A lesson in capitalist ethics. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The fact brutally resolves itself to this. Society ultimately depends on force. Happily force is not constantly employed, but, until the world becomes very different from what it is, it must always be latent."—The Times, Feb. 29, 1908.

Review: The Problem of Race Culture. (1908)

Book Review from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

[“The Bar of Isis : the Law of the Mother.” By Frances Swiney. The Open Road Publishing Co. 6d. Nett.]

The subject discussed in this well-printed brochure of 50 pages is one that is beginning to have more attention paid to it than formerly, although not more perhaps than it deserves. Isis, the wife and the sister of Osiris, the God of the Egyptians, became later the patron Goddess of women, and the Bar of Isis represents the sanctity of the prospective mother from all approaches of the male. The argument of the book is that the husband must learn to be sexually abstemious, for on his continence depends, to a very large extent, the health and constitutional vigour of the offspring. Many of the ailments of children are alleged to be attributable to the incontinence of the father during the period of gestation. Medical evidence is quoted in favour of this position, yet Dr. Allinson lays down a different position, and he is probably one of the best known writers on this subject. Apart from certain personal factors, he says nothing in favour of complete abstinence on the part of the husband and no injury to the offspring is suggested as the result of indulgence during the prohibited period.

But all that apart. We are not particularly concerned with questions of that nature. The important part of the book to us, is where it is argued that race deterioration and degeneracy are attributable to the violation of the Bar of Isis ; for whether such violation does or does not adversely affect the child, it seems abundantly clear that such pre-natal factors are as dust in the balance against material factors of a post-natal character, such as food, clothing and shelter. As with our author, so with the Eugenist. Indeed, their objects seem to be the same, viz., a short cut to the solution of the social problem; the one through heredity, the other through an improvement in pre-natal environment. Both positions fail by ignoring the material conditions with which the Socialist primarily deals. The offspring of genius, developed under ideal conditions of pre-natal development, would still need to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, etc. The words of Max Nordau in this connexion carry considerable weight owing to their obvious truth :

“Marry Hercules with Juno, and Apollo with Venus, and put them in slums—their children will be stunted in growth, rickety and consumptive. On the other hand, take the miserable slum-dwellers out of their noxious surroundings, house, feed, clothe them well, give them plenty of light, air, and leisure, and their grand-children, perhaps already their children, will reproduce the type of the fine, tall Saxons and Danes of whom they are the offspring.”

There is no way of taking the slum-dweller out of his noxious surroundings except by abolishing the poverty that sent and keeps him there. As William Morris said, while you have poor people you will have people poorly housed; and the same thing applies to feeding, clothing, etc. Socialism alone can abolish poverty by abolishing private ownership of the means of living which allows the workers to be expropriated of the wealth they produce, yielding them only as wages the cost of their subsistence.

Were it not for the overshadowing fear of the Editor’s blue pencil, I could show, from the pronouncements of the Eugenists themselves, that the improvement of the environment is essential to the improvement of the race. Eugenics is, for the present, mainly negative. It consists, in the words of Dr. C. W. Saleeby, in the denial of the supreme privilege of parentage to those suffering from congenital defects of mind or body. On the other hand it seeks to encourage the fecundity of superior types. This then is the Eugenic aim, the discouragement of the unfit and the encouragement of the fit to perpetuate the species. There is a difficulty in the fact that the lower type is naturally the more fertile. Dr. J. L. Tayler, in a long paper on Individuology, in discussing this subject, differentiates the prevailing types as mainly paleogenie and neogenic, which we, being under no obligation to use unnecessarily long words, may call the low type and the high type. He shows that the low type persists owing to the existence of the material environment adapted to it; and it would seem, therefore, that the more effective method of discouraging the continuance of the low type lies, not in artificial and oppressive sterilisation, but simply in improving the environment, thus automatically discouraging the low type by forcing it upward in an endeavour to adapt itself to a higher environment. The potentially high types who acquire the characteristics of the lower through “noxious surroundings” would be enabled to develop ; the low types would cease to flourish in an environment unsuited to them; while each individual of whatever type could adequately develop the best that it had the fortune to inherit.

This cannot be done under the conditions of modern society. The thirteen millions of people in this country “on the verge of hunger ;” the 30 percent, of the people of London who live on or below the poverty line ; the million or more of the inhabitants of London who live under “overcrowded” conditions, are all hopelessly handicapped in their development, and it is to these conditions we must turn our hand before we can even be sure of the other facts in the question. Socialism will apply the solution to all these problems, in the first and most important place, by removing the economic hindrance to a full and adequate satisfaction of the material requirements. In the second place by removing the property restrictions which hinder the operation of what in biology is known as sexual selection, and allowing freedom of choice between the individuals, irrespective of the all-pervading influence of economic considerations. And in the third place by removing that economic necessity of obedience to the breadwinner which will probably explain to the author of the book we set out to notice the main causes of the violation of the Bar of Isis.

Dick Kent

A Labour Review. (1908)

Book Review from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

[“The Socialist Review.” I.L.P., London. 6d. Nett.]

The Editor of this Review tells us that one of the circumstances which call for its publication is the desirability of attracting sections of the middle class. The movement “must command the support of the intellectual democracy ; the professional classes—the men and women whose ‘wages’ is not merely an income, but the mental satisfaction which their work brings; the intellectual middle and rich classes—men and women who are moved by intellectual ideals, repulsions and attractions.”

The review, presumably, is an appeal to the “brains” of the nation, in contradistinction to the unintellectual bestiality of the lower orders.

Since, however, the middle class is helpless without the aid of the workers, the Editor is constrained to insist on the futility of a separate middle class organisation. “A middle class Socialist Society is an absurdity.” It could be nothing but an uncertain, isolated and somewhat despised influence. So this coterie of politicians are prepared to use the working class as voting cattle under the guidance of middle-class “intellect” for the furtherance of middle-class interests.

One of the contributors, Mr. J. R. MacDonald, in advocating the taking of office in a capitalist cabinet by “Socialists,” under very elastic conditions, shows how keen is his scent for the fleshpots of office.

He also says: 

“A Labour Party in the House of Commons can do as much for Socialism as a Socialist Party can do, because the former can use to the maximum every Socialist tendency of the present day. We may have a hundred debates on Socialism in the House of Commons, but the unemployed will be starving unless we get an act passed that will work. Many people will support such an act who are not Socialists. They belong to the tendencies making for Socialism.”

