes one predominates and sometimes another, according to circumstances, that therefore they are in no sense iron, but very elastic.” “Karl Marx” Selected Works Vol. II p. 589. Adoratsky, Moscow.

In Marx’s own view, 

   “since Lassalle’s death the scientific understanding has made progress in our party, that wages are not what they appear to be, namely, the value, or price of labour, but only a masked form for the value, or price of labour power. Thereby the whole bourgeois conception of wages hitherto, as well as all the criticism hitherto directed against this conception was thrown overboard once for all, and it was made dear that the wage-worker has permission to work for his own life, i.e. to live, only in so far as he works a certain time gratis for the Capitalist, that the whole capitalist system of production turns on the prolongation of this gratis labour by extending the working day, or by developing the productivity, or the greater intensity of labour power, etc., that consequently the system of wage-labour is a system of slavery, and indeed a slavery that becomes more severe as the social forces of labour develop, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.
   And after this understanding has made more and. more progress in our party, one returns to Lassaile's dogmas although one must have known that Lassalle did not know what wages are, but following in the wake of the bourgeois economists, took the appearance for the essence of the matter.” (“Karl Marx,” page 574, Moscow, 1933.)

Apart from the dangerous ideas he advocated everything in Lassalle’s character and actions made Marx detest him.

Both Marx and Engels smelt a rat when Lassalle wrote offering them editorial posts on his Berlin paper. If Marx would return to Germany, hinting that he might negotiate an amnesty for Marx.

It was not until 1928 that the truth was finally revealed that Lassalle, in fact, was a paid secret agent of Bismarck. (See “Bismarck and Lassalle” by Mayer, Berlin 1928, page 60.)

We have recalled a few facts to show how preposterous is the claim of the modem German Social-Democrats that Marx was one of “their leaders,” alongside Lassalle.

Those interested or sceptical are referred to the “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (Volume II, “Karl Marx Selected Works.” Adoratsky, Moscow, 1933), to verify the facts for themselves.

Everything in the “Unity” programme made Marx furious. Even the first clause—which ran—

“(1) Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is only possible in society and through society, the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society,” nearly drove him up the wall.

This is what he had to say about this mish-mash.

   “In proportion as labour develops socially and becomes thereby a source of wealth and culture, poverty and neglect develop among the workers, and wealth and culture among .the non-workers.
   “This is the law of all history, hitherto. What had to be done was to prove that capitalist society had created the material conditions enabling the workers to lift this social curse.” (Gotha Programme).

Is there any sign that modern German Social-Democracy has any intention of trying to lift this social curse of growing poverty with increasing wealth? Not the slightest.

This latest programme contains 50 pages of resolutions on nearly every conceivable subject except abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, they all concern its maintenance and improvement, including Tax and Penal Reform.

In this “Action Programme” we have the classic vote-catching Bill-of-Fare. Something for Everybody. Just like the I.L.P. Hitler, Mussolini, etc., etc., nobody has been forgotten.

The German Social Democrats are going to help the individual workers, civil servants, small business men, women, scientists, young people, the middle-classes, farmers, small farmers, “those in receipt of public relief” and refugees. (See Action Programme 1954.)

They want a Free Republic, increased production, increased public assistance “for the millions who suffer poverty,” wages to be assured of a reasonable relation to profit (page 25), more credits to the middle-class (page 28) and “the Social-Democrats will sustain small and medium scale Private-Property” (page 26). Healthy Housing for Everybody, Tax Reforms, more equitable distribution of Wealth, a social Security scheme on Beveridge lines for Unemployed or Sickness, Public Ownership of Coal, Iron, Transport and Power, Prison Reform, more Schools, Youth Hostels, and Judicial Reform, are a few more of the plums which the German Jack Homer is promised, if only he will stick in his thumb into the electoral pie for the Social Democratic Party.

What has all this to do with Socialism? Nothing. 

Study the actual record of the Social-Democrats in power in Prussia and it becomes obvious that the election phrases are but the cloak for the Capitalist policies.

Zorgiebel, Social-Democrat Chief of Police in Berlin, mowed down unruly workers with the ferocity of a Cavaignac.

Like Labour Governments everywhere the Social Democrats in Germany were just as active in running capitalism whatever the consequences to the worker, because that was their mandate.

After years in power, they spawned—Hitler.

If the German workers had any idea of the real meaning of Marx’s writings, they would reject the Social-Democrats.

When they learn more about the matter they will organise a Socialist Party.

Messrs, Ollenhauer, Schumacher, Boeckler, Reuter, crooks in the true tradition of Ferdinand Lassalle.

The German Philosopher, Nietsche (an anti-Socialist), called them “clambering apes.”

Horatio.

What Are We Waiting For? (1939)

From the December 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Slowly the fighting machines have been built up for the war that so far has missed fire. The enormous waste of wealth and labour for purely warlike ends shows clearly the immense powers of production possessed by modern society, and it also shows how comfortably everyone could live if this vast productive power were used for the equal benefit of all instead of operating for the private benefit of a few.

Whatever veil of make-believe may be drawn over the war, at bottom its basis is the same as all other wars of modern times, a struggle for trade routes, markets and sources of raw materials. Those whose interests are at stake in this struggle, and who are responsible for the outbreak of war, are not the workers, but sections of the capitalist class, the owners of the means of production.

In 1914 we were beguiled with tales of a new world that must be built after the war, and assured that such a terrible catastrophe must not take place again. To-day we hear the same tale from politicians fortified with the same empty eloquence.

After the last war the real motives behind it became evident in the process of clearing up the mess. First, the victorious groups tried to put a stranglehold on the vanquished and plunder them of markets, colonies, and spheres of influence. But in time they found they were killing some of the geese that laid the golden eggs. Capitalism lives by the production of goods for sale; without sale the surplus labour wrung from the worker cannot be turned into income-bearing channels. Nations brought to the dust are poor customers for goods, so the vanquished nations had to be built up again by the aid of the victors. And herein lies the irony of the situation. In building up customers the allied capitalists were also building up future competitors and preparing the ground for another war. It must always be so. While capitalism lasts this endless movement in a circle will continue.

When war commences everyone and everything is brought under its influence; the most inhuman conduct is glorified on the ground that victory must he achieved, and hypocrisy flourishes on both sides. One example is sufficient to illustrate the almost childish hypocrisy. Germany, who claim that the Allies' ferocious blockade is starving women and children, lay mines and attack ships, indiscriminately killing passengers, some of whom are women and children. The Allies remonstrate strongly against Germany’s inhumanity—and tighten the starvation blockade where they can.

