The Downfall of Dictatorship. (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The followers of Moscow are beginning to cut a rather ridiculous figure; doubt has permeated their ranks; they no longer possess the arrogance of old; they are commencing to reap the harvest they have sown; the tactics of opportunism and compromise caused them to march in a circle in unemployed parades, etc., and now they are either forced to abandon their leader or line up in support of the imperial policy of Stalin and Co.

The late Prince Kropotkin stated at the outset of the Russian revolution : “The Bolsheviks are not what the Western workers think they are.” He was correct. The Western workers thought them to be Socialists; they were mistaken.

Socialism is the noblest cause that ever appealed to the world or to man; the Bolsheviks defamed those who would not accept their leadership and have dragged the working-class movement into the sewers of opportunism and corruption; they used their organisation, the Communist Party, as a means of enabling them to influence the Labour movement of the Western world in the interests of Soviet Russia; the Communist Party became the foreign office of the bureaucracy of the Kremlin, and now, under the dictatorship of Czar Stalin, functions as the ruthless tool of imperialism.

The worker who investigates stands aghast when he discovers what lies behind the purges; he is fast arriving at the conclusion that he has been fooled : “those fellows are not to be trusted.”

The Bolsheviks were more influenced by Bakunin than by Marx; they worked on the principle “the end justifies the means” ; they did not aim at freedom. “Freedom,” said Lenin, “is a bourgeois prejudice.”

He also said, “Socialism is Soviet power plus electricity,” and many other things which indicated he used a Socialist vocabulary in an attempt to gain his imperial ends. Sometimes he spoke the truth; it is on record that he stated he was the logical successor of Peter the Great. “Only by a dictatorship can humanity be brought to happiness,” was the idea held by the leaders of the Russian revolution.

Marx said that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself, but this did not fit in with Bolshevik aspirations; the Bolshevik leaders got themselves free from oppression. Stalin and Co. are now oppressing the proletariat.

Let us look at the foundation of this peculiar mentality. First I will quote E. Preobraschenski, a pupil and follower of Lenin and the founder of Bolshevik ethics: —

“Whereas in a society in which there are no classes, lying is a disadvantage in itself, because it compels the members of the society to use their energy in discovering the truth, the case is quite different in a society based on class. In the struggle of an exploited class against their enemies, lying and deceit are often very important weapons; all the subterranean work of revolutionary organisations actually depends on over-reaching the power of the State. The Workers’ State, surrounded as it is on all sides by hostile capitalist countries, finds lying very necessary and useful in its foreign policy. Therefore the attitude of the working class and the Communist Party of the open recognition of the right to lie is quite different from that of the Western European Socialists, those God-fearing petits bourgeois who are systematically treated as fools by the representatives of capital.”

How a “Socialist” can hope to create a form of society worth living in out of, or by means of, trained liars is a conundrum, but there it is.

Lunacharski, one of the brightest minds the revolution produced, stated, when referring to Fedor Dostoevski, the writer: —

“Russia goes forward on her thorny but glorious way, and behind her stand her great prophets, who bless her on her path. Among them, the most enthralling and splendid of all, rises the figure of Fedor Dostoevski.”

In reading Dostoevski you get the key to the understanding of Bolshevism. Let me quote from one of his novels, “The Possessed” : —

“Since it is absolutely necessary to fix the social order of the future now, at this very moment, since we are at last preparing to act, to avoid future uncertainty, I put forward my own system for a new world order. … I must first point out that my system is not yet completed, not yet entirely worked out. For I have become entangled in my own arguments ; my final conclusion is diametrically opposed to my original idea. Although I started from the notion of unrestricted freedom, I arrived at the end at absolute despotism. I may add, however, that there can be no possible solution but mine. . . .”

The above is a statement by one of the characters, named Shigalev, a member of a secret society. His remarks are commented upon by another member : —

“Mr. Shigalev has devoted himself too conscientiously to his task, and is also much too modest. I know his book. In it he proposes to divide mankind into two unequal parts. Only the smaller part, about a tenth of the whole, will enjoy personal freedom and unrestricted power over the other nine-tenths. These nine-tenths must entirely renounce all personality and become, so to speak, a herd, in order, through absolute obedience, by a series of regenerations, to regain their original innocence, almost like the old Garden of Eden, although, as may be remarked in passing, they will have to work. The measures proposed by the author for depriving nine-tenths of humanity of their personal will and for turning them into a herd by means of a new education during whole generations are uncommonly remarkable and are, in addition, based on the facts of nature and are highly logical. …”

Now we have Peter Verkhovenski speaking to Stavrogiri on Shigalev’s ideas: —

“One thing about his book is good, the idea of espionage. In his idea, every member of the society spies on the others, and is bound to inform against them when necessary. All are slaves and equal in their slavery. . . . First of all, the level of education, science, and innate natural talent, falls. A high intellectual level is possible only to superior talents. Superior talents have always seized power for themselves and led to despotism. Men of talent cannot help becoming despots, they have always done more harm than good; therefore they are driven out or put to death. . . . Slaves must be equal; without despotism there has never yet been freedom or equality; but in the herd all must be equal, that’s Shigalevism. Does that seem extraordinary to you ? I am for Shigalevism. . . . Listen, Stavrogin; to level mountains is a fine idea, not a ridiculous one. Education is not necessary and we have enough science. Even without science we have material enough to last for a thousand years, but first we must enforce obedience. The thirst for education is an aristocratic impulse; with family and love you have the desire for property. We will destroy this desire; we will spread drunkenness, slander, espionage; we’ll spread incredible demoralisation; we’ll murder every genius in infancy. Everything will be reduced to a common denominator, complete equality will be enforced. . . . Only the indispensable is indispensable; henceforth this is to be the motto of the universe. But it needs shocks; we’ll provide for them, we the directors. Slaves must have directors. Complete obedience, complete impersonality; occasionally, however, every thirty years or so, Shigalev will let them have a shock, and then they will begin to suddenly devour each other, of course only up to a certain point, for the sole purpose of preventing boredom. Boredom is an aristocratic feeling; there will be no desires under Shigalevism. Desire and suffering for us, Shigalevism for the slaves.”

The above was written in 1871. The reader will perceive how the ideas of Dostoevski have found expression in Bolshevism; in them you have a forecast of what is developing in the only “Socialist” country in the world.

In 1879 Dostoevski gave us the following, in “The Brothers Karamazov” : —

“Oh, we shall convince them that they cannot be free till they renounce their freedom in our favour and submit to us. … Too well, all too well, will they know the value of submission once and for all! Men will be unhappy till they grasp this. However, the flock will collect again and submit once mere, and then it will be for ever, for ever. We will give them a quiet, modest happiness, the happiness of feeble creatures such as they were created. Oh, we shall convince them at last that they have no right to be proud. . . . Yes, we will force them to work, but in their free time we will make their life like a game, with songs, choruses, and innocent dances. Oh, we will even permit them to sin—for they are weak and feeble—and they will love us like children, because we allow them to sin. We shall permit or forbid them to live with wives or lovers, to have or not to have children—according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient, and they will submit to us gladly and joyfully. . . . And they will all be happy, all the millions, except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For we alone, we who guard the mystery, we alone shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy children and only a hundred thousand martyrs, who have taken on themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and evil.”

Read the Russian writers who influenced the ideas of the revolutionists, study Russian history and you will understand why this Bolshevik religion, for that is what it is, has failed to obtain control of the Western mind; it is alien and foreign and blind to the real aspirations of the modern world.

In order to win freedom we must prove ourselves worthy, we must show that we have developed in the working class the knowledge and the ability to enable society to function on a higher plane. We must appeal to the best that is in the human make-up. Bolshevism appeals to the worst.

The sands of capitalism are running down in the glass : the world may not for long be solidly established upon the economic basis of production for sale.

The common ownership of the means of life and the establishrnent of a system of production for use is the next stage in human development; the war cannot end satisfactorily until the working class carry out their historic mission.