A non-Socialist party in the House of Commons could neither assist in the spread of Socialism by making its principles clear, nor use to the maximum the events of the day, since it would lack the necessary knowledge and backbone. Its ignorance and blunders give rise to the confusion of the workers, and at the same time provide the opportunity of the enemy. The result can only be disappointment, apathy and retrogression.

The overwhelming majority of the Liberal Government against the “Unemployed Workmen Bill” shows that even the paltriest measure that threatens their interests finds the capitalist class united against it. Many even among those who voted for the Bill did so merely as a “blind,” because they knew it could not pass, as indicated in the “House.” While the Bill itself is hopeless, its penal clause is deserving of the strongest condemnation. Even if passed it would only be administered by the class in control of the administration in so far as it served their interests, and wherever the worker might theoretically stand to gain, its provisions would be distorted, re-interpreted or neglected, and no power could say them nay.

What do these facts show but the necessity for the revolutionary method at which Mr. McDonald sneers? Is it not imperative that the workers be helped to see that to legislate in their interest they must control political power ? and to have such legislation administered in their interests they must themselves administer them? The reform method is hopeless. The only hope lies in the consciousness of the workers in their class interests, and in their persistent organisation and advance toward the control of the political machinery, for then only can they commence to use the economic forces which have developed under capitalism, for the well-being of those who produce ; while only by the adoption of this method are they likely to get “something now.”

The review also contains some extracts from letters by Marx and Engels which the Editor tries to use in support of the Labour Party.

The letters, as they are printed, are not authoritative since they have the appearance of having been edited with a purpose. The full text of the letters would have been more convincing.

As they stand, however, the letters by no means support the position of the “Labour Party,” for Marx shows how the middle class is to be distrusted ; whilst his appreciation of the attitude of Belfort Bax, who, whatever his shortcomings in economics, was at that time the aggressive exponent of working class interest, is significant of what Marx judged important.

The letters of Engels are instinct with confidence in the working class and reliance on the logic of events, while insisting on the danger of dogmatism. He insists that “the great thing is to get the working class to move as a class.” The italics are Engels’.

And is not the following extract from a letter of Engels’ also the condemnation of the policy of the I.L.P.? He says:—

“The Fabians here in London are a band of ambitious folk who have sufficient understanding to comprehend the inevitableness of the social revolution but who cannot trust this gigantic work to the proletarian alone, and therefore have the kindness to place themselves at the head of it. Dread of the revolution is their fundamental principle. They are the cultured par excellence. Their Socialism is municipal Socialism—the commune, not the nation, shall at least be the possessor of the means of production. This Socialism of theirs is then presented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of middle-class Liberalism, and hence their tactics are to fight the Liberals not as decided opponents but to drive them on to socialistic consequences; therefore to trick them, to permeate Liberalism with Socialism and not to oppose Socialist candidates to Liberal ones, but to palm them off, to thrust them on, under some pretext.”

* * *

The review also contains articles on Italy, Food, the Unemployed, and one by Kautsky on the Belgian Peasantry. It is well got up and will doubtless have a large sale among the many who, under the influence of economic pressure, are becoming dimly conscious of the necessity for social change; but who will have to unlearn, in the hard school of experience, much of what they gather from the literature of the I.L.P.

F. C. Watts

Letter: Municipal politics. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

In the January issue of the Socialist Standard there appeared an article under the head of “Municipal Politics” and signed “W.” Upon that article I should like to pass a few comments, lack of time being my excuse for not having done so before.

In its Declaration of Principles the S.P. states it “enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties,” etc.

la his article “W” evidently tries to prove that the administration of laws made by other political parties may be held to be consistent with this clause.

That is to say, S.P. members may consistently help to administer laws made by political parties against which their organisation has declared war.

For instance, the members of the S.D.P. and I.L.P. now in Parliament, may, with the assistance of the Liberals and Tories, place a certain law on the Statute Book. This law the S.P. will at the present moment decry as useless and mischievous, yet in the future, according to the article under notice, some of the party members may be busily employed in administering this very act.

It appears to me that to object to the making of a given law and then to concientiously see that it is properly administered, is to give a new meaning to the word hostility.

The S.P’er does not work directly to bring about Old Age Pensions, the Feeding of the Children, etc., yet when such proposals have become law he must see they are properly carried out ! But if such laws are good enough to be administered by S.P. men, the principles they embody are good to be advocated by S.P. Men—or so, at least, it appears to me. This will apply equally to any other measures.

I have frequently heard I.L.P. speakers enunciate precisely the same sentiments as those expressed in the article under discussion.

They claim that there are in existence many laws which, if properly administered, would tend to ameliorate the condition of the working class, and that it is, therefore, the duty of Socialists to obtain seats on the governing bodies for the purpose of getting out of such laws all that is in them.

I submit that to administer the laws better than they are now administered is a reform—a reform of administration.

To “insist on the futility of reform,” and then to see that such reform is carried out “according to the Act,” seems to me to be acting on the principle of exhausting all the possibilities of error before getting down to concrete business. There are many excuses to be made for a party which does not know its business, but for the S.P. to go on such lines !

I am not now arguing whether the policy outlined by “W” is right or wrong, but I submit it is, so far as I can see, hostile to the hostility clause in your Declaration of Principles.

In conclusion I would like to ask “W” the following questions :

If a reform act, carried out to the letter, tended in any way to hurt capitalism, would not the capitalist central authority quickly interfere with its operation ? If such reform did not hurt capitalism, of what use would it be to the working class ?

If S.P. members on local bodies may there work in harmony with Radicals, S.D.P. and I.L.P. men, why may they not do so on the platform’?

If S.P. members may help to administer capitalist laws why may they not help to frame them?

May members of the S.P. become J.P’s, magistrates, judges, etc., if such positions should come their way ?

If an S.P. man may help administer local affairs, why not national affairs also ? That is, would he be allowed to take a seat in the Cabinet should an opportunity offer ?

If he may do either of these, will he be permitted, as an official, to administer the affairs of a Trade Union ? If not, why not ?