It is amazing to think that such things can be in a society the majority of which are workers who bear the sorrows of war but do not share the joys of victory. It is amazing to think that workers should accept as inevitable a condition that whisks them from their homes to the shambles in defence of—what? Their poverty-stricken conditions? That is really what it amounts to, in spite of the high- sounding panoply of ideals under which they march to the battlefield, blessed by the hopes and prayers of the clerical props of a ruthlessly commercial society.

But the war circle produced by capitalist greed is not really endless, for the exploited must one day awake to the source of their exploitation. The facts are simple and easy to grasp once the crusty spell of accepted fallacies is broken. Wealth is produced by the application of human energy to sources supplied freely by nature. The worker applies this human energy but the capitalist has monopolised nature’s resources and by the threat of starvation forces the worker into handing over the product of his labour. The worker receives back in wages what represents the keep of himself and his family. The capitalist takes the rest. No superior power has given the capitalist the right to monopolise nature’s resources. It was done originally by direct robbery through force of arms and has been retained by a hereditary legal fiction.

Here and there a few “cunning” or fortunate individuals have managed to climb out of the ranks, of the workers into that of the privileged, but time is making this climb more difficult.

The workers produce all the wealth, and, as they make up the vast mass of the population, they can alter social foundations so that a reasonable society can be built up, when they understand and desire to do so. The only form of society that is a suitable heritage from capitalism is one built upon a Socialist basis; that is, one rooted in conditions in which the whole of society’s man-power and woman-power will be organised for the free and equal satisfaction of social requirements on the principle of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Such a society would mean the end of war, and of poverty and of exploitation. It would enable each member to live a healthy and happy life, and would banish the fearful shadow of the future that darkens so many homes to-day.

To bring about that change in social conditions the principal thing needed is understanding of their real social position on the part of the workers. It is for that understanding that we are waiting; when it dawns the future will be bright with hope.

Gilmac.

Juvenile Crime (1967)

From The Changing Face of Crime series from the January 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

The reformers of past years thought that as such evils as child labour and starvation in the streets abated so crime, especially amongst the young, would diminish.

Some twenty years of relatively full employment should therefore show a marked decline in all forms of crime by different age groups.

Yet we find such evidence as this, extracted from The Home Office Criminal Statistics 1963 England and Wales.

These figures are in fact a source of controversy, especially as they only include the solved crimes. The amount unsolved is much higher although one person can commit many crimes.

About ninety per cent of all crime involves property, even if violence is used. The reasons given for the problem of juvenile crime are varied enough and must be so, as the subject is studied in different areas and at varying times.

Burt & Bagot found, as a result of their surveys in poor depressed areas, that the delinquents lived in standards below civilized requirements. Morris and Jones surveyed new housing estates and rather declaimed the effects of slum conditions. John Baron Mays points out that crime is a group activity indulged in a petty way by children generally. Poor home and social conditions where discipline is low and needs great hardens and develops this. Other groups are by no means immune as our society has strong anti-social trends. He claims that crime arises out of the normal routine of daily life. Durkheim argued that a low crime rate means society suffers from some form of dominant social evil or condition, hence greater delinquency means an economic boom. The Glueck investigation found no evidence of marked poor health in young delinquents whilst others have stressed the contrary. Edwin Sutherland stressed that most cases arise from social factors, subculture patterns and the law-breakers’ inadequate personalities. Talcott Parsons regards delinquents as being deviationists mentally retarded in various ways,

Out of this mass of evidence, which appears confusing and contradictory and in fact is, the effect of the manifold faults in our society and the pressure on people is clearly stated. The point that escapes the notice of the expert is that the various aspects they consider to be important factors in the moulding of the young delinquent are all facets of capitalist society.

No doubt children coming from the environment and raised under the care of very poor parents, as described in Collis & Poole’s work These Our Children, are very much victims of their immediate conditions. In spite of this, capitalism with its army of wage workers has flung up. and indeed found it necessary to create, slum houses and slum mentalities. The cases under review are therefore products of some generations of wage slavery carefully nurtured in poverty and ignorance. What of the delinquent who comes from the new housing estates or a nice “respectable” area? We find that in some of these homes the urge to acquire goods and to ensure a status is often at its strongest. Parents sometimes work long hours as the mortgage cannot be deferred like the old fashioned tally man and so the home never becomes a place where one really belongs. The teenager, now established as a wage earner and therefore a consumer, is very much under pressure from new trends in taste and consumption. Thus we get a coincidence of the break-down of home life and a realisation of belonging to a specific age group. The teenager have become well implanted with the concept that they are in some subtle way different from others, their needs and aspirations on a level that is different from the rest of society. Often the delinquent emerges as a social organisation — the Gang, or Mods and Rockers. They are a substitute for failure and must produce by force their own roots. They need inter-gang warfare, damage and vandalism and the Police to hate as a means of perverse social expression. Some often from higher wage bracket homes fall even lower and sink to drug addiction and that peculiar form of modern voluntary vagrancy or sturdy beggars referred to as beatniks.

Our society is riddled with graft, fiddling and place seeking and must remain so in a world of buying and selling. It does not require much pushing to acquire a car by swiping the ignition keys instead of working long hours overtime. We should not make the mistake of thinking the bulk of criminals wax very fat on their misdeeds. They are working class, steal from workers and end their days on what used to be called National Assistance. Like the wealth of capitalism, only a handful amass the millions from a big tickle like the Train Robbery.

Deep emotional conflicts probably do play an important part in many delinquents’ make up but capitalism finds a way out for it as well as often being the major cause. It is so well summed up by Terrence Morris; here is a summary of his words: The competitive society has something of the compulsory game. We are all forced to play and penalized if we do not achieve some success. The delinquent is the person who, unable to win, has sneaked around the back or turned aggressively against other competitors (Listener 4.639).

Mass production of drugs for sale has now made a pill-conscious society. It is not a far step for the unscrupulous to move into an untapped narcotics market, the customers are there ready and willing. It is a fine, business-like thing to sell bombs and flame throwers in order to realise a profit, then why should society be so shocked if someone sells heroin for the same reason?

