Party News from the June 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard
Sunday, June 30, 2024
Editorial: Conscription—1916 Over Again (1939)
After repeated pledges not to introduce conscription in peace-time, Mr. Chamberlain has introduced it in peace-time—with the bland excuse that “no one can pretend that this is peace-time in the sense in which the term could be fairly used.” The Labour Party can fairly claim that the man who treats pledges so lightly can hardly throw stones at Hitler, but on every other ground the Labour opposition to conscription is of the flimsiest kind. The Government is treating it accordingly. Particularly during the past six months the Labour Party has done its utmost to persuade the voters and badger the Government into a system of alliances to “stop the aggressors.” Now the Government suddenly falls into line, but says that its actual and potential allies want this country to adopt conscription in order to show that it means business—the nature of the business being the capacity to wage war on a large scale. The Government also points to the fact that France, Russia, Poland and the rest of the countries—except U.S.A.—already have conscription, and M. Blum, leader of the French Socialist Party (the equivalent of the British Labour Party), throws in his influence on the same side and tells his British colleagues not to be illogical. In these circumstances the Government would be foolish to treat seriously the Labour Party’s wordy opposition to conscription—those who have swallowed the camel of war do not for long strain at the gnat of compulsion. If Mr. Chamberlain had any doubts about the matter he could remove them by observing how the Labour Party behaved in 1916, when war-time conscription was being introduced. In theory they were opposed to conscription, but they were also represented in the Government and were in favour of the War. What then could they say when the Government came to them and said that the voluntary system had failed? Some of them did say, indeed, that the Government had broken its word and was tricking them, but they were answered by Mr. Arthur Henderson, one of the Labour Party representatives in the Government. Speaking at the Labour Party Annual Conference at Bristol, in January, 1916, Mr. Henderson supported conscription, on the ground that—
“Notwithstanding the magnificent success of the voluntary system, even now we had not all the men we needed to meet the enemy in the various theatres of war that we were confronted with.” (Report, page 120.)
In spite of Mr. Henderson’s support for conscription, it was obvious that a majority of delegates were still against it. A resolution was before the Conference which declared opposition to the Military Service Bill and went on to commit the Party to “agitate for its repeal” if it became law. This would have been very awkward for the Labour Party and its members, who were part of the Coalition Government, but Mr. Will Thorne and others proposed dividing the resolution. This was done and everyone was satisfied, because Conference then proceeded to adopt the harmless attitude of opposing conscription and also of opposing the resolution which would have committed them to agitating for its repeal. This can safely be taken as a forecast of what will happen now if the Government continues to put in practice the Labour policy of preparing for war, and if the international situation continues to be tense.
As far as the Trade Union Executives are concerned, that is indeed what happened at the special conference held on May 19th, 1939. They rejected by 3,817,000 votes to 232,000 an amendment which would have meant withdrawing from co-operation with the Government on National Service, and passed by 3,933,000 votes to 550,000 a long resolution which opened by protesting “most strongly against the Government’s action in introducing compulsory military service, in violation of the definite pledges given by the Prime Minister, and of the solemn assurances offered to the T.U.C. General Council when co-operation was sought by the responsible Ministers in the organisation of Voluntary National Service.” (Report in Daily Herald, May 20th.)
They also rejected by 4,172,000 to 425,000 a resolution in favour of a “general strike as a last effort to oppose military and industrial conscription.”
The Labour Party’s votes in Parliament in 1916 were equally illuminating for the light they throw on that Party’s attitude. There were three votes on the Military Service Bill, on January 6th, 12th and 18th, 1916. At the first vote, fourteen Labour M.P.s were absent out of the total of thirty-six. Of those present, thirteen voted “against” conscription and nine “for.” At the Second Reading, nine were absent, eleven voted “against” and sixteen “for.” And at the Third Reading, no fewer than twenty were absent, six voted “against” and eleven “for.” (The number of M.P.s had in the meantime increased to thirty-seven.)
As in 1916, so in 1939
The Labour Party is, in 1939, again making a great show of opposing conscription, because, in its view, the voluntary system “is providing, and can continue to provide, the nation with all the manpower required for effective national defence and for the fulfilment of its obligations for mutual assistance in the collective system of resistance to aggression.” (Statement issued by the National Council of Labour Daily Herald, April 26th.)
Many trade union executives and conferences have endorsed the Labour Party view, but one Union, the Civil Service Clerical Association, a little more far-seeing than the rest, has anticipated the likely future trend of misguided working-class opinion. Instead of playing for immediate popularity by opposing conscription, the General Secretary of the C.S.C.A., Mr. W. J. Brown, and his Executive Committee, moved an emergency resolution at their annual conference supporting conscription “on conditions,” one of which was the “immediate conscription of wealth.” The movers are thus in the safe position of still being able to say that they never supported conscription unconditionally in the form in which it will actually exist. At the same time they save themselves from the ridiculous position of the Labour Party. The C.S.C.A. delegates carried the vote for conscription by 414 votes to six.
The man who was largely responsible for persuading the delegates was Mr. W. J. Brown, former pet of the Communists and the I.L.P., ever a nimble sprinter after the merry-go-round of capitalist reforms and expedients. The day before yesterday he was MacDonald’s friend, then Mosley’s (at the birth of the New Party). Then he was very, very “left-wing” and the enemy of Bevin. Now he is “for conscription” and Bevin is against it. But the present position will, doubtless, be no more stable than the others, and any serious crisis for British capitalism will find them in the same camp again.
The Socialist Position
As against both of the above policies, policies circumscribed by the callous requirements of predatory capitalism, the Socialist Party stands for Socialism, well aware that neither the Browns nor the Bevins, the Chamberlains nor the Stalins, have any practical solution to offer for the evil plight in which the world’s workers find themselves.
The Socialist is opposed to conscription because he is opposed to the capitalist war for which the armed forces, whether volunteer, professional or conscript, are wanted. Though the war would be described on the one side as a war “for democracy” and on the other side as a war “against encirclement,” the driving force behind both sides would be the capitalist lust for markets, raw materials and strategic positions. When Hitler for the German capitalists says that Germany must expand or explode, find markets or perish, he meets his opposite in Mr. Hudson, British Secretary for Overseas Trade, who said in Warsaw on March 21st that “we are not going to give up any markets to anyone. . . Great Britain is strong enough to fight for markets abroad. Britain is now definitely going to take a greater interest in Eastern Europe.” (News Chronicle, March 22nd, 1939.)