Finally, will “W” explain the difference—if any—between the policy he lays down and that adopted by the S.D.P., I.L.P. and similar organisations ?

As a Revolutionist, and as an admirer, hitherto, of the main policy of the S.P., I, and doubtless many others, would feel obliged to “W” if he would deal again with the subject in the next issue of the Standard.

Yours fraternally,

Philpott Wright

Reply:

It was neither said nor suggested in the article under discussion that the Socialist was to see capitalist laws carried out “according to the act.” The phrase Mr. Wright puts in quotation marks is a fiction of his own of doubtful honesty.

It is, therefore,, quite irrelevant that an I.L.P’er conceives it to be the duty of an elected member to administer existing laws to the letter; for the Socialist does not seek to use the powers of the municipality “to the letter,” but only in so far as they can be used in the interest of the revolutionary working class, ignoring or fighting everything that cannot be so used.

There can, moreover, be no question of administration, even upon a local council, until the Socialists have the majority. Then only can they use the limited “power, funds, and organisation of the municipality, as far as is locally possible, in helping to complete the task of the workers in the capture of the central powers for Socialism,” as shown. And this is very different from administering laws “according to the act.”

Nor, indeed, was there any question of administration at all, except in so far as the use of the local powers as a weapon by the Socialist workers may be held to be such.

Since, however, the powers of local councils are practically limited to the use of laws defining their spheres of operations,—which are passed, not by I.L.P. or S.D.P., but by the capitalist class irrespective of initals,—it follows that to take any action within the framework of the local powers may be held to be the administration of local government acts. In this view, then, to do anything upon a local council is to endeavour to administer—either in the interest of the workers or of the masters—laws passed by the central power. But the Socialist Party, being a political party, is (as evidenced by its participation in municipal elections) prepared to use the local powers as a weapon in the great class struggle.

According to Mr. Wright to do thus is to give a new meaning to the word hostility. To use legality in so far as it serves our aim in hostility to all sections of the capitalist class is to work in harmony with I.L.P., S.D.P., and Radicals. It can surely only be Mr. Wright’s modesty that makes him stop at Radicals; for wherein do they differ from the rest of the master class as regards the workers ?

The Socialist Party, moreover, is not to be turned from its endeavours by fear that the ruling class will use the force of the State against the municipalities in revolt, for the response of the capitalist class to the efforts of the class-conscious toilers cannot fail to fan still higher the flame of rebellion and hasten the day of complete victory.

But what appears to be the alternative to the policy that has been outlined, as adumbrated by Mr. Wright ? It is to repeat empty, would-be-revolutionary phrases. To do nothing.

If one is not prepared to use the municipal powers, why contest local elections at all ? Indeed such a policy leads directly to Anarchism, for does it not follow that if the use of local powers by Socialists is to work in harmony with capitalists, it is equally so to use the capitalist franchise laws to get a man elected ? Such a policy is obviously absurd.

No verbal twisting can make the use of the local powers by a Socialist majority as a weapon of hostility in the class struggle be at the same time a working in harmony with capitalism. Mr. Wright, consequently, is wasting time.

Having set out to show that the policy of endeavouring to use the administrative powers of the municipality by S.P.G.B. candidates is contrary to the hostility clause in the Declaration of Principles, and having signally failed, Mr. Wright further shows his confusion by asking nearly a dozen questions not one of which deals with the supposed contradiction he attempts to prove.

His thesis having fallen to the ground, it is unnecessary to waste space in following Mr. Wright in all his devious wanderings.

He claims to be an admirer, hitherto, of the policy of the S.P.G.B., but his present opposition, and indeed his every communication, has shown that he has never understood that policy. It is, then, not surprising that he should not know the difference between the policy outlined in the January No. and that of the I.L.P. The differences are, indeed, legion, and though it does not properly come within the scope of this reply, yet it may be useful to restate the essentials briefly.

The policy of the I.L.P. is based on Utopian ideas of universal brotherhood fostered by place-hunting politicians. It is opposed to revolution and does not work for the supremacy of the proletariat, while it repudiates the class struggle. it holds that what it calls Socialism is to come by a gradual accumulation of instalments, or “like a thief in the night.” It promises and seeks support for reforms, which, if obtained,, could only be gifts from the capitalist class. It keeps in the background the extremely limited nature of the powers of the municipality, and puts forward big programs, as in the I.L.P. manifesto on “A Commune for London,” that are mostly quite outside the power of the municipality, and therefore fraudulent. It repeatedly bargains with, and seeks support from, sections of the capitalist class. In short, it is in no way a Socialist party, but is a party seeking only to modify capitalism and to harmonise capital and labour. And the I.L.P. is typical of the reform movement generally.

The policy outlined in the January issue is on the other hand the logical policy of the class struggle based on the antagonism of interests between capitalist and proletarian. It is a policy of war, and is inconsistent with any support of, bargaining, or harmonious working with, the capitalist class. It points out that no important amelioration can be obtained under capitalism unless as sops thrown by the master class in fear of extinction by revolution. It insists, consequently, that Socialism cannot come from an accumulation of reforms, but that the essential is the revolutionary step of working-class supremacy to which all else is subordinate. While the futility of the reform method is also proved by the fact that, until the workers are the ruling class, reforms are only the gifts of capitalism and therefore no concern of ours, and when the workers are triumphant, then reforms are stupid and unnecessary. It also shows the necessity of seeking support for nothing else than Socialism in order to secure a solid, class-conscious and revolutionary backing. It insists upon the extremely limited nature of the local powers, and therefore makes no false promises and raises no false hopes. It points out that while in a minority the only effective political weapon of the workers is the relentless opposition and exposure of capitalism ; while when the municipality is captured, then its limited powers will be used in the workers’ interest—and therefore of necessity in hostility to capitalist interests—not to lengthen the life of a rotten system, but as a centre of resistance in the struggle for supremacy and an aid to the militant working class. The Socialists will, in short, take all they can get in the open class struggle, and will use every suitable weapon to their hand in prosecution of the proletarian historic mission.

The policy of the I.L.P. is to divert the worker from the class struggle and from the revolutionary step, keeping him ever at the mercy of the capitalist, and as a wage slave within the capitalist system.

The other policy which has been sketched is that of a keen edged sword cutting through Society to the extinction of capitalism and the emancipation of the worker.