Finally, if the theories are correct the growth of unemployment under the Labour Government should see a decline in Britain’s crime wave. It is typical of capitalism, that it “solves” one problem by replacing it with another.

Jack Law

Editorial: The Definition of War Aims (1939)

Editorial from the November 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Prime Minister has been urged by the Labour Party and others to give a more precise definition of British war aims because so far his statements have been largely in the form of generalised pronouncements about destroying Hitlerism and redeeming Europe “from the perpetual and recurring fear of German aggression” (House of Commons, September 3rd and 20th). Already, however, the swift movement of events has shown one reason why the British Government maintains (as it also did in 1914) a cautious attitude lest it be committed to some course of action which would fail to fit in with changing situations. Had it announced, for example, that it would wage war against all aggressors the Russian entry into Poland and the Russian terms forced on the Baltic countries would have necessitated a declaration of war against Russia. Undoubtedly it is true, as Mr. Lloyd George maintains, that the Russo-German Pact and Russia’s subsequent expansion have created a different situation, but to that situation there are strongly divergent reactions observable in different quarters. Mr. Lloyd George and his supporters consider that an international conference now would be a very different proposition from Munich, and that Germany’s powers of aggressive action have now probably been curbed by Russia’s strengthened position.

Another group appear to hold the view that Russia’s dominance is at least as much of a menace as a help. They observe Russia pushing westwards in Europe and the Baltic, south-westwards into the Balkans, south towards the Persian Gulf, and east into China. The Daily Mail (October 19th, 1939) quotes “a high Finnish authority” as saying: —

Moscow realises . . . that Britain has huge interests in Scandinavia, with which Russia would have to count if she expanded farther west.

From Turkey (Daily Mail, October 24th) come reports of Russian pressure on Turkey for the handing over of territory which prior to 1920 was in Russian Armenia, the ultimate aim of this move being to secure “a warm seaport in the Persian Gulf.”

From Japanese sources (repudiated by the Communists) come statements about Russian troop concentrations in the Chinese provinces of Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, and in North-Western China, and demands made on the Chinese Government directed towards increasing Russian influence in China (Daily Herald, October 21st).

It does not need stressing that Russian expansion in these various directions would present serious problems for British imperial and trading interests, in China, in India, the Persian Gulf and. the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as in Scandinavia.

The realisation of this (obviously a factor always in the mind of the Foreign Office) has induced a number of people to toy with the idea of “switching the war,” to use a phrase coined by one newspaper.

Thus on September 27th the Times published a letter suggesting that British propaganda should be concentrated on the effort to bring home to the German people the results of the Pact with Russia, then realising the situation, the German people would sweep away the Nazis, reconstitute Western Poland, “and seek an agreement with Britain, France, Italy and Spain for the defence of European civilisation.”

Other pointers in the same direction are Mr. Duff Cooper’s prediction of a military-monarchist revolt against Hitler; General Franco’s statement in an interview that, “Germany should be a sufficiently strong and solid barrier to oppose against Europe’s orientation towards the political and social aims of great and expanding Russia,” and that “it is essential to procure and make peace as soon as possible ” (Daily Telegraph, October 4th); Marshal Balbo’s revived campaign against Bolshevism in his Italian newspaper (News Chronicle, October 12th); and, of course, the French suppression of the Communist Party.

Another significant circumstance has been the obvious uneasiness in various quarters lest Germany should “go Bolshevik” and enter into close alliance with Russia. In the Times of September 30th a special correspondent points out that: —

The bloc between a Soviet Russia and a Nazi Germainy, which is likely to represent a very uncertain alliance, seems less to be feared than a bloc between a Soviet Russia and a Soviet Germany, which would follow a Bolshevist revolution in the latter country.

“Herein,” lie says, “would seem to lie the greatest danger to the Western Powers,” the danger that Russia will seek to prolong the war between the Allies and Germany until Hitlerism collapses and is replaced by a Bolshevik Government.

Another influential group thinking on similar lines is to be found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Herald for example (October 20th), in an article by the Editor, remarks on the danger that a prolonged war “would in effect gravely imperil the very ends at which we aim,” and draws the following distinction between Nazism and Bolshevism:—

“Our view is that Nazism, while likely under stress to become more and more like Bolshevism, can still, under favourable circumstances, remain European, Fascist, and even be leavened by the 50 million Catholics and the faithful Protestants of the Reich.”

(The above remarks are, it is true, made in parenthesis, but their significance in relation to the proclaimed purpose of resisting the Soviet menace is obvious.)

As against these views tending towards the idea of reaching a settlement with a non-Hitler German Government, is the attitude of the Evening Standard, which stresses the fact that Russian expansion in Poland has been achieved “without losing even the goodwill of Hitler’s deadly enemies ” (i.e., England and France) (Evening Standard, October 23rd). The Evening Standard strongly warns its readers against paying attention “to those who invite us to embroil ourselves with Russia because of their secret wish that we should withdraw from our battle with Nazism ” (Evening Standard, October 14th).

What will be the outcome of these divergent tendencies cannot be predicted with any precision because, among other reasons, military considerations, dictated by the war itself, and the need for allies even at a price, may over-ride non-military factors. It is, however, certain that the situation facing the British and French Governments is a complex one and, consequently, other developments are possible besides the simple pursuit of the war until victory is achieved.

It is equally certain that the achievement of the Premier’s aims of abolishing “Hitlerism” and stopping German aggression in Europe will leave the British Government with quite a lot of other problems vital to them awaiting solution, problems related to other Powers besides Germany.

And, above all, when those and other capitalist problems have been solved the lot of the workers in all countries will remain essentially what it was before 1914 and what it is to-day. The workers’ supreme task of abolishing capitalism (and with it war) will remain before them.

Socialism Has Not Abandoned its Aims (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A WORD TO THE ENEMIES OF SOCIALISM 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always had to challenge and denounce the avowed enemies of Socialism and the self-styled friends of Socialism who attached the name Socialism to the varied forms of State capitalism. The anti-Socialist parties and Press, often for reasons of their own, but sometimes out of pure ignorance, helped on the work of misrepresentation by describing as “Socialist” the Labour Party, the Co-operative Movement, Nazi Germany, and Bolshevist Russia. Now, with the transition from peace to war, the misrepresentation increases in volume. We read in the Daily Telegraph (September 20th) that “the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain has subscribed £5,000 to the funds of the Socialist Party,” meaning, of course, the Labour Party. We read in the Newbury Weekly News (September 14th) that Mr. Lewis Davison, prospective candidate of the Labour Party, speaking in the name of Socialists, declared that they "want only the destruction of Fascism.” We find the Manchester Guardian, in an editorial (September 18th), denouncing what they believe to be the foreign policy of the Russian Government, and saying, "It would not be a pretty policy for the first Socialist State. . . .”

