Answers to Correspondents

J. Cohen (E.3).—We note that, after reading the article “Big or Little Unions,” you considered it ”a clear case for organisation by industry,” and you say that, as our speakers have stated that we ”are not believers in that, would it be possible for the Party to be consistent?” As neither the Transport & General Workers’ Union nor the suggested separate Union for London busmen is an organisation by industry, we fail to see why the article is regarded as an argument for it. Perhaps you will explain.

As Socialists, we stress the need for the workers to organise on a class basis, whereas organisation on a craft basis or on an industry basis is compatible with the holding of quite reactionary views.
ED. COMM.

J. Cohen (E.3).—You ask what would be the position of members of the Socialist Party who may also be members of the South Wales Miners’ Federation; and thus be affected by the agreement signed by the Communist, Mr. Horner (see July issue—”A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike”). You ask: ”Are they to see that the agreement is kept or are they expected as Socialists to take no action in agitating to break the agreement, run the risk of expulsion or quietly acquiesce in its operation or help in its operation?”

It should surely be plain that, if a majority of members of a Union approve or acquiesce in a bad move by their Union officials, a minority of Socialists can only try to get the majority to recognise the facts of the situation. Until that has been done the situation obviously cannot be remedied. When the majority are won over they, the majority in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the particular industry, will have to decide what are the best steps to take to get a better agreement.
ED. COMM.

S. Rodgers.—A reply to your letter criticising the article, ”A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike,” has been crowded out of this issue.
ED. COMM.

R. D. Lovett (Brentwood). —Thanks for comments on and criticisms of the ”Left News.” We do not think the writer you particularly mention is worth space for a reply in the SOCIALIST STANDARD. There seems to be nothing original in the case he makes.
ED. COMM.

James Jefferson (Elgin)) —As you are not acquainted with the position taken up by the S.P.G.B., we suggest that you read the SOCIALIST STANDARD and our pamphlets.

We notice that you agree with us that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, but you think if Socialists got inside they could convert it. You quote Marx, who, like the S.P.G.B., saw that poverty can only be abolished by dispossessing the capitalist class of their ownership in the means of production and distribution. The Labour Party, while professing to want to abolish poverty, rejects that necessary means of doing so. You want to convert the Labour Party to Socialism, but yourself suggest that it adopt a non-Socialist programme of higher old-age pensions, unemployment pay, etc.
ED. COMM.

J. McClellan (Leeds).—In reply to your question about the Socialist attitude towards religion, we would recommend your questioner to our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” for a full statement. Briefly, however, the Socialist view is that the essential feature common to all religions is a belief in the supernatural, a belief which is ruled out when we apply to it the methods of science through the use of which human knowledge has been built up and progress has been made.

Gods of all kinds are expressions of man’s ignorance, fostered nowadays mainly in the interests of the ruling class.
ED. COMM.