F. C. Watts

Blogger's Note:

I'm not 100% sure that the above Philpott Wright is the same person as the H. Philpott Wright that previously appeared in the pages of the Socialist Standard but 'Philpott Wright' could not have been that common a name back in the day, surely?

Correspondence: I.L.P. compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor

Comrade,—In the last issue of the Socialist Standard Mr. Swan again charges me with “a deliberate lie” for stating that the evidence of a compromise appeared in the Clarion, and asserts that I have read into the Clarion letters, etc. “something they do not contain.”

Let your readers note the italicised passages of J. Nuttall’s letter and the amendment of Messrs. Hunt (Bradford) and Jones (Ardwick) to the resolution moved and seconded by Councillors Fox and Sutton, and then consider in what way the prospects of Messrs. Kelley and Clynes would have suffered by the introduction of a third Labour candidate in Manchester, unless by the Liberals opposing Kelley and Clynes.

Mr. Swan states that “certain verbal or written communications” can only form the basis of a compact, and he denies emphatically that any such communications passed between the L.R.C. and the Liberal Party. This denial proves nothing, especially as he does not seem sure as to the veracity of his denial, ”if I am speaking the truth” writes Mr. Swan; “if” implies a doubt, or want of knowledge of the subject dealt with. As “verbal communications” may form the basis of a compact it would be a waste of time to trouble the local L.R.C.

The charge of using statements from the Liberal and Tory press without verifying them fails, as every reference in my first letter, with one exception—that from the Courier—was from the Clarion. Is Mr. Swan of opinion that the Clarion is a capitalistic newspaper ?

I submitted the Courier extract in order that a refutation of the charge therein contained might be forwarded to the Courier office. Arising from that refutation we should see what information the Courier had at its disposal, and what facts formed the basis for the statement. The place to deny statements is through the columns of the journal printing them. That Mr. Swan has taken this course in the case of the statements in the S.S. I admit—will he do so with reference to the Courier extract ?

If it be “stupid pugnacity” to bring forward what one considers evidence in proof of a statement, then I plead guilty.

I also desire to see the truth prevail, and on evidence being produced which disproves my statementsts will apologise through these columns.

The S.P.G.B. deem the L.R.C. one of the “mutual foes” to Socialism which Mr. Swan refers to, and that is why the L.R.C. are opposed and exposed.

The Daily News, Jan. 11th, 1906, stated—

“The Labour vote is an important factor in most of the divisions, and particularly in those in which Mr. Balfour, Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Galloway, and Mr. Schwann are candidates. If Mr. Horridge gets a large proportion of this vote Mr. Balfour’s political association with Manchester will cease. 

“At the recent municipal elections the Labour Party with the Liberal aid, carried all before them. 

“In East Manchester Mr. Horridge has made great progress, and though the Socialists will not make any public recommendation, I have it on the authority of a well-known member of the I.L.P. that the Liberal candidate will get their support. 

“The official Liberals intend to issue a manifesto urging the members of the Party to support the two Labour candidates, … if this advice is generally adopted, and the Labour men in the other four divisions vote for the Free Trade candidates, there should be a clean sweep of Toryism on Saturday.”

The Manchester Guardian, Jan. 12th, 1906, informs us that the Liberals advised their supporters to vote for Kelley and Clynes. The L.R.C. constitution, which candidates running under its auspices sign, contains the following words: (candidates are) “To abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties.” Evidently the interests of the Liberals were promoted by only two L.R.C. candidates standing in Manchester, otherwise they would not have instructed their adherents to vote “Labour.”

Having been elected by Liberal votes one understands why Kelley and Clynes are useless as Socialists in the House of Commons. They cannot go beyond their electorate and are therefore doing Liberal work whether they are paid for it or not. I cannot understand Mr. Swan’s dislike to having his party alluded to as compromising with Liberals, as I and others have heard him say “It does not matter how they (L.R.C. men) get to Parliament, as long as they get there.”

The only point of difference between Comrade Evans and myself is whether the arrangement at the election was “a compact” or a “tacit understanding.”

—Yours fraternally,

Jim Brough

P.S. The Daily News (Jan. 15, 1906.) also stated that “Mr. Clynes (Lab.) said ‘The victory is due to a combination of forces, which, by their united power, had given a great blow to Chamberlainism, and paved the way in the coming Parliament for dealing with labour and social legislation of which the people were so much in need.’ “

Correspondence: Does this mean Tory Gold? (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Dear Sir,— Will you kindly insert the following in your next issue, for the information of your members, and Socialists generally.

A. Jacobs.

The attitude of Socialists to Conservatism. 

To the Editor of the Saturday Review

25th October, 1906.

Sir,- In your interesting article on the attitude of Conservatives to Socialism you remark that “Conservatives have no need to be frightened from their own principles by the name of Socialism. If Liberalism has had to desert individualism, and come round to the conception of State action operative in any and every sphere of social and industrial activity, Toryism has not had to execute any such volte-face.”

This is not the only right-about turn the Liberals have executed. After a prolonged and fruitless effort to cajole us into an alliance with them they now threaten us with a crusade against Socialism—a threat which we deride as we derided their proffered alliance. With characteristic confusion of ideas they have mistaken Anarchism—the logical issue of their own political faith, though they are not courageous enough to face that fact—for Socialism, and it is a significant circumstance that representative Anarchists like my friend Kropotkin, are constantly rebuking Socialists for their hostility to the Liberal Party.

Antipathies are more irreconciliable than hatreds. The Socialist opposes both Liberal and Tory because they are prepared to defend in common a position of economic vantage which which they occupy jointly and from which the organised workers will have to oust them before they can enjoy the social freedom which is the field of conquest of democracy. To the extent that Tory and Liberal alike are determined to preserve private property in the means of life, there is, from the Socialist point of view, no difference between them, though a distinction is not difficult to discover between our irreconcilable antipathy to Liberalism and the sneaking regard we preserve for a party that never embraced the doctrine of “everyone for himself and the Devil catch the hindmost.” The Socialist attitude to Liberalism is one of unrelenting hostility; to Conservatism it is one of watchfulness. When the Tory Party is prepared to fight us we shall not decline the combat, and—God defend the right! In the meantime we are waiting to see how far you are prepared to go in such matters as the nationalisation of the railways or of mines. We share the opinion of your reviewer that “there are at least as many if not more Conservatives than there are Liberals who would be prepared to go with the Socialists” so far. As a member of the Executive of the oldest Socialist organisation in this country I cannot pledge myself that it will call upon its members to vote Tory if your party adopts in its program those two planks, but I am perfectly certain in which box Socialist voting paper would be dropped in constituencies where no candidate of our own are in the field. Liberal promises to support the same proposals would fail to catch Socialist votes because we know from experience the value of their election promises.