Fighting that at present takes the form of words, trade agreements, loans, guarantees against aggression, etc., may, as in 1914, turn into an armed conflict, and that armed conflict will be yet another war produced by capitalist rivalries.
The Socialist Party knows that such wars solve nothing for the workers, and leave capitalism to produce still more wars in endless horror.
The Socialist Party declares its opposition not only to conscription but to capitalist war and to capitalism itself. The Socialist Party can repeat now what was written in its official organ in February, 1916, about the conscription then being introduced : —
“… We are bitterly opposed to conscription. But what are conscription, war, unemployment, poverty, overwork and starvation wages but the direct results of capitalist class rule? What hope of any permanent amelioration so long as the workers are the underdogs? What hope, indeed, of even a paltry concession in this matter so long as the exploiters are masters of the State and feel their controlling position unmenaced? We, therefore, urge the workers to join the real campaign against conscription; for conscription, on the part of the governing class, is only one item in the war upon the workers.”
Here and There: The Royal Mission to Canada (1939)
The Royal Mission to Canada
George VI is visiting Canada. It is a political visit, arranged by and in the interests of British capitalism.
Of late years, Canada’s attachment to the great family of British nations has shown signs of waning. Economic ties with the U.S.A., and other factors, have helped to weaken the political and traditional associations with Great Britain. The drift has reflected itself over a number of years in detachment from and even criticism of British foreign policy. The American journal, Nation (March 11th, 1939), points out that, at the time of the Czechoslovakian crisis, whilst the British Government received assurances of military support from other Dominions, Canada never committed itself beyond vaporous expressions of attachment. And so the spell of kingship has been called in to check the drift.
Will it succeed . . . ?
Since Dominion status was conferred upon Canada, a war in which the British Government is involved would not of necessity involve Canada. Consequently, its foreign policy has responded the more easily to interests which will keep it out of war. Unlike Australia and New Zealand, whose vulnerable position leads them to seek the protection of the British Navy, Canada’s policy more inclines to march in line with the U.S.A., whose geographical position and enormous resources offset the need for British protection. Hence the flagging enthusiasm for Empire, which George VI’s visit to Canada attempts to revive.
Several factors militate against its success. One, certainly the most important, is the ever-expanding influence of U.S.A. interests in Canada, as the following figures testify.
In December, 1936, the amount of American capital invested in Canada was approximately 4,000 million dollars, as against 2,725 million dollars invested by British capitalists.
The amount of Canadian capital invested in the U.S.A. was approximately 1,000 million dollars, as against 50 million dollars invested in England.
In 1937, exports from Canada to the U.S.A. were 425 million dollars.
In the same year, imports into Canada from the U.S.A. were approximately 400 million dollars, as against approximately 100 million dollars from England.
It is quite clear that the interests of Canadian capitalism are more closely linked with those of the U.S.A. than with those of Great Britain. The recent Anglo-American trade agreement, which was an attempt by the British Government to get U.S.A. sympathy for its difficulties in Europe, gives the U.S.A. still further concessions in the Canadian market. Hard economic realities tend to weaken rather than cement the attachment of Canada to the British Empire.
But what about the traditional ties to the “Mother Country” ? The facts, according to the Nation, are somewhat revealing. Fifty-one per cent. of Canadians only are of British extraction, one-third are French, and the rest are of mixed nationalities from Central Europe. Among those of British extraction the sentiment is fostered that they are Canadian or American rather than British. A sentiment which is hardened by the interchange of ideas, amusements and newspapers with the U.S.A. As for the French-Canadians, they regard the British as their oppressors and tend to sympathise with the enemies of British capitalism. During the last War the Canadian Government had to suspend conscription in Quebec for fear of an outbreak of civil war. During the war in Abyssinia, and in Spain, French-Canadian sympathy was with Italy. Mayor Haude, of Montreal, said recently: “In the event of war between Britain and Italy, the sympathy of the French-Canadians would be with Italy.”
Canada’s attitude to any future conflict in which Great Britain is involved is likely to be governed by her own interests and the policy pursued by the U.S.A. Whilst that policy is likely to be sympathetic to British interests, it is doubtful whether that sympathy will go beyond “moral” support, and of supplying the “democratic” armies with the implements of warfare.
It will take far more than the magic of George VI and his consort to obscure the vision of American and Canadian capitalists from the real explanation of the honour of Royal favour.
* * *
Onward, Christian Soldiers!
Bleating Bishops, who are busy persuading their flocks that, in certain circumstances, it is not un-Christian for Christians to kill other Christians with poison-gas and other unpleasant instruments of modern warfare, might consider the following letter, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph (April 29th, 1939): —
“The Lateran Council in 1139 forbade the use of the crossbow ‘as being too murderous a weapon for Christians to employ against one another.’ It would be interesting to know if this is unrepealed !”
* * *
A Distinction Without a Difference
A letter to the Daily Express (March 5th, 1939) says: “I should say that about ninety per cent. of the ordinary public are still hazy as to the meanings of the following terms: Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Labour, Communist, Right, Left, Red.”
To which the Editor replied : “The Conservatives believe in conserving what they consider best in the British Constitution. The Conservatives and the National Liberals support the Government policy of appeasement and Protection. The Opposition Liberals oppose the Government on these points. The Socialists and Communists both believe in national ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange; but Communists believe that nationalisation can only be obtained by means of revolution.”
Note that the only difference the Editor of the Express can find in the policies of the Labour Party and the Communist Party is one of method—not of object. They both stand for Nationalisation. If any real difference were implicit or apparent in Communist Party propaganda the Editor of the Daily Express, like others, has been unable to find it.
* * *
Another “Democracy” Guaranteed
The Manchester Guardian (May 10th, 1939) publishes the following despatch from its correspondent in Rumania, to which country the British Government recently extended a guarantee:—
“The Premier, M. Calinescu, announced to-day that a national election would be held soon for a new corporative Parliament, modelled on Fascist lines. It will meet on June 7th.”
Comment would be superfluous!
