News In Review: Police (1964)

The News in Review column from the August 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

AT HOME

Police

As many people who have been roped in for some minor offence know, the “half bricks’' case is only the part of the iceberg above the water. It does not need a cynic to wonder whether the official, explanation for the rampages of Detective Sergeant Challenor, that he was overworked and mentally sick, is just another cover-up.

To be imprisoned for something which you have not done is galling in the extreme; no sum of money can restore a period of lost liberty. To be submitted, in addition, to the sort of indignities which Challenor and his men were accustomed to visit upon their unfortunate arrests is intolerable.

Yet outraged sympathy for the victims is not enough. Why is it only now admitted that Challenor was unbalanced? Did this not show up in court when he gave his evidence? Was it not apparent to his superior officers?

The plain, awful fact is that a system of law-enforcement must rely in some cases on men like Challenor, and upon magistrates and high police officers closing an eye to any doubts about the methods he has used to gather the “ evidence” which puts people away.

Crime must be an undercover business, which means that some police work must also go underground. It is a known fact that often, when the police think they have a criminal in their grasp, they are not above cooking a bit of evidence to make their case conclusive. Only occasionally are these practices uncovered—in most cases the accused is guilty anyway.

But sometimes he is not. Challenor's victims suffered nothing worse than a spell in prison, bad as that may be. In the case of Timothy Evans there is good reason to believe that the police technique cost a man his life.

Capitalism is not without its legal rights and it is anxious that these should be protected. But in the end the complex scientific police force and massive judicial machine which capitalism has developed to protect its property structure depends on the man on the beat.

It depends on the distraught detective, the not over-sensitive constable, the inspector with a down on political demonstrators. These men have an awesome power over someone’s life—and too often there is nobody to call them to account for their actions. Property society is a dirty business and so are the various organisms it has fashioned to maintain itself. It is hard going for anyone who tries to keep it all clean and above board.

ABROAD

Cyprus

Politicians say some silly things, some of which live on to mock their memory long after they are dead.

One of these was Alan Lennox Boyd's famous “Never” over Cyprus. When he said that, the British government seemed immovable over the fate of the island, basing their attitude on the 1956 Colonial Office Report:—

  Her Majesty's Government formally recognised the principle of self-determination, but considered its application not to be a practical proposition at the present time on account of the existing situation in the Eastern Mediterranean.

To support that classical piece of diplomatic evasion, hundreds of British soldiers—and not a few civilians—were killed. The strife and the confusion in Cyprus have persisted until today, even after the so-called truce, the island remains one of the world’s ugliest spots.

And among the confusion, a certain fact gleams. Lennox-Boyd—now Lord Boyd—is a political ghost, his foolish words gone down in history. The policy he applied is almost dead. Britain is no longer hell bent on staying in Cyprus.

Only reluctantly did Whitehall agree to send a British contingent to the UN force in Cyprus; they are now anxiously pulling their soldiers out. Lennox Boyd made many biller attacks upon enosis but his latter day successor, Duncan Sandys, now refuses to be drawn on the issue.

This sort of volte face is not new, nor particularly remarkable. But it is pari of a very sordid story and someone should point out the moral of it.

The British government have now virtually admitted that, even by their own standards, the casualties of the war against EOKA were incurred for no good reason. This sort of things has happened before and each time it happens it should rouse the working class to a fury of dissent.

But they are never so roused. Each time the call goes out for another lot of colonial cannon fodder—for Aden, for Malaya, for Borneo—there is no hanging back. The official propaganda about primitive savages desecrating the graceful achievements of the British colonisers, continues to be accepted almost without question. There seems to be no end to it. No wonder politicians say so many silly things—they get away with them so easily.

POLITICS

Nationalisation

The Tories are doing their best to blow up Nationalisation into one of the big issues of the coming general election. In this, they are helped by organisations like Aims of Industry (Say No To Nationalisation) and most of the big steel firms, who are preparing to sell themselves dearly if they are taken under State control.

Naturally, this side are rather careful in their choice of arguments. They stress the large deficits which, after payment of interest, are declared by some nationalised concerns. This impresses many workers who, although they live on the edge of insolvency, like to think that the Bank of England and the other State industries belong to them.

The anti-nationalisers make cracks about slate in the coal and dirty railway carriages, although they know perfectly well that these existed before the State took over.

All this is good for a laugh. It may even win a few votes. But it ignores the basic facts of nationalisation.

State control is not something dreamed up by the Labour Party in the nineteen forties. It has nothing to do with Socialism. It is an old established method, which the capitalist class have used from time to time, of trying to deal with particular problems. All three big parties in this country have had a crack at it—including the Conservatives.

Because of this, the capitalist class generally take a view of nationalisation rather different from that of the theorists of political parties who, apart from their concern with their theories, are also worried about getting into power.

This viewpoint is being pressed, as the election draws nearer, by some of the papers which speak with the voice of the capitalist class as a whole. The Economist, although it does not welcome the prospect of steel nationalisation, was pleading last May for the “least bad way" of imposing it. The Observer of June 21st concluded that:

  Ideally it ought to be possible for a Government, whether Labour or Tory, to launch new, competitive publicly-owned enterprises . . . public ownership and competition, far from being contradictory, are complementary.

The Guardian at the beginning of last month went into the figurework of the matter, comparing the incomes of some private and State industries. They pointed out that what the Prime Minister has called “the junkyard of nationalisation" in fact has “some extremely healthy giants ” in it.

The meaning behind this is that capitalists as a whole are not over interested in political theories on nationalisation, or indeed on any other matter. They treat political policies on their merits, by which they mean their profitability, sometimes in isolation, sometimes to the economy as a whole.

Thus they may require some industries to be nationalised, because they are large and nationally important or because they have an appetite for investment which only the State can guarantee to satisfy. (The Guardian says that the Electricity Boards are investing enough money every ten days to build the Channel Tunnel.)

Both Labour and Conservative Parties, as their recent policies show, have broadly adopted this attitude. On the hustings they grapple with each others' shadows but in the background the business of capitalism goes on undisturbed.

1904-1964 (1964)

From the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

When our party was formed in June, 1904, the world was, in some ways, vastly different from what it is today.