The difficulty about Socialism to which your reviewer refers—”that it has so many different meanings”—is more apparent than real. The root of the word indicates its meaning, but companionship can never exist between master and slave. Socialism seeks therefore to extinguish every form of servitude to which man has subjected his fellow-man. Wagedom is in some respects the worst form of slavery and we believe it will prove to be the last. We deny the title “Socialist” to anyone who refuses to assist the workers in their effort to emancipate themselves from wagedom, and we refuse it to the workers who hug their chains. Mr. Chiozza Money has been inviting us to drop the title and to be satisfied with that of Collectivist, which only proves that Mr. Money has not yet completed his education in Socialism. Socialists are Collectivists merely because we can discover no other economic basis on which to rear the Socialist superstructure.

The Labor Party in the House of Commons includes in its ranks a handful of Socialists but it is unkind to saddle us with any responsibility for the Radicalism and Liberalism of the majority, and by so doing your reviewer wounds our keenest susceptibilities. It took twenty years’ active propaganda among the trade unionists before we could induce them to abandon their motto “No Politics” ! and we cannot expect them to complete their education more rapidly than Mr. Chiozza Money is perfecting his knowledge of Socialism. They prelude the advent in the House of Commons of a social-democratic party whose influence will soon rival that exercised by our colleagues in the German Reichstag and in the French Chamber of Deputies. When we have pushed aside the Liberals we shall be ready to cross swords with the Conservatives. In the meantime we may continue to preserve mutual respect. Yours faithfully,

J. Hunter Watts.

P.S.— The above letter appeared in the Saturday Review, 27th Oct., 1906.

The italics are our own.—[ED.]

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letters: Karl Marx and Russia (2003)

Letters to the Editors from the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx and Russia

Dear Editors,

I would like to discuss the issue of “the necessity for capitalism to have been achieved for socialism to occur” (“Desai on Marx”, Socialist Standard, November 2002).

Desai suggests that Russian Communism was wrong to use the principles of Marx being as Russia was a backward country. Then he goes on to suggest that Russian Communism developed a capitalist economic model as it developed the Russian economy and industries. What could be wrong about the development of a backward country under socialist principles? What would socialism look like if it only ever occurred in capitalist countries?

Desai appears to suggest that only an economically wealthy country, developed through capitalism can support a socialist system. Does he mean to say that socialism, should it succeed, should stagnate and decay as it devours the capitalist system of economics of its predecessors. A progressive, organised socialist party should enable economic growth to sustain socialism within one country but also to develop new industry and technology under its guiding principles. How is it possible to totally eradicate capitalist consciousness when socialism is developed that relies heavily on its economic principles for stability?

Socialist policies should inform the new methods of economics and seek to build a set of new socialist methods of production, in short a socialist economy based on Marx. This is not merely a question of graduated taxes, but a fairer system with a socialist aim, and cultural and aesthetic values that reflect the working class and encapsulates socialism.

Marx states that socialism should occur out of a capitalist economy because he thought that the working class were the intrinsic factor in a communist revolution; and the working class were common to developed countries under capitalism.

If socialism is to succeed, the party must win the support of the working class who desire to see an end to the current ideology of world capitalism.

In order to eradicate capitalism completely the Socialist Party must have a firm vision fixed in its mind, that by adhering to its principles, must revolutionise the consciousness of the people in areas of politics such as: economics, the environment, foreign policy and culture; in order to achieve power, not for a bureaucratic system (the fault of Russian Communism) but to achieve equality and fraternity among the working class.

G. Cubbage, 

Bolton, Lancs

Reply:

We define socialism as a society without private property, money, wages, nation states, where production is for use, not profit. In order for socialism to be successfully established, capitalism would need to develop industry to the point where a society of common ownership would be possible. Along with this, a modern working class would need to emerge that understands and desires socialism. It is clear that neither was the case in Russia in 1917. It was a predominantly agrarian country where the industrial working class were in a minority of the population.

It is true that Marx and Engels in the introduction of the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto raised the possibility that Russia could, through an old system of common ownership of land maintained by the peasantry known as the Obshchina that existed in Russia at that time, could pass directly to socialism, without the necessity of developing the capitalist mode of production. However this could only be possible if the Russian revolution ignited a revolution in the West. This did not happen in 1917. Although working class uprisings did occur in the West, such as in Germany, they were more expressions of discontent arising from the First World War than a conscious desire to bring about socialism.

The Bolsheviks did not rise to power on a programme of genuine socialism, but to provide relief to a war-weary population and distribute land away from the large landowners to the peasantry. In fact, Lenin admitted that only state capitalism could be established in Russia at that time. As he wrote in The Chief Tasks of Our Times: “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about State Capitalism in a short time it would be a victory for us”. We also believe that the Leninist theories of the Bolshevik Party are prescriptions for state capitalism: the belief that socialism can only be brought about by a party of professional revolutionaries leading the working class and the establishment of a centralised state under the theory of so-called democratic centralism. We insist that the establishment of Socialism require the political actions of a socialist conscious working class without leaders.

Therefore, we agree with Lord Desai that only state capitalism could have emerged from the Russian Revolution. However, we part company with him when he insists that we need many more years of private capitalism to raise the level of society’s productive forces. We maintain that globally the size of society’s productive forces today would allow for the establishment of socialism.

Our definition of socialism above implies that it can only be established on a world-wide basis. Clearly a society where there is common ownership, money has been abolished and production is for human use cannot co-exist with countries where there is still private property, buying and selling and production for profit. Many of the measures that Marx and Engels outlined in the Communist Manifesto, including the call for graduated taxes, were based on the assumption that the working class would take power in Marx and Engels lifetimes. They would be necessary to develop the means of production to levels required for the establishment of socialism. However, since then, capitalism has done the job for us and there is no longer any need for these measures.