Let them take their stand openly and honourably for Socialism; history is on their side; the emancipation of mankind is involved in the issue.

Charles Lestor

Oil and War. (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since man found a motive force, other than the energy of his own body, for operating machinery, fuel for power production has had to be an important consideration. With the development of the internal combustion engine and its application to road, sea and air transport, petroleum has assumed a position of outstanding importance among the products of the world.

The machinery and instruments for producing petroleum, like all other means of production in a capitalist world, are privately owned. Likewise, the tankers, pipe lines and other things necessary for the transport and distribution of the oil, together with the laboratories and machinery for its distillation and refinement—all this is privately owned and operated with a view to the production of profit. The profits that have been derived from the exploitation of the oil workers have been, and still are, stupendous.

The various oil companies of the world have struggled desperately with one another for control of the oilfields and for markets for the disposal of their produce. Capitalist governments, recognising the vital necessity of ensuring adequate supplies of oil, especially in war-time, have placed state resources at the disposal of their respective national companies. Governments invariably give official backing to their national companies in their struggles for concession lands and their endeavours to oust rivals and competitors. The strained relations that have existed between different capitalist governments during the last thirty years have frequently been the direct result of the conflict between their respective oil groups. More than once troops have gone into action to settle disputes over oil lands.

There is the possibility that one of the campaigns of the present war will be fought for the control of the world’s most prolific oilfield, the Russian Caucasian field. The British Government is prepared for large-scale military operations in the Near East. Military men and journalists have been emphasising the strategical importance of these Russian Caucasian oilfields for weeks past.

Brigadier-General C. F. Aspinal-Oglander, C.B., C.M.G., in the Evening News, March 5th : —

“In this connection the news of large German troop movements in the direction of the Caucasus assumes considerable significance; and this potential threat may account for the presence of strong allied forces in Syria and Palestine.”

Then “Scrutator” in The Sunday Times, March 10th: —

“The deadliest blow we can deal to Germany is to cut off her supplies of oil for which, if she is to undertake large-scale military operations, she must be dependent on Russia. Nor are the chances of success in such an operation by any means hopeless. Turkey would give us access to the Black Sea from which we might defend the Roumanian wells against German appropriation, or, if the war is extended, attack the Russian wells at the eastern end. Even if there were difficulties about the use of the Black Sea we have a way of access from Syria and Mosul.”

The Evening Standard, on March 15th, reports what are claimed to be plans for “an immediate counter-attack on Russia’s rich Caucasian oilfields” in the event of a Russian attack on Roumania. The report adds : —

“Then General Weygand’s Near-East army, soon expected to be 1,000,000 strong, was expected to attack across the Turkish-Russian frontier with the Turkish army of nearly 2,000,000 men.

Supported by battleships of the tri-Power fleet, one army would move on the port of Batum, only ten miles from the Turkish frontier.

Another starting from Kars, in Turkey, would move on Alexandropol, in the Soviet Republic of Armenia, the observers said. A third would strike across the frontier near the junction of the Turkish-Iranian-Russian frontiers toward the city of Eriwan.

The extreme Eastern army, after capturing Eriwan, would wheel north-east to Baku and the shores of the Caspian Sea.

The western army, after seizing Batum, would advance up the coast, under the protection of battleship guns, to the Caucasus mountains. A further coastal push towards the oilfields of Maikop, in the province of Adyghai, might be ordered.”

So many young workers from Empire countries who are now in the Army may find themselves transported to the East to endure the inconveniences of a military campaign there. If so, they will march and fight in the company of those same Turks who, a few years ago, they were taught to regard as infidels, slaughterers of Armenian Christians, perpetrators of the vilest atrocities.

The British Government’s statement, “We seek no material advantage for ourselves,” will be worth remembering whilst watching the events in this part of the world. The claim that the Caucasian oil wells must be seized for strategical purposes has a vaguely familiar sound. The expedition under Major-General Dunsterville, which occupied Baku during the last war, set out from Persia to prevent a supposed German march on India. When, on the signing of the armistice, and after an intervening German-Turk occupation, the General Thompson expedition entered the district, the British set about making themselves at home. They took over the banks, the post and telegraph offices, and assumed the function of policing the country. Louis Fischer, in his “Oil Imperialism,” quotes an article by Arthur Moore in the London Times of July 10th, 1922, dealing with the reasons for the subsequent withdrawal of British troops from the Caucasus: —

“. . . . we announced we had come to keep the Bolshevists away. But as soon as the Bolshevist menace began to materialise, it was we who faded away. Why, then, did we go there at all ? Islam knows the answer. We went to try to get hold of the Baku oil-fields, but we were not prepared to fight for them.”

When the Russians re-occupied the district in 1920 (the British garrison withdrew from Batum on July 7th, 1920) the Bolshevik Government proceeded to nationalise the oil industry.

The British statesmen at the peace conference in Paris wished to have Batum set up as a free state under the League of Nations, but failed in their effort. Whilst the states of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijhan were anti-Bolshevik there was hope for the foreign oil concerns. These states were officially recognised by the British Government and White Russian generals received support to commence operations from Georgia against the Bolshevik Government.

Opposition to the Russian nationalisation of the oil industry was the keynote at the Geneva and Hague conferences. Whilst the statesmen met and wrangled in one part of the towns, the oil magnates met in another part and fought over the Russian oilfields. Davenport and Cooke, in their “The Oil Trusts and Anglo-American Relationships,” suggest that “this was the Hague Conference which really mattered.” The Russian Government would not relinquish its control of its oilfields but it was prepared to grant some generous concessions. The conferences came to a standstill mainly because the different oil companies wanted monopoly concessions and none would give in to the others.

After the conferences a general blockade and boycott of Russian oil was agreed upon. But the rival oil companies were so anxious to get a foothold in the Caucasus that they were soon double-crossing one another and defeating their own boycott efforts. The boycott forced the Russian Government to set up its own distributing agencies and Russian Oil Products (R.O.P.) came into existence. A price war ensued. The Royal Dutch-Shell Group, under Sir Henri Deterding, took up the war in earnest.

After a period of price-cutting both the Russian Government and the Royal Dutch Company were financially embarrassed. The Russians hoped to barter oil-land concessions for recognition by other governments and loans from foreign finance houses. A London bank had arranged a loan for Russia. The day following the bank’s decision the offices of the Anglo-Russian Trading Co. in London were raided by the police on the plea of seeking espionage documents. The raid was wrapped in mystery. The Home Office denied having given instructions, but the British Government found it necessary to break off negotiations with the Russian Government and to forbid the loan.

Of late years the struggle for Russian oil has been carried on mainly between the Royal Dutch-Shell and the American Standard oil companies. Each has bought Russian oil in large quantities, striving for monopolies, and then carried the struggle to India, where they have competed for the market for the disposal of the spoils.

In the preparations for the present war the British Government’s manoeuvres in South-east Europe have been carried on also with an eye to safeguarding its own oil supplies : the recent Anglo-Turkish arrangement is an example. Mr. S. W. Alexander, City Editor of the Daily Express, pointed out in that paper on October 24th, 1939, that—

“Turkey’s decision to come in with Britain and France leaves the sea route open for the transport of oil.”

The recent attempts to placate the Arabs by limiting the purchase of land by Jews indicates an attempt to win them to a support of a British Near-East campaign.

The Allied Powers distributed the Mesopotamian oil lands amongst themselves during the last war and fell to quarrelling about the division after the armistice.

Now oil is once more playing a great part in the rivalries of the Powers. It should serve to remind us that wars are not fought for “moral” reasons but are caused by the conflict of material interests inherent in the capitalist system of society.

W. Waters

Press Cuttings. (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

They are all Socialists now—or are they?

“In his last speech Dr. Goebbels said this war was between the ‘German Socialist State and British capitalism.'” — (Manchester Guardian, March 5th, 1940.)

“Britain is being turned into a Socialist State. Not by a revolution and red flags. It’s all done by Tories.”—(Daily Express, February 9th, 1940.)