Then, Mr. Duff Cooper, writing in the Evening Standard (September 19th), under the heading, "Two Breeds of Bolshevism,” goes much further. Though he admits that he "consistently advocated an agreement with Russia,” he has this to say about Nazism and Bolshevism, and their recent Pact: —

   In these columns I have more than once referred to the possibility of such an alliance; and the conclusion of it is indeed the most natural thing in the world, because there is no fundamental difference between the creeds of Moscow and Berlin.
    These two breeds of Bolshevism are fundamentally akin. Both are historically revolutionary, both are admittedly socialistic, both seek to break away from all ties with the past, to abolish all class distinction, to destroy all old traditions, and both are bitterly anti-Christian.
    Where they differ the Russian brand is indeed the less ignoble of the two, the German is the more efficient.
    The Communism of Karl Marx does in theory, if not in practice, aim at international peace and good will. It envisages a world in which all men shall be equal both in status and in wealth and in which all nations shall be friends.
     No such dreams haunt the baser imagination of the Nazi. He, while rejecting Christianity, has returned to the primitive tribal paganism of his barbarous ancestors. He has no faith in humanity but only in a particular branch of it out of which he has created an idol, unknown to ethnical science, whom he calls the Nordic man and whom he worships.
    The higher ideals of Communism won’t work, and the Bolsheviks of Moscow have long abandoned them. 

He recalls the difficulty the Allied Governments had in the last war in being friends of the Czar’s Government and at the same time claiming to support democracy, and adds : —

    As a result of the events of these past three weeks that difficulty, at least, exists no longer. The Powers of Evil are now united. National Socialism and International Socialism are at one. The two Governments that base their systems upon robbery, torture and murder are marching together. The anti-Christian and anti-God forces are in step.
     There can surely be no conference or compromise with the Stalin-Hitler front, which now presents itself naked and unashamed before the horrified eyes of the civilised world.

(We may remark in parenthesis that, just as the pseudo-Socialists had no great difficulty in stomaching Czarism in 1914, so we have little doubt that, with a new turn in international affairs, Mr. Duff Cooper may again have to consider accepting a Russian alliance against Germany.)

As Socialists, we are concerned to defend the name of Socialism. Let us, then, reiterate that the Socialist Party of Great Britain never has and never will lend itself to the pretence that something else than Socialism is "just as good.” We have never worked for or defended State capitalism, whether as advocated by the reformist parties in this country or as practised by the Nazis and Bolsheviks in Germany and Russia. We have never been prepared to pretend that Czarism or Bolshevism were democratic; we have never glossed over the brutalities of those two systems. We have always held that Socialism is, in its nature, democratic and international. We have never been prepared to compromise those views. In war, as in peace, we repudiate the false friends and avowed enemies of Socialism who seek to associate Socialism with various forms of capitalism and capitalism’s wars.

Mr. Duff Cooper can take it from us that “international Socialism” is not at one with Nazism or with Labourism, or British-French imperialism, or with the Bolshevist survival of the imperialism of the Czars. And in saying this we do not have to perform adroit feats of word-swallowing.

Socialists, now as always, stand for Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Churches versus Socialism (1942)

Editorial from the August 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a stirring in the ranks of the Churchmen. They are interesting themselves in social problems. They are, or so we are told, coming nearer to Socialism, or at least they are being “enlightened” and “progressive” and adopting “advanced” social reforms. For proof we are referred to the recent declaration by the Catholic Archbishops and to the Archbishop of York’s Conference at Malvern. Where then do the Churches stand to the major issue of our age, the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism? Do they fight with Socialists for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution and for the ending of the class system under which human labour-power is a commodity bought and sold? Or do they stand openly for capitalism? Truth to tell, they don’t do either. They are definitely and flatly against Socialism, but they never avow themselves frankly supporters of capitalism. Instead, they dwell on the need for fine sounding remedies for the “abuses” of capitalism. Like 19th century defenders of slavery in the British Empire and the U.S.A. who wanted slavery to be retained but wanted the slaveowners to be “just” and “kind” to their slaves, these Christian social reformers abhor the idea of abolishing Capitalist wage-slavery but they earnestly desire that it should be run according to modified rules. They side with the workers against “unjust” capitalists, but ever so much more they side with the capitalists against workers who want to abolish capitalism. Is this an unfair criticism? Let their own words give the answer.

The Catholic Church gave its answer in the Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 (published in translation under the title “The Condition of the Working Classes,” by the Catholic Truth Society, price 6d.). It is open in .its hostility towards Socialism on the ground that the abolition of private ownership “is manifestly against justice. For every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own” (page 14), and that Socialists would “strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his condition in life ” (pages 13 and 14).

It would seem a sufficient Socialist answer to this to point out that capitalism also must be “manifestly against justice” since it prevents the mass of workers, whether in Catholic or Protestant countries, from possessing any property worth mentioning. Socialism, by making the means of production the common property will for the first time enable all the community to have personal possessions in useful amount.

The Encyclical envisages the continuance of the class division of society, rich and poor, and of the system of wage-labour, but (in the words of the sub-titles) “Class should help class,” “The rich must help the poor” (but not so much that the rich man is thus prevented from being able “to keep up becomingly his condition, in life” page 25), but "The poor must accept their lot.” 

That was in 1891, but it still stands as the official view, and lest there be any doubt about it Pope Pius XI, in 1931, issued a further Encyclical which affirmed that “no one can be at one and the same time a good Catholic and a true Socialist” (Manchester Guardian, May 18th, 1931). This led to some controversy, as it was awkward for those Labour Party supporters who proclaimed their doctrines to be Socialism, and led to an explanation by Father Henry Day, S.J., reported as follows in the Daily Telegraph (May 25th, 1931):—

Father Day said that it must be taken literally, and applied to every recognised form of Socialism . . . . The fundamental and necessary opposition between Catholicism and Socialism lay in the assertion by the one and the denial by the other of the right of individual property in capital. If this was grasped it would be clear that a good Catholic could not be a true Socialist.

