Skip to Content


Editorial: The Churches versus Socialism

 There is a stirring in the ranks of the Churchmen. They are interesting themselves in social problems. They are, or so we are told, coming nearer to Socialism, or at least they are being “enlightened” and “progressive” and adopting “advanced” social reforms. For proof we are referred to the recent declaration by the Catholic Archbishops and to the Archbishop of York’s Conference at Malvern. Where then do the Churches stand to the major issue of our age, the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism? Do they fight with Socialists for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution and for the ending of the class system under which human labour-power is a commodity bought and sold? Or do they stand openly for capitalism? Truth to tell, they don’t do either. They are definitely and flatly against Socialism, but they never avow themselves frankly supporters of capitalism.

The Anatomy of Capital: Sir Arthur Keith's Economics

 Professor Sir Arthur Keith is an anatomist with a considerable reputation. He occupied the presidential chair at the annual meeting of the British Association at Leeds barely two months ago, and caused a journalistic stir by his review of that controversial topic, “Man’s origin.” This has recently been published, with additions, by Messrs Watts (price 7d.). It is with the concluding essay that the present scribe proposes to deal.

Hitler the "Socialist"

 Many anti-Nazis who are also anti-Socialist are only too pleased to discredit Socialism by pretending that Hitlerism is what Hitler claims: a form of Socialism. The Evening Standard, serialising “My Struggle," headed its extracts on October 6th, 1938, “Hitler—Socialist." This is what the Evening Standard says: —

      It required an Austrian to lift up Germany, and an anti-Marxist to impose Socialism upon her. Hitler gave fair warning. Roughly half of the Twenty-five Unalterable Points of the Nazi creed, laid down in 1920, would make the British Labour Party shudder at their extremism.

At the street corner

 One of our earliest, and one of our wisest decisions of policy, was that wherein we allowed an opponent access to our platform. Having heard our case, and subject only to the common usages and decencies of debate, we offer any opponent the right to oppose us, on our own platform. We believe that, as a party, we are unique in this respect. But then, of course, we are unique in having a position that we know will stand the test. Obviously a case can be made out for anything, even the most absurd proposition, if you ignore enough, and throttle the opposition. So that propagandist parties of all sorts, religious or political, who decline to allow their statements to be combated, where and when uttered, stand self-convicted of cowardice or dishonesty.

Syndicate content