“The Socialist daring of the Red Army man and the Socialist technique of the great Soviet Union is smashing through fortifications second only to the Maginot and Siegfried lines. Their fight is our fight. The army of liberation is on the march, capitalism shudders under its blows.”—(Daily Worker, February 23rd, 1940.)

* * *

Another Way to Stop War—More Money for the Secret Service.

“An effective Intelligence service can keep a great nation out of war: for without it a government— no matter what party—is bound to make mistakes. If we had spent £1,000,000 a year on such service during the twenty years of armistice, instead of the paltry sums voted for this huge Empire, we should be saving £7,000,000 a day now.”—(From a letter in the Daily Telegraph, February 17th, 1940.)

* * *

Mr. Churchill—the Man the Communists wanted to be a Minister in the Popular Front Government.

“The sea breezes blow. The House of Commons feels the salt.

It is Mr. Churchill speaking. Mr. Churchill reviewing the Fleet.

What does he want ?

“A few men, some ships and a little money.”

What is he given ?

The men, the ships, the money, and the confidence of the nation.

The right man is at the helm.”—(Daily Express, February 28th, 1940.)

“Rome, February 25th.

The Popolo di Roma to-day describes Mr. Winston Churchill as “a survivor of that race which is dying out in Britain—the race of Marlborough and Drake, of those genial and unscrupulous men who in the past made the greatness of the Empire.

“Between an honest civilian like the umbrella-carrying Mr. Chamberlain and the ascetic lost in politics like Lord Halifax,” it adds, “Mr. Churchill stands out like the only man of iron among a dozen men of wood—like a pirate in a circle of honest and spineless gentlemen.”—Press Association War Special. —(Manchester Guardian, February 27th, 1940.)

* * *

Capitalism “having died out” !

“Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, Capitalism having died out, there cannot be any incitement to disaffection in regard to it.”— (Commander Locker-Lampson, in the House of Commons, February 29th 1940.)

* * *

The Russian Government’s interest in Finland.

“The Soviet Government will start a decisive battle to force British economic interests and influences out of Finland and out of the whole Baltic region. Soviet Russia will free Finland from all trade treaties which have been forced upon Finland by foreign imperialists. Until now Finland has been forced to import unnecessary materials from Egypt and Tunis. Now Soviet Russia will be the main source from which Finland will buy her raw materials.”—(Isvestia, March 25th, 1940. Reproduced in News-Chronicle, March 26th, from Moscow radio broadcast.)

* * *

Mr. Herbert Morrison in 1926.

In 1926 Mr. Herbert Morrison was one of those who signed the following pledge: —

“We, the undersigned, convinced that all disputes between nations are capable of settlement either by diplomatic negotiation or by some form of International Arbitration, hereby solemnly declare that we refuse to support or render war service to any government which resorts to arms.”

At the Albert Hall “Peace Letter Campaign Meeting,” on December 5th, 1926, he said: —

“We know from past and all too real experience how the declarations of parties and individuals towards wars are likely to fail when the testing time comes, and it may be that even many of those who have signed this declaration will fail, for wars have a terrible effect upon the public mind and upon the public psychology.”

(“Why We Will Not Fight,” published by the Peace Letter Campaign, 1926.)

* * *

What Dictators cannot do.

“A nation of peasants does not pass in one generation from medievalism to the machine age simply because a dictator has decreed it.” — (Daily Telegraph, January 3rd, 1940.)

* * *

Industrial Service for French Women.

“Within two months a register of women volunteer workers is to be prepared.

These women will then be drafted to various industries in which employers have asked for them. All will have to pass a medical examination before being accepted.

If the voluntary system does not yield enough female labour the Minister of Labour can order the compulsory registration of women fit for industrial work. Women will then be called up individually as they are required.” — (News-Chronicle, March 2nd, 1940.)

Fallacies of Federal Union. (continued) (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

Federal Union and War

In our last issue we examined the claim that a Federal Union would put an end to wars.

Briefly stated, these are the conclusions we reached : —

The supporters of Federal Union ignore or pay too little attention to the profit-making nature of capitalism. Under capitalism it is for profit that goods are produced, and it is so that profits may be realised by the sale of goods in the world market that rivalries and armed conflicts arise between states.

The struggle for markets makes impossible a Federal Union of world-wide scope, though this same struggle, growing more and more keen, may lead certain states to join forces, even form a Federal Union, so as to compete more successfully against others. Such a Federal Union, however, could not end war; it would cause rival states to co-operate more closely. Wars would not be at an end, but would become more widespread and more highly organised.

For this reason, therefore, the workers ought not to support Federal Union. On the contrary, their duty is to go to the root of the trouble and abolish, as quickly as possible, capitalism, with its private ownership and production for profit, for it is this which gives rise to the struggle for world trade, conflicts and wars. The workers’ duty is to establish Socialism—a system of society wherein goods will be produced, not for sale, not for profit, but solely for use.

Propaganda for Federal Union contains many other fallacies, some of which we will now discuss.

Prosperity—But for Whom ?

Raymond O’Malley, in his “Peace and Prosperity” writes: “The Union would offer the best conditions for trade and prosperity the world has ever known” (p. 6).

This prosperity would be brought about largely by the establishment of Free Trade and a single monetary unit within the Union. Says Clarence K. Streit: “It is self-evident that you and I would live an easier and a richer life if through half the world we could do business with one money and postage, if through half the world we were free to buy in the cheapest market what we need to buy and free to sell in the dearest market what we have to sell” (“Federal Union,” p. 32).

The S.P.G.B. estimates the value of any proposition from the working-class point of view, AND WE SAY OUTRIGHT THAT FREE TRADE AND THE DEMAND FOR A SINGLE MONETARY UNIT ARE OF NO CONCERN TO THE WORKING CLASS.

Mr. Streit should remember that the worker has only ONE commodity to sell, and that is his power to work. This he sells (if he can obtain employment) to a capitalist. Usually he is in no position to pick and choose his market or his capitalist. Owning no property and no means of life, threatened by starvation, he has to accept any employment he can get. The capitalist buys the worker’s one commodity, labour-power, just as he buys any other. On the average the cost of production of the labour-power determines the price (wages) the capitalist pays for it. Hence, broadly speaking, wages are just sufficient to keep the worker fit for work and to enable him to produce future wage-workers. THIS IS A LAW OF CAPITALISM, and its truth is demonstrated by hard facts the world over. It is true in small capitalist states and in big capitalist states. It was true in England in the days of free trade, and it is true in these days of tariff barriers. Furthermore, IT WOULD BE TRUE IF WE HAD A FEDERAL UNION, since the size of the economic unit could not alter the exploitation of its wage slaves by capitalism. Although the United States of America is a Federal Union (the model of the federalists), and although there is free trade within that Union, the American worker is in the same position as his fellow in Britain and elsewhere. In return for his labour-power, he is given wages adequate only to exist and reproduce his kind. This is not the fault of the federal system of the U.S.A., nor of free trade, but of capitalism.

The adoption of a single monetary unit by the whole world would, like the introduction of free trade, and for the same reason, leave the position of the worker untouched.

The worker’s prosperity will come only when he abolishes the wages system.

Less Taxation—What Then ?

Since, under capitalism, the wages of a worker are on the average just sufficient to enable him to carry on his work more or less efficiently, it follows that taxes are not his concern. Whether taxes are high or low, he will still be faced with all the evils that accompany poverty, e.g., unemployment, malnutrition, disease and slum-dwellings.

We are, therefore, not filled with enthusiasm when the advocates of Federal Union promise us reduced taxation (see Mr. Chaning-Pearce’s “Federation of the Free,” p. 5). Nor can we do other than smile at Mr. Curry’s childlike innocence when he writes: “Think of the inroads on poverty, ignorance and disease that could be made with those thousands of millions we are spending on armaments” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 78).

“WE,” Mr. Cuny, receive wages which just enable us to eke out an existence. It is the capitalist class, fat with superfluous wealth, that is spending the millions on armaments.