Father Day ended with a special reference to Sir James Sexton, M.P., who had defended his membership of the Labour Party:—

Nationalisation of railways and mines was outside the question. If the politics of Sir James Sexton and the British Labour Party were confined to such measures, neither he nor they had any right to the title of Socialist. 

More recently the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter signed by Cardinal Hinsley and the Catholic Archbishops of Liverpool, Birmingham and Cardiff (Times, June 22nd, 1942). Regarded as a programme for reforming capitalism, it bears interesting comparison with such documents as the I.L.P. Living Income Programme issued some years ago. It includes a proposal for a living wage (amount not stated) which should be a first charge on industry, enabling a family not only to live a moderately comfortable life, but also to save. According to the Manchester Guardian (June 22nd, 1942) it provides also that if the employer cannot afford this minimum wage the difference should be made up by the whole industry or by the State. It would take us beyond the scope of this article to deal with the objections to this and other such proposals, but it may be conceded that in its intention it is at least superior to those family allowance schemes which propose allowances for children but overlook the possibility of wages generally being reduced and so wiping out the effect of the allowances.'

What, however, we are concerned with here is that the whole document deals only with the so-called abuses of capitalism and wage slavery, and does not admit the case against the system. It says that Christianity will not tolerate attacks on the dignity of man caused by unemployment and “the necessity of selling labour for less than a just wage”—but is prepared to tolerate the basic indignity of man having to sell his labour power at all!

Similarly with the Malvern Conference Report of the Church of England (published as “Life of the Church and the order of Society,” Industrial Christian Fellowship, 2d.), it holds, like the Catholic Church, that “property is necessary to fulness of personal life; all citizens should be enabled to hold such property as contributes to moral independence and spiritual freedom,” but again, like the Catholic Church, is fails to show how the mass of the population can ever reach that state while the means of production and distribution are privately owned by the capitalist class. All it concedes (and this again is in line with Catholic views), is that “where the rights of property conflict with the establishment of social justice or the general social welfare, those rights should be overridden, modified, or, if need be, abolished.” (Page 9.)

Why this evasion of what is the major issue? Had the delegates at the Malvern Conference never heard of the Socialist contention that private ownership of the means of production, etc., is against the general social welfare? Where then do they stand on the question? Are they for or against the Socialist view? If they are against it what exactly is their case for private ownership of other than personal articles? Subsequently, in conjunction with representatives of the Catholic Church and the Free Church Federal Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a supplementary statement of five points, the first being " Extreme inequality in wealth and possessions should be abolished."

Here again we see the evasive nature of their proposals; they are all things to all men. They are not against capitalism but against some features of it. They do not set out to disprove the Socialist contention that the riches of the rich are the cause of the poverty of the poor. They do not come down flatly for capitalism, which engenders riches and poverty, or for Socialism, which will abolish both rich and poor and inaugurate a classless society, but they sit on the fence and boldly proclaim the empty intention of ending “extreme inequality” but without defining what they regard as extreme. All but the multi millionaires will heartily approve and even they will concede that some reduction of their possessions will be a small price to pay for keeping the remainder.

So much for the politically-minded Bishops. We may conclude with a brief reference to a Church-minded politician. President Roosevelt. On “United Nations Day” he ended a broadcast with a Prayer which dealt with victory in the war and reconstruction after it, and contained one passage interesting chiefly because of what it did not say:—

   Grant us brotherhood in hope and union, not only for the space of this biller war. but for the days to come, which shall and must unite all the children of the earth.
  Our earth it but a small star in the great universe, yet of it we can make, if we choose, a planet unvexed by war, untroubled by hunger or fear, and undivided by senseless distinctions of race, colour or theory. ("Daily Express," June 16th.)

Notice the significant omission of any reference to the one thing that deeply divides every nation on the earth, the division into a propertied class and a property, lets class, out of which arises all the bitterness of class struggle. It is a cardinal fact, not a theory; but it is not mentioned. Like the Churches, the President hopes for the removal of the theories which spring from the fact of class divided society—but not the removal of the class basis. Like them he is not for Socialism but against it.

Bolshevism and the Russian Peasants. (1924)

From the March 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the early days of the Bolshevik regime, when we were giving Bolsheviks full credit for the magnificent efforts they were making on behalf of the working class, we met with violent abuse from many 100 per cent. revolutionaries, who, fresh from supporting the war, had just discovered that Kerensky whom they hailed was no better than President Wilson whom they hailed before him.

They were unable to understand that it is not wise, nor even helpful, to credit men with actions which are in the nature of the case impossible. We said then that, with the best will in the world, the Bolsheviks could not establish Socialism in Russia; certain other things they could do and did do. In particular we said that the peasants, the great majority, did not understand Socialism, and did not want it. It was also quite apparent that nothing fundamental could be done without their consent.

The Soviet Government was, of course, concentrating on Socialist propaganda, but apart from the fact that the most definite want felt by the peasants was satisfied by the acquisition of land, the Bolsheviks were also faced with the difficulty of reaching people who in the main could not read.

This enormous obstacle was airily disposed of by our critics, and we were often assured that the Bolsheviks had done in a few months what could not be done in this country by years of persistent propaganda.

It is, therefore, of interest to learn just how much has really been accomplished. The following extract is from a report of a recent congress on “The Peasant Press” contained in Russian Information and Review (January 12th, 1924):—

“Throughout the R.S.F.S.R. there are only 32 regional peasant newspapers, with a circulation of 115,000; 39 county newspapers, with a circulation of 50,000: and the Moscow Bicdnota, with a circulation- of 45,000.”

Thus, after 6 years of State aided propaganda, only 1 peasant household out of every 100 takes a copy of a newspaper.

Hopes are entertained that by 1925 this circulation can be multiplied 10 times, so that 1 household in 10 will receive a copy.

Consideration of these figures will show what work has to be done and how incredibly foolish were those who in 1917 and 1918 [who] believed that the establishment of Socialism in Russia was even imminent. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Alright, Jack? (1979)

From the May 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

In modern society, the interests of the individual are indivisible from those of society at large. Socialism then can he seen as a matter of self interest. 

If society is organised as a capitalist jungle, the human animals who live in it will of necessity require tooth and claw in order to survive against the competition. To mix a couple of common metaphors—in a rat race nice guys finish last.

