Debates (1911)

Party News from the February 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Party, being what it claims to be—the Socialist Party—we have nothing to hide. We therefore invite the most searching investigation and fearlessly challenge the most merciless criticism of our opponents; and, conscious of the soundness of our position, the integrity, solidity, and consistency of our organisation, we glory in putting forward our representatives to undergo the ordeal of public debate. Not so, however, is it with other parties. Guilty conscience truly doth make cowards of them all.

In our November issue we struck a somewhat triumphant note, having succeeded in forcing a few of the enemy to toe the line. This, we now fear, has but further frightened those dealers in darkness, for many have cried off.

Two encounters, however, have recently taken place with an Industrialist Unionist at Woolwich, and a Liberal, a Mr. Marlowe Reed (a broken reed) at Wood Green. In each case the plight of our opponent was piteous in the extreme.

A full record of the shifts to which the enemy resort in order to evade our challenge would make an imposing volume, and while providing amusing reading, would furnish further justification of our attitude of hostility. But space allows only a few examples to be given. Remembering the mauling their representatives have already received from our speakers, the gentlemen of the Anti-Socialist Union are becoming as artful in their antics as they are slimy in their statements. Formerly they pooh poohed the idea of debates, but finding their cowardice recognised, their men now glibly throw out challenges, referring any who accept them to their Head Office. Afterwards they boast that no communication has been received. This was tried at Tottenham, but evidence of the delivery of a registered letter being produced, the Anti-Socialist Union woke up. Its next wriggle was to say that if we fixed up a man to represent the Socialist Party, the S.D.P., and the I.L.P., it would be willing to meet him in debate. There will be no debate. Our men are Socialists, and could no more defend the anti-Socialist S.D.P. or I.L.P. than they could defend the A.S.U. itself, and the A.S.U. knows it.

Another brave lot are the North London Tories. A speaker of the North Islington Conservative and Unionist Association challenged us. The challenge was accepted, whereupon their secretary, Mr. Didsbury, wrote repudiating the whole matter, and stating that "if any speaker should at any time accept a challenge for a debate, that will be on his own responsibility, and not of the Association." But where is their union if they cut off their own speakers?

At Tottenham, at a meeting held and addressed by the Conservative candidate for the division, and also addressed by a real, live, noble lord, the chairman accepted a challenge to debate Tariff Reform versus Socialism Our comrade, the challenger, was invited to the platform to confirm the challenge— an invitation he accepted—and the facts were reported in the local Press. Now, however, the Tory party have passed the matter over to the Tariff Reform Working Men's Club. This body claims to be non-political, and cannot discuss Toryism, Liberalism or Socialism, but they are willing to debate Tariff Reform v. Free Trade. They too, funk our challenge.

Clarionettes, and other musical instruments (as friend Dawkins would say), may have heard of Muir Watson, Clarion Vanner. This champion of confusion was tackled at Stoke Newington, and, to evade the ridicule of the audience, finally declared his readiness to defend the Labour Party in public debate with the Socialist Party’s representative. A voluminous correspondence between us, and the Stoke Newington I.L.P. and ; their Mr. Muir Watson, resulted in the I.L.P. (in deference to Mr. Watson) insisting that the debate must be private, and that they must have the right to veto our representative if they think fit. That plumbs the depths of political cowardice.

Another shining light of the I.L.P., Mr. Councillor Ebury of Heckmondwike accepted a challenge to debate, but now states that, as he speaks for his living, we will have to pay him to debate with us, and also pay his incidental expenses.

The above suffice to show the make up of the motley crew of political prostitutes who, exploiting the misery of the poor, fatten by fostering their ignorance. It is up to the working class to recognise the Socialist Party as the only party of Labour ; the party with the courage to seek out and do battle with all sections of the enemy ; the party that with their assistance will chase all opponents off the earth, and gain the World for the Workers.

Alex Anderson

For Richer, For Poorer . . . (1994)

Book Review from the April 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

For Richer, For Poorer: Shaping US-Mexican Integration. By Harry Browne. Latin America Bureau. 1 Amwell Street. London ECIR 1UL. £7.99.

As this small book (128 pages) demonstrates, we are now witnessing the rapid globalization of capitalism. This is particularly noticeable with regard to Mexico and the United States. Whatever the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US and Mexico are involved in an unstoppable process of economic integration, thus reducing the importance of the Mexican-US border.

More and more American corporations are building factories not only just south of the border, but also in central Mexico as well. The Mexican workers are given a few days training and. inevitably, the turnover of labour is high; but, despite previous assumptions, many Mexicans soon become expert in high-tech processes such as computer production and assembly. And with Mexican workers’ wages around one-tenth of those of US workers in say, Detroit, the employers have not only been able to play one set of workers off against the other, but have shifted production from the north to the south, thus causing unemployment among many US workers. This has caused considerable headaches for the already weakened American unions, mostly affiliated to the AFL-CIO. Unions generally fight a losing battle under capitalism much of the time anyway. Most of the Mexican workers either do not belong to labour unions, or they are enrolled in ones largely controlled by the Mexican government. Either way, this is resulting in increasing profits for American and, to a lesser extent, Mexican companies.

In this book Harry Browne explains the nuts and bolts of the globalization of capital, particularly as it affects Mexico and the United States and. to some extent. Canada and the Pacific Rim countries; and its effects on the producers, the working class of those countries.

Peter E. Newell

Letter to a charity (1994)

From the April 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Socialist sends a personalized reply to one of the 55 charities which solicited him for donations last year.

Nicholas Hinton,

Save the Children

Dear Nicholas,

Thank you for your letter and your request for help. I’ve decided that the best way I can celebrate the 75th birthday of Save the Children is by offering a donation to the Socialist Party.