We can only agree with the last two paragraphs of your letter. If you study our object and declaration of principles, we hope that you agree that the Socialist Party fits the bill–Editors.

 

The urgent need for Socialism

Dear Editors,

Here we are, having finished the twentieth century which saw many advances in science and technology. Yet despite the potential to satisfy world-wide human need, there are still millions of people suffering from hunger and human misery. Unhappily our social organization has not changed in a way that would enable the human race to reap the full benefits of the useful advances—and abandon the harmful ones. Instead science and technology are commodities produced for sale and profit—they serve the needs of the market system. Presently the only access to the means of life is through money and for the majority this means employment of some kind. However, jobs only come when there is the prospect of profit. Also the standard by which men and women are judged is their material possessions. In every country a minority win out at the expense of the majority. Oh how apparent is the most urgent need for the Earth to belong to its entire people! Then, freed from the shackles which sale and profit places on human endeavour, there will be sufficient resources for everyone to have a satisfying way of life.

Justus Weijagye, 

Kabale, Uganda

 

Castle Breweries Kenya Limited

Dear Editors,

It was June last year when Castle Breweries Kenya Limited ceased its operations in the country. The company had been in operation in Kenya for only five years. A total of 1015 employees were affected by the closure. They, their children, families and relatives were left without any means of earning their daily what is famously called “bread”.

What led to the closure of the company is perhaps illustrative of how capitalism works. Castle Breweries had only one competitor—Kenya Breweries Limited. The South African company thus found it easy going at first but not so during the subsequent years.

Barley, an important ingredient in the manufacture of bee, is grown by a clique of farmers who are contracted by Kenya Breweries for their beer. Most of these farmers are either relatives or associates of senior officials of Kenya Breweries Limited. And thus any other person, or brewer for that matter, had to buy the barley at a higher cost. The only alternative is to import the barley. And this is what Castle Breweries used to do.

Since in its inception in Kenya, their idea or main motive was for profit making, Castle Breweries found it uneconomical to brew and sell its beer at the same price as the competitor, so the company vigorously campaigned for a tax waiver from the authorities.

Kenya Breweries, who had enjoyed monopoly for more than 70 years, found their existence being threatened and thus had to bribe the then President, Daniel Arap Moi. There was to be no tax waiver and in fact in his budget speech, the then Finance Minister Chris Obure increased the taxes on beer from 25 percent to 30 percent.

And thus Kenya Castle Breweries closed its brewing factory at Thika in June 2002 and went ahead at the same time to open others in the USA. The whole thing is Castle Breweries Limited had no intention of remaining in Kenya as long as there were no profits to be made. The welfare of the company’s 1015 employees was far from the concern of Castle’s ‘Bosses’.

The world will continue to witness cases of such nature as long as the so-called investors have only one goal when they are establishing their investments—profits. They go to any lengths to maximise profits and leave the conditions of those making the profits to be the same—Judas wages and salaries and slavery conditions of work.

We, the workers of the world, need to understand that no matter how much money you are paid, you’ll not be able to make ends meet because the wages or salaries are never commensurate to the profits made by the company, organisation or group you are working for. We need to know that the amount of time spent working for profits could be utilised elsewhere working for the welfare of the whole society. Our unity is vital and the capitalist way of doing things will end once we organise and work for the good of all. This will entail us going for political power and make it easy for capitalism to be replaced. Let’s unite to establish the system that caters for the needs of all the members of the society—Socialism.

Patrick W. Ndege,

Nairobi, Kenya

Human nature – no barrier to socialism (2003)

From the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Among all the objections to the proposal to replace capitalism with socialism, those based on human nature are the most prominent. So, let’s look at some of the alleged features of human nature that supposedly militate against socialism.

There are six main elements in the “human nature” argument against socialism. People are said to be inherently and incurably aggressive, competitive, selfish, stupid, greedy and lazy.

• Aggressive. Undoubtedly some people in all societies resort from time to time to aggressive behaviour. But this is only a problem when there is some property issue to fight over. War is organised aggression and has a function in capitalism. The holders of property rights have to employ force (pay others to fight their battles) against those who would seize their property. In a propertyless society, organised aggression would make no sense and would not happen.
• Competitive. Human behaviour is both competitive and co-operative. It is not surprising that, in a society based on profit-seeking employers, compete with each other for markets and profits and workers compete with each other for jobs and better wages. But even in capitalism people are bound together much more by co-operation than by competition. By co-operating with others we greatly increase what we can produce for our mutual benefit. Such co-operation will increase in socialism. Any remaining competition will be benign and playful, not destructive and need-denying.
• Selfish. If we were by nature incurably selfish, then there could never have been any sort of stable society, because no one would have co-operated with anyone else. People act selfishly or anti-socially only when they can see no other way of getting what they want. If there is another way (by co-operation, for instance) there is no reason to suppose that they will not choose it when they see it is better to do so.
• Stupid. Apart from a few gifted leaders, human intelligence is said to be too weak to enable people to solve the complex problems that face them. Ordinary people are supposed to be unable to run society in their own interest. Yet propagandists for capitalism never tell us that we are too stupid to understand the tortuous arguments used to prove that the way to preserve peace is to prepare for war.
• Greedy. The typical behaviour of capitalists is to seek more profit and wealth. The system makes them act greedily. Workers are remarkably “ungreedy”: having produced all the wealth, they allow it to be appropriated by the capitalist class, while they live in various degrees of poverty. In a society based on common ownership and access according to need, there will be no reason for greed or hoarding things. You will simply go to the nearest distribution centre.
• Lazy. Again, it is a question of behaviour in certain circumstances, not nature. If work is organised, not to meet your need but for someone else’s profit, it is understandable that you will avoid it if you can. But if you are working for yourself, for others like yourself, or for the community as a whole you will be unlikely to shun work unless you are ill.

The idea of “human nature” as something more nasty than nice is a reflection of class-divided society that is incapable of providing a decent life for all its members. The aggressive, competitive, selfish, stupid, greedy and lazy behaviour that is laid at the door of human nature is really only conduct that is the outcome of a system based on private property. Once class-divided society is replaced by common ownership and production for need, people will willingly co-operate for their mutual benefit just because it is “human nature” to seek that which contributes to personal and social wellbeing.