It follows from this that people must now set themselves to the task of cutting down the competitive jungle and establishing in its place an environment which will allow human beings to behave as such and not like rats in a rat race. And this task must be achieved by the non-angelic humans who compose society. But, it may be asked, why should men and women who are accustomed to living in the jungle bother to set their hands to creating a different kind of society and one which will give no scope or reason for all those qualities which religious people describe under the heading of original sin? If we don’t expect people to have a “change of heart,” how can we expect them to take upon themselves the task of building the new society of harmony and co-operation? Well, it will not happen out of altruism—but sheer self-interest.

First, it is necessary to say that the key to the history of the evolution of human society is that classes act in what they conceive to be their own interests. The immediate example of that is seen in the revolutions in various countries (classically France but also, of course, England and Russia) in which the rising capitalist class overthrew the feudal system. And the proof that that step really was in the interests of the bourgeoisie is readily demonstrated when one looks at today’s world and sees the unparalleled wealth which the capitalist class enjoys. The riches of an Onassis or a Rockefeller make the great feudal lords look like veritable “basket cases” (to use the term so often on the lips of glib politicians like Kissinger). But this answer is not sufficient for our purpose even though it is incontrovertible as far as it goes. It might be argued that the capitalist class did not have to think very hard to see where their self-interest lay. (Which is perhaps as well; capitalists do not need to be great thinkers. Just great money-makers.) The rising capitalist class did not have to think very hard to see that feudalism was fettering their efforts to amass wealth—which was the object of the exercise.

The capitalist class needed, above all else, a working class to exploit. And the army of potential workers was not in the towns queueing up for jobs in the mills and the mines. They were tied to the land, eking out their existence being exploited for the benefit of the landowning aristocracy. For capitalism to succeed it was essential to get the peasants off the land and into the factories. So self-interest stepped in and the capitalist class staged their revolution—with the help of the masses who were prepared to assist the devil they didn’t know in preference to the one they did know.

The self-interest is not always clearly and immediately and individually apparent. Suppose we have an elderly worker who is convinced that all the social evils of capitalism (poverty, insecurity, unemployment, inferior housing and food, not to speak of wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation) can only be eliminated by the abolition of the system of private and state-owned means of production and distribution. He could be excused for thinking that he will not see socialism no matter how hard he works for it. Socialism will only happen, as already indicated, when the majority of the working class have consciously opted for it. And not even the most incurable optimist could imagine that being achieved in, say, the next ten years. So how will that worker be achieving his own self-interest, which is the motive force for the establishment of socialism? Will he not simply be working his way into the grave?

The rate of progress in socialist thinking of the working class is difficult to judge. But it by no means follows that because we are a tiny handful of socialists now, fewer than a thousand after seventy five years, that their progress cannot suddenly take off. And once a take-off point is reached, it is reasonable to expect that socialists’ efforts to convince their fellow workers will accelerate at a rather more encouraging rate than we have seen hitherto. But to our elderly worker, the self-interest we talk about is the self-interest of the class to which he belongs. When the majority of the working class can see the clear self-interest of the class as a whole, then the self-interest of the individual members of the class will be fulfilled.

When I jointed the SPGB in Manchester at the age of 19, the aged pillar of that Branch (I reckoned that he and his wife were about half the membership of the Branch) made it quite clear to me: “Don’t be a young man in a hurry. That way lies only disillusionment. No good for you. No good for the SPGB either. If you dislike the world around you, if you think that it is possible to make a much nicer world for you and your posterity to live in, then join us. But if you expect to see the new world by the time you are 30 or 40, then we certainly cannot make you any promises”.

I got the message, I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed that the working class has proved to be so slow in seeing their own class self-interest. But never having had illusions, I am spared the risk of becoming disillusioned. And what better way is there to spend one’s time than in trying to make a better world? And to make people see the futility of hoping that by putting a little cross every few years for the likes of Callaghan or Thatcher, these vile politicians (some of whom even have the impudence to call themselves socialists while actually running capitalism) will make the better world for them.

L. E. Weidberg

Cooking the Books: John McDonnell Imagines (2016)

The Cooking the Books column from the November 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the end of his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, shadow chancellor John McDonnell offered a definition of socialism. Invoking John Lennon he orated:

‘Imagine the society that we can create. It’s a society that’s radically transformed, radically fairer, more equal and more democratic. Yes, based upon a prosperous economy but an economy that’s economically and environmentally sustainable and where that prosperity is shared by all. That’s our vision to rebuild and transform Britain. In this party you no longer have to whisper it, it’s called socialism.’

Evidently McDonnell hasn’t got much of an imagination as this is something that politicians in the other parties can, and do, subscribe to without calling it socialism. They’re right. It isn’t.

It is not even what in the days of Clause Four the Labour Party used to imagine was socialism. In those days Labour believed that to govern in the interest of trade unionists and other workers they would have to control at least ‘the commanding heights of the economy’ through a substantial state-owned sector. The Thatcher government in the 1980s abolished that.

The nationalised sector of the economy wasn’t socialism either, but a form of state capitalism. Not that McDonnell is promising to bring it back. He accepts that the commanding heights of the economy are to remain in private capitalist hands and is offering only a bit of state intervention and direction:

‘Good business doesn’t need no government. Good business needs good government … the next Labour government will be an interventionist government … our government will create an entrepreneurial state that works with the wealth creators,  the workers and the entrepreneurs to create the products and the markets that will secure our long term prosperity.’

Don’t ask us what an ’entrepreneurial state’ is. It sounds like a state that will help entrepreneurs.

He did promise that, in the lowlands and foot hills of the economy, Labour ‘will promote a renaissance of cooperative and worker ownership.’

Experience, however, has shown that such enterprises don’t last long as they are unable to compete with ordinary capitalist enterprises in the same sector.

None of those set up by Tony Benn when he was Secretary of State for Industry in the 1970s survived. But even if they had, worker-controlled enterprises producing for sale on a market with a view to profit is not socialism and not what socialists want.

Workers in them have to discipline themselves to work harder and cut costs. It’s what’s been called ‘workers’ self-exploitation’.

McDonnell’s ‘vision’ accepts that a future Labour government would have to act within the framework of a capitalist economy dominated by private, profit-seeking enterprises. That means that it would have to allow these enterprises to make profits and in fact that it has to work with them and not against them, unless, that is, it wants to provoke an economic downturn.

Labour Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, provided a more apt ending for McDonnell’s speech when he told the delegates: ‘Capitalism, comrades, is not the enemy.’ How could it be when you are committed to running a capitalist economy?