The British Empire was flourishing as one of the greatest empires the world had so far experienced, and radicals waxed eloquent on topics like “Home Rule for India.” This huge land mass was under British rule, and British capitalists were being enriched out of the exploitation of the Indian peasant. “Home Rule for Ireland” was also another favourite topic, plus the women’s suffrage question. Africa was split up amongst the Western Powers; Germany,- France, Belgium and Britain taking the lion’s share, and various measures were adopted to force the natives to be exploited in the mines, diamond fields and rubber plantations. Harrowing stories were told of the brutalities they suffered. Canada and Australia were being settled with a cynical disregard for the interests of the aboriginal inhabitants.

Russian peasants, in the vast ramshackle empire of the Czars, were steeped in almost hopeless misery to produce luxury for the Russian nobility. China was a hotch potch of conflicting war lords and petty peasant culture in which the Western powers were trying to force their trading interests. Japan was on the verge of emerging as a great power, whilst the United States was in a fever of internal industrial expansion that was building up huge fortunes for the Rockefellers, Astors, Carnegies, Morgans and other multi-millionaires.

Cutting across all the sectional interests was the cleavage between workers and capitalists, owners and non-owners of the means of production, and frequent strikes were a common result.

In Germany the adherents of the Social Democratic Party were numbered in hundreds of thousands. In other countries smaller Social Democratic Parties also carried on a great deal of propaganda. In America they had even reached a point where a member of one of the radical parties, Eugene V. Debs, was a candidate for the Presidency and received a large vote.

In Britain there were a variety of radical parties like the Social Democratic Party, the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society, Industrial Unionists, Land Reformists and a number of others, all with a variety of reformist proposals. Since those days these parties and groups have either gone out of existence or become moribund.

At the time our party came into existence men whose names figured prominently on the theoretical side of the working class movement were either still alive or not long since dead; men like Engels, Leibknecht, Lafargue, Kautzky, Plechanoff, Labriola, and others. Thus theoretical questions loomed large at meetings, particularly at indoor meetings. The early members of our party, who had broken away from the Social Democratic Party on account of its reformist and political trading attitude, were pioneers; enthusiastic, fanatical and uncompromising. To them the Socialist movement was all that really mattered, and many of them suffered economically for the position they took up.

The world the Party was born into was a much slower world than the world of today. There were no aeroplanes, wireless or huge ocean liners; no world wars, belt systems or traffic problems; no petrol buses, electric trains or tube systems; no cinemas, dog racing or jazz; no health or unemployment insurance, and one could travel widely without passports. Horse buses, hansom cabs, bicycles and steam trains were the means of locomotion. Hours of work were long but, in general, not as intense as today. Translations of foreign radical literature were scarce. Printing, premises and halls were relatively cheap. Outdoor meeting places were prolific and a platform could be set up almost anywhere. The outstanding questions of the time were religion, Home Rule, Reforms and the suffragette question—and the abolition of slums!

What vast changes, in some respects, have come over the world since those days. Russia and the United States have become the major capitalist empires, seeking to split the earth between them but threatened by a developing and populous China. India has secured its “freedom” without much advantage to its teeming and poverty stricken millions. The African natives are struggling to free themselves from the older bandits; some have developed independent states that have made little difference to the oppressed; they have simply exchanged exploiters.

All the territories of the world have come under the sway of international capital. Areas that were once undeveloped are rapidly being transformed, and the world is seething in a maelstrom of conflict and confusion such as has never been experienced before. Cutting across all sectional interests is the cleavage between capitalist and worker, owner and non-owner, privileged and unprivileged, dominant and subjected— just as in 1904. Progress has been in the accumulation of wealth for the privileged, frustration and nervous tension for the unprivileged. The class position of the working class has remained the same.

The root of the troubles that afflict the world today is the same as it was in 1904; the ownership of the means of production by one class, the capitalist class, whose members can lfve without the need to work, and the subjection of the working class, whose members must work in order to live.

Production under capitalism is carried on for the purpose of profit and, just as in the past, sections of the international capitalist class came into conflict over markets, sources of raw materials, routes to these markets and raw materials, and strategic bases for domination. The seeds of war are sown with a prodigal hand. Today even the sky above the earth has become an area for strategic manoeuvres. Nation faces nation full of suspicion, armed with more terrible means of destruction than mankind has ever contrived, and workers are forced into armed forces to slaughter each other.

Myriads of reformers, some with the best of intentions, have sought to relieve some of the worst aspects of social existence. In spite of decades of reformism their efforts have brought no material change. The main evils still flourish. Abolition of slums was on the programmes of the main political parties in 1904—it is still on the programmes of the main political parties today. The reformers failed to attack the source of the trouble, the capitalist ownership of the means of production. Planning against slumps and booms, peace movements, proposals to abolish poverty and slums, all break to pieces against the ramparts of capitalism.

The cynical degradation of labour; the exploitation of workers of all colours and creeds in all parts of the world to enhance the wealth of those in the position of power and privilege, is basic to the present system. What is produced is produced solely for the purpose of profit, regardless of the misery it involves. That is capitalism, and so it will always be while capitalism lasts.

Thus, in spite of the vast superficial changes in the world since 1904, it is still, fundamentally, the same old capitalist world, with its exploitation, misery and frustration for the mass of the population.

Gilmac.

The BBC says "No" to the SPGB (1964)

Party News from the October 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

On a number of occasions over the past few years, we have approached the BBC with a view to getting time on the air to state our point of view. Always we have been refused.

Again, just recently, we learned of a new programme series Let Me Speak, which the BBC is planning and which apparently is for the purpose of allowing minority parties to state their case. In all innocence we applied again, and what was the reply? That’s right—No! Here is the text of the BBC’s letter of August 10th:-

    It was at no time intended that an opportunity should be given for the expression of all minority points of view in “Let Me Speak," and this would indeed have been impossible. The series aims to allow a representative cross-section of minorities whose views may be of interest to the British public a chance to air them. It has been made on the basis of those whose views are thought likely to be of most interest to the public, and at the present time there is no intention of adding to the list of groups chosen.

So the BBC will be the sole arbiter of what is “likely to be of most interest to the public,” and a unique and old-established minority party with a consistent and uncompromising viewpoint, does not seem to meet its requirements. After numerous efforts, it would be difficult to know just what else we have to do before the BBC drops its evasive attitude and grants us a few minutes of its precious broadcasting time. Perhaps we shall learn the answer when we hear some of the groups in Let Me Speak. Of one thing we may be sure; most of them at least will be nowhere near as well established and constant as the SPGB.