It would be very interesting to know upon what grounds Mr. Curry bases his belief that if the capitalists paid less in taxation and for armaments they would spend the money thus saved in improving our standard of life.

Bad conditions among the workers do not exist because the capitalist class is impoverished either by heavy taxation or otherwise. As a matter of fact, in spite of taxation, the capitalist class is getting wealthier and wealthier. This is because the means of production which the capitalists own turn out wealth in ever-growing abundance. Even when the capitalist class has so much wealth piled up in the form of goods that no market for them can be found, the goods are burnt or thrown to rats rather than freely distributed among the starving workers. (This happens even in that federal union, the U.S.A. !) And why is this seemingly idiotic policy pursued ? Because capitalism is not a charity institution, but a system of society which is run so that profits may accrue to the few.

Again, not long ago the British capitalist class was forcing down wages on the grounds that, unless reductions were made, it could not afford to carry on. Yet, soon afterwards, when its privileged position is threatened by a rival section of the same class, it can pour out money like water on preparing the war machine and putting it into motion.

In the face of these facts, it is evident that the reduction in taxation promised by Federal Union would benefit the capitalist class but would not bring any change to the poverty-stricken workers.

Freedom of Movement

Federal Union, we are told, would enable us to travel freely within the Union, without passports and the frequent opening of bags at frontiers.

“We should wander as freely over the whole world as now Americans wander over America” (W. B. Curry’s “Case for Federal Union,” p. 80)

It would be interesting to know if the American workers appreciate this boon that the Federal Union of the U.S.A. bestows on them.

Actually the American worker is very much like his fellow in other lands. He cannot afford to trave to any extent.

Passports and frontier inconveniences are of little concern to the working class.

Who is Free?

We have already shown how little the supporters of Federal Union understand the position and needs of our class. It is due to their ignorance of the working of the capitalist system that so man of their promises are extravagant. This ignorance, however, when it hides or tends to hide bitter fact is dangerous to working-class interests.

Mr. Chaning-Pearce writes: “To the tyranny of totalitarianism the only adequate reply is the federation of the free.”

The impression that Mr. Chaning-Pearce wish to give, namely, that in democratic states all are free, is false.

In any capitalist state, totalitarian or otherwis the bulk of the population occupies a slave position. The working class, the majority in any capitalist state, is dependent on the capitalist class for the means of life. The worker is free in one sense FREE FROM PROPERTY, but this kind of freedom forces him to work for the owning class, forces him to keep the capitalist class in idleness and luxury, whilst he himself, who toils with brawn and brain, must live in poverty.

So long as this compulsion lasts, the worker is not free, he is a wage-slave, and that, irrespective of the form of government prevailing in the state wherein he lives his drab life.

Not till the world belongs to the workers will our class be free.

Mr. Chaning-Pearce should ponder over this speech, made by a representative of American capital, at the time when the federal form of government was being worked out. John Adams said : “It is of no consequence by what name you call your people, whether by that of freeman or of slave. In some countries the labouring poor are CALLED freemen, in others they are called slaves, but the difference is imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers on his farm gives them annually as much as will buy the necessities of life or gives them those necessities at short hand?” (Quoted by Simons in his “Class Struggles in America.”)

Warnings

Before concluding our article, we warn the workers that any time spent by them in advocating Federal Union would be, from their point of view, time wasted. Working-class salvation is bound up with Socialism, which the workers will have to establish sooner or later. When they establish Socialism they will abolish all those evils which their masters and reformers are always going to end, but never do : war, unemployment and poverty.

To chase after Federal Union, WHICH after all (if realised) WILL LEAVE THE WORKERS IN PRECISELY THE SAME SLAVE POSITION AS THEY OCCUPY TO-DAY, is to delay the day of emancipation.

We do not doubt lhat many supporters of Federal Union are sincere in believing they have found the key to happiness. A few words of warning to them, therefore.

It may happen that if the idea of Federal Union becomes widely accepted the capitalist class will use it to further their own material interests.

Beware, federalists! Perhaps at some future date the British Government would be willing to support (even if only temporarily) a Federal Union of the European states against America, or perhaps a Federal Union of, say, England, France, Germany (without Hitler and Co.) and the Scandinavian countries against Russia.

It must not be forgotten that in 1930 the representatives of many governments opposed the French Memorandum on a European Federal Union on the grounds that such a Union would tend to accentuate inter-continental rivalries. Behind the idea of a United States of Europe there existed a strong opposition to America. (See Sir Arthur Salter’s “The United States of Europe.”)

It remains for us to discuss another fallacy of the advocates of Federal Union; their misunderstanding of Socialism. This will be done in our next article.

Clifford Allen

The Croupiers and the Faro Wheel. (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Throughout the political system of British capitalism, with its amazing fluidity, its shifts of front and of allegiance, and its apparent contradictions, runs one clear thread: the idea that there are insiders and outsiders.

So says “The Unofficial Observer,” in his work, “Our Lords and Masters.”

The “outsiders” may get the best jobs, if it suits the purpose of the “insiders,” but they can never determine policy.

For behind and beyond the British political scene there is a superior force, which assigns values, which enumerates—or rather takes for granted—”the things no feller can do,” which pulls the wires and decides events. With Americans that power has been the business and financial community, with its tradition of general corruption and its innocent conviction that individual greed is the yardstick of social utility. That such is not the case in Great Britain can be proved at a single glance at the leaders of British industry and banking. Where American bankers oppose and criticise, where American steel magnates defy Governmental labour legislation, where American oil companies have juggled with administration after administration, British industry and finance work hand and glove with British government. It has taken some consideration above the holding of political office and the fattening of the pocket-book to accomplish this result. There are “insiders” in British business as well as politics. Why?

Snobbishness is what helps to make the wheels go round and induces the lamb to go to bed with the lion on the breakfast-for-two basis. For four hundred years the British social system has been elaborating itself until it has become the most potent force in British life. “There has been no ‘free and equal’ nonsense about it. Great Britain has been governed by a privileged caste of aristocrats, whose morale has been high and whose purpose has been plain—to keep themselves and their country on top of the pile.”

This aristocracy has been open to birth and to wealth. You can be born to the purple, or buy it. So for generation after generation society has set the standards that others try to follow and has renewed itself from vigorous and successful men of every age ; ”The Victorian manufacturers, the merchant adventurers and Indian ‘nabobs’ of the eighteenth century, and the historians, artists, poets, scientists and authors of all generations have all seen as the reward of success the patent of nobility.”

“An aristocracy of birth, an aristocracy of wealth, and an aristocracy of brains when combined constitute a formidable society. When they follow the same standards set by the aristocracy of birth and fortified by a system of privilege, they are irresistible. In England Babbit knows that his place is at the tradesmen’s entrance rather than at the front door unless he ‘plays the game,’ whose rules are set by British society. That is the secret of British power.”

The question before this war was can England recapture her old world-wide predominance in economic affairs ? The Bank of England, that powerful organisation, under its influential Governor, Montagu Collet Norman, is one instrument now being used to work towards this end. It exemplifies the baffling fusion in England of the same interests which have led to the incompatible dualism of Wall Street and Washington in America.

Mr. Norman’s biographer has called him “the greatest statesman in Great Britain since the war.” As head of the Bank which directs the financial destinies of half the world Mr. Norman has perhaps enjoyed more power than any individual of his generation. He it was who brought the country back to the gold standard in 1925 and moved heaven and earth to keep it there. Between 1923 and 1925 the Bank of England, acting in close and informal co-operation with the Foreign Office, extended credits to a number of central banks in foreign countries and brought most of Europe on what is known as the gold exchange standard. This, by fixing the export value of goods in terms of a single stable commodity, both protected British manufacturers from competition in terms of depreciated foreign money and also assured British exporters with reliable means of payment for their wares.

In the realm of high politics, the Bank’s credits to Germany stabilised Central European conditions, prevented the mark from repeating its nose-dive of 1923 and thus sought to ward off radical upheaval, as well as reconstituting the European balance of power. Thanks to Mr. Norman’s efforts at that time the international gold standard was fully re-established and functioned smoothly from the time the franc was stabilised in 1926 until the disastrous summer of 1931.