The Passing Show: Spanish Arms (1964)

The Passing Show column from the August 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Spanish Arms . . .

What a fuss has blown up over the cancellation of the “Frigates of Franco” contract! Anyone would think that arms deals between powers had never taken place before. Both government and opposition are striving hard to make as much electoral kudos out of the affair as they can. What a godsend to Sir Alec, looking around for a reviver for the sunken Tory spirits; and as the game of shadow boxing is played out in the Commons, press and elsewhere, the same old stench of hypocrisy overall.

Self righteous indignation abounds. “Insulting a great and proud people!" roars a Tory. “No arms for fascists.” jeers Labour in return, although as Government spokesmen have pointed out. Franco will just get his warships elsewhere and British capitalists will lose a few million pounds worth of trade. The Prime Minister says that the opposition have done irreparable harm to “our” trade with Spain, which Mr, Wilson promptly counters by offering to trade with any fascist country, except in war weapons. Gibraltar, one of “our” major bases, has also been drawn into the squabble as an additional red herring. Franco has been after it for years and apparently plans to lay claim to it again in the near future.

A fair summary of the current Labour attitude was given by Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, M.P. He said: ~

The Labour Party wants trade with all countries, including Spain. We do not believe in trade boycotts, but arms deals are different . . . 

which only goes to show how little H.M. Opposition really know about the capitalist world in which they live. First, we cannot resist reminding Mr. Walker that only two or three years back, his party launched a “Don't Buy S. African Goods” campaign in protest against Apartheid, and if that is not a trade boycott, then we don't know what is. (It failed to have any appreciable effect, needless to say).

But this is the sort of inconsistency of which every capitalist party is guilty, but have no difficulty in shrugging off as the shifting sands of politics force a change in posture from time to time. At the moment, the Labour Party is a very strong contender for government, in which case it won't want to be squeamish about whom to trade with. There are, however, matters of deeper import which should concern us, and which none of the other parties can be expected to raise.

The existence of arms anywhere and in any hands is an evil, and since Socialists are not concerned with choosing between evils, we refuse to enter into the futile squabble over the Spanish arms deal. We know that while capitalist society lasts, the State in all its various political complexions will be with us too. And that means coercion at home and abroad. It matters little, after all, whether the bullets which end our lives are home-made or imported.

And what of the trade which Labour and others are so anxious to foster? “ Peaceful trade ” is how they would all describe it, but there is really no such thing. Trade is a product of private property society. Its very existence means competition, and sooner or later, strife. It cannot be conducted on any other basis or with any different result, yet it seems to mesmerise everyone including workers - the very people who should view it as a curse, not a blessing. Modern trade typifies the anarchy which is capitalism. Despite all the market research, it cannot be regulated and makes a mockery of even the most cautious plans.

But, above all, trade presupposes ease and comfort for the few and deprivation for the rest of us, even when the economy is riding high on a boom. No wonder governments are so anxious for it to continue. These are some of the points which we ask you to bear in mind amidst the mud slinging and irrelevancies of the forthcoming election.

And British double think . . .

What does the word "usefully" mean to you? From our point of view the only satisfactory definition would be "aiming to advance human welfare and happiness." So anything short of that could hardly be called useful. Accepting our definition, would you then say that soldiers perform a useful service? No, neither would we. But it just shows how language can change, or can be changed to suit the interests of capitalism.

A current advert is appealing for male instructors for the Army Cadet Force, and if we are gullible enough to believe it, we will rush to lend a hand. Did you know, for example, that a youngster in the A.C.F. “uses his leisure well?” That the A.C.F. “ . . . is concerned with producing good citizens rather than with training future soldiers, but it does this by fostering soldierly qualities? ” There is a picture, too, of a smiling uniformed youth at camp with a rifle slung over his shoulder. (“ . . . worthwhile open-air activities ”)! Search as you may through this prime piece of double think, you will find no allusion to its object, which should be as obvious as a sore thumb, i.e„ to interest youngsters in joining the regular army, where they will have opportunities of exercising their “soldierly qualities" on the battlegrounds of the future.

Nowadays, the armed forces have to compete with industry for manpower, and rates of pay have been increased in an effort to attract youngsters. But despite the various improvements in pay and conditions, the dirt, discomfort and disciplines, to say nothing of the possibility of a violent death at sonic time or an". . .  professional.” In the Royal Signals, for instance, he speaks to his commander "in the capacity of professional adviser.” It says so in another advert. The place of our fresh-faced cadet has been taken by a good-looking young man in his early twenties, whom the camera catches in earnest discussion with his superiors during manoeuvres. Oh yes, they do discuss this officer's function in battle, but with a subtle air of detachment, deftly balanced against glamour and flattery, thus: -

And because he is first and foremost a soldier, he has also the most rewarding responsibility of all —the lives and welfare of his own men.

We can guarantee that never in any of the recruitment adverts will you find even a hint at the real purpose of the armed forces. Nowhere will you be told just what a really dirty job it is, in every sense, to be a soldier, sailor or airman. That whatever the inducements they hold out, the object is still to protect the interests of British capitalism at home and abroad. And that means sooner or later, killing other workers.

Eddie Critchfield

Lenin's Legacy (part 2) (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lenin as revolutionary leader 

Last month’s article outlined Lenin’s failure as a political thinker. In particular, it took two aspects of Lenin’s work (the need for a transition, and the question of whether socialism must be preceded by capitalism) to show that Lenin failed to understand the nature of the problem facing the working class. This month, we deal with Lenin as a leader of a party claiming to be revolutionary. And it should be remembered that Lenin was not just a revolutionary theorist. He seized a unique opportunity that history presented, and by doing so captured the imagination of many workers both at the time and since. It is therefore important to correct the illusion that Lenin’s method is capable of introducing a socialist revolution. (All page references unless otherwise stated are to the one Volume Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975 printing.)

Leadership

The first thing about Lenin’s theory of a revolutionary party is that it is based on leadership of the “masses”. This is the reverse of the socialist principle which holds (with Marx) that socialism will be a society of voluntary co-operation. This means that in order to run socialism, the workers have to be aware of what is necessary to make the new society function. And it follows from this, that it will not be possible to establish a voluntary society unless those seeking to do so are in fact the majority of people in society, and those people know what is involved and can work conscientiously for socialism.