* * *
Capitalism is still Thriving
The Daily Telegraph (March 7th, 1939) reproduces figures from the surtax assessments in the reports of the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, showing the distribution of income in the year ending March, 1938.
The number of millionaires or persons with incomes exceeding £30,000 a year was 917, an increase of 42 over the year before.
Persons with incomes of £2,000 or more numbered 95,750, an increase of 4,358. Their aggregate income totalled £483,739,386, a rise of £27,394,398.
There were 73 persons with incomes between £75,000 and £100,000, compared with 72 the year before; and 80 with incomes exceeding £100,000, as against 83. Incomes of this class amounted to £15,270,207, a decrease of £1,023.
It can be said with some confidence that capitalism will not collapse this year!
* * *
“Forward” and the “Daily Express” Advocate “Socialism”!
Forward (March 18th, 1939) protests that the Daily Express has stolen one of the “main items” from the Labour Party’s programme—increased pensions. The Express amplified its arguments in favour of pensions of fifteen shillings a week with a strip picture cartoon, which was reproduced in Forward. The first picture represents a benign Chancellor of the Exchequer handing the Minister of Health a bag of money. The captions over the pictures narrate the following simple story for simple people: —
“If Simon handed 25 millions to Elliott—Elliott could hand an extra five shillings to the old-age pensioner—the old-age pensioner could buy more bread—the baker could buy more flour—the miller could buy more corn—the farmer could buy more machinery—the machine maker could employ more men—the newly hired man could buy a radio set on the H.P. system— radio manufacturers could increase their dividends—shareholders could pay back Simon with their increased dividends.”
Economics for lunatics ! The tax on dividends from the sale of £25,000,000 worth of goods is apparently £25,000,000 according to this argument !
Says Forward: “This is the argument which has been appearing in Forward for a generation and which is the keynote of the Socialist argument for increasing expenditure on old-age pensions, widows’ pensions, increased unemployment allowances and increased wages.”
We will not dispute Forward’s claim that they have used these arguments for a generation, but we categorically deny that they have anything to do with Socialism. They are the arguments of wishy-washy reformers and crassly ignorant economists. Reforms carry minor benefits for the workers, but they cannot affect materially the fundamental character of capitalism—the extremes of wealth and poverty, unemployment and insecurity. If they can, then perhaps Forward will try to explain why, to-day, after generations of reforms, and relatively enormous sums spent on social services, these problems are as intense to-day as ever.
* * *
Brailsford and Conscription
In Reynolds (May 21st, 1939), H. N. Brailsford openly advocates conscription. He says, anticipating objection on democratic grounds: —
“The word “compulsion” has in this connection an ugly ring in our ears. Yet we should be indignant if any section of our Movement raised the banner of individualism against compulsory measures for education or health. Is defence less necessary ?So far from objecting: when the State prescribes an obligation, we ought to welcome this as an arrangement that frees us from torments of conscience over conflicting duties.This lad may feel that he would serve society better by continuing his studies. Another has a widowed mother.It is right, it is even merciful, that society, weighing the general need against our personal interests, should prescribe our duties to us.”
That’s where “fighting for democracy” leads “revolutionary left-wingers.” For smugness it takes the cake. In doctrine it is more naked and unashamed than Nazism or the Catholic Church.
Harry Waite
The Death Dance of Danzig (1939)
“If a geographical position may be described as absolutely bad, this certainly applies to the position of Poland.”
So says Bukoviecki, in a pamphlet which he published when running as a parliamentary candidate for Poland twenty years ago. He was appointed Attorney General and therefore can be quoted as representing the views of a powerful section of the Polish ruling class. (The above quotation and those that follow are taken from “Poland’s Westward Trend,” by Hansen.)
He says something more, though he may not have realised it would be drawn attention to so long afterwards: “The political path followed by Poland must indeed be peaceful, but the nation must, nevertheless, be inspired by the military spirit! The people must be the army! The army the people.”
He expresses himself at length on the problem of Germany, Poland and East Prussia: “As already mentioned, the German-Polish relationship appears particularly hopeless. Poland, in consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, obtained from Germany what was her just due; if anything, even less, inasmuch as a great slice of Upper Silesia, with a preponderating Polish population, remained beyond the western frontier, while Ermeland and Masuria, with their mixed but preponderating Polish populations, are situated within the frontier of East Prussia, and the mouth of the Vistula, and Danzig itself, are situated outside the Polish frontier, these latter being the natural links between our country and the sea. Notwithstanding these facts, Germany regards the loss of these territories, which Poland has obtained, in the light of a grievous wrong, and will endeavour with all her might to regain possession of them. The right of this age-long quarrel is, if the matter be regarded objectively, undoubtedly on the side of Poland. . . . While we assert this to be our right, we must not, on the other hand, take it amiss if the Germans, regarding the matter from that subjective point of view, which plays so large a part in political sentiment and aims, feel the loss of these territories very acutely. . . . The German owners of Polish territories were, moreover, to be distinguished from the Russians and the Austrians in that they did not regard the conquered territories as an object of economic exploitation, but introduced a rational administration which was advantageous to the occupied territory, since they succeeded in raising the cultural level of the country in all directions. . . . To deny these facts would be unworthy of a serious political journalist; however, we must not draw conclusions from them, for they do not refute another fact, which must be regarded here as a circumstance of the greatest importance—the fact, namely, that this is Polish territory, and that even the most intensive German labour could not legitimatize its ownership, because it was the labour of an unlawful owner.”
It must be borne in mind by the readers of the Socialist Standard that Bukoviecki gave no thought whatever to the opinions of the wage slaves, Polish or German, in this connection. And now we come to what he is driving at: “… Most grievous to Germany, however, is the loss of Pommerellen, especially of its northern part, the so-called Danzig Corridor, which separates East Prussia from the rest of the state. The Danzig Corridor, which, on the one hand, is a stumbling-block to Germany, represents, on the other hand, a cause of complete dissatisfaction to Poland, something that does not guarantee her a really secure and permanent access to the sea. It is open to Germany to work for the removal of this obstacle, but it is, likewise, open to us to work for its extension. The mere fact that the lower course of the Vistula is not exclusively in our possession, whereas its eastern bank belongs to Germany, and, further, the fact that the Free City of Danzig to a considerable extent is bounded by German territory, is most unfavourable to Poland, and, in case of war-like developments, would be dangerous.”