The blending of business with diplomacy, however, led to disaster. Mr. Norman’s Central European loans may have been made for political reasons, but they were made at interest rates which accurately reflected the business risk. As it worked out, the Bank of England, not being in business for its health, borrowed money from France at 3 per cent, and reloaned it to Germany at 6 per cent. The Germans, in turn, reloaned some of this money to Austria and Hungary at still higher rates of interest. When the collapse of international wheat prices robbed the Danubian countries of their power to pay, the result was a chain of failures, which ran from Rothschild Bank in Vienna—the Credit-Anstalt—through the German “Big D” banks to the Bank of England, and when the French in their inconvenient way asked to have their money back England went off the gold standard with a bang.

Another “Wizard of Finance,” however, is to be found in Germany, Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greely Schacht, the Nazi Finance Director, the originator of the German confidence game, by which the Allies and America allowed their own cupidity to cheat themselves.

The first step in this game was the inflation of the German mark after the war. German marks were purchased by eager speculators in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Switzerland and New York long after they had become patently worthless. In this way Germany acquired foreign exchange at little or no cost to herself and thus compelled the international bankers to apply the Dawes Plan in 1924, which relieved Germany of much of the burden of reparations by providing a new racket.

This time the racket was in German industrial bonds. These were sold to foreign investors—largely American—and their proceeds eventually were used to pay German reparations. This cost the Germans nothing except interest on bonds for a while, gave the Allies their financial pound of flesh, paid commissions to the international bankers and, best of all, gave the British and American investing public a stake in Germany’s economic prosperity. When investments ran dry, the Germans borrowed short-term funds from British and American banks. Finally, the depression made this impossible, Germany stopped paying reparations and refused to pay back either long-term loans or short-term debts. The American bankers showed their true colours—bright yellow—by offering to sacrifice American investors, if only the banking loans were paid, but by this time Schacht knew he had command of the situation. By its holdings of foreign exchange and by other special controls the Reichsbank had accumulated such large stocks of raw materials that it was able to pass through the difficult winter of 1934-1935 far better than any other country.

Since then Schacht has taken advantage of every crisis Hitler has brought about to bring off barter deals; the game, however, became played out and a naked smash and grab raid was the only way Germany could keep going.

We can now understand her cries of encirclement and her desperate moves to avert the catastrophe the Nazi policy forced upon Germany by capitalist development and the greed of her rivals make inevitable.

The attempt to get capitalism to sail on an even keel after the war of 1914-18 failed. The economic problems confronting the world after the present war is over will be beyond the powers of Montagu Norman, Schacht, and Morgan of the United States.

The firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. is a group of private moneylenders, whose principal office is at 23, Wall Street, New York City, and which has important affiliations in Boston, Philadelphia, Paris and London. The Morgan firm controls (not owns) between a quarter and a third of the organised wealth of the United States, being especially powerful in rails, steel, chemicals and the heavy industries generally. It owes its existence to the opportunities for profiteering in the Civil War and attained its present world-wide importance as Fiscal Agent for the British and French Governments during the period of American “neutrality” in the last world war. “At this time the Morgan firm established the technique of using American money to ‘pay’ for British purchases of American goods, which later flowered in the lavish War Debts and the post-war American loans to the European countries. This practice is an invaluable asset to the British Government, and the relations of the Morgan firm with that Government can only be described as ‘extraordinarily intimate.’ To a very considerable extent Morgan is America and Morgan is the informal viceroy of the British Crown in its American Dominion.”

The spider of Wall Street is an episcopalian —it is easier for a camel to pass through the needle’s eye than for a Jew or a Catholic to enter the firm of J. P. Morgan.

It was the house of Morgan and its associate firms in London and Paris which was responsible for swinging large-scale international transactions during the last world war. “When foreign exchanges were dislocated and the credit of the City of New York was jeopardised by inability to meet obligations of 80 million dollars maturing in London and Paris, the city authorities appealed to Morgan, who quickly organised a bankers’ syndicate, which raised the needful. The Allied purchases of war supplies and foodstuffs were cleared through the Morgan firm as fiscal agents for France and Great Britain on decidedly profitable terms. To facilitate this activity they first established export departments headed by Edward R. Shellinius, with a staff of nearly two hundred engineers, manufacturers and experts. Two thousand five hundred million dollars’ worth of food and materials were purchased in this way, thus creating an American economic stake in Allied victory, sustained by a series of commercial credits totalling 1,550,000,000 dollars. This credit was floated through the Morgan banks, after being negotiated by a joint French and British commission.”

The ruling class of Britain may hope during the present war that Morgan will eventually swing things their way again, as he did during the last blood bath. Americans may reiterate again and again that under no circumstances will she allow herself to be involved. When the time comes for American aid to be essential to victory the United States is likely to line up with whosoever Morgan decrees she shall support. So much for democracy under capitalism.

The political victory of the British and French Governments in the present conflict can be anticipated, but the results from an economic standpoint will be barren. The world struggle for markets will not have ceased but will be intensified.

As for the future of the human race, everything depends upon the knowledge possessed by the working class. Not least in Britain, the United States and the western world. We are building better than we realise. The common ownership of the means of life, production for use and the elimination of all profit will be an economic necessity after the war if society is to advance.

Charles Lestor

SPGB Meetings and Lectures. (1940)

Party News from the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fallacies of Federal Union. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Warning to the Workers

After the war (1914—18), many members of the working class wasted much of their time and energy in supporting the League of Nations. They thought that, at last, a way to end war had been devised. The socialist warning went unheeded. We pointed out that the League of Nations was bound to fail, since it did not put an end to the real causes of war: —the intense struggle for world trade which capitalism forces upon rival sections of the capitalist class. We urged then, as we do now, that the only way to peace is to get rid of these rivalries which are inherent in capitalism, by abolishing capitalism itself, and by establishing a new social order—socialism.

Again we issue a warning to our fellow workers, for again there is a possibility of their being led up a blind alley in another futile quest for permanent peace. This time the blind alley is FEDERAL UNION. Like the League of Nations, it will, if supported, bring to the workers bitter disillusionment and will direct them away from the path they must finally tread—the path of uncompromising opposition to capitalism.

Federal Union—A Dangerous Utopia

According to the advocates of Federal Union, “the essential root of our trouble is nationalism in the hearts of ordinary men reduced to a political system which constantly inflames that nationalism.” (Mr. Lionel Curtis in an address given at Oxford, September 23rd, 1939.) This “excessive nationalism,” Federalists say, must be curbed by a federation of states. They urge that at first the democratic states ought to federate. Such a federation, they claim, would bring peace, since any attack against it would from the outset be sure of failure. (Clarence K. Streit’s “Federal Union,” p. 25.) Later, it is thought, other states would join, until finally the federation would be world-wide.

The whole idea is Utopian, and, from the working class point of view, dangerous.

It is Utopian because in capitalist society a world federation of states has not the slightest chance of ever being made to function harmoniously.

It is dangerous for the working class because it will not only waste their time but may even lead to greater and greater wars.

Why Federal Union Will Not Work

In his book, “The Case for Federal Union,” W. B. Curry writes: — “The World is not politically or psychologically a society, but economically and technically it is already one community ” (p. 23). This is typical of the way the supporters of Federal Union refuse to get to the bottom of things. Moreover, this is one of the false premises upon which their plan is based : they argue that since the world is economically one unit, logically we ought to have one political unit.

Unfortunately for the federalists, THE WORLD IS NOT ECONOMICALLY ONE COMMUNITY.

It is true that to an ever-increasing extent the different parts of the world are becoming more and more dependent on each other for vital necessities of life. It is true that capitalism, as it spreads to every corner of the globe, breaks down national barriers and creates, or tends to create, similar conditions the world over. Still, capitalism itself, though in some respects a uniting force, prevents the world from being or becoming “economically one community.” It prevents this in the following ways:—

First, in capitalist society, there are TWO CLASSES, and between these two classes a persistent struggle and clash of interests. The capitalist class owns the means of production and distribution and employs the working class which, being propertyless, must work for the advantage of the owners, i.e., to produce profits for them. Over the questions of wages and working conditions, the capitalists and workers are in constant conflict. This class struggle, evident within every capitalist state, is ignored or dismissed as unimportant by the federalists. However, so long as it continues to exist the world cannot possibly become one community.