Political Organisation (1964)

From the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why must the working class organise as a political party to achieve Socialism? The answer to this question is to be found in an examination of the nature and role of the modem State.

At present the capitalist class control society through their possession of political power, through their control of the machinery of government. They did not construct this machine for this purpose, as the anarchist claim; the machinery of government evolved along with the evolution of society as a whole. It is one of the facts of social life that the government machine is the centre of social control. The working class must base its policy on a recognition of this. If the working class is to become the master of society—which it must do in order to change it—then it too must recognise itself as a class, and organise itself politically. This political party must be Socialist expressing workers’ recognition that their emancipation can only be achieved by the expropriation of the capitalist class and the establishment of Socialism.

Given the need for a Socialist political party, on what lines should it be organised? A movement which aims at the establishment of a social democracy in which human instead of commercial values can flourish cannot employ means which are in conflict with this end. It must to a certain extent reflect the new society it aims to create. This means that it must be organised on democratic lines. Its membership, even when it is only a small group, must have complete control over policy; all its officials must be responsible to the membership; there must be complete freedom of discussion within the party; there must be no division into leaders and led; there must be no secret meetings from which any section of the membership is excluded. But not only must the party be democratic, it must also be open in its methods.

It must hold no meetings from which members of the working class are excluded. A Socialist political party can have nothing to hide from the working class. No gain can ever accrue to a Socialist party from seeking and getting support by subterfuges. Nor can it gain from using political dishonesty or terrorism. Such tactics would fail in their object. It's not a question of the end justifying the means. The end just cannot be reached by such means. Workers cannot be tricked or coerced into booming conscious of their position as a subject class. They can only come to such an understanding through their collective experiences as a class.

The Socialist political party will not appear ready-made. Like other social phenomena, it will grow out of social conditions. This raises the whole question of the role of a Socialist party in the class struggle. At present there are two obstacles which stand in the way of achieving Socialism: the political ignorance of the working class and the control of the machinery of government by the capitalist class. To overcome these obstacles Socialist understanding must come first. For this reason the main activity of a Socialist party in its early days must be propaganda. It must seek to dispel the political ignorance of the working class.

This does not mean that the relation between the party and the working class is to be that of teacher and pupil. Socialist understanding is not something that can be constructed out of nowhere; it must grow out of social conditions. Such understanding—or class consciousness—will not arise purely as a result of the propaganda of the Socialist party. Ideas only grip the masses when they are relevant to social conditions. There are any number of cranks around with utopian schemes for social reconstruction. What distinguishes Socialists from them is that Socialism is in the material interest of the working class. Socialists have social evolution on their side. The cranks have not—that’s why they’re cranks.

Education is not just a question of learning from books and pamphlets; that is just one aspect of learning from experience. The class experiences of the working class under capitalism will teach it that Socialism is the answer to its problems. The party can help this development of Socialist understanding by storing up and propagating the past experiences of the working class so that these are easily accessible. The principles of the Socialist party will be based on these experiences and will serve as a guide to social issues, being used to expose useless remedies. To carry out this task its members must necessarily have a fairly high degree of political knowledge, know their opponents’ case and be able to expose the flaws in their arguments. In its educational phase, precisely because it is such a phase, a higher degree of political understanding must be required of the members of the party than the working class need have to establish Socialism. As Socialist understanding spreads the number and importance of its opponents, and hence also of the need of a knowledge of their arguments, may well decline.

Once Socialist understanding grows to any appreciable extent, political conditions will completely change. Socialism will become a political issue. The comparative trivialities of present-day politics will be cast aside. The issue will be Capitalism or Socialism. With the changed conditions will come a change in the role of the party. It will become the political organisation of the working class which they can use to capture political power.

It is decidedly not the function of a Socialist party to lead the working class either in the struggle to live under capitalism or in the struggle for Socialism. The working class cannot be led to Socialism; it must emancipate itself. A Socialist working class will require no leadership; all it requires is organisation to put its aim into effect.

The day-to-day struggle of the working class, the economic phase of the class struggle, goes on in the place of work. To carry out this struggle is the task of the trade unions. In so far as they carry out this task they are class weapons. The task of bargaining with the employers is not one for which a Socialist party is at all suited. Of course, the members of a Socialist party, precisely because they are class conscious workers, will be active trade unionists, desirous of getting the highest possible price for their labour power.

Some workers are today organised in various political parties, in this country mostly in the Labour Party, but to a smaller extent also in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the so-called Communist Party and the various Nationalist parties. But they are not organised as a class, they are not organised for Socialism. Those who make a political principle of joining and trying to lead the trade unions frequently also make a principle of joining such pro-capitalist workers' organisations as the Labour Parties. But here they overlook the essential difference between the political and the economic organisations the working class need. Trade unions are class organisations when they are used correctly in the economic phase of the class struggle. They cease to be such when, for instance, they back productivity drives or finance politicians and political parties. In no sense are Labour Parties class parties, working class parties. They can correctly be said to be organisations serving the interests of the capitalist class since they are an expression of the fact that the working class are still imbued with capitalist prejudices. As it is one of the functions of a Socialist party to dispel such prejudices its members cannot work within such parties which only stand in the way of Socialist understanding and organisation.

These Labour parties frequently struggle for reforms within capitalism. A Socialist party struggles to end capitalism. It is no part of the role of a Socialist party to campaign for reforms. To do so is to invite degeneration into a pro-capitalist party by attracting politically ignorant workers who are only interested in reforms. When the Socialist political party is small a reform programme is futile, indeed farcical. When it becomes large enough to have some effect it doesn’t need such a programme anyway. For when the Socialist party is the working class organised politically for Socialism the capitalist class will no doubt be only too eager to offer concessions in a bid to ward off their expropriation.

To sum up, the movement for Socialism must be open and democratic. At present its role is largely restricted to propaganda, but in the future it will be the working class organised consciously and politically for Socialism. It will be the instrument they will use to capture political power. The Socialist Party of Great Britain offers itself for this task.

Adam Buick

Labour's not so new Britain (1964)

Book Review from the December 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New Britain: Labour's Plan Outlined by Harold Wilson. Selected Speeches 1964 (Penguin Special, 3/6d. )

Shortage of all the good things of life is nothing new to a worker, circumscribed as his life is by the size of his wage packet. That’s something no politicians have been able to do anything about, but it certainly does not stop them from promising. In fact, there was certainly no shortage of promises during the recent general election.