The reader should carefully note the next part of the argument of this astute politician : “And East Prussia, which occupies such a central position in the northern part of the Polish territory— does it not for us represent a perpetual threat ? Is a real connection with the sea and the necessary development of our navigation and commerce to be reconciled with Germany’s possession of this territory?”
We can see from the above what may be behind the moves of Colonel Beck and, in addition, what may be involved in a fight for “democracy.” To be fair to Bukoviecki we must point out that he clearly states: “Obviously we are not speaking of preparations for any sort of military or diplomatic action, but merely of an absolutely peaceful activity on the part, not of the State alone, but also on that of the nation, calculated well beforehand and systematically pursued.”
Hitler never put it better.
We will now quote from the self-styled “Socialist” Grabski, who eventually allied himself with the National Democrats. He was a professor of Political Economy at the Lemberg University. As a representative of his party he was from 1919 to 1922 Chairman of the Commission for Foreign Affairs of the Polish Parliament. He was at one time Vice-Premier and twice held the office of Minister of Education. His book from which we take our extracts is (in English) “Observations concerning the present historical epoch in the development of Poland.” His views can be taken as the views of the National Democrats.
In the chapter, “The Direction of our National Expansion” : “What direction shall the expansion of the Polish people follow ? Shall it expand northwards to the Baltic or to the south-east, in the direction of the Ukraine and the Black Sea? . . . Thus in the course of the next fifty years at least Poland will have an opportunity of expanding towards the east. It must, however, be fully understood that our efforts towards further expansion to the east cannot be carried into effect without complete security from Germany. This security, however, can only be purchased by relinquishing our claims to the Baltic and by returning West Prussia and Upper Silesia to Germany. . . . The decision of the Eastern Prussia problem which was given by the Treaty of Versailles is too artificial to be permanently maintained. . . . And, therefore, one of two things—either we turn the Polish policy of ascendency eastwards against Russia, by taking advantage of the successive periods of weakness which the next half-century will bring, and thereby leave the decision of the merely provisional settlement of the East Prussia problem to Germany, or we stake all the power at our disposal on the solution of the East Prussia problem by Poland in a sense favourable to Poland. If this is our position, any hesitation will be mistaken.”
It is to be observed that he gradually works up to the necessity of fighting Germany, and now we have the plan of campaign: “First of all, however, we must bring into being our movement of expansion towards the Masurian lakes and the Baltic. This is, as yet, not a fact of our daily life, yet it is the first commandment of Polish history, the historical path of the Machtpolitik of Polish people and the Polish State. … In this clash Poland, however, will be victorious only if she is not merely technically prepared by the necessary organisation and equipment of her army but also politically, by the arousing of a Polish national consciousness in the Polish population of East Prussia. . . . For, as a matter of fact, the continuance of the Polish Republic will be permanently secured only if we are victorious in the inevitable war with Germany, a war in which the latter will hurl herself as soon as she has recuperated from the defeat that she sustained in the Great War.. . .”
He concludes with an interesting statement: “The Polish expansion towards the Baltic implies at the same time a rapid industrialisation of Poland, the development of the towns and of democratic middle-class culture, the consolidation of the administrative organisation of the constitutional State, and the progress of western civilisation.”
The progress of capitalism and the extension of wage slavery is what he really means. It is to be noted that the class to which we belong is never taken into consideration.
The above is reproduced at length in order to show the reader what is operating underneath the movements of the different politicians; the Germans are just as ruthless as the Poles, but, should War come between Germany and Poland, and we be called upon to respond to a call to protect “Poor little Poland,” it is well to know what the trouble is about. There are many other authors I could quote to prove that the Poles aimed at expansion twenty years ago, but I will use just one more, Stanislau Srokovski. His work, “From the Country of the Black Cross: Notes on East Prussia,” is well worth perusing.
From 1921 to 1923 Srokovski was the Polish Consul-General at Koenigsberg. The fact that he was at one time an official Polish representative in a German province justifies one in concluding that his statements are of considerable importance.
Having stated that East Prussia has lately displayed a greater eagerness to attract settlers of the small-holder type, Srokovski continues as follows:
“Poland does not consider it in any way necessary that the East Prussian colony should attract a surplus population, since in that case there will be an increasing danger, not so much of peaceful penetration by an element foreign to the Polish race, but of the possibility of an effective armed intervention on the part of East Prussia in conjunction with simultaneous action on the part of the Reich. It does not seem superfluous to call attention to the fact that the East Prussian frontier is less than seventy miles distant from Poland’s capital.“If the Polish part of East Prussia, the Masurian district, which by right should fall to us, cannot be severed from the province, thereby at a stroke reducing the numerical weight of the East Prussian population which is hanging over us, we ought at least to counteract, by all possible means, such a process of colonisation, which would produce over our heads, on the shores of the Baltic, a concentration of elements hostile to Poland.”
He recommends the flooding of East Prussia with cheap Polish peasant labour as a means of getting Poland entrenched in the country, but if you would understand what is behind the present controversy, carefully chew your cud on the following:
“The idea of a Polish-German conflict in respect of the Corridor is gradually being replaced by the idea of a conflict in respect of the development and importance of East Prussia. For there is no sense in insisting on an immediate territorial connection between the Reich and East Prussia, unless the latter, which is to be bound and held fast, does actually represent a valuable and important object, and unless there are, to the north and east of it, territories into which Germany, based on East Prussia, might seek to expand. In proportion as East Prussia declines, or acquires a different and independent administration, and in proportion as Lithuania, White Russia and Latvia, with all their commercial and other possibilities, slip away from East Prussia, the less will East Prussia interest the leading political and commercial leaders of Germany. Almost automatically it would lose its importance as a German province, and would become a sort of autonomous region, more or less estranged from general German politics, and, under certain circumstances, even in opposition to them. In that case, too, the Polish-German conflict in respect of the Corridor would, almost automatically, recede into the sphere of problems devoid of actuality, and, after a further lapse of years, during which the strength of Poland would increase, it would sink more or less into oblivion.”
In other words, Srokovski, a responsible Pole, who, as Consul-General, held important posts, was advising that East Prussia be economically strangled. We can gauge from these statements the general attitude of the military caste of the fair land of Poland towards the Danzig problems.