I should explain. From time to time I've given to Save the Children, and some of the other charities that increasingly demand my support. (I kept a note in 1993 of the number of requests for help I received during the year. It turned out to be 154 from 55 different organizations and agencies). It’s quite clear there is much to do: famine to prevent; children to be saved from death, literally with spoonfuls of sugar; action to be taken to prevent the destruction of the world’s wildlife, its forests, the diversity of plants and animals, pollution to be combatted, the land, sea and air to be protected against rapacious commercial interests; help to be offered to the partially-sighted. the hard-of-hearing, folk suffering from arthritis, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, etc; attention to be paid, worldwide, to the needs of the orphaned, the poor, destitute and disadvantaged, those denied elementary human rights, imprisoned without trial, tortured and forgotten.

And this is just the beginning. Faced with cries for help from so many quarters I’m prompted to ask "Isn't there something wrong with a world that regards such problems and calamities as normal? That assumes that war. death and destruction are as natural (sic) as night and day?" And I know the answer.

Certainly there is something wrong. The basis of our relationship with each other and with the world which supports us is flawed. It accepts that making a profit for the few is inevitable and logically prime, even if the consequence is that most of the population of the world must remain forever threatened with poverty, death and disease, and oppression of all kinds; that economic affairs must forever be organized in this way, and the needs of humankind to food and shelter, never mind liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, must never threaten the interests of the owning class.

But, of course, there is another way: a blazingly simple, self-evident way. We, the majority who produce the profit for the few, can say "no". No more. From here on in we choose, knowingly, to produce and distribute goods and services, co-operatively and harmoniously, in a way that meets human needs.

So from here on in I’m going to resist the heartbreaking appeals that come with most requests for donations to charities. From here on in my time and energy, and my money, will go to the Socialist Party, in the confident knowledge that the only way to create a world fit for children is to proposition its economic arrangements in such a way that the needs of the human race (and the continued wellbeing of the planet which supports us) must replace production for profit with all its inevitable, attendant evils. Why not join me in sending your £10 donation today?

Yours sincerely 
Michael Gill

"Communism" Trades With Capitalism (1973)

From the June 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recently trade between Russia and America has grown immensely. In May last year talks were held in Moscow and credit agreements, barter deals and other trade deals are now under way.

The Moscow Narodny Bank has underwritten a recent Ford share issue. Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles has signed a barter deal worth £3,300m. in American fertilizers and Soviet chemicals. Other deals are under discussion and may well be finalized before this appears in print.

Such trade is perfectly natural, ordinary, everyday and unremarkable if you, like us, regard Russia as a state capitalist country, part of the world capitalist system. Socialists have in fact the only analysis of Russian society which fits the facts. The only correct explanation of Russian trade with Western capitalist countries is that Russia is also a capitalist country.

Marx outlined the salient characteristics of capitalism as commodity production and wage labour. These characteristics are just as evident in Russia as in America: a fact conveniently ignored by all those obsessed and enthusiastic supporters of that “workers’ paradise”, that star in the east, who keep trying to demonstrate how different it all is there, “over the rainbow”.

Since Russia is a commodity-producing country, where goods are made for sale with a view to profit, we do not find it surprising that the people who control Russia’s economy discover the usefulness of foreign trade.

Yet their ideology — perhaps this is a euphemism for the mixed-up opportunism and dogmatism which pass for ideology among the readers of Pravda — their ideology lays down dogmatically that Russia has a “socialist” economy and is quite different from capitalism. So how do the Russian rulers themselves explain the existence of trade between the Western capitalist countries and their own “socialist” country?

In Pravda, the official journal of the CPSU, there appeared on April 3rd an article by V. Alkhimov of the USSR Ministry of External Trade. Under the headline A Useful Step he asks: “What is the significance of the [trade and credit] agreements recently concluded between the USSR and the USA?”

Then, fruitlessly poking about in history, he invokes the holy name of Lenin as one who “drew up a broad programme of business collaboration with capitalist countries, including the field of credit transactions”. He bows to the Holy Trinity of Eisenhower, Nixon and Rockefeller, and invokes the august presences of the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Export-Import Bank of the USA as godparents of the new trade, barter and credit agreements — worth, he says, up to $225m.

He further sanctifies these agreements with a quote from Brezhnev (21 Dec. 1972): “The implementation [of the credit agreements] may constitute the basis of large scale, long-term collaboration in this field. Moreover it would also favour an improvement of the political climate between the USSR and the USA, and would facilitate a further advance towards the chief aim of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union — a lasting peace,” (Our emphasis).

Their "chief aim”, in these guarded phrases, is certainly not Socialism or Communism, an end to exploitation through the wage-labour system, and an end to the profit-motive society based on commodity production. For by no stretch of the imagination could it be said that more trade, barter and credit agreements — whether with governments, private individuals or trading combines — have any effect except to promote the interests of capital accumulation.

Exploitation and wage-labour? These will continue in both hemispheres. Commodity production — producing things only when there is a profitable market and not because they are needed? This pernicious prostitution of man’s productive powers will continue unabated. But Socialism, production for use, common ownership, cooperation in place of competition? Not a hope.

V. Alkhimov has nothing to say on this for Pravda’s readers, no statement by Nixon or Brezhnev, Lenin or Rockefeller, and all he himself will venture is a guarded agreement with an inoffensive and meaningless remark by Nixon’s special assistant Peterson. As a peach of a diplomatic platitude it deserves recording: "Trade is the cement which strengthens the normalisation of relations between our countries”.

Business as usual, in short. The Kremlin and the White House have so much in common, so very much.

Charmian Skelton

Poor Little — (1934)

From the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1914 it was “Poor Little Belgium.” Now it is “Poor Little Austria,” “Poor Little Hungary,” “ Poor Little Ireland,” according to taste. Fifty years ago it was “Poor Little Bulgaria,” and fifty years before that “Poor Little Italy” and “Poor Little Greece.” It is always “Poor Little” some country or other. “ Poor Little X—, “Poor Little Y—,” or “Poor Little A B C.”