Not that the capitalist parties necessarily wait until the election date is announced. The Labour Party had prepared its election programme months beforehand, and it was detailed in a series of speeches by Harold Wilson in the first four months of this year. Nine of these speeches have been reprinted in a Penguin Special: Wilson—Selected Speeches 1964 (3/6d), and after you have read them, there should not be much doubt in your mind whose influence was dominant in the Patty’s subsequent manifesto.

It would be as well to read both documents and then keep them safely preserved for future reference, because workers’ memories are notoriously short and now that Wilson is Prime Minister, we may expect the promise-breaking to start at any time. Let us take a look at some of the pledges in the Penguin Book. First of all (of course) the housing problem. Yes, it’s down for solving for the umpteenth time but what does Mr. Wilson mean by "solving?" Well, among other things there will be many more council houses built for letting—what a prospect; building land will be taken into public ownership and there will be no further rent de-control. Cheap (and nasty) houses for the workers! That is the measure of his “ solution."

Then there is education. A shrewd stroke this, because Mr. Wilson can point to the severe deficiencies of the present set up, the dreary Victorian buildings and oversized classes in which many working class children are forced to study and the fact that there are not nearly enough teachers to go round. Thirteen years of Tory rule can be blamed for this, thinks Wilson, forgetting that the Tories in their turn inherited the mess which six years of Labour Government had failed to clear up.

We are going to have full employment, too, under Labour. This apparently is going to be assured by expanding production and trade by at least four per cent per year. Exports will be stepped up and industry encouraged to produce many of the goods which are now imported. It will all be done by “ a national plan" — in an unplannable world. The little matter of the anarchy of the capitalist market is something which is cheerfully ignored, but we may be sure that this anarchy will be the excuse —phrased differently of course — which will be trotted out if a recession occurs and the unemployment figures rise.

Mr. Wilson is nothing if not a man of the people, the whole people. That is to say, there is something for everyone in this book. To the Commonwealth more trade and closer links. To the medical profession more doctors, better hospitals and training facilities. To the old age pensioners bigger pensions and free bus passes. To the industrialists an expanding market and reduced labour costs. Yes, he made no bones about wage restraint in his speech at Edinburgh on March 24th. This is one promise which doubtless will be kept:

  You can ask for this policy (wage restraint) if production and productivity are rising, you can ask for it if it is intended, if it is envisaged, against the background of a climate of true social justice.

The results of The New Britain under Labour will not be much different from those of the old Britain under the Tories, as far as workers are concerned. That Mr. Wilson is an astute politician is undeniable,. but it will be capitalism which will determine his actions in the months ahead, not his astuteness. It has happened many times before to politicians of all parties, which is why their policies show such remarkable similarity to each other. “Little Sir Echo" is the contemptuous expression which Wilson uses more than once in describing Tory imitations of Labour Policy. Apparently, he is not clever enough to realise just what a self-condemnation this really is.

Eddie Critichfield

Death of Another Old Comrade (1944)

Obituary from the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce the death of Comrade W. Howard, of Hackney Branch, at the age of 66. A docker by trade for the greater part of his life, he was formerly a member of the Social Democratic Federation. Realising the futility of the reformist policy which had overtaken the S.D.F., he left it to join the S.P.G.B. in June, 1912. For 32 years he gave his unstinted efforts to the work of the Party as lecturer and in the organisation of the Branch, and passed on the benefits of his experience to younger members. He rarely failed to attend Branch meetings even during the last four years when he suffered from a heart ailment. Comrade Howard will be greatly missed by all who knew him. We extend our sympathy to his relatives in their loss.

Editorial: The Faking of Reports by the Beaverbrook Press (1956)

Editorial from the January 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Beaverbrook newspapers the Sunday Express and Daily Express have a long record of faking certain kinds of reports. In reporting speeches they consider it legitimate to alter certain words and phrases and present their own doctored version as if it were the original. In our issue for January, 1945, we showed how the Daily Express of 2 December, 1944, took a speech made by Mr. Anthony Eden in the House of Commons, altered his specific references to “Labour Government” and to the “hon gentlemen opposite ” into “Socialist Government” and “Socialists” and presented this version as Mr. Eden’s actual words. Shortly afterwards the Manchester Guardian (10 April, 1945), caught the Sunday Express (and the Daily Telegraph) doing the same with a speech by Mr. Ernest Bevin. The Manchester Guardian in a leading article with the title of “Hard of Hearing ” doubted if the reporters could be blamed for this and wondered if the true explanation was not a “directive” that this doctoring should always be done. Unable to ignore the Guardian's rebuke the Daily Express (12 April, 1945), came to the defence of its stable companion, the Sunday Express, by explaining that the trouble was about “a mistake in one of the provincial editions” of that paper. But they craftily refrained from saying what the Guardian had charged against the Sunday Express, so their readers were left in the dark. Of course the explanation explained nothing and the practise of faking has gone on ever since. We are therefore presumably to believe that by strange coincidence Beaverbrook reporters then and since have been afflicted with a defect of hearing that causes them to go on making the same mistake.

It becomes more curious still when we find that a reporter can be not only deaf but blind. For on 14 June, 1945, the Daily Express published what purported to be an extract from an article by Mr. John Yarwood, official of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, in the Union Journal far June, 1945. In that journal Mr. Yarwood wrote:—

    "I admit that we have union members who are professed Conservatives. I can't understand them. Further, there is reason to suspect that considerable numbers who pay lip service to Labour Party policy cast their votes for Conservatives in the secrecy of the ballot. 1 cannot understand them either."

In the doctored version of the Daily Express this became:—

   “We have members who are professed Conservatives and members who pay lip service to the Socialist Party and then vote Conservative. 1 can't understand either."

In 1945 we also took up with “Candidus” of the Daily Sketch (not one of the Beaverbrook group) his practice of referring to the Labour Party as the Socialist Party. He dealt with our protest in an article on 1 April, 1945 and gave what we considered the unsatisfactory explanation that he considered it to be a justifiable practice; but at least he gave space to our protest.

The recent attitude of the Evening Standard has been quite different. In their issue for 12 October, 1945, they published an article by Sir Beverley Baxter in which he reported the conference of the Labour Party as the conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Our letters to him and to the Editor of the Evening Standard brought curt replies which made no apology and offered no defence or explanation. We have therefore sent the correspondence to the National Press Council which is to consider the matter. There for the present it rests until we receive the further reply promised by the Council.