It is the same old system that is responsible. Amid the A.R.P. and the Labour Exchange we perceive, if we look closely, that what is involved is a question of capitalist expansion and profit. So far as the working class are concerned, they will be periodically used as cannon-fodder, until they decide upon the abolition of the wages system.
Charles Lestor
Letter: The Wages of Agricultural Workers (1939)
Shrewsbury.
April 22nd, 1939.
To The Editor,
The Socialist Standard
Dear Comrade,
As one who has been a District Organising Secretary for the National Union of Agricultural Workers for twenty-one years, and have served as a Workers’ representative (officially) on Agricultural Wages Committees covering thirteen counties, I can assure your contributor, T. R. V. Andrews, that your statement that, as many as twenty-five per cent. of all the 580,000 who work for wages are paid less than the minimum wage legally applicable to them, is more than correct. If your statement errs at all, it more of an understatement of the real actual position than an overstatement. My experience, and I have since 1924, when the present Agricultural Wages Board Act operated, recovered 1,000 pounds of underpayment per year myself on behalf of members of our Union. And if one takes into account the number of hours actually worked by the agricultural wage-workers, there are quite fifty per cent. of all the wage-workers who do not get ALL that is legally payable under the Board’s orders. And for every farmer prosecuted by the Ministry of Agriculture there are five more cases which the Ministry do not get hold of. And the Ministry, even in those cases where a prosecution takes place, do not recover more than one-half of the underpayments due in those particular cases. Remembering that the local courts are packed with landowner and farmer magistrates, the Ministry only prosecute in straightforward cases, and will not press underpayments of overtime at all.
It is quite true that wage-workers who are not members of their Union will not report underpayments because, in addition to losing their jobs, and being turned out of the tied cottages, they are boycotted by all farmers for fifty miles around. The farmers, as far as their wages-slaves are concerned, are 100 per cent. class-conscious.
All this proves that legislation is of no use unless it is applied. And no matter what legislation may be placed upon the Statute book, it is not worth the paper it is printed on unless those whom it should benefit have the power, through a Trade Union, to enforce its application. And whenever a “Socialist Government,” with a majority, establishes Socialism by legislation, it will require the most perfect Industrial Organisation of the wage-workers in the big key industries in order to give practical effect to that Socialist legislation. So that the wage-workers must not only organise themselves politically for Socialism but must consciously build up class-conscious Industrial Organisation also, that has as its object the taking over, in practice, of the Land, and all other means of Production and Distribution. That means Daniel De Leon’s “Organisation by Industry,” or Industrial Unionism.
Yours fraternally,
W. T. Fielding.
Reply:
[We are obliged to Mr. Fielding for his further information about the wages of agricultural workers, but we differ from the conclusion he draws in his last paragraph. The value of trade union organisation under capitalism as a weapon of defence against the employers is agreed, but after the workers have conquered the powers of Government it will be through their control of the machinery of Government, including the armed forces, that the workers will be enabled to bring to an end the capitalist ownership and control of the means of production and distribution.—Ed. Comm.]
[We have also received a letter from Mr. J. Gill, Editor of The Record, organ of the Transport & General Workers’ Union. Mr. Gill writes : “While it is difficult to say what percentage of farm workers are not being paid the legal minimum rate (it may be more than twenty-five per cent.) there is no doubt that some thousands are being underpaid.” Mr. Gill draws attention to the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture, in the House of Commons on February 13th, 1939, to appoint more inspectors. The Government has persistently taken up this attitude, though the existing number of inspectors “is totally inadequate to cover all the farms in England and Wales.”]
Saturday, June 29, 2024
Illusion (1939)
%20copy.jpg)
The immediate object of “The Great Illusion—Now,” by Sir Norman Angell (a Penguin Special, 6d.), is stated thus: “To question the all but universally accepted axiom that a nation’s military power can be used to promote its economic welfare;” the general aim of the book is in the cause of Perpetual Peace. Any aspiration towards the final extinction of the unspeakable bestiality which attaches to war must command respect. The S.P.G.B. warmly sympathises with the humane outlook and implied determination to make personal sacrifice, if necessary, of members of such bodies as the Peace Pledge Union; at the same time it deeply regrets that talent, sincerity, and enthusiasm should be practically wasted because the factors which make for war are not fully grasped.
“It can be shown quite indubitably,” says Angell, “that capitalism is not the cause of war.” Nowhere does he give an alternative comprehensive source, other than an echo of Bertrand Russell’s feeble bleat about “competition for preponderance of power” (p. 65); it is only too apparent that the individual egomaniac seeks “power” as more or less an end in itself, a fact interesting to the alienist, but political power is obviously directed to a specific end; Angell himself stumbles upon one such end: “In our industrial economy, markets are the main problem” (p. 154). But on p. 166, the astounding assertion is made that “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade”; “in reality” the Fathers of the American Revolution in 1776 obtained very distinct advantages in trade through the exercise of political and military power; the respectable smugglers of New England, the slave owners of Virginia, through many bloody campaigns, demonstrated to an unkind Motherland that rum and slaves were no longer to be exploited mainly in her interest; “in reality,” yea, verily, Cromwell taught the Dutch, through the cutting edge of Navigation Laws, implemented by a powerful navy, that military power, which had axed a Sacred Majesty, would not brook serious competition for trade on the high seas; “in reality,” modern historical research has revealed, behind the legend of the siege of Troy, not a “fair face which launched a thousand ships against the topmost towers of Ilium,” but a pretty grim struggle for a trade route—this when Capitalism was but a vague stirring in the womb of Time.
On p. 136 we read, “The assumption that military force, if great enough, can be used to transfer wealth, trade, property from the vanquished to the victor, and that the latent power to do so explains the need of each to arm,” is a Great Illusion.
Note carefully “victor” and “vanquished.” Misled by Labour leaders whooping the worker on to war in 1914, few of the working class were under the illusion that any transfer of wealth would meet them in the process of transference, not even to the pitiable extent which rewarded the bluff tar in the good old days of Prize Money. One of Angell’s “Great Illusions,” implicit throughout his book, is based upon the fusion of the two classes with opposite interests in one blessed Union, confounding, like the naughty Arians of old, two distinct persons and “vainly imagining” the substance (swag) can be equitably divided.