Furthermore, in capitalist society owing to the existence of private property and the consequent production of goods SOLELY for profit, the world is one big jumble of conflicting capitalist interests. 

Wars are the result of these conflicting interests.

Capitalism is by nature competitive and monopolistic. Different sections of the capitalist class—which to prosper must make profits—compete with each other to obtain monopolies of markets, monopolies of raw materials and monopolies of fields for investments. It is partly for the purpose of protecting or furthering these capitalist interests that the gigantic armed forces of the states exist; and the great powers annex territories, not so that the vanquished natives may benefit, but so that the interests of their capitalists can be developed without interference.

If, as often happens, the flow of profits going to capitalists is interfered with by competing sections of the capitalist class, quarrels break out, and, when other means fail, it is by force that differences are settled.

Developing capitalism has led to the growth of international trusts and rings, but this has not diminished the rivalries between groups of capitalists. On the contrary, it has led to an intensification of those rivalries, for now capitalists of different nationalities work together in exploiting spheres of influence in order that a firmer monopoly may be obtained to the disadvantage of rival groups.

Advocates of Federal Union would do well to remember also that, as time goes on, the competition for markets becomes keener and keener. In recent years, countries which were formerly markets for certain goods are now themselves producing the same goods in such abundance that they too are exporting them, trying to find markets. In recent decades, we have seen the growth of capitalism in Japan, Turkey, and a score of smaller states.

Therefore, this is the position. Though more and more goods are produced for sale, the markets for some of them grow less and less. The result is obvious : a greater struggle between rival sections of the capitalist class for markets where profits can be realised.

It is this commercial rivalry which causes states to set up tariff barriers, which inspires the “We must export or die” pleas of the German and British ministers.

In short, markets are necessary for the well-being and prosperity of any section of the capitalist class. This being so, it is evident that the federalists will have an enormous task to persuade the “have” powers to place non-self-governing dependencies under the control of an international commission of ALL states. (See “The Case for Federal Union,” p. 191.)

The capitalist class and their representatives realise how dependent they are on markets. Marshal Foch, during the Great War, admitted that the struggle for markets was an important cause of war. He said : —

“What do we all seek ? New outlets for an ever-increasing- commerce and for industries which, producing far more than they can consume or sell, are constantly hampered by an increasing competition. And then ? Why ! New areas for trade are cleared by cannon shot.”— (United Service Magazine, December, 1918.)

The late Lord Brentford, too, who was the Conservative Home Secretary, 1924-28, once stated in very definite terms that for markets capitalist states are prepared to go to war. During a speech, he said :—

“We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we shall hold it.”

Mr. Curry, in his “Case for Federal Union,” mentions the rivalry between states caused by conflicting capitalist interests. We suggest to him that he give more attention to this; he will then talk less glibly about the world being “economically one community” and about “substituting international government for international anarchy.”

The Blind Alley

When production is carried on for the SOLE PURPOSE OF PROFITS as it is to-day, powers which hold colonies or have spheres of influence where raw materials are available or where there are valuable markets for products, will be very loath to give up their monopolies over them. After all, to do so would perhaps mean a serious reduction in the profits going to the sections of the capitalist class they represent and the enrichment of rival groups.

Capitalism FORCES this “cut-throat competition,” this struggle for spheres of influence upon the different sections of the capitalist class.

It is, therefore, capitalism which gives rise to wars, not that abstraction Mr. Curtis spoke of: — “nationalism in the hearts of ordinary men.”

Federal Union does not attempt to get rid of the deep-rooted clashes of interests, inherent in capitalism. It does not aim at ending private property and production for profit. Struggles for markets, for raw materials, would still persist, therefore, even if a Federal Union were to be formed, and even if federalists would wish it to be otherwise.

What Federal Union aims to do is to try to curb these rivalries by having a larger political unit.

It may be that with the development of capitalism and the growth of international trusts, some form of very close co-operation between certain states will result. However, were this co-operation to take the form of a federation of those states which, for the moment, found their economic interests more or less in line, it would be no victory for peace.

We have shown that a world federation is out of the question. Rival capitalist interests prevent that. A Federal Union of only a number of states would lead to the formation of rival federations, or to closer co-operation on the part of other states. The struggle for world trade would necessitate that. Federal Union offers, therefore, not peace, but more intense rivalries AND GREATER WARS.

Although federalists offer their scheme as a means of ending war, they themselves are doubtful about the success it would have. And so in Streit’s proposed constitution, he suggests the machinery which would carry on war if Federal Union were established. He writes:—”The Union shall have the sole right to deal with foreign governments, provide for the Union’s defence, raise, maintain and control standing land, sea and air forces, make peace and war. …”

Furthermore, it is admitted by Mr. Curry that war might break out within the Federal Union itself. This is indeed very likely, for capitalist interests which are in line to-day may in the near future be in conflict. America’s attitude towards Japan is clear proof of how capitalist interests and sympathies change. On this point Nathaniel Peffer writes:—

“In the Russo-Japanese war, we were pro-Japanese to the point of sentimentality. Japan evicted Russia and took over its ambitions for hegemony in the Far East. Almost immediately, we began protesting against Japan’s actions in Manchuria, adumbrated schemes for neutralising or internationalising Manchurian railways, and in less than five years tensions had arisen between Japan and the United States. The tensions have never eased.” (See “Empire in the East,” edited by Joseph Barnes).

Within a Federal Union, rivalries might well lead to friction, withdrawals from the Union (just as from the League of Nations) and war. As Mr. Curry writes : —”The Federal Union may even have to face civil war, as the American Union had to face it” (p. 130).

We repeat that to end war, its cause must be abolished. Until capitalism is swept away, all the forces making for armed conflicts will be at work. Attempts to clamp down these forces by Federal Union would be doomed to failure.

We urge the working class, therefore, not to waste its time on Federal Union, which, leaving untouched the causes of war, cannot possibly put an end to it.

Only when capitalism has been overthrown and socialism established will the causes of war—production for profit, trade and commercial rivalries—be removed.

Other fallacies of Federal Union will be discussed in future articles.

Clifford Allen

Link to Part 2.

A Bourgeois on Marxism. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The fundamental fallacy of Marxism is the dogmatic assumption that men live by bread alone, and that ‘democracy’ can be expressed in terms of an enforced economic equality.”

So wrote Mr. Wickham Steed, ex-Editor of The Times, in an article on “Liberty and Property” (Reynolds’s News, 4/2/40) But he did not tell us where this assumption is to be gathered from Marx’s theories. Yet, judging by the number of times similar things have been said of Marxism, we feel that the old dictum—repetition is the mother of study—comes well within what has been described as man’s infinite capacity for telling lies. Repeat a thing over and over again, and what may be a myth will easily be accepted as established fact. It is well within the bounds of probability that Mr. Steed, and many another critic of Marxism, really knows different. If they are the well informed men they are supposed to be, they are unlikely to believe in the validity of their criticisms. It is far more probable that they feel an instinctive reaction to the suggestion of the break-up of the system from which they materially benefit. Anyway, the charge that Marxism implies our living by bread alone comes as a strange one from those who will defend a system which has contrived to reduce the mode of living of the actual producers of “bread” to little more than work, bread and bed. Maybe, because Marxism insists that the basis of all human society is economic, the above criticism derives its cause from that source. If this be the case, the objection to Marxism will have to be extended to all biological theory as well, for we humans are not alone in the animal kingdom in requiring the food supply as a primary condition of existence. But to put the widest interpretation on Mr. Steed’s statement, let us take it for granted that he concedes this fact. He might reasonably insist that man has long since shed his animality in that men are much more than biological organisms, that we have a widely different and more complex mode of being than that of the lower animals. Our question will still remain, where does Marxism deny such obvious facts ? There is only one answer that can be reasonably given—nowhere. Marxism, it should be understood, takes men as they are, for good or for bad, with all attributes of humanity, and seeks to explain the movements of human society in the past, with a view to laying a sound foundation for it in the future.

