Something odd from Edinburgh
We have received the following Letter from Mr. John F. Stewart, Chairman of the “Scottish League for European Freedom.”—Ed. Comm.
The Secretary,
Socialist Party of Great Britain, 2 Rugby Street, London, W.C.1.
Dear Sir,
I have been interested in your “Russia Since 1917,” which was kindly sent to me.
The name of this League explains its object—the freeing from Russian or any other tyranny of all the subjugated countries in Eastern and Central Europe, and the restoration of the right to form their own Governments without external pressure.
I must say quite frankly that, although this League is non-party and non-sectarian, and welcomes help for its objects from any respectable quarter, your organisation is to me suspect from start to finish. Instead of what it professes to be, an exposure of Soviet acts and aims, it may quite as well be a Russian method of infiltrating and destroying any genuine Socialism. You must be aware this is what has happened in Poland, Bulgaria, Roumania and so on. The professedly anti-Communist Socialist Parties have ultimately been “amalgamated” with the Communist and have disappeared.
What you say about the change in Russian rulers, as to the workers having control of affairs after the Revolution and having been anti-imperialist, and all the rubbish about having abjured all the iniquities of Tsarist rule is nauseating. The workers never had any more to do with the Government of Soviet Russia than I had. I happened to have been much in Soviet Russia, not very long after the Revolution and to have lived for months among the peasants in the course of my work. The nearest to the “workers” ever being permitted to think they were masters was that Lenin incited them to murder the landowners and aristocracy and seize their lands on the pretence of dividing them up among themselves. This was the “dictatorship of the proletariat” by the use of which phrase Lenin was able to seize power. He soon put the peasants and workers in their place, murdered and deported millions of them, and transferred the land to “the State,” that was, to himself and his little band of criminals. The poor Russian people never had anything and they are among the most oppressed and terrorised today. All your statements to the contrary are the merest nonsense and this is why I suspect you.
I am not a Socialist, I am an Imperialist heart and soul, unlike yourselves, and, possibly unlike yourselves, I know something about it. I have passed the most of an unusually long working life in British Dominions and Colonies. I have especially worked much in different parts of Africa, and had a great love and, as far as the white man ever gets, deeply sympathetic understanding of the natives, and I am convinced that the British Empire, as it has been all my day, is the greatest power for good the world has ever seen or is ever likely to see.
There is no more tragic example of what will follow its disintegration than that of India. Its withdrawal, after keeping the peace for centuries and protecting the under dog, was at once followed by massacres unprecedented even in Indian history, and there is worse to come.
Frankly, I have no faith whatever in your Movement, and believe it to be one of so-called intellectual cranks, with their heads in the clouds, or sinister stool pigeons for the destruction of civilisation.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN F. STEWART, Chairman.
Mr. Stewart tells us that he has been “interested” in our pamphlet “Russia Since 1917,” but the one thing that stands out a mile is that he was not sufficiently interested to read it with even a little attention. Take for example the statement about the Russian people being “among the most oppressed and terrorised today.” While we would not have phrased it quite like this we certainly agree, and repeatedly state in the pamphlet, “Russia Since 1917,” that Russia is a dictatorship of a clique over the workers. What intrigues us is Mr. Stewart’s words: “all your statements to the contrary are the merest nonsense.” All we can do is to gasp in astonishment and to ask Mr. Stewart where in the pamphlet he imagines he saw these statements.
It is, he says, because of them that he suspects us. As he is an anti-Socialist and defender of British imperialism (though not of Russian imperialism) it is natural that he should oppose a Socialist party but at least he might oppose us for what we say find not for what we don’t say.
We read further that in Mr. Stewart’s eyes we are suspect from start to finish “and our propaganda” may quite as well be a Russian method of infiltrating and destroying any genuine Socialism.” At this point our astonishment gives place to mirth. First at the spectacle of Mr. Stewart, who is not a Socialist, being so anxious to protect “genuine Socialism” from its enemies; next at the total lack of knowledge Mr. Stewart has about those he is attacking. As the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904, the Labour Party (Mr. Stewart’s “genuine Socialist”) in 1906, and the Communist Party of Russia in 1918, even the wildest imagination should pause before putting what is in effect the proposition that the S.P.G.B. was formed by the Russian Communists to undermine the Labour Party. Since Mr. Stewart has doubtless not noticed it, the S.P.G.B. has the same Declaration of Principles as at its formation.
It is because the S.P.G.B. is concerned with “genuine Socialism” and is opposed to State Capitalism whether under Labour government or under Communist dictatorship that we have always been hostile to both. It is not the S.P.G.B. but the Labour Party that in past years held quite erroneous views about Russia, which led it to the absurd conclusion that the Russian regime was Socialism.
Oil the supposed benefits of Imperialism we would only say that the “beneficiaries” are the best judges and we notice that no Imperialist power (whether Russia or Britain or France or any other) ever lets them choose except when the movement to break away is too strong to be contained. That the Indian landowners and capitalists have a like intention of exploiting the Indian workers and peasants does not surprise us, we always foretold it.
We could go on at length about other misconceptions but perhaps this will suffice to convince Mr. Stewart that he is writing in total ignorance. In conclusion we thank him for having “no faith whatever” in the S.P.G.B. We would be worried if someone with his anti-Socialist outlook and fantastic capacity for jumping to wrong conclusions held the contrary view.
—Ed. Comm.