The instrument proposed to establish peace has an ancient and fish-like smell—a Federation of Nations. Kant, in a famous brochure in the eighteenth century, set out proposals based upon the idea; curiously enough, he foreshadowed Wilson’s “open covenants openly arrived at,” too. The mediaeval Catholic Church actually accomplished some mitigation with its “Truce of God ” and looked for peace in the direction of a League of Catholic Nations.
Somewhat irrelevantly, Angell quotes the U.S.A. as an example of peace attained by union; here history lands him a neat uppercut; the union of the thirteen states in 1776 already contained the germs of the clash of rival interests, which bore fruit in the awful struggle between the commercial North and agricultural South; here again, Angell can be quoted against himself; most significantly he writes (p. 185): “The British worker, as distinct from the possessor of capital, is more subject to restriction in entrance to Australia than he is in entrance to Argentina or Mexico.” Again (p. 190): “A year or so since, there was in London a deputation from the British Indians in the Transvaal pointing out that the regulations there deprive them of the ordinary rights of British citizens.” What hope for a “Federation” of united effort by capitalist groups hopelessly remote by tradition, by culture, by language even, and hopelessly divided by COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, when, in the British Empire, Rhodes was prepared in the interests of the British Africander, to “cut the painter,” and a Celtic fringe is prepared even now to drive the hardest of bargains with the harassed Sassenach.
Our author himself senses a Big Snag, which may be summarised in the Latin tag: “Who will arrest the drunken bobby?” In a wonderful League of “Peace-loving” nations, what shall be done about the truculent member of the gang, who, nourishing a convincing type of gun, slithers out of the Hall! of Peace with unpeaceful intent elsewhere?
The “International Police Force,” on a small scale, has proved a broken reed in China; Henry of Navarre, in the sixteenth century, played with the idea; that gay dog found that capitalism, now a lusty infant, kicked over the traces of his dream chariot, leaving him free to chase more congenial, if less worthy, objects.
In the enchanted island of Shakespeare’s imagination, Gonzalo discoursed eloquently of a serenely beautiful Utopia; the coarse bounder Antonio discovered at the tail-end only “whores and knaves. . . . The latter end of his Commonwealth forgets the beginning”; Angell sets out to the tune of Perpetual Peace, alack! Under capitalism the finale is inevitably a hideous jazz of bombs and poison gas. Note well, “We must be as ready to FIGHT for code or rule of the road as hitherto we have been willing to fight for OUR territory”—needless to say, “OUR” not emphasised by the author.
Easily procured, it is plainly the duty of Socialists to make themselves acquainted with the kind of stuff which can be translated, into twenty different languages … to the bemuddlement and bemusing of the working class over a huge range. Verb. sap.
Augustus Snellgrove
Mr. Beverley Baxter’s Error (1939)
From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
Mr. Beverley Baxter is M.P. for Wood Green and was formerly Editor-in-Chief and Director of the Daily Express. He writes articles for “MacLean’s Magazine,” Toronto. A Canadian reader of the Socialist Standard draws our attention to the fact that in his articles, Mr. Baxter refers to the Labour Party as the “Socialist Party of Great Britain.” Our correspondent adds that as Mr. Baxter “doesn’t on the surface seem especially malicious perhaps he would make a suitable correction in a future article if his attention were called to the matter.”
The probability is that Mr. Baxter, when connected with the Daily Express publications, picked up their habit of calling the Labour Party the Socialist Party and just doesn’t know any better. When his attention is called to it, he will at least no longer have the excuse of ignorance.
Ed. Comm.
Blogger's Note:
Fast forward to 1956 and the SPGB is still complaining in the pages of the Socialist Standard about Beverley Baxter mislabelling the Labour Party as 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain'. Looks like Mr. Baxter was playing the long game, and had a political sideline in trolling both the SPGB and the Labour Party. Fair play.
Communists and the Pope (1939)
From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
The Canadian Labour Herald in its April issue, quotes the following two news items, both from the New York Times of February 13th, 1939: —
NEW YORK—”The New York State Young Communist League Convention was brought to a close yesterday afternoon with a resolution expressing sympathy to young Catholics on the death of Pope Pius XI.”MOSCOW—”The Soviet press to-day criticised Pope Pius XI, as a defender of capitalism. The newspaper ‘Bezboznik’ also condemned him for his crusade against Soviet Russia beginning in 1930 and for maintaining good relations with the Spanish insurgents, and the Japanese government.”
A Reminder (1939)
From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
Next time you have that animated conversation with a stranger, get his address, send it, together with a sixpenny postal order, to the Publicity Committee, and we will send him the Socialist Standard for three consecutive months.
Fascism and Democracy (1939)
"A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism.” Thus Marx and Engels in the opening sentence of the world-famous “Communist Manifesto.” Ninety years later, however, it is another ; spectre that is haunting the minds of our anti-fascists: the spectre of Fascism.
In an article of this scope it is impossible to go into the social origin and content of Fascism. In the main, it is the concrete, practical differences; between the fascist and democratic forms of political administration that interest the working class. Under Fascism, the traditional forms of working class political and economic organisations are denied the right of legal existence. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the Press, is severely curtailed and made to conform to the needs of a single political party that has, for the time being, secured a monopoly in the administration of the state machine. Under Democracy, the workers are allowed to form their own political and economic organisations and within limits, freedom of speech, of assembly, and of the press is permitted as well as the possibility of the electorate choosing between contending political parties.
Now, unlike many people intoxicated with a newly-found love for democracy, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has always insisted on the democratic nature of Socialism, and on the value that the widest possible discussion of conflicting political views has for the working class. When we refuse to unite with non-socialist organisations for the purpose of defending democracy, it is most certainly not because we in any way minimise or underestimate the importance of democracy for the working class or the socialist movement. It is simply because we are convinced that democracy cannot be defended in such a manner.