The whole of Marx’s theories led to the determination to secure a form of human society in which the great mass of mankind would be finally removed from a “bread alone” subsistence. Marx perceived that the economic foundation of society must be the primal factor for adjustment in the reconstruction of human social life on a Socialist basis. With this accomplished, the entire mode of living of humanity would follow from that foundation. It would prove, we think, an impossible task to find any great worker in the field of social science who realised more than Marx that human life is composed of a great number of things above those of economic considerations.

But Mr. Steed’s objections are based on the Marxian negation of private property. He says— “that without a modicum of private property neither personal freedom nor democratic government is possible.” But how much property it takes to make a “modicum” Mr. Steed does not say. What he does say, however, is that he realises that freedom is not absolute but relative. But what he may not realise so readily is that this relativity of freedom is largely conditioned by the strivings of men to stretch their personal freedom to an absolute.

Had men, or groups of men, gone about guided by nothing other than their own personal self-interest, it is certain that mankind could never have built up such vast and complex social communities we know in modern times; in fact, they could never have reached civilisation at all.

Human passions and desires need organisation and restraints if we are to live in any form of social system. Vico, “the father of the philosophy of history,” made an important contribution to human thought when he suggested that men’s vices rather than their virtues are the impelling forces which aid towards social union. As Vico puts it—

“Legislation takes man as he is to make of him a being adapted for human society. From ferocity, avarice and ambition—these three vices which lead men astray—it derives the army, commerce and the court, that is to say, the strength, wealth and knowledge of republics, and these great vices, capable of destroying the human race, create social felicity.”

The philosopher, Hegel, said something similar when he observed—

“One thinks he is saying something great if one says that mankind is by nature good, but it is forgotten one says something far greater in the words, ‘man is by nature evil’.”

The full significance of all this, we are compelled to believe, will be missed by our bourgeois critics of Marxism. Whilst neither Vico nor Hegel regarded vices and virtues from the conventional and traditional standpoint, they perceived that the make-up of human society is necessitated by the all-compelling need to curb human action from instinctive passions and desires. The question arises, what is the foundational factor upon which all human society turns ?

To the Marxist, the quest for the wherewithal to live, plus the means and methods of producing such, gives rise to the formation of all social relationships, including the vices and virtues of men and their concepts of freedom, justice and equality, their religions and their philosophies.

For the millionth time let it be stated that Marxism is no doctrine of economic determinism or fatalism. It is men, whole men, men with all their human characteristics, who make history from their action and reaction with their material surroundings. Hence arose our private property condition of society. But its rise did not bring a greater all round freedom. What it did accomplish was freedom for some and slavery for others: it gave us class struggles.

The expansion of private property brought in its trail the bond slavery of ancient times, the serfdom of the middle ages, and the wage-slavery of modern society.

The all-important point to notice is that throughout all these historic social changes, it is the few who have experienced freedom in proportion to their greater control of private property in the means of life.

Given the condition that the means of living are privately owned, it follows as a matter of course that economic subjection must result. Economic freedom must be the basis of all freedom. Whilst no Marxist denies that private property has effected a progressive influence in social development, the fact emerges that every advance in human society has seen a greater division between those who have property in the means of living and those who have not.

The Marxian sees that we have reached a stage n social development where this property condition has become a hindrance to real social progress. Not only do we experience poverty amidst plenty, but the character of present-day property ownership acts as a handicap against the greater volume of wealth we could produce were the productive forces freed from private ownership and control.

The Marxian proposes that such private property shall cease. If a real economic equality is to prevail, only social control of the world’s resources through Socialism can secure its success. There is no half-way house from the Marxian standpoint.

But what of Mr. Steed’s “modicum” of property? If he means that we may own our clothes, our furniture, our musical instruments, our drawings and paintings, together with many other things which human need and culture determine, then he need have no fears. Marxism does not include such property in its objectives. What the Marxian objects to is private property in those things which society as a whole needs, such as the land, mines, mills, railways, ships, and all other productive and distributive forces of social importance. Outside of these agencies of wealth production property confers no power of human exploitation, no power of economic and social subjection of the many by the few.

When Mr. Steed speaks of “democracy” being “expressed in terms of an enforced economic equality,” he must have in view, not the democratic aims of Marxism, but totalitarianism, which is a totally different matter.

His conception of democracy seems to extend no further than the limited form in which it is expressed to-day.

To Mr. Steed and most of the bourgeoisie, the democracy they fear will lapse with the triumph of Marxism is the form which permits the wage-slave to vote for his slavery, and to “voice” his demands, provided, of course, he does not demand too much from those who live by his exploitation.

As Marxians we appreciate even this limited form of democracy; it is of important value to our purpose. But our claim is that the highest democracy can only be attained when the basic condition of human society precludes the possibility of human exploitation through property ownership.

We would draw the attention of Mr. Steed to the following pronouncement of the founders of Marxism, namely, Marx and Engels :—”In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” This does not sound as though Marxism was intended as a denial of all democratic principles. But lest it be suggested that the above reference from Marx is nothing more than a form of words, sentiments which may fail to find material expression under Socialism, let us point out that, in the measure that the means of living are made the common property of the whole of the people, to that extent is the primal condition set to pave the way to the greatest freedom mankind can experience.

Robert Reynolds

SPGB Meetings, Lectures and Notices. (1940)

Party News from the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Ides of March. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Ides of March are come.

Ay, Caezar? but not gone” (Shakespeare).

Social change often begins in the spring. There is an inherent restlessness at this season of the year which at present is intensified to such an extent by the black-out, and other impositions which our masters have decided are necessary, that a “fed-up” feeling is becoming general.

The bewitching beauty of an Arctic sky canopies scenes of ghastly horror in the fairy land of Finland. Men, women and children are being blown to pieces, burnt to death, and even when horribly wounded gripped in the merciless fingers of an iron frost until petrified into icy carcases; these gruesome deeds being the result of an attempt, on the part of the workers perpetrating them to decide whether this or that brand of profit making shall survive. This land of loveliness, with its small fir Christmas trees, naturally decked, snow-gemmed and bejewelled, dancing stars, the peaceful moon and the Northern Lights, where sound is sacrilege in the awe-inspiring natural scene, is now turned into an inferno because one-sixth of the earth’s surface does not apparently satisfy “the only Socialist country in the world.” Oh! Socialism! what crimes are committed in thy name!

The United States is not supposed to be a direct participant in the war, but she is vitally interested in the peace. Should the war cease now, Hitler would be in a favourable position; he could start again advantageously after a breathing spell; therefore we may expect peace proposals, veiled or open, to emanate from Germany shortly; these are likely to come to nothing. The Presidential election taking place this fall in the land of Uncle Sam causes those interested in American politics to desire first-hand information regarding the situation in Europe. The visit of Mr. Welles is, therefore, of considerable interest to those who are influential in Government circles. It is well known that all branches of big business in God’s country do not see eye to eye with the President. If Roosevelt runs again there will be a clash between those who control the wealth of the United States and those exploiters who desire for themselves a more equitable distribution of it than prevails at the present time; the small fry of the capitalist group will at the end of the coming scrap be wiped out. American capital is striving to get a grip on Sweden; the Swedes are fully alive to the game that is being played, and for that reason refused to declare war on Russia in order to aid Finland. They are fully awakened to the perfidy of Moscow. They can understand also why certain bankers should be pro Stalin and other capitalist politicians pro Finn. The Swedes know the U.S.A. financiers. Sweden has no national debt to function as a vehicle to put money into moneylenders’ pockets, and, worse still from a ruling class standpoint, her working class are well organised. There is a threat here to the exploiter which he apparently cannot ignore. Should Sweden be drawn into a war, however, the working-class organisations may be dislocated. The capitalist class everywhere make the most of the opportunities a war gives them and during hostilities systematically work to weaken or destroy working-class movements. Could Sweden be drawn into a war, the Unions would be weakened at the end of it; education would cease while the war was on and the working class would emerge politically hamstrung, the movement in Sweden would be thrown back for a generation; the strange feature in this connection is that Stalin is aiding big business in the work of entrapping the workers of the Scandinavian countries into a position where they can be crushed. Stalin cannot afford to have on his borders a working-class movement becoming alive to the real fundamentals of its class position.