Are The Teachers Learning? (1956)

From the February 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the time of writing the school teachers are claiming some measure of public interest over their attitude to the Government's Superannuation policy.

The general public have, of course, always known of the existence of teachers: all of them, to a greater or lesser degree have at some time come under their influence while many are hoping that their son or daughter will eventually step into the profession. Nevertheless, perhaps the vast majority of teachers are a “race apart" and when the subject of schools and schoolteachers comes up during a conversation at the “local" or at the factory it is generally held that teachers have nothing to grumble about, being well paid and having more leisure time than the average worker in industry.

Perhaps therefore we should enquire into the business of teachers and teaching more closely before coming to over hasty opinions.

The first thing we would discover would be that every form of society had its teachers; secondly, the pedagogue was invariably an important (perhaps the most important) servant of the ruling class in any given society. This is not at all difficult to realise when we follow the role of the teacher back through history. Without bothering to go abroad or even back to the pre-mediaeval times when the teacher included in his “bag of tools" such attributes as doctor, priest, musician and prophet, we can glean sufficient, merely from a study of teaching craft from the time of the Norman Conquest.

The early teachers were the monks of the church, the school buildings, the Monastic houses, the curriculum one that fitted its pupils to become wise in the affairs of State and Church and also to teach the peasantry the humility necessary for the preservation of their lords spiritually and earthly.

With the growth of trade, through colonization, the teacher was again necessary to instill sufficient skill into the heads of those who served in the business houses and later the factories which were the new forms of wealth production for the ruling class. The “Industrial Revolution" gave a boost to the spread of so-called popular, universal education. So much so that one, Robert Lowe., expressed on behalf of many of his friends, that there was a danger that they may be “educating their future masters!" This, of course, has not materialized.

Now-a-days, education is more important than ever; in a world with its science and pseudo-science, a world wherein newspapers count their copies in millions; in which bureaucracy requires the filling-in of forms and documents by the tens of millions, the worker must be provided with at least the minimum education. Educationists, of course, have not wholly agreed on the purpose and aim of education. Some claim that it should be vocational, others that it is the creation of the aesthetic, others that its aim is to instill a sense of citizenship and to create “harmonious development."

The teacher has to serve as ever. His job is to turn out the product required whether as hewers of wood and drawers of water or nuclear physicists. Both are vitally necessary to the profit system.

At the moment teachers, a long suffering rather servile group, are stirring. Their present living standards are threatened. They, like most others, see this as an injustice and so it is. When will they learn from history the plain fact that in serving their lords and masters as they have for centuries, they have always been servile! Perhaps more so, since they have been more blind than many to the true nature of their position. They have traditionally thought of themselves as being members of a mythical Middle Class; a kind of élite and have tended to weave a cocoon of academic aloofness around themselves. They are still monastic-minded. When they realise that there as just two classes in society, an owning class and a class that lives by the sale of its labour power, and that they belong to the latter, then perhaps they will draw closer to the broader working class. They may, in time, reach the stage when they will attain the education that Squire Brown spoke of—"that which is learned after you have forgotten what you learned at school.” They may begin to realise that Socialism which can only come about by the joint effort of all sections of the working class, is the only way out of wars and crises. Those who have so dutifully, so well, and for so long, taught others, will have educated themselves.

W. Brain

Party News Briefs (1956)

Party News from the March 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are several items of interest to report and it would be as well to note these in diaries. The Annual Conference Friday, Saturday and Sunday. March 30th. 31st and April 1st. at Conway Hall, is of great interest to all Party members. The proceedings open each day at 11 a.m, Should any Provincial delegates require accommodation or information please write direct (or through branch secretaries) to the General Secretary or Party Organiser. Particularly in cases where delegates require accommodation, it is essential that arrangements are not left to the last moment as it may cause inconvenience to themselves and to members who would prefer to be prepared rather than make hurried arrangements during Conference time.

On the Saturday the Annual Dance and Social will be held in the same hall, and on the Sunday evening a Propaganda Rally will be held, this also at Conway Hall. It is hoped that these three functions will be well attended and members are asked to make every effort to come along.

*    *    *    *

Monday, March 12th, at 7.30 p.m., also at Conway Hall, a meeting is being held—speakers Comrades Bryan and May. The subject “ Britain’s Departing Empire—the Socialist Attitude.” As the Party has not held any large Central London meetings this season, it is hoped that this one will be really successful and the Propaganda Committee urges members to advertise the meeting as widely as possible, the Subject is an interesting one and should attract a good audience.

*    *    *    *

Debate with I.L.P., held at the Central Library, Bermondsey, on Monday, 6th February, was very successful, the debate was well attended and although no hard words were bandied (Comrade Wilmott said he was in a very good mood!) both Comrade Wilmott and Frank Maitland (I.L.P.) provided food for thought and made the evening an interesting one. Joe Thomas (Worker's League) was an able Chairman.

*    *    *    *

Ealing Branch.—Ealing Branch are already making active preparations for their May Sales Drive to dispose of 1,000 Socialist Standards. In an effort to extend the idea throughout the Party, it has circularised all Branches (and Central Branch members) with a view to getting them to accept certain basic commitments. These are (1) to guarantee to carry out a minimum of eight canvasses; (2) to double their usual order of S.S. (this means also committing themselves to twice their usual financial outgoings); and (3) to insert announcements of their canvassing programmes in the May S.S. Several branches have already responded to this appeal and many others are expected to do so. It is intended to set up a committee, composed of members from the various branches taking part in the drive, to co-ordinate and direct activities. We ask all branches and individual members to co-operate with us to the utmost to make the drive a success.

Phyllis Howard

The Complex Loaf of Bread (1956)

From the April 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bread is in the news again. Britain has increased the price of the loaf. Meantime here is an item of news from America. 

"If you loaded America’s surplus wheat on to a train it would stretch for 4,200 miles—from San Francisco to New York and back again to Kansas City.” (South Wales News, February, 1956.). This fact concerning the most basic food stuff in the world is a sure testimony to the productive ability of Capitalist society.

Wheat is going to be costlier in Britain whilst there is a tremendous surplus in America. Unfortunately America’s surplus wheat is not really available to the world’s people, vast numbers of whom are starving.