And as proof of this contention, the working class has a rich experience from which to draw. The policy of the “lesser evil,” that is, a policy of concessions to, and compromise with, non-fascist parties and elements of capitalism which was pursued and justified by the Social Democratic Party of Germany on the grounds that such a policy was dictated by the necessity of defeating Hitler Fascism : the more recent experience of the same policy operated under a different name, that is, the “popular front” in France, both point to the same lesson. Namely, provided the “Fascist Menace” is real, and not the invention of hysterical and panic-stricken “intellectuals,” the formation of a bloc of non-socialist anti-fascists does not impede the advance of Fascism, but if anything, serves to expedite its progress. In order to make this point quite clear, it is necessary that we should understand the nature of democracy, and its usefulness to the working class. Democracy, in itself, cannot solve a single problem of the working class. Unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and other evil effects of capitalism remain, no matter whether the form of its political administration be democratic or dictatorial. Freedom to cry working class misery from the house-tops will not, in itself, abolish that misery. Democracy is a weapon, potentially invaluable, it is true; but like every other weapon, it can be used either for self-preservation or for self-destruction. And the painful fact is that in Germany—and the same process is going on in France to-day, and may be going on here tomorrow—the working class, lacking in an understanding of how to use the democratic weapon in its own interests, chose to commit political suicide with it instead.
The constitution of the German “Weimar” Republic—already doomed before Hitler took power—was formally one of the most democratic in the world. Nevertheless, so miserable had the existence of wide masses of the German people become, that in the last free election held in Germany a majority of the electorate voted for the abolition of democracy. For in spite of the concern for democracy which is expressed by the Communists nowadays, at the time of that election both National Socialists and German Communists were united in their hatred of what they called “bourgeois democracy.” For the Communists to assert at this time of the day that the downfall of German democracy was due to the refusal of the German Social Democrats to form a united front is nothing less than sheer effrontery; they wouldn’t have touched the then “social fascists” (as they described the Social-Democrats) with a barge pole. The chief difference between the followers of the Communists and Nazis was that they chose different vehicles through which to express their hatred of democracy. Lacking an understanding of their social position, disgusted by the antics and ineptitudes of self-styled socialists, the mass of the German people found the source of the grievances not in the capitalist nature of the social system, but in the democratic form in which it was administered. Hence, in their uninformed despair, they fell an easy prey to astute and unscrupulous demagogues, who never failed to reinforce the belief that democracy was the cause of social distress.
Fascism does not exist in the blue of the heavens like every other social phenomenon, it is related to, and has its origin in, a social background. And that background is the very democratic capitalism that “popular-fronters” and other exponents of working class compromise with capitalism, would have us defend. That capitalism inevitably gives rise to working class problems has already been mentioned; but with equal inevitability it also gives rise to problems of a specifically capitalist nature, such as maintaining the profitability of production; securing new, and retaining old markets; the necessity of forging “national unity” when faced with war with rival capitalist groups, etc. And it is precisely in an attempt to solve these problems that the ruling class has recourse to Fascism. That these problems can be permanently solved is precluded by the nature of the capitalist system itself; but that will not prevent the capitalists from making the attempt. Fascism, then, is a political form best adapted to meet the needs of certain contemporary capitalist states.
As long as the working class supports capitalism and capitalist policies, it will, in the long run, ultimately give its support to that policy best calculated to meet the political and economic needs of capitalism—even though that policy may be fascist.
Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended, means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy. It cannot be emphasised too much, that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism, and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy.
Arthur Mertons
Death of Comrade Bremner (1939)
Obituary from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
We are exceedingly sorry to have to announce the death of Comrade Herbert (Jock) Bremner, of Leyton Branch, who died at Woodford Sanatorium on May 6th, 1939.
Our late comrade was for many years a strenuous worker for the cause and only ceased his activities when illness made it impossible for him to continue.
His death in his early thirties came about as a result of having contracted T.B. following an attack of asthma.
He had a lively disposition and was a cheerful and agreeable comrade; he will be greatly missed.
His interest in the Party was maintained to the day of his death.
Members of the Leyton Branch attended his interment at Chingford Cemetery.
We desire to extend our sympathy to his family in their sad bereavement.
Advertising (1939)
Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
During 1937 the Publicity Committee spent £5 on Press advertising; during 1938 the amount spent was £19. These sums are mere drops in the bucket compared with the vast sums spent on Press advertising by Capitalist firms. The advertising appropriation of a large firm may in fact be anything from £5,000 to £50,000. Space is expensive, and a single inch in the column of a national paper costs from £3 10s. to £5 in only one issue.
Press advertising is, however, one of the most efficient means of making contact with people who will become energetic and enthusiastic propagandists of the Socialist case. It is like a fine-tooth comb which can be drawn through the whole of the population, collecting those who are interested in fundamentals—those who are likely, therefore, to be supremely useful in Socialist propaganda.
To illustrate the results achieved with our present infinitesimal expenditure, let us give a short resume of our activities. Small advertisements have appeared in the national dailies, in Sunday Papers read by the politically interested, in reviews like Plebs and Controversy, while articles in the Socialist Standard on certain subjects have been advertised in periodicals which are read by people who are interested in those subjects. Such advertisements cost anything from 6s. to £3 10s. each.
The results have more than justified this advertising policy.
Enquiries have been received from all parts of the world, e.g., from France, Hungary, Norway, Roumania, Palestine, India, Japan, the East Indies and the West Indies, Canada, the United States, Mexico and South America. At home there is hardly a county in Great Britain from which we have not received an enquiry—from the Orkneys in the north to Cornwall in the south—from Carnarvon in the west to Norfolk in the east.
As a result of the correspondence which has ensued, many COMPLETE SETS of our pamphlets have been sent out, the regular readership of the Socialist Standard has been increased, much correspondence has been passed to the Editorial Committee to be dealt with in the columns of the Socialist Standard, and back volumes of the Socialist Standard have been sent out. New members of the Party have been made, including potential writers and speakers for the Party.
Comrades, this work must go on. Due to the exigencies of the forthcoming Parliamentary election, the General Party Fund is low, and so far a sum of only £15 has been allocated for 1939 advertising. But this amount can be supplemented by donations. Hence we make this pressing appeal to you.
Donations, which will be acknowledged in the Socialist Standard, should be addressed to the Publicity Committee. Postal orders and cheques should be crossed and made payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
Remember, with £40 we can cover the world once a year. With £80 we could cover the world twice a year!
Blogger's Note:
Via the excellent Splits & Fusion website, I was actually able to find one of the aforementioned SPGB adverts. It appeared in the November 1937 issue of the ILP theoretical magazine, Controversy. Interesting to note that the advert appeared alongside an advert for the magazine, International Review. It's a shame that there's been little or no research about that particular magazine. Based out of New York, I believe it was largely written by European exiles, and if it's known at all today, it's because it first published the pamphlet, The State and the Socialist Revolution by Julius Martov.