Stan Parker

War is Crazy (2003)

From the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been written that a battle should not be seen as two armies trying to kill one another, but, rather, one army, committing suicide. If that is the case, we are in the midst of a species engaged in long, slow, mass suicide. That war becomes such a natural part of life shows in that voices are only raised against it when the casualties threaten to reach into the hundreds of thousands, rather than the usual hundreds.

If a fraction of the effort put into devising and creating means of death were put into securing the means of life, the scourge of war would be wiped out. The peace of mind of material security in life would become peace in the world. With an expansion of the practise of co-operating to mutual ends, would come and end to the fractious rivalries of property.

The Socialist Party calls upon the workers the world over to understand the basis upon which they oppose the war, and to understand the potential that it shows. To understand that mere opposition and pious moralising against the war is not enough, and that it lies within their hands to make the necessary changes.

The Socialist Party has always stood against war – asserting the urgency with which the workers must combat and stop any immediate instance of the ongoing global war, and the need to struggle against the system of exploitation and poverty which causes all these wars. We have asserted that war and organised violence are not the means by which a civilised society can be achieved. Where all other parties utter their sanctimonious opposition to war: “Of course, no right minded person wants war,” they say, but then turn round and lay down their plans for just that. Plans for achieving their policy ends by cold-blooded murder.

Consistently, the Socialist Party has counter-posed to war and violence the working class methods of co-operation, and rational application of our minds and imaginations. We have refused to fight, choosing, rather, to point the way to real peace.

As the slaughter once again escalates, therefore, we take this opportunity to avow our solidarity with the workers, of all nations, and their mutual cause. Further, we call upon the workers to organise consciously and politically to use the power at their disposal to bring the bloodshed to a standstill; and secure the space we need in order to build the co-operative world socialist commonwealth.

Pik Smeet

Quiz – Ten questions to answer (2003)

From the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

All these quotations are genuine comments, made by the people named – except that we have put in a single sentence in each interview what the person did not say. See if you can guess which is the made-up sentence we have put in.

1. Jack Straw, British Foreign Minister, speaking after a suicide bomb attack in Haifa which killed fifteen people (Times, 6 March): “There is no justification for attacks on innocent civilians. Except, of course, if we carry out the American generals’ plan to send 800 cruise missiles in to Baghdad in the first 48 hours of the planned war.”

2. Ari Fleischer, President Bush’s spokesman, speaking after the same attack in Haifa (Times, 6 March): “We will continue to pursue the path of peace in the Middle East. Except, that is, when we pursue the path of war against Iraq.”

3. Prince Philip (Observer, 29 December): “If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate how much more comfortable aircraft have become; that is, unless you travel on something called economy class, which sounds ghastly. Of course, most things about the lives of poorer people are ghastly, which is why it is so surprising that so many of them turn out at each election and vote for capitalism.”

4. Senior Vatican official (Observer, 29 December): “Illness is a consequence of sin. So the Pope is going to live for ever.”

5. Tony Blair (Times, 1 March): “At some point, you have a duty if you are to offer any leadership to your country in saying why it is we believe there is a real threat from terrorism and these appalling weapons to the security of our countries and to the wider world. Unless, of course, we had Socialism, when neither Iraq nor America nor Britain would have any appalling weapons, and there wouldn’t be any ‘leadership’ either, since people would be able to think and act for themselves.”

6. The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Westminster, head of the Catholic Church in Britain (Times, 20 February): “It is vital, therefore, that all sides in this crisis engage through the United Nations fully and urgently in a process, including continued weapons inspections, that could and should render the trauma and tragedy of war unnecessary. An even better way to render not only this planned war but all future wars unnecessary – in fact, impossible – is to establish Socialism.”

7. President Bush (Eastern Daily Press, 19 February): “The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security – in this case, security of the people. And if you don’t like leaders, taking decisions which may kill thousands of innocent people, you could always get rid of them by having Socialism.”

8. In an opinion poll, 65 percent of people questioned in the UK (Times, 12 February) said that “although it is right in principle to accept genuine asylum-seekers, we have now accepted our fair share, and cannot accept any more. It is not as if any British people have ever gone to live in other countries, like Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and so on.”

9. The Pope (Times, 10 February): “One cannot do nothing in the face of terrorist attacks, but equally we cannot be idle in the face of the threats now on the horizon. War is not inevitable. But even if we avoid this war, there are plenty of violent conflicts round the world now as I speak, and there will be a lot of wars in the years to come – you will have to establish Socialism if you really want to make war impossible.”

10. Rezan Fakhraden, a woman badly gassed at the age of five, when Saddam Hussein dropped poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, killing over 5,000 civilians and injuring many more (Times, 22 February): “I cannot climb more than ten stairs. I cannot run. Sometimes my lungs bleed. I cannot stop coughing and I am often sick. I don’t trust Britain or America at all. They have said nothing about our plight due to the gases for fifteen years. They even supported Saddam then. We have received no medicines from Britain or America in all that time to help us, and now we have no more protection against chemical attack than we had then. Yet we may be the first to get struck. But, of course, hypocrisy is an essential characteristic of all capitalist politicians, including those now using the Halabja gassing to justify attacking Iraq.”

Answers: We have made up the last sentence, and only the last sentence, in each of these statements. All the other quotations on this page are genuine.

Score: 1 – 9: Keep trying. 10. You must have read the Socialist Standard before.

Alwyn Edgar

Who’s a rogue state? (2003)

Book Review from the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower’. By William Blum. (Zed Books, 2002)

The name William Blum will not be familiar to many readers in Britain and the majority of those in the USA who learn about him will probably despise him as a traitor. He was intending to make a career in the State Department but found that he could not accept America’s policy in the Vietnam war and left the service. True-blue Americans might have let this “weakness” pass by condemning him as a “wimp”, but he then committed the unpardonable sin of starting to disclose the truth about the shadier actions of their glorious government . He wrote about the members of the CIA and followed that up by an on-the-spot exposure of their involvement in the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile. Soon afterwards he extended his searches to CIA staff and activities in Europe.