Of the many crimes one may level at the insane system known as Capitalism, this capacity to deny man the fruits of his labour is one that even the least class-conscious worker knows to be wrong. Mankind appears to be faced with a complex situation. Such complexities as seem to demand complex plans for alleviation; complex conferences—and occasionally—complex wars to try and rectify things. Such is the situation today and “worthy” bodies from U.N.E.S.C.O. to the Salvation Army, are busy tackling the intriguing problem of how to shift surplus wheat into waiting bellies. All the while they fail to do so or do it inadequately.

Here at home things are not quite as bad as they are in some parts of the world. There is full employment; people, in the main, get what bread they need and other things besides. The workers, according to our political and Trade Union leaders, have a lot to be thankful for. What, may we ask, is this “prosperity” dependent upon? Your masters give you your answer every day— upon production—which to you simply means that your day to day living standards depend upon whether your masters can sell the commodities you produce in this or other countries, at the “right” price. 

The production and selling costs are enormous; they include price of raw materials, machinery, wages and marketing costs, which include transport, together with the huge expense involved in maintaining spheres of influence and world sources of marketing and supply, by means of military power in terms of men and armaments. Quite a complex bit of organization again, you see, but unfortunately necessary under their system.

An unknown author once put it this way:—“Man can circle the earth without touching the ground; kill each other when miles apart; weigh the stars; print a million newspapers in an hour; breed the seeds out of an orange; persuade dogs to smoke pipes and cats to play guitars. Man, is indeed, an ingenious animal. But when confronted with one problem, he retires defeated. Show him six men without money and six loaves of bread and ask him “how the six hungry men can obtain the six loaves.”" It is possible that you, the reader, can provide the answer. The Capitalist system cannot.

It is precisely because money is the fulcrum on which Capitalism pivots and to which all things are subject, that we are in our present predicament. Everything created is made to be sold at a profit. If you can pay the price, then brother you can eat ’till you die. When you die, someone—your relatives, friends, or the State—must pay the expense for ridding society of your carcass.

To go back to our six men and the loaves. Mankind looks at the problem—then retires “leaving in the shivering twilight, the tableaux of six hungry men and the six unapproachable loaves.”

Socialists want to bring the men and the loaves together. The problem, once understood, is not at all a complex one. By studying the case for Socialism, you, reader, may feel desirous to help.

It is plain enough to see, no one is going to give you your daily bread; they can only sell it to you when conditions are right. When the machine breaks down they cannot sell or give it away. You can, however, take it as a natural right, but first we must have Socialism.

W. Brain

Workers' Paradise (1956)

From the May 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dressed Up—For What? (1956)

Cartoon accompanying the original article.

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was a pleasant evening in early summer, still quite light, warm and balmy, the air laden with the scent of flowers from the park across the way. For what was normally a busy London suburb, there was surprisingly little traffic and this lent an atmosphere of tranquility—something all too rare nowadays.

Then I saw him. He was standing in a shop doorway, a well built young man of about 23, handsome in a coarse way, and one who obviously took great care of his appearance. From his thick, brushed hair to his gleaming shoes, he was a picture of smartness, reminding one of the photographs appearing in male fashion magazines—but without the usual smile.

For he was not smiling. He stared moodily out at passers by, and when I passed the same spot an hour and a half later, on my way home, he was still there, talking to no-one, the same chap—the same expression of unrelieved boredom.

You may wonder at the conditions which drive a young person to take such trouble with his dress and appearance, all to no apparent purpose, and yet he is no exception. The story could be repeated many times over. Just take a look at the Broadways of any large town or suburb and see the boys and girls attempting to express their individuality via the medium of dress, hair style, etc., only to achieve, at best, a variation of a very narrow theme.

A friend of the writer once pointed out a mutual acquaintance with the words “Guess how much that suit cost?—£40!”—which can tell us quite a lot about the standard of values in the modern world. The clothes made the man as far as this youngster was concerned. No one of course denies that good clothes are a pleasure to wear, and it is a rarity nowadays to see young men walking around with the seats of their trousers tattered and worn—as was the lot of many before the war. (Although even the smartness of our doorway friend pales a little when one considers what is available to those with : real money). But Capitalism never gives with one hand without taking away with the other.

“Full employment” we may have. We also have the frustration on the faces of the gum-chewing girls and boys, which sooner or later expresses itself in violence. The Broadways mentioned earlier will provide ample evidence of this on any Saturday night around midnight when the local dance halls turn out—and so does the local police van.

Areas which were considered “respectable” before the war are no longer so. The “Teddy Boy" problem has pushed its way into the least expected places and stubbornly resists orthodox attempts to solve it. And who can wonder? It is, after all, part of the price we pay for modern life with its feverish nightmare existence and its failure to give deep and lasting satisfaction. The obvious bad effects on the minds and bodies of so many are typified in the pathetic young man in the shop door-way and the Saturday night sorties of the "Bobbies.”

“Relaxation is all important,” says Dr. W. Clunie Harvey, M.D., D.P.H., writing in the journal Better Health (April 1955), but it becomes increasingly difficult in a world where, to quote Dr. Clunie again, “We are very often born in a hurry, we tear through childhood, before we know we’re grown up we are getting on towards middle age. . . .  Our lives seem to be made up of a series of crises. No sooner do we get out of one than we find ourselves in another. . . . ”

Which just about sums it up. Capitalism can offer us very little else but a “series of crises” of one sort or another. It has been said, no doubt with some truth, that the dress style and the nonchalant air of the street corner boys and their made-up girl friends is but an effort to assert themselves against a future which they subconsciously dread. We can only work for the day when this is replaced, with a conscious appreciation of the cause of their fears, and the realisation that only Socialism can give them the security they crave.

Eddie Critchfield

Correspondence (1956)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter of criticism of the S.P.G.B, has been received from a South Wales reader of the “Socialist Standard”

A little while ago I came across a copy of the Socialist Standard. As I perused its pages, a surge of thought carried me back some 30 odd years to the days of my boyhood. I could see once again, the street corner where a group of derelict men listened to the speaker on the platform. I moved forward and there painted in front of the platform were the words “Socialist Party Gt. Britain.” I recalled the mental agility of the speaker; the art of vective when the occasion arose and the good humoured banter with which he raised a laugh—in days when there was little to laugh about. When I looked at the “Socialist Standard” recently I shook my head sorrowfully and asked “ What has the S.P.G.B. accomplished during those years?”