Lenin’s theory of leadership was based on several grounds. The most important is probably his opinion that the working class did not have the necessary ability to get to grips with socialist ideas; he developed this idea in his early work, What Is To Be Done? (1902) Where he draws the distinction between revolutionary activity (for the hard core of professional revolutionaries engaged in full time political activity), and trade union activity, (a task to be engaged in by the working class as a whole.)

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness . . . The theory of socialism, however, grew out of philosophical, historical and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied class, by intellectuals. (Selected Works, 3 volume edition. Progress Publishers, 1970 Vol 1 p. 119).

Now it is true that Lenin is here dealing with the specific conditions of aristocratic Russia at the start of the twentieth century. Nonetheless, this passage does demonstrate one of his most essential concepts as revolutionary. that of a “vanguard”. Because of the inability of the workers to think for themselves, according to Lenin, it is necessary for socialism to be introduced for them. Although this is quite impossible, the idea stayed with Lenin in theory, and above all in his political practice (the seizure of power by a small minority). He never abandoned it.

The Worker's Role

It is worth pursuing What Is To Be Done? a little further. Lenin lays down three principles for the workers' organisation:

The workers organisation must in the first place be by a trade union organisation: secondly it must be as broad as possible: and thirdly it must be as public as conditions will allow, (ibid p.207)

This delegation to the workers of the “menial” tasks of wages struggle is of course the reverse of the attitude taken by Marx, who pointed out that the struggle over wages and working conditions (trade union activity proper) was essentially defensive. It concerned the working class in that it was a constant battle to try to prevent the capitalist class lowering wages. But Marx made it absolutely clear that this was not sufficient; workers also had to take steps to abolish the wages system, to end capitalism altogether. There is no hint in Marx that workers should seek leaders to end capitalism for them. Notwithstanding this sound policy, Lenin wrote a little later in What Is To Be Done? that his anti-majority action propositions, “I shall defend no matter how much you instigate the crowd against me for my ‘anti democratic’ views etc.” In a speech in 1920 Lenin repeated this view. He said: "We do not hold the utopian view that the masses are ready for a socialist society.” (p. 618)

Given this arrogant and contemptuous view of the ability of the working class, certain fairly obvious conclusions must follow. Take for example the vital work of education of the working class. Now this task is essential for the reason, that until the working class abandon their support for capitalism as the only form of society possible. the socialist revolution cannot take place. This is why so much work of the socialist is concerned with showing the way capitalism causes problems for the majority. and how it is incapable of solving those problems. At the same time the socialist puts forward, in as concrete and definite a way as possible, the solutions to the problems of capitalism. Lenin too talked about the necessity of educating the working class. Indeed it was Lenin who stressed the vital importance of his party running a mass circulation newspaper, and put down much of the Bolsheviks’ ultimate success to this vital propaganda vehicle. In 1905, twelve years before the revolution, Lenin was writing that: “our main attention will be fixed on propaganda and agitation, extemporaneous and mass meetings, the distribution of leaflets and pamphlets, assisting in the economic struggle and championing the slogans of that struggle.” (Two Tactics of Social Democracy etc. p. 119). In the same year, Lenin urged his comrades to get to work: “to organise a broad, multiform and varied literature inseparably linked with the Social-Democratic working-class movement.” (Party Organisation and Party Literature, p. 152)

But what is the point of all this party literature if there is no need for the working classes to understand anyway? If all the workers need is some limited trade union understanding, then that can be achieved without education from a vanguard. After all. the workers throughout the capitalist world have learnt a trade union consciousness without the intervention of the Bolsheviks. One answer that Lenin might give to this is that it is necessary for the revolutionary party to "join” with the masses. "A vanguard performs its tasks as vanguard" Lenin wrote in 1922, "only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people that it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass forward.” (p. 653) 

And for those of the masses who want to graduate to the honour of being the vanguard. Lenin warns in his Left Wing Communism—An Infantile Disorder that he is not going to have too many of the masses getting in the way. He writes that “We are apprehensive of an excessive growth of the party . . .”. (p. 532) This apprehension is caused, says Lenin, because of the fear of invasion from “careerists and charlatans.” It is all part of a principle of leadership designed to keep the “masses" where they are—as wage-slaves, divorced from the spoils of office which the ruling bureaucrats of the communist party keep for themselves.

Dictatorship Over The Proletariat

Lenin’s double standards should be made clear. For Lenin’s claim, that his revolution would, and did, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat sounds as though he intended to have a dictatorship of the majority (whatever that might mean). In fact Lenin at other times makes it quite clear that the dictatorship is intended to be by a minority, with firm control by the party over the working class who are to remain workers. In The State and Revolution (1917) Lenin issues grim warnings to the workers that if he captures power he will rule with an iron hand (in the interests of the workers of course!). He wrote that they will establish “strict, iron discipline backed up by the state power of the armed workers.” (p.296) A little later in the work Lenin writes: “And the Dictatorship of the Proletariat i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy.” (p. 324. emphasis ours). Note the subtle change here. Now the workers are being told that it is not the workers who will do the ruling, and therefore be the "dictators”, but the vanguard.

But if the warning was not heeded prior to the revolution, Lenin certainly made it clear afterwards. In his appendix to Left-Wing Communism, etc. he talked about revolutions being impossible without "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, without a rigorously centralised party with iron discipline, without the ability to become masters of every sphere, every branch and every variety of political and cultural work.” (p. 577/8)

Before the revolution. Lenin was never in much doubt that his party would both take part in government and, if it could, run its own government. And if there was any doubt about this prior to 1917, there was no doubt after. The Communist Party has ruled Russia since 1917 and justifies itself by appealing to Lenin’s authority. (It also appeals to the authority of Marx—only the Russian revolution is as much related to Marx, as the lamb is to the wolf.) Lenin knew what he was doing—he was seizing power.

The art of politics (and the Communists’ correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power . . . and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating. training and attracting open broader masses of the working people, (p. 535)

Lenin seems to have come a long way from Marx, whose ideas he says he is applying. In Capital, Marx makes it clear that the changes from primitive society to the first forms of class society were bloody and violent struggles; whereas the transformation from capitalism to socialism will not be that sort of struggle. "In the former case, we have the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter case we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.” (Capital Volume 1, Lawrence and Wishart printing 1970, p.764) Lenin’s revolutionary party merely replaced one set of usurpers with another.

Ronnie Warrington

(concluded)