* * * * * *

The Lion’s Cubs have responded to their parents’ call and many working men have left their homes in the Dominions overseas to take their place in the battle line; the old boy considering all should be in order before he makes his spring. Whether he lands on the Russian Bear or the German Eagle, he is going to make fur or feather or both fly shortly; this will cause certain organisations in the country to imitate the mole and others to dissolve their revolutionary ardour upon the capitalist breast of patriotism.

The Pyramids of Egypt have looked down upon many strange happenings and have often figured as a setting for the stage of world events; civilisations and empires have come and gone, but these works of the slaves of old defy all revolutions and challenge the hand of time. Napoleon and Caezar before him made their entrances and their exits without making any impression upon these colossal monuments, and therefore it is hoped the writer will not be considered disrespectful when he points out that the visit of Mr. Anthony Eden to this ancient land is not likely to set the Nile on fire or to cause the Pyramids to topple.

The bottleneck of the Empire has to be safeguarded and, although not broadcast, it is an open secret that the Arab Federation will play a strong hand in what is about to unfold in the Near East.

It is interesting to note how social production has linked up the peoples of the world; in a war this is glaringly revealed. Britain must not only think of the Suez, but of Mesopotamia, and in fact the world; no nation can live to itself, and not even an Empire so vast as the British can be independent of the rest of the planet. The ties that bind are economic and cannot be broken; the peoples of the world are forced into unity by the development of the system itself. The workers are now called upon to realise they have no country, but are of a class: a class that must make the world a Socialist world—that is their job.

The news spread by the exploiters’ Press, or piped over the ether, is, in the main, what it is considered we should believe; we listen to our master’s voice like the dog in the picture and, naturally, as a consequence most wage slaves subconsciously absorb ruling class ideas and make them their own; the exceptions are considered eccentric and are often designated by their fellows as “batty”; the unearthing of the truth is a difficult task even in normal times, and, now the war is on, to make matters worse, organisations are appearing on every hand whose sole function is to prevent it from being discovered. This being the case, when our masters or their henchmen draw our attention to the north, it is best to look in the south; when they point to the east we should turn our gaze to the west. Never forget, even when war is on, the capitalist class live by exploiting the working class, and they would a thousand times rather lose any war in which they may be temporarily engaged than lose their power to make us work for their permanent benefit.

The aged poor continue to accelerate their journey to the grave by trying to live on the miserable pittance they tremblingly receive.

The extension of the war to the Balkans and the Near East is probable. Egypt is the pivot upon which may turn many spectacular events: she is a vital connection between the Near and the Far East, Palestine, Turkey, Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, and later the whole world will soon feel the dislocating shock of the clash of rival capitalist interests. Blood will flow, and all to no purpose; the economic problem that the system has evolved cannot be solved without destroying the system itself, and this is not our masters’ object; they are at war because they think war, for what they want, is essential to enable capitalism to function. There can be no improvement for our class until we decide to take political action with a view to establishing a new form of society. We should aim at ending exploitation by removing the cause of it. The cause is capitalist ownership and production for profit. The cure is common ownership and production for use. The people in common must own that upon which they in common depend.

During the progress of the war we can expect our masters to make the most of their opportunities to further subjugate us. We must resist every attempt in this connection. Attempts will also be made to lower real wages by financial legerdemain. The working class must be put on their guard. The capitalist class do all the “paying,” but the working class do all the producing. Everything necessary to the carrying on of the war will be produced by the workers, the capitalist class will not produce anything.

The Capitalists will do their “paying” out of the profits they make by exploiting the working class.

During the war the capitalist class will loan to the Government a portion of their profits: this gives them a mortgage on the future production of the working class.

After the war the Government will “owe” the capitalist class countless millions. It will then be discovered that social services, wages, etc., must be cut to the bone in order to meet the interest on what is owing. This is the reward of the working class.

Now is the Ides of March; will there be any stirring in the minds of the workers ? The old timers will look everywhere for signs; they will recall those inspiring periods in working-class history when the deeds of the toilers lent hope to what is to come.

The triumph of Socialism is inevitable, and although “fate or insufficiency may provide mean ends for men who are what they would be,” still we have our consolation.

We know that we are working in the noblest cause that ever appealed to the world or to man.

Charles Lestor

Why Economise? (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The road which we have to tread is that of stern service and sacrifice.” Thus writes the Daily Telegraph leader writer (January 10th, 1940) in amplificatory approval of Chamberlain’s Mansion House speech. ChamberIain is further quoted as stating: “We have got to do without a lot of things we shall miss very much.” Less money must be spent on sugar and butter. Approval is also given to the statement of Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that “you can’t finance a great war by soaking the rich.” This prepares the way for what follows: “To tie wages to the cost of living so closely that spending can go on as in peace time will give us the vicious spiral of the last war, which ultimately benefited no-one.”

On the page following the above-mentioned article is a Harrods’ advertisement, which says: “Now, more than ever, you need bargains in wines and spirits.” You can get a dozen bottles of 1924 brandy for nine quid (usual price £9 12s.). Whisky is slightly cheaper at £8 5s., or you can get a dozen bottles of 1933 Barsac for as little as £2 16s. Cigars also are going cheap at £5 7s. 6d. the hundred.

You see, now there is a war on, even the poor rich have to economise and look around for bargains in wines and spirits.

It is possible, however, that a large number of the readers of the Daily Telegraph, in their hurry to get to the back pages, where cheap jobs are advertised, may have missed the foregoing advertisement, about which this much must be said—that experienced capitalist concerns do not spend large sums on advertising unless there is reasonable certainty of a substantial return. Hence we can well imagine Colonel Try-it-on and Major Soak-it-up over their whisky-and-splash approvingly endorsing the Chancellor’s remark that “you can’t finance a great war by soaking the rich.”

Of course, we admit that the capitalists have got a bit of a problem on in running this war. War, unfortunately for them, is an expensive business. But if the workers can be induced to lie low, and not be too troublesome about asking for more wages to meet a higher cost of living, cut down their butter and sugar, and so on, it might not prove so expensive after all. Hence the necessity of “stern service and sacrifice” in order that “freedom and justice and the dignity of human life shall not perish from the earth.” Need we say that included amongst those who share the “dignity of human life” are the “hard core”—the 240,000 workers who have been unemployed for over 12 months? The majority of these, needless to say, have been retaining their dignity, not on butter, but on margarine—and probably unvitaminised at that, as, for the information of the unsophisticated, unvitaminised marge is slightly cheaper than that containing the vital elements. The dignified “hard core,” however, are going to be looked after—”steps are to be taken by the Government to speed up their absorption into industry.”—(Daily Telegraph Industrial Correspondent, January 10th, 1940.)

Obviously, what is concerning the minds of the capitalists is that, with everybody employed, workers will be asking, insisting on, and succeeding in getting, higher wages. Hence the dim foreshadowing of some means or measure to arrest the process.

Whilst the sectional struggle between the capitalist Powers has taken on the form of armed warfare, the economic warfare between capitalists and workers, between rulers and ruled, continues from official peace time into official war time, with this difference, that when a war is on, owing to the elimination of the competition of the unemployed, the scales are weighted in favour of the workers. Hence the concern of our capitalist masters over the wages question and their attempt to drum into the ears of the workers the necessity of “doing without a lot of things they will miss very much,” and the statement that the “wealthier classes have had to make large reductions in standards of living.”

R. Milborne