To the general public, the words “Socialist” and “Labour” are synonymous and any attempt to tell them that there is an organization known as the S.P.G.B., whose policy is different from Labour, would meet with wide eyed amazement. Has, therefore, the philosophy of my street comer orator of long ago been of no avail?

The basis of any true Socialist society must include the principles of your party. But is your party likely to achieve its aim when, with half the century gone, it has yet to gain a seat in Parliament? I take it that you desire to gain that distinction, for it would seem that without Parliamentary representation and ultimate majority, the S.P.G.B. is just a wasted effort.

I have no doubt the party contains many able men but while other parties strive to gain control of the country the S.P.G.B. do nothing and its propaganda makes about as much noise as a weathercock on a steeple.

Regarding the Labour Party. Although there is a divergency of views within it which weakens it, it is, however, a party of the people and commands the support of those for whom there is no other party to which they can turn in an effort to oust capitalism. Can we, as members of the public be expected to support a party which has no voice in the affairs of the country? For such as myself. Labour gives a glimmer of hope that there is a chance that from it may yet evolve a Socialist Government

It is possible that one may have to sacrifice one's Socialist Principles to gain one's Socialist Ideal.

Does the word “Socialist” appeal to the public? I don't think so. The S.P.G.B. can never become a popular party by retaining its present title. During the war, Richard Acland's Commonwealth Party rapidly gained new friends. I’m sure the secret lay in the name.

These remarks are intended to be constructive. They may be wide of the mark with regard to the aims of your party but the sympathies of the writer are with Socialism.

J. Willock.

Llanelly

Reply.

Someone once said “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Mr. Willock, like many more at the present time stands bewildered amidst the chaos of capitalism hoping that the Labour Party will justify its existence. The fact that, despite the control of Parliament, and a multitude of reformist schemes, Mr. Willock still looks for a “ glimmer of hope ” that the Labour Party will one day become Socialist, is indeed significant. Perhaps our correspondent agrees that the Labour Party has never been Socialist, is not Socialist, and shows no hope of becoming Socialist (we have no way of knowing how much hope Mr. Willock finds in a “glimmer.”)

Having apologised for the Labour Party Mr. Willock then goes on to criticise the S.P.G.B.—a Socialist organization. He says that “Socialism” and “Labour” are synonymous to the general public. Quite true; it is something we too deplore. For Mr. Willock’s “glimmer of hope” to become somewhat brighter one would suggest that the Labour Party begins now to advocate Socialism. Unfortunately such a thing would be quite impossible for that organization short of disbanding itself. Its members who become Socialists could with very little trouble join the Socialist organization already existing—namely the S.P.G.B.

Our correspondent goes on to say that without Parliamentary representation the S.P.G.B. is a wasted effort. He also says we do nothing to propagate our views. Really Mr. Willock? The $P.G.B. certainly does propagate the view that it is of prime importance to capture Parliament (see our Declaration of Principles), but surely in order to capture Parliament for Socialism the majority must understand and want Socialism. Mr. Willock unconsciously condemns himself when he criticises us for not having captured Parliament. It is only Mr. Willock and the rest of the working class who can capture Pariiament, the S.P.G.B. can be their instrument for doing so—if they desire it.

Mr. Willock, having admitted that Socialism must include the Principles of our Party, still doggedly tries to find another excuse for the lack of support he and others show towards Socialism. He points out the “need” for a change of title, and uses the Commonwealth Party as his unfortunate illustration. Since he has a sneaking regard for the S.P.G.B. one wonders why in the name of common sense does he still cling to his “glimmering hope” the Labour Party. Seriously, does our correspondent think any gain would be forthcoming by trying to “sell” Socialism by any other name, does he think it would work: Is he ashamed of Socialism?

He asks what have we accomplished? . What, may we ask, does he expect us to accomplish? The real point to remember is that the small band of Socialists accomplishes little itself but the working class can accomplish what it wills when it wills it. It is up to our correspondent and others to bring Socialism about, not by doling out wise advice but rather by setting an example.

Finally, now that our correspondent has once again contacted the S.P.G.B. (an example of the S.P.G.B. propagating Socialism) he should continue to read and criticise. His view that one should sacrifice Socialist principles in order to foster Socialist Ideals is quite illogical. Not to hold Socialist principles in a Capitalist society is to support capitalism.

W. Brain

Nationalism, the Enemy of Socialism (1956)

From the August 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have a simple solution for the problems of nationalism. It is that all people shall be enabled to live happily wherever they are or wherever they want to go. It is the only solution and it can only be applied when the world has become a Socialist world. It cannot be applied in a Capitalist world though all the non-Socialists, including the Labour and Communist parties, claim that they have a solution that can be applied now. They pay lip-service to various forms of the principle of "self-determination," the principle that nationalist groups should be free to decide for themselves. It sounds fine but it cannot solve the problem even though, if the group is powerful enough with or without military aid from outside, it may succeed in breaking away and setting up its own government or joining another country. It cannot solve the problem because the material on which Nationalism feeds—differences of colour, religion, language and tradition—exist everywhere in every country and because the economic conflicts which capitalism constantly produces at home and internationally will always inflame this material; as fast as one conflagration is put out others spring up. And the economic conflicts taking on the nationalist disguise, with its fever and hatreds, go on between independent nations just as much as when a national group is struggling against alien rule.

Capitalism is a competitive world in which national groups survive by armed force. No government, whatever its professed principles, will voluntarily see its armed strength undermined by granting the right of secession to all who demand it. The Northern States of U.S.A. fought a bloody civil war to prevent the Southern States from seceding in the eighteen sixties; and the nominal right of secession embodied in the Russian Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on unless circumstances arise in which the would-be secessionists do make their demand effective with force. British capitalism gave up India because it lacked the means to hold it, but now Nehru's government acts in accordance with exactly the same "what we have we hold " principle as he denounced during the struggles against the British Government. On May 4, Mr. Nehru announced in the Indian Parliament that "Indian forces attempting to put down the revolt of Naga tribesmen in the hill area of North-Eastern Assam have killed more than 100 rebels and wounded many more since mid-April." (Manchester Guardian, 5 May, 1956). The Manchester Guardian later, on (21 June), described the Naga demand for independence as "absurd," but then of course all such demands appear absurd to the government resisting them. And when Mr. Nehru informed rioting crowds in Bombay that whether they like it or not they are going to be governed from Delhi for the next five years his words might have come from the lips of Sir John Harding in Cyprus. He told them that Bombay "could not be allowed to decide its own future in its present disturbed mood” (Daily Mail, 4 June, 1956). The Scottish Forward (14 July) quotes him as saying that because of their recent behaviour the citizens of Bombay have "disqualified themselves from deciding their own future." This report adds the following description, distinctly reminiscent of the old campaign against British rule:—.