May Day Demonstration (1939)
Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
We thank comrades for their co-operation in making the May Day Demonstration such a magnificent success, and are pleased to announce that literature was sold to the value of £15 0s. 3d., while donations amounted to £2 13s. 1d.
Central Circulating Committee.
SPGB Meetings (1939)
Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard
Blogger's Notes:
I don't know if I've noted this on the blog before, but by 1939 Clifford Groves had replaced Frank Grainger as the SPGB's parliamentary candidate in East Ham North. But for the outbreak of the war, there would have been a General Election in 1940 and the first SPGB parliamentary fight would have been in the East End of London.
Fast forward five years, Groves was still the first SPGB parliamentary candidate but it was now contesting a seat in the west side of London. Groves contested Paddington North at the 1945 General Election. With regards to Frank Grainger - also known as Frank Ginger - according to Ken Weller in Don't Be A Soldier, he ended up as a lecturer for the Economic League. I'd be curious to know the time lag between him stepping down as the SPGB's parliamentary candidate, and when he joined the Economic League. There is no record of when he left the SPGB. I do know that he 'rejoined' the SPGB in 1932 via West Ham branch, and had previously been a member of the CPGB and the IWW.
Other things of note from the meetings and lectures list:
- 'Robertus' was the party name of Robert Reynolds. By 1940 he had resigned from the party because of its position on the war.
- 'Reginald' was the party name of Augustus Snellgrove, a retired headmaster who had originally been an early party member - not a founder member - and who had resigned over the WB of Upton Park affair. He rejoined the SPGB in 1933, and was an incredibly active speaker and writer. He is mentioned with affection in Barltrop's The Monument, and it's a crying shame that there was no obituary for him in the pages of the Socialist Standard.
Sting in the Tail: Perm x from No. 11 (1989)
Perm x from No. 11
It has recently been reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a keen football pools investor.
We can only hope that he is a little bit more gifted in his pools forecasting efforts than in his budget forecasts.
For example in his budget of 1988 he confidently forecast that the inflation rate over the coming year would be 4 per cent and that the balance of payments deficit would be £4 billion.
In fact the inflation rate has turned out to be double his forecast and the balance of payments was more than treble his forecast.
Mr. Lawson received a terrible drubbing from his critics so his latest forecast is a little less confident. According to The Independent (11 April):
But Mr. Lawson was less certain of his predictions that the current account deficit would remain at £14.5 billion. The forecast, he said was "a genuine best guess" but "we Just simply don't know" whether It would be achieved.
In Mr. Lawson's defence it can be argued that the vagaries of form of Fulham or Partick Thistle are models of consistency compared to the unpredictability of the capitalist market place.
Libertarian?
Here's an interesting little publication from the Libertarian Alliance: Brian Micklethwait on Why I Support The Contras.
When it comes to fighting Communism, the most important rule is: win . . . it may well, for example, be unwise for the Contras to get caught torturing people, on the grounds that this hurts their support In Congress. But the answer is not for the Contras to surrender: It is for them to fight smarter and not get caught torturing people. If they can fight successfully without torturing people at all, then they should do that as well.
In Sickness and Health
In an attempt to generate funds the Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority has come up with a nice little earner.
According to a report in The Independent 11 April:
After shopping mails and one-armed bandits, contraception machines and the sale of puzzles and games to placate patients during the long wait in casualty, the NHS Is about to add another wheeze to the ranks of Its schemes for generating extra income — the car salesman.
Health is just another commodity Inside capitalism. If you have the money you can afford the £1,000 per night London Clinic, If not you can take your chance In the queue at some under-funded public hospital.
Red Sales in the Smart Set
Andrei Fyodorov lives in Moscow and his ambition is to become an old fashioned capitalist. He is all for the freedom of market forces, and is a real Russian Thatcherite.
At present he is merely the manager of Moscow's first co-operative restaurant but he is about to branch into sales of computers and imported liquor. He also has a joint venture with Spanish businessmen to open a Spanish restaurant in Moscow and a Russian one in Barcelona.
His answer to complaints that his prices are too high is that he is in a monopoly situation and, like a good free marketeer, will charge whatever he can get away with.
Yet he is not a happy man, for although his workers have some shares in the business they don't work any harder than the ones he knew when he managed a state-controlled hotel.
But Fyodorov is no fool. He recognises that Russia is a long way from becoming a western-style economy because the workers cannot throw off overnight the anti free market history of the last 70 years.
He explains in The Guardian:
Millions of people in this country are against the market. They're afraid of prices going up. They fear inflation. They're against private enterprise because it’s a violation of socialism. Yet we don’t know what socialism is. It certainly doesn't exist here.
As we said, Andrei Is no fool.
Fyodorov and his like are as yet an insignificant force in Russia, but unless the die-hard central planners within Russia's ruling class manage to topple the dominant Gorbachev faction then these would-be capitalists will surely grow in wealth and seek a share in political power.
Holiday Planning
Last year the package holiday operators drew up their brochures for 1989. Thomson's, the biggest operator with 40 per cent of the market, estimated that the market would grow by 10 per cent but now find that It has SHRUNK by 10 per cent.
So Thomson's and its subsidiaries have cancelled around one million of their advertised holidays and some trade estimates put the number of cancellations by all the operators at two million, about 16 per cent of the total market.
Why did this happen? Well, the mild winter means that people don't have the same determination to "get some sun” when the holidays come round, and the big increase in interest rates for mortgages and personal borrowing ensures that many people will simply be unable to afford a holiday.
What it adds up to is that the anarchy of the market has triumphed once again. When the brochures were drawn up interest rates were much lower and the consumer spending spree was in full swing. Also, no one could forecast with any certainty what kind of winter we would be getting. True, the operators have their "experts" who try to take these and other factors into account but really, all they can do is make a guess and then hope.
But now that they've cancelled all those bedrooms in Spain, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc., what if we get a cold wet June or people make a late decision to get away after all? They will be clamouring for a holiday in the sun but the operators will be unable to supply them.
What was that about the perfectability of the market?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)