Always there are sentimentalists ready to respond to this trick of personifying countries, ready to give sympathy and assistance to the weak or small nation bullied or downtrodden by the great and powerful. Yet it is all a sham. Countries are not persons, but geographical units of the all-embracing capitalist system of society. In the small, just as much as in the large, there is oppression of the weak by the strong, coercion of the poor and dispossessed by the rich and powerful who control the State, the organ of coercion. Those who help the Austrian State against the encroachments of neighbouring Powers are helping nobody but the Austrian ruling class. Those who strove to “free” Poland from the Powers which had shared its territory, and who gloried in having helped to reconstitute the Polish State were only giving the Polish workers and peasants a different set of masters. Those who fancied they were fighting for “Poor Little Belgium” were only fighting for the interests of the British and Belgian capitalists, which happened at that time to coincide.

The history of the struggles of subject nations to be free is full of the most ironical changes. The victims of one year are the bullies and assassins of the next. Poland, dismembered and annexed by Russia, Germany and Austria, has been re-created under the Versailles Treaty. Now it is the Germans, Russians, Jews and other minorities imploring help and protection against Polish tyranny. Italy, in the 19th century had all the Liberal sentimentalists shedding tears over her wrongs at the hands of the Austrian tyrants. Now Austria, the pre-war Empire itself dismembered, sorrows for her children, tyrannised by Italy in provinces annexed in 1918. For nearly 50 years, from 1871 to 1918, France mourned her lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Now Germany mourns the same reconquered provinces. In 1905 all the Labourites in the world sympathised with “Poor Little Japan” in the war with the great imperialist Russia. Now the same sentimentalists side with “Poor Little Russia” against the big Japanese Bully. Sometimes, as in the case of Saar Territory and Austria, the sentimentalists are divided, or forced to perform a quick right-about-face. From 1918 to 1933 the British “Poor Little Nation” busybodies demanded the right of the populations in Saar Territory and Austria to be united with Germany, and roundly condemned French and British Governments for their alleged opposition. Now that Hitler is in power they are demanding that Austria and the Saar be prevented from joining Germany. Germany, of course, is working the same appeal to sentiment, in the reverse direction, and is asking the German workers to shed tears (and, if need be, go to war) in order to bestow on Saar Territory and Austria the honour and privilege of being restored to the great family of Germans.

It is all a gigantic racket, worked by the forces of capitalism, using muddle-headed sentimentalists as their tools and dupes. When the avowed enemies of Socialism, or its false friends, tell you that Socialists have a hand in this business you will know that they are lying. Socialists are not supporters of capitalist Nationalism anywhere or at any time.

Lord Beaverbrook, who supported the last Great War, is now using his newspapers to popularise the policy of isolation from European entanglements. He says that Britain should never again go to war because of the quarrels of Continental nations. If Germany wants to eat up Austria, Poland wants Danzig, and France wants Saar Territory, let them do whatever they please. It is, he says, none of “our” business. So far so good. Socialists will heartily agree. We can also agree with his ridicule of the contrary position taken up by the Labour Party (which Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers, with studied dishonesty, refer to as the “Socialist Party”). But even so, Lord Beaverbrook's own position is every bit as ridiculous and anti-working class, for while telling the workers not to fight in the quarrels of the Continental Governments, his papers are insisting on the maintenance of a “strong central Government" under British control in India. In other words, English workers should not fight to prevent Austria going over to Germany, but should fight in order to prevent the Indian capitalists from obtaining undivided control in India. Why, Lord Beaverbrook? What does it matter to English workers which group of capitalists gets the loot, the wealth extracted from the exploitation of the workers? It is the job of the workers in each country to deal with the capitalist class in that country. The Indian workers will some day deal with the Indian section as we shall with the English. But Lord Beaverbrook, anxious for the investments of British capitalists in India, in effect wants English workers to fight defending those investments against Indian capitalist interests.

An authority on the subject of small nations is Mr. Vernon Bartlett. Writing in the News-Chronicle on October 5th, he told us all about the Saar, all, that is, except the one thing which really determines the issue. He told us what were the chances of Saar Territory going to France, or Germany, or remaining under League of Nations control. He told us that the French and German Governments are pouring millions of marks into the Saar each month, in order to influence the voting. What he did not tell us was what are the chances of Saar Territory going neither to the Germans, nor the French, nor the League of Nations, but to the population who live there. He left it out, if he thought of it at all, because he knows it is not even dreamed of. None of the interests concerned would permit such a thing. If there were any possibility of the Saarland workers! (and English workers) voting for taking over the mines, land, factories, etc., for the use of the community as a whole, and thus dispossessing the French and German and English capitalists, who own them, not only France and Germany, but the whole capitalist world, including Lord Beaverbrook, would be aghast. Whether in the Saar or in England they would all rush forward to stop such infamy.

The capitalist interests, which use patriotism, religion, national independence, and love of the scenes and traditions of particular geographical areas as a means of provoking national hatreds, are not concerned at all with the interests or convenience of the working class, but only with protecting their own property, markets, investments, and so on. Fighting to gain or protect national independence serves no interest, except that of the capitalist class. It solves no problem, not even that of nationality, for each success by one nationalist movement creates other similar problems. Socialism alone can solve the real problem of the working class, the poverty problem, and will in so doing restore national differences to a position in which they will cease to be a danger to the world.