The recent up-date of his book Rogue State, first published in 2000, collects together not only his wide and carefully researched exposure of CIA tricks and misdeeds worldwide. It also looks in devastating detail at a whole range of US government actions and policies and at the totally amoral and illegal methods used to carry them out. Lying, murder, criminal interference in elections and other affairs of nations across the globe, covert and overt terrorism, corruption of the UN, continuous brainwashing of its own electorate… The list is almost endless; and all this carried out under the most cynical worldwide propaganda umbrella of “developing democracy” and spreading the “noblest civilised values”.

Many of us will already know, or suspect, some of what Blum has to say, but the sheer power of his detailed exposures makes his book , if not a “must”, a very fine source of ammunition against the present leader of world capitalism, in fact of the world. His listing (with comments) of US global interventions since 1945 and his detailing of little-known US voting at the UN General Assembly over a period of about ten years; these alone are worth the cost of the book.

The slight weakness from a socialist viewpoint is his failure to make a strong enough connection between his many trenchant criticisms and their direct link with the capitalist drive for control and profit. He is quite clear about America’s fifty-year long imperialist expansion and all the accompanying hoodwinking of the American people with endless “wicked enemy” propaganda. He has no illusions about 11 September (“after the attack it was Christmas every day for the security establishment and its corporate cohorts”) : and he knows that the US destruction of Afghanistan was carried out to safeguard its proposed oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean. All this is excellent; it’s just a pity that Blum does not add the clincher argument for socialism that, to those who can see, is so implicit in all his facts.

Cyril Oldfield

Blogger's Note:

An earlier edition of this book was reviewed in the September 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard.

George Orwell's 1984 (2003)

Theatre Review from the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

The performance of George Orwell’s 1984 by the Northern Stage Ensemble, at The Lowry in Salford, was dark, stark and brutal.

Directed by Alan Lyddiard and Mark Murphy, using large-scale visual footage filmed on location in Moscow and Newcastle, the adaptation attempted to recreate Orwell’s cold, oppressive, inhuman world. The staging was original, but from the first scenes of torture, beatings and blood-curdling screams, the noise level increased. Subtle, this play is not. It is violence, layered upon violence, which fails to convey the true terror of living in Big Brother’s totalitarian regime.

Craig Conway, as Winston Smith, is believable, putting in an excellent performance, but Samantha Cooper’s Julia (Winston’s lover) was much too lightweight, lacking any sense of passion. Mark Calvert as O’Brien, Winston’s confidant, friend and, ultimately, his torturer, also failed to convey menace, being rather wooden at times.

This version is concentrated mainly on the latter half of the book, skimming swiftly over Winston and Julia’s doomed relationship, turning it almost into a one-night stand. And owing to the loud video background, Winston’s final betrayal of Julia is lost; I had to strain to hear him over the noise say `Do it to Julia!’ – at least, I think that’s what he said.

The play lasts for one and a half hours, and overall is very well done and worth seeing. After two curtain calls, the audience exited to the Salford night in a state of shock. A brave performance all round.

Joan Morris

Our challenge to Blair (2003)

From the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Just before he gave the green light for the current slaughter we sent Blair the following challenge.

Mr. Blair,

I have been asked by our Campaigns Department to issue a challenge to you to publicly debate with a representative of the Socialist Party. This would concern what you would see as your ‘moral’ perspective regarding the impending war on Iraq.

In such a debate, the Socialist Party will seek to clearly demonstrate three things:

1. That, in pressing for war, you are primarily serving the interests of factions of the capitalist class in the USA (and Britain), capitalist factions which are bent on expanding their corporate interests in the Middle East;
2. That you are acting against the interests of ordinary working people in Iraq, Britain and the USA, and, indeed, against the interests of the world-wide working class;
3. That, given the nature of modern warfare, you and your administration will have to share responsibility, with George W. Bush and his administration, for the murder of innocent people in Iraq.

In case you should feel that security issues might preclude you from participating in the type of public forum favoured by The Socialist Party, we can say that we would agree to your choice of venue.

I look forward to hearing from you in early course.

Yours for a humane and war-free socialist world.

The Socialist Party.

The reply from Downing Street:

‘The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter of 11 March inviting him to a public debate with a representative of the Socialist Party.

Sadly, the very heavy pressure on the Prime Minister’s diary at the present time makes it impossible for him to join you for a debate, and he must therefore decline your kind invitation. He is sorry to have to send a disappointing reply.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Kay’

We can understand that Blair has more pressing things to do at present – like organising a war to install a puppet regime in Iraq which will help ensure a secure and steady supply of oil for western corporate capitalism.

Join the campaign against all war!

Join the Socialist Party!

50 Years Ago: Facing facts In Formosa (2003)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new war scare is going the rounds. General Eisenhower, in his State of the Union announcement, says that the American fleet would no longer be used to prevent raids by Nationalist Chinese against the Chinese mainland. Such a decision would be in the fashion these days — of a big power using a small one as a cats paw, This contemplated extension of the war in Korea to the great Asian mainland, has aroused the fear that this may be a step towards World War III [. . .]

Formosa is an island crossroads, halfway between Shanghai and Hongkong, and halfway between Tokyo and Saigon, so that control of the island by the Chinese nationalists means that they (on behalf of their mentors) appear to control these routes. Another aspect of the island's strategic position is that along with Japan and the Philippines it acts as a bastion of American defence, or as a springboard in case of invasion to the Asian mainland.

Another use of Formosa to the USA is that so long as control is invested in the Chiang Kai-Shek clique, there is always the inherent danger of invasion of the mainland, and this risk keeps large bodies of Chinese troops tied down — soldiers who would otherwise be available for service against the Allies in Korea.

But viewed from Peking, the American threat may take on a different aspect — it may appear as a sign of weakness. The Chinese may think that after two and a half years of fighting, the armies of the West can no longer see hope of victory arising from action on the battlefield, and are therefore casting about for some other means.

Britain and the USA in the Far East have been traditionally hostile to each other — the friction arising over sharing the spoils from the China trade. Britain, the first on the scene, got the lion’s share — an untenable state of affairs for American interests.

The temptation to grasp this juicy plum has tantalised the US even more since the atrophy of British power and the rise of American power in the “free” world.

The lusty adolescent US capitalist power is swashbuckling with a full purse in the Far East, with the cynical, older and more experienced Chinese and British rulers watching for the main chance.

[From 'Facing facts in Formosa', April 1953 Socialist Standard.]