By The Way. (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“But for Blatchford’s valiant roaring there would have been no I.L.P. to-day, no Old Age Pensions, and no ‘Socialistic Budget,'” says A. M. Thompson in the Clarion in the course of an attack on Wells of the swelled head. It is not everyone who would have boasted of these things. Many, indeed, are ready to blame the ignorance of the worker and the wiles of the capitalist for the existence of these frauds. But one never knows. Perhaps we misunderstand the Clarion. It may be that its phenomenal modesty and excessive zeal for fair play have induced it to take all the blame upon itself. Or it may be that the echoes of ignorance that compose the Clarion staff are under the illusion that they are giants of intellect and therefore the great moving forces of the “movement” which they do not even understand. Evidently Mr. Wells is not the only sufferer from “swelled head.”

"The World For The Workers." (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Copies of the above four-part song S., A, T,. B. — complete with pianoforte accompaniment and Tonic-Solfa setting may be obtained, price 3d., or post free 3½d., through the branches or from the Head Office.

Blogger's Note:

The lyrics for Hans Neumann's party song were reproduced in the April 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Self-made! (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent signing himself A Listener writes :

“Having participated as a humble listener in many discussions on Socialism, I have frequently heard your speakers say that no man can make his own fortune by himself alone. Would you kindly answer through the columns of your paper, the undermentioned questions?

“Now I know a man (a friend of mine) who went abroad, took a piece of land, his object being to discover gold, and fortunately it proved a success. Now this land was worked up by himself alone. 

“Do you not consider him to be a man that has made his own fortune by himself alone ?”

No, good “Listener,” your friend did not make his fortune “by himself alone.” By a fortune we understand such an accumulation of wealth as, through the control of other men’s labour that it gives, enables its owner to live without labouring himself.

In the first place there is the outstanding fact, that apart from property-founded society, wherein wealth monopoly gives some men control and mastery over the labour of other men, there can exist no fortune. Its main characteristic, the power of dominion that it imparts, is obviously conditional upon the existence of other men (and producers at that). Without these there can be no fortune.

In the second place, your friend had to be carried to the gold-bearing land, and so required the help of the steamship and railway workers and all the craftsmen and labourers who contribute to the construction of the means of transportation. He needed tools to work the land and, not less, the knowledge of where and how to get out the gold.

Thirdly, so soon as your gold-mining fortune-hunter had won a surplus over and above the amount required to purchase his means of subsistence, he doubtless, being wise in his generation, banked or otherwise invested it. That is to say, he put it to such use as entailed the exploitation of the wage workers. In the normal course of commerce, then, his property would grow by the accumulation of rent, interest or dividends, regardless of any exertion upon his part.

And so it stands demonstrated, that even in the exceptional case of your friend, the acquiring of his fortune was assisted and alone made possible, not only by the very existence and labour of countless other men, but by the accumulations of knowledge and implements made by the numberless generations of men who have preceded us. In other words, wealth accumulates to-day as a result of social activity without which the individual is utterly impotent. This is more easily seen than ever in modern industrial society, with which the Socialist is more particularly concerned when he says that no man makes (creates) his own fortune.

John H. Halls

Canon Scott Holland on the Home. (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The tradition of the English home, dear to all hearts, said Canon Scott Holland, in a sermon at St. Paul’s, yesterday, to a congregation of the delegates of the International Women’s Suffrage Conference, was crumbling and perishing all about us.

At both ends of society alike disaster was being enacted. At the one extreme wealth and luxury were dissolving and corrupting the discipline that knitted the family together in a mutual interchange of serviceable functions; there were no functions left for anybody, and the services were all hired or farmed out; there was only one intelligible desire, and that was to have a good time.

Then at the other extremity the terrible pressure of competitive industry was more and more laying women under the dire necessity of becoming the bread-winners of the household. They could do it cheaper than the men they displaced, therefore every year we found heavier burdens on the backs of women.

If we desired to alter this we had got to reconsider the entire method of our industry.

Morning Leader, 3.5.09.

Into Battle! The War over Soap Substitutes (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to all reports, the first salvoes are now being fired in what promises to be one of the biggest trade-wars we have seen in this country for many a long year. The contestants in the struggle are the manufacturers of detergents, or soap-substitutes.

The set-to in Britain is actually the second round of a contest which has only just come to an uneasy (and probably temporary) end in the United States. Here, Proctor and Gamble an American firm, and Lever Bros., the Anglo-Dutch combine, fought out a