Edgar Hardcastle

Exhibition Review: The Rhubarb Triangle (2016)

From the May 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Rhubarb Triangle, Hepworth gallery, Wakefield

In case you have never heard of it, the Rhubarb Triangle is an area between Wakefield, Morley and Rothwell, where the soils and climate are particularly suitable for the growing of rhubarb. Though much reduced from its heyday in the 1930s, the rhubarb industry is still going strong, and provides one of many examples of locally-sourced food that has been boosted by the celebrity chef culture. Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb has Protected Designation of Origin status from the EU (like champagne and Parma ham), though this is something that growers have to pay for. Much of the rhubarb is grown by small family firms, and the younger generation are often less keen on the backbreaking work involved. A larger company with over thirty workers relies mostly on migrants from eastern Europe, and also welcomes coach tours as a way of increasing interest and profits.

Currently the Hepworth gallery in Wakefield is hosting a display of photos of the Rhubarb Triangle by Martin Parr. These make clear the hard and dirty work that is part of the special techniques required: the plants grow in fields, get the right amount of frost, and are then moved to darkened sheds. Global warming may mean a lack of frost and so disrupt the harvests. There are photos too of the coach tour visitors, and of Wakefield Council’s annual Festival of Food, Drink and Rhubarb, complete with someone dressed as a stick of rhubarb and walking around greeting the kids.

The exhibition also includes plenty of other examples of Parr’s work, going back a period of forty years. The earliest are in black and white, of chapels in places such as Hebden Bridge and Todmorden. From the 1980s are photos of workers on holiday in New Brighton, which were apparently criticised by some as ‘class voyeurism’, with a successful photographer providing unsympathetic portrayals of less well-off workers. These are perhaps balanced by photos of Tory supporters at parties and celebrating election victories. There is no doubt, though, which set of people look more alive.

Parr’s main interests have been in depicting people at work and at leisure; this exhibition – on until 12 June – provides an excellent overview, and includes some remarkable self-portraits in various guises (and it’s worth checking out martinparr.com). 

Paul Bennett

Scotland Yard (1994)

Book Review from the March 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Scotland Yard by Robert Fleming with Hugh Miller (Michael Joseph, 385pp, £14.99.)

Largely based upon material collected for the Channel Four TV documentary series, "Scotland yard", this is not a particularly well-researched. In the main, various senior police officers describe their departments and squads, all of which tends to make the account something of a whitewash.

It is not so much what they say, however, as what they omit. There is not a word about the infamous Stoke Newington "nick"; and the only reference to corruption is the following comment by Commissioner Paul Condon in the Introduction: "There is an awareness that corruption was about . . .  I honestly believe now that that corruption has gone. There may be the odd bad apple, but the feeling that there was a bit of institutional corruption around, that has gone, thankfully". Obviously, Commissioner Condon doesn’t spend a great deal of time in Hackney.

Nevertheless, despite its shortcomings, Scotland Yard provides a considerable amount of somewhat superficial detail on, for example, the Fraud Squad. Special Branch and its recent differences with the Security Service (MI5), the Anti-Terrorist Branch, the Royally Protection Branch, the Firearms Unit, the Mounted Branch, and even the Crime Museum and the Metropolitan Police Band.

We are informed that Lady Thatcher regularly has at least three armed detectives with her, and sometimes many more, including a female detective who keeps her revolver in her handbag. And according to Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Potter of "CE“ Squad (SO12 Special Branch), the fascist "Combat 18 is very small" and "they cause no problems". He also thinks that it was unfair to blame the SWP for starting the Poll Tax riot in Trafalgar Square, in March 1990.

For me, Scotland Yard demonstrates not just the size (an organization of 46,000 people) and complexity of the Metropolitan (that is London) Police Service (no longer a Force!), but just how much of it would become unnecessary, and therefore, redundant, in a sane genuine classless, socialist, society of production for use and the satisfaction solely of people’s needs, instead of our present crime-ridden class society. After watching the TV series, Scotland Yard is worth a few hours' read at least.

Peter E. Newell

Obituary: Frank Duncan (2016)

Obituary from the May 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with great sorrow that we report the death of Frank Duncan, a stalwart socialist and a fascinating man. He joined the Glasgow branch in 1944, just after he had played a key role in organising the Glasgow apprentices’ strike. An Apprentices’ Charter, produced by the Clyde strike committee in 1937, had called for apprentices to have day release for technical training and the right to join a trade union. When these demands were flatly refused by the employers, Frank and his fellow apprentices went out on strike. During this period he attended open-air meetings in Glasgow, found the logic of the case for socialism irresistible and joined the Party.

He later became the supervisor of the telephone exchange in Cricklewood, North London and joined Paddington branch. Frank was a great cyclist (taking annual cycling tours of the Canary Islands), a huge enthusiast for brass band music and a regular attender at concerts of many kinds at the South Bank in London.

I first met him in the 1980s when, after a period of inactivity, he threw himself back into energetic activity as a member – and then long-time secretary – of Islington branch. To say that his energy was not easy to keep up with would be an understatement. Frank was someone who was a 24/7 socialist; everything he said or did referred to his deep principles. Everyone who knew him knew what he was all about. He had a great influence on the many young socialists who joined during that period and played a pivotal role in several election campaigns in Islington. His knowledge, enthusiasm and playful sense of humour will be missed.

SC

The Enemy on the Left! - Liberation Movements (1973)

The Enemy on the Left! column from the May 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

A regular column dealing with the antics of those who call themselves socialist but in practice do nothing but harm to the cause.

If we are talking of liberation movements, I suppose that the most remarkable success story has been achieved in Africa where in the course of a comparatively few years, something like four-fifths of the coloured population of the continent has been liberated from the rule of the white imperialists. Pretty well without exception, all the countries now ruled by native governments claim to be socialist (which is about as monstrous a misuse of the term as can be imagined). In this the coloured governments differ from the white rulers who still hold sway in the southern part of the continent. But one thing is common to all the dozens of countries in the whole of the vastness that is Africa — from Cairo to the Cape there is not a solitary foot of ground where a single vestige of freedom exists. In every single state, the only place for those who differ from the government is in prison, or the grave.

Black workers and peasants in countries like Kenya and the rest suffered great hardships in the struggle to oust the white rulers. And having achieved what they were conned into thinking was liberation, all they have actually got is an iron dictatorship almost invariably far harsher than the British or French who were supplanted. As as for material conditions, it is worth noting that in the course of a campaign initiated recently by the Guardian to expose the starvation wages being paid by white employers in South Africa about which all good liberal types are so righteously indignant, there appeared one letter in the paper from some courageous type in Kenya (who may or may not have been writing under a pseudonym) which said that the wages in that country were far lower than those which were being so violently (and of course correctly) condemned in South Africa. And this despite the fact that the cost of living was higher in Kenya. Such are the fruits of liberation. And lest any reader of the Guardian should imagine that this letter might be phoney or in some way exceptional, one needs only to recall the atrocious advert by the Nigerian government which appeared in that paper (and which was quoted at length in the Socialist Standard in October 1972) which canvassed potential employers with the promise of rather cheap black labour — sixpence an hour. Needless to say, the hypocrites on the Guardian who accepted the payment for that advert, conducted no crusade against the black government of Nigeria although these wages were but a small fraction of those being paid in South Africa. The reason is simple. Black is beautiful and the trendy lefties cannot get hot under the collar at the vicious regimes which have the advantage of being fashionable — and good for circulation.

When will workers, black or white, learn that the only liberation that counts is from the thrall of capitalism?

L. E. Weidberg

The Decline of Patriotism. (1911)

From the January 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our capitalist masters are apparently anxious about a matter of first importance to their country. For ages they have been able to rely upon the working class to take up arms in defence of their exploiters’ property; now, however, according to Lord Esher, an eminent authority, things are changing. “Under our present system,” he says in a recent article in the National Review, “we purchase annually for the Regular Army, in peace, the bones and muscles and youth of about 30,000 of our countrymen. We keep them a few years, then we throw them away and take in a fresh supply.”

“ We,” of course, means the capitalist class. The working class is represented by the bone and muscle which is purchased. It is evidently as bad a case for the workers on the military field as on the industrial. When they are no longer of any value they are cast aside like a sucked orange.

The writer complains with regard to the Regular Army, that it has been difficult of late years to obtain the necessary number of recruits. If with our ever-increasing army of unemployed, from the ranks of which 95% of the recruits are drawn, they cannot obtain a sufficient number, there must indeed be a serious lack of "patriotism." Our masters have blasted in the past that every true Englishman was prepared to die for his country. Evidently the number of Englishmen with any country to defend is rapidly diminishing. Little as there is in life for the average worker, rather than lay it down for his country he would hand the flower-pot over.

Esher’s chief grievance, however, is against the “ Territorial force.” He says that it cannot be denied that the numerical test is the only real test. So no longer is an Englishman accounted the equal of any dozen foreigners. That, at all events, marks no less a breakdown of our insular ignorance than of our insular pride and arrogance. In addition, the perfection of weapons is much the same the world over, and it is more than ever a question of weapons, while on the physical side, the advance of capitalism in this country is accompanied by such bodily deterioration as leaves us precious little “bone and muscle” worth the capitalists’ money on the battle-held.

Our ruling class can see that their Continental rivals are determined to obtain as large a share of the markets of the world as possible, and that sooner or later this must culminate in worldwide disruption. Hence their anxiety on the score of "patriotism.” Lord Esher gives expression to his anxious thought in the suggestion that "patriotism” is an attribute of the empty-headed. “ How can you expect,” he writes "recruits for your Territorial force, when you dress them unbecomingly?” One paper, commenting upon his noble lordship’s article, suggests “a scarlet coat and a towering headdress” as the most effective appeal to the " patriotism ” of the working class, though whether on the old, tried and trusty ground that those who have least in their heads must make the greatest show on them, or on the later calculation that now the workers are discovering how little country they have to fight for they may be induced to fight for their togs if only they are sufficiently removed from the hum-drum drab of the corduroy to enable them to forget that they are countryless workers, does not transpire.

But signs are not wanting that the master class are misjudging the workers there. What the army and navy stand for is being too clearly demonstrated by such events as Featherstone, Hull and Grimsby, Belfast and Tonypandy at home, and the French postal and railway strikes abroad. However empty-pated the ingrained cynicism of our exploiters may deem us, such lessons could not be lost upon us. Even the head of an ostrich, hidden in a gorgeous and “towering headdress,” would begin to experience some mental quickening upon finding itself rudely unbonneted by a policeman’s baton, and invited to take a glimpse at the armed and serried ranks of Patriotism in the adjacent vicinity. Nor is it altogether wisdom to flaunt "the famous deeds done by His Majesty’s regiments” (to use Lord Esher’s words) when the last reeking inscriptions on the tyrants’ banners were writ in the blood of unarmed British workers on British soil.

Lord Esher does well indeed to suspect that "there may be deeper causes at work” than he speaks of. There may be deeper causes even than he knows of—which is not the same thing by any means. To the “sirocco of democracy withering in our people the spirit of public sacrifice” which he darkly hints at he might add that the development of capitalism is showing "our people” who is really meant by the "public" which demands such continual and considerable sacrifice.

Lord Esher sees "conscription” looming in the background. Of course it is not hailed with delight, for it seems to be recognised that if anything is necessary to complete the workers' education on the matter of “patriotism” it is conscription. The compulsory bearing of arms to defend that which they themselves (as at Tonypandy) are batoned and murdered for looking darkly at would be too incongruous, too significant, for even the most gullible of our class. Once the blinkers are stripped from the workers eyes, the issue is one of sheer undisguised force—hence the capitalist class lament and tremble at the decay of “patriotism” among the workers, for they read doom in the force of a class-conscious proletariat.

J. R. R.

Planning - a cautionary tale (1994)

A Short Story from the January 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

His mind mulled the words tangibly, "Frank is wrong! He is wrong and I can prove it from my own experience!" He said: "I’m not wrong, Nigel: I said capitalism is a system of economic anarchy and that it could not be planned. Obviously, I did not mean that all the plans made within capitalism were doomed to failure".

He felt silly carrying on a conversation with himself and, yet, as his mind flicked over the arguments that had passed between himself and his brother he was surprised at how fluent he had become in Frank’s arguments. As he tossed the papers into his briefcase he said audibly to an absent judge: "He's shifting the goal posts, now that I have proven him wrong!"

"Goodnight, Mr Wynn", said Grogan, rattling his keys pointedly. It was nearly eight; he wasn’t particularly late tonight but he knew Grogan secretly cursed him for always being the last out. Sometimes, if Nigel arrived before eight in the morning, he had to wait in his car for the man to arrive, despite the fact that he had four hours off in the middle of each day. Only last week, Nigel had mentioned to Personnel that he thought Grogan wasn’t worth the seventy pounds a week he was paid.

The BMW purred its way gently through the traffic. He drove more slowly than usual, enjoying his thoughts - his supreme triumph! The letter of confirmation had arrived from Sir James that morning. His mind had rioted and it was all he could do to suppress his excitement in front of his secretary. Later, Mr Deasy had phoned him to see if there was any news and, as he thought now about it, he marvelled at the adroit, matter of fact tone he had managed to maintain as he told his managing director that Harrington’s had accepted their tender for building the plant.

Deasy could not restrain his excitement: "Which tender? Did we get more than one?" He seemed close on the phone. Nigel could hear his breathing. "Oh, all three tenders, the entire plant and the auxiliary service area!" He was enjoying this; it was his prize. “Jesus! Bloody great! You did a cracking job, Nigel. Look . . .  I have to say this . . ."  "Sorry, Mr Deasy, what was that?" Let the bastard repeat it; he had resisted Nigel’s plans every step of the way!

"Nigel", there was real contrition in the voice and Nigel waited expectantly, ”I know I gave you a hard time. You worked so hard on this bloody thing. It was your baby, your scheme; it was all your planning. And you've won through! I can tell you, Nigel, I was terrified . . .  all the new plant, the premises - Jesus, the work on the drawings, even, cost a fortune! We were in away over our head - you know, of course that, had it gone the other way. we were down the tube. I can tell you that I have not been sleeping too well lately! But congratulations. You’ve pulled it off. Fantastic!”

He smiled quietly to himself in the comfort of the BMW. He knew they were all terrified but he was supremely confident because he had planned cautiously and carefully. He had compiled information on every aspect of the scheme and, though he was excited with the outcome, it had not really come as a surprise. He thought absently about Sir James. It was pretty obvious that he had made a personal hit with the chairman of Harrington’s. Maybe ...?

As he turned into Oulton Road he turned on the radio. He might get Alice to go with him over to Frank’s tonight. He thought of all the lost arguments with his brother -  sometimes he thought bloody schoolmasters had nothing to do all day but read books that contributed nothing to real knowledge. It was easy for Frank, he had a retentive memory and could rime off facts and figures that supported his arguments in favour of Socialism. But this time I have him, thought Nigel. What the hell did Frank know about real capitalist planning?

"City new's . . .", his hand reached out in the dark to increase the volume of the radio. "In the City this afternoon, dealings in Harrington’s shares were suspended when, following the collapse of its European subsidiary, twenty two million pounds were knocked off the value of the company. Our financial correspondent says that the European subsidiary, Girard and Brock, had run into cash flow problems arising from the failure of the Mexican government to meet payments on the giant Arana project. A spokesperson for the Company said . . . "

Richard Montague

The Overthrow of Non-Democracy (1973)

Book Review from the April 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy at Gunpoint: The Greek Front, by Andreas Papandreou. Deutsch.

Andreas Papandreou, the son of the veteran Greek republican politician George Papandreou and now a leader of the opposition in exile to the Greek colonels, here gives his personal account of the events leading to the Greek military coup on 21 April 1967.

The book starts off alright, but towards the end degenerates into a series of quotes. What makes it interesting for Socialists is that Papandreou clearly shows that even before April 1967 Greece was not a proper political democracy, i.e. a country where the State machine, including the armed forces, was under the control of a popularly-elected government. There was indeed a popularly-elected government, but this never controlled the Army. Not that most postwar Greek governments, being composed of conservative politicians favourable to the King and the Army, wanted to.

Papandreou describes the political structure that emerged in Greece after the war in these terms:

. . .  a secret para-governmental machinery composed of army cliques had developed a solid hold on the reins of State power.
. . .  a constitutional dualism gradually emerged, with the institutions of a democratic régime existing within the overall structure of an authoritarian State.

So in pre-1967 Greek political democracy was a façade. And when the threat of a parliamentary government that would try to establish a genuine political democracy in Greece appeared, the façade was dropped and naked Army rule established by military coup.

The 1964 elections gave the opposition Centre Union, led by George Papandreou, a parliamentary majority. Andreas, who was himself for a short while a Minister in his father’s Centre Union government, describes this party’s programme thus:

The Centre Union represented the party that was committed to making Greece a modern European state. Politically, we were committed to changing Greece from a garrison state to a modem democratic State.

Clearly a threat to the Army/Palace Establishment (and CIA, since America equipped the Greek Army and relied on it to play a key role in NATO). By various political intrigues, including the bribing of some Centre Union deputies, the Establishment was able to bring about George Papandreou’s resignation as Prime Minister and to replace him by a series of their puppets. But, in the end, fresh elections had to be agreed to. The date was fixed for 27 May 1967. The Centre Union, this time made even more determined by its experiences to break the power of the Establishment and to set up a political democracy in Greece, was expected to win again.

On 21 April some Colonels staged a military coup. Actually two coups were being planned; one by the King and one by these Colonels. The Colonels were first off the mark. An unsuccessful royal counter-coup in December led to King Constantine going into exile. But both groups of plotters had the same basic aim: to prevent the Greek armed forces coming under the control of a popularly- elected parliament and government.

This Greek coup has become part of the Leftist argument against our policy of trying to establish Socialism peaceably through the use of existing democratic political institutions. But, as we have just seen, the political situation in pre-1967 Greece was not at all like it is in, say, Britain or France or America or other places where there is a workable, though limited, political democracy. Parliament in Greece did not control the coercive side of the State machine. It was a façade. A coup in such a situation to stop the State machine coming under parliamentary control has no relevance whatsoever to the chances of a majority Socialist working class using a State machine already under parliamentary control as an instrument to establish Socialism.

Adam Buick

What can a capitalist do? (1973)

From the March 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Well, who is a capitalist?” A question we Socialists are often asked. Recently the Sunday Times (11 February) has provided us with an outspoken analysis of his social and economic role by "that big bastard Bentley, a millionaire at 32” (his words).

How did he do it? Simple, really. With Jim Slater’s financial backing, he bought up “soft” companies, i.e. those with more potential than the City realised, and then sold off the bits he didn’t want, thereby covering his outlay, "which means that he ends up with what he does want, all for nothing”.

Rather on the defensive, Bentley emphasised the useful role of the capitalist in ensuring the efficient use of capital: "I make the very best use of a firm’s reserves when I take over.  . . .  When I arrive, the ray of sinecures, of directors promoting their nephews, is over. It’s good news when I arrive. Shareholders are thrilled . . . What I’m trying to do is to get a return for every piece of plant, every pound spent, every person employed”.

He was rather aggrieved at his unpopularity in the City, where "asset-stripper” is one of the criticisms levelled at him: the hyper-efficient capitalist represents dangerous competition. He went on to say significantly: "I’m a realist and I realise that the mood of the country is against people like me . . . It’s not just that being a capitalist is a dirty word today. Profit is a dirty word. Even money is a dirty word!”

So now the fun has gone out of the game, a game which he compares to the competition of archery or spear-throwing: "It’s just another form of animal behaviour. You’ve got to be fighting fit to survive.” And having reached his goal, he looks around for something “socially useful” to do. (I’ll bet he gets not a few begging letters from charitable concerns!) For Bourgeois Bentley, as for the rest of us, the recognition that "profit is a dirty word” must be followed by action designed to remove the dirty reality of the profit motive from man’s social relationships. This is socially useful activity, useful not just to one section of the community, but to all the human race, the whole family of man.

He has also realised that money brings power: power which can be used to preserve the capitalist class and its profits, or to aid its unfortunate victims — the homeless, the destitute, the disabled who can’t keep up with the aggressive competition of capitalism’s rat-race, or politically to try to soften its harsh and bitter realities by reforms. But none of these is going to make much difference in the end, since they do not deal with the root cause of man’s pressing social and economic problems, namely the organisation of society for production for profit.

A Socialist society — call it communist if you like: names are not that important — producing to satisfy human needs, i.e. for socially useful purposes instead of for profit, will not have to waste and dissipate its resources on war and waste, nor will it have to worry over poverty problems. So if Honest John Bentley is seriously interested in an efficient society, he should examine whether capitalism, where the worker owns and controls neither the tools of production nor the raw materials nor any part of the end-product, is not more than ready for the scrap-heap. It could hardly be called efficient!

He says he "stands back and sees the whole picture, working out the overall strategy”. He’s "all for Communism in theory” (like many others today he uses the term Socialism for state capitalism) — well, let’s see him relate theory to practice. Let’s see him work to bring about a society where work will not be a four-letter word, due to the exploiting relationships of capitalism. Let’s see him help the exploited workers by joining their movement for one world, a classless society where the dirty reality of profiteering from others’ sweat will have vanished and where humans will no longer be divided by man-made barriers of class, religion or racism. No longer wolves dismembering a rabbit, no longer the competitive rat-race, but social cooperation of civilised homo sapiens: surely a worthy goal for any poor devil of a millionaire looking for "socially useful” activity?

Charmian Skelton

Debate on the Labour Party (1949)

From the April 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate between Frederic Mullally, supporter of the Labour Party, and our Comrade Turner at the Fulham Town Hall on February 28th attracted a large audience. The large hall was completely filled.

F. Mullally, in opening the debate, said that the Working Class had already made up its mind which party it would support and it supported the mass organisation—the Labour Party. He admitted that there were some individuals in the Labour Party who were as reactionary as some of the Tories. But the Labour Party believes that it can use the Capitalist Class to achieve Socialism. The Working Class did not expect the Labour Party to be able to introduce Socialism for years, maybe, decades. Socialism would not be established overnight, but by well directed, well planned endeavour. Economic chaos would follow the sudden expropriation of Capitalist property, which includes many small shops and factories. What was needed was a planned programme, which avoided any Capitalism. It would be necessary to make compromises. That would be a first instalment and would result in an advance in the material condition of the Working Class and in its standard of living, with the result that support would be gained for a second instalment. The S.P.G.B. propounds pure Socialism day in and day out, hut the Working Class is tired of the worn out catch phrases of this sectarian party. The S.P.G.B. should not waste its great wisdom outside the great mass organisation. One talk, one pamphlet, one speech, one debate inside the Labour Party would do more for Socialism than all the thousands of street comer meetings, pamphlets issued and other activities of the S.P.G.B.