   “As Mr. Nehru was saying this to 200,000 Bombay citizens at a seashore meeting, parts of bis public address were obscured by the whine of tear-gas shells, the sporadic rattle of musketry, the tinkle of broken glass from nearby street lamps, and the slogans of an angry, stone-slinging citizenry."

Everywhere the countries that have won their "freedom" show conflict with their own opposition group, the Karens in Burma, the negroes in U.S.A. and South Africa, the Israelites and Arabs in the Middle East, the Somalis in Ethiopia, the Southern Sudanese in the Sudan, the Tamils in Ceylon; not to mention the Nationalist movements in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And already the short-time and unemployment in the Midlands have inspired a newspaper to publish an article asking that further immigration of Jamaicans and Irishmen be stopped. (Sunday Graphic, 15 July, 1956).

As all these examples show, the word "self-determination" is a misnomer, for none of the nationalist movements accepts that individuals shall be free to choose. Cyprus, is a case in point. British capitalism holds it— for strategic reasons; Greek capitalism wants it—for strategic reasons; and the Turkish Government says that if the British leave they will take it—for strategic reasons. But the Greeks and Turks both add a plea based on "self-determination," the Greeks on the ground that the majority of inhabitants are Greek-speaking and the Turks on the ground that the minority are Turkish and are strongly opposed to bring ruled by Greece. And the best known of the Cypriot independence movements, E.O.K.A., makes no pretence of letting Greek-speaking Cypriots individually voice their preference for remaining as they are, or becoming independent or joining Greece. Many of their victims are Cypriot-Greeks and a leaflet issued by E.O.K.A. justifies these shootings with the same kind argument as is used by all governments and all nationalist movements:—

   "Some people seem to think that killing people within hospitals is unmanly and immoral. We point out that our holy struggle overrides all such thoughts. Those who are not with us are against us. Those who forget their patriotism will be punished."

(Manchester Guardian, 20th April, 1956).

Nationalism and the struggle "for the bloody rags called flags of civilised savages," is not a holy struggle but an exhibition of human ignorance utterly without justification for the workers in the modern world. In the primitive society of past ages patriotism or tribal solidarity was a necessity of survival. In a future, socialist world, freed from the exploitation of man by man, there will be no economic conflicts to masquerade under and take advantage of language, colour and other differences. In the present class-divided and frontier-divided Capitalist world nationalist frictions will continue to serve ruling class ends until they are overcome by the growth of Socialist understanding and Socialist international unity.

Edgar Hardcastle

State Capitalism in Russia: Pravda is Annoyed (1956)

Editorial from the September 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

André Philip, who recently visited Russia with a delegation of members of the 'Socialist Party of France," wrote up an account of what he saw and heard for the Manchester Guardian (his articles appeared in the. issues of 2,3,6,7 and 8, August). On August 8 the Guardian also published an article dealing with an attack on Philip which appeared in the Moscow Pravda on 28 July, 1956. Pravda devoted a quarter of its space on that day to criticism of what Philip had said about Russia on his return to France. Above all Pravda was angry because Philip denied that there is Socialism in Russia, describing it as "State Capitalism."

Pravda's argument to prove that Russia has Socialism is as follows:—

  "In the Soviet Union the means of production are the property of the working people. Since there are no capitalists, how can there be any talk of State capitalism? There is no capitalist ownership; there are no exploiting classes. This is the complete triumph of Socialism."

Pravda goes on to lecture Philip on the meaning of the word Socialism that has been "accepted by Socialist thought throughout the world for more than a century." This meaning, according to the Russian newspaper, is “the liquidation of the private ownership of the means of production and the transfer of the means of production to public ownership.”

The thing that must strike the Socialist on reading this stuff is that Pravda writes just like some woolly-minded member of the Labour Party trying to prove that since the railways and coal mines have been “transferred to public ownership" that they are now the property of the working class. We have hard it all before, from the MacDonalds, Attlees and Bevans, and now we have to hear it from the Communists.

Our first point in reply to Pravda is to deny the truth of the statement about what Socialist thought has accepted for a century. What exists on Russia is not in the least like the definition of Socialism used by Socialists. In Russia production and distribution are largely in the hands of the Government as are the coal mines and railways, etc., here. They are operated to produce commodities for sale at a profit, and backing them financially is the very large Russian national debt owned by large and small bondholders. There is in Russia as great (or even greater) inequality of income as in this country though not as great inequality of ownership of accumulated wealth. Also though Russia has private trading it has not the British company system of shareholders.

This is State capitalism just as are the nationalised industries in Britain. And when did Socialists ever describe it as Socialism? We can of course answer for ourselves that the S.P.G.B. never did so on any occasion since its formation in 1904.

And if, as Pravda maintains, Socialists for a century have used the name Socialism to mean what exists in Russia why is this flatly contradicted in Communist works published before this distortion of the word had been decided upon. Let the Communists look for example at "A Short Course of Economic Science," by A. Bogdanoff, published in 1923, by the Communist Party of Great Britain. Here we were informed that Socialism is “the highest stage of society we can conceive" (p. 391), that “under Socialism the question of profits will disappear in production also” (p. 380); and that “with the establishment of Socialism, all taxes, including the progressive income tax, will become superfluous" (p. 295).

Perhaps Pravda will now tell us how it squares the above, which is what Communists used to say, with what they say now about alleged Socialism in Russia, for not even Pravda can deny that an elaborate system of differential taxation exists (including a profits tax) and that the State concerns are required to make a profit or show good reason for not doing so.

Pravda might also recall that back in the nineteen-twenties Lenin was advocating State Capitalism in Russia (see his “Chief Task of our Times”) and not pretending that it is Socialism as does Pravda now.

Before we leave the subject a word to André Philip. He is quite right to point out that the Russian system is not Socialism but State Capitalism, but is he always so clear-headed and outspoken about the muddle-headed propaganda carried on by his own party in France?