A. Turner commenced by stating that the Working Class should support the party that aimed at abolishing the problems that beset society as a whole and the Working Class in particular. Socialism would do this, so Socialism must be defined. It must be a world wide system in which there will be a community of interests. The privileges of ownership will disappear. There will be no production for profit, all goods will be produced for need. There will be no banks or insurance companies, no money, no profits, no rent, no interest. Poverty and other problems will continue as long as there are Capitalist owners and most of the people are wage and salary earners. The competition between Capitalists grows more intense and leads to greater wars. Whilst wages continue, so will Capitalism. Socialism is not merely the taking away of industry from the Capitalist owners, it is the handing over of industry to the whole of mankind. Taking from one set of owners to give to another does not benefit the workers. When the Labour Party came into existence it was to get Socialism in a quicker way than the way advocated by the S.P.G.B. It was going to do things in a hurry. Now it has slowed down the pace and accuses the S.P.G.B. of being in a hurry. In parts of the world where Labour Governments have held power they have left the Capitalists in greater power than they ever were and have prepared the ground for people like Hitler. Turner concluded his first address by asking his opponent three questions : (1) Is the Labour Party a Socialist Party? (2) Is Nationalisation Socialism? and (3) Can Nationalisation strip the Capitalist class of its ownership?

Mr. Mullally came up for the second round with the statement that the Labour Party is not practicing Socialism and that he had never said that it was. In reply to question one he said that there were good Socialists in the Labour Party and their hopes rested in an ultimate Socialism. To question number two the answer was “NO". But it was a step to that end. Nationalisation was the only practical policy as an alternative to Capitalism. Answer to number three. Rather than confiscate, the Labour Party bad decided to compensate. They had considered the hardship that would be caused to many Capitalists, especially the small ones. They were not concerned with dogma but with humanitarianism. They were going to anaesthetise the rentier class. By a process of taxation on incomes and death duties, the Capitalist Class, will, during our lifetime (voice from audience) "commit suicide." The S.P.G.B. was not in contact with the real issue. The British Working Class was concerned with the day to day issues such as unemployment, health service and that their children were well shod. The S.P.G.B. had a record in the struggle against Fascism that was not so good as that of some Tories. If the Working Class had followed the S.P.G.B. Hitler would now be over all Western Europe.

Turner replied. In answer to the Labour Party claim to be humanitarian he quoted the cases of dismissals from employment in Nationalised industries and the threats of dismissal to strikers. If Nationalisation was a step towards Socialism, why did the Labour Party oppose Fascism? Fascists like Franco, Pilsudski, men like Bismarck and our own Tory Party had introduced Nationalisation. When the workers made some move to get more wages or do a little less work, it was the Government that put the machinery in operation to oppose them. The Labour Government was no exception. The S.P.G.B. was small and its funds were but a tiny fraction compared to those of the mass Labour Party. If all those millions of pounds of funds and all that effort had been directed to the achievement of Socialism we should have been much nearer the day of its establishment. But the money had been spent on supporting two world wars and in getting power to use the Emergency Powers Act Mr. Belcher, during the recent tribunal, had said that it was a part of his job to talk to business men about their problems. The Labour Government never thought of talking to the workers about their problems.

In his final speech Mr. Mullally said that the S.P.G.B. way to Socialism would make for a major economic crisis in the country. The Labour Party would remove private ownership tidily, orderly, and with its eyes on the objective. The S.P.G.B. should be renamed “The Party of Permanent Opposition.”

Turner concluded by claiming that the S.P.G.B. was proud of its war record, it took its stand on the basis of internationalism. But the Labour Party has found new menaces, new fascisms, new concentration camps and forced labour camps in another part of the world and is preparing for another war. He, Turner, was pleased that at least one member of the Labour Party, his opponent, had repudiated the claim that the Labour Party was Socialist.

At this point the chairman, referring to Turner’s statement that the Labour Party claimed to be a Socialist Party, said that Turner should not make such statements without documentary evidence. The necessary evidence was immediately supplied from the Labour Party Election Address, “Let us Face the Future,” Dealing with the taxing out of existence of the Capitalist class Turner mentioned that when Sir John Ellerman died, £21,000,000 was taken in Death Duties from his £40,000,000 estate, but in a few years the Ellerman fortune was up again to £50,000,000. The S.P.G.B. was sometimes referred to as a monument to Socialism. That was preferable to being a movement to destruction like the Labour Party.

W. Waters

Editorial: Another “ Lost Leader.” (1911)

Editorial from the January 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. D. J. Shackleton, late “Labour” M.P., upholder of the black legging labour exchanges, apologist in general for the Liberal party, has at length received due reward for services rendered. The devil looks after his own. The capitalist Liberal Government, in elevating Mr. Shackleton to the position of Labour adviser to the Home Office, has again emphasised the fact, so often retailed by us, of its willingness to buy any material (however soiled) that it has found in the past, and expects to find in the future, useful in its struggle against the rising force of Socialism.

Mr. Shackleton, while ostensibly representing the interests of the workers in the House of Commons, has, in fact, with almost unprecedented effrontery and cynicism, taken every opportunity of leading support toward maintaining and furthering the interests of the employing class. The Liberal capitalists, with their usual astuteness, have seized an opportune moment for the appointment of Mr. Shackleton to his new post. Seeing all around signs of a more or less articulate Labour protest, they have executed an excellent stroke of business by taking under their direct control a man with a first-hand knowledge of the trade union movement, and Shackleton will no doubt earn his salary.

While members of the working class remain in their present condition of political ignorance, leaving their affairs in the hands of “leaders,” there will continue to be desertion and betrayal. On the other hand, if they were conscious of their position as a class, if they had no leaders and refused to be followers, little or nothing would be gained by capitalism or lost to Labour by the “ratting” of one of their number. Such a man, having no followers, would go alone. The probability is, however, that many more of their “leaders” will be lost before the absurdity of following any man or men dawns upon the workers. Burns, Mitchell, Bell and Shackleton, have all been offered and accepted their price. It is hardly conceivable that the inestimable services to capitalism and Liberalism of such men as Ramsay MacDonald (supporter of child-labour) and Philip Snowden (apologist for the Featherstone and Belfast murders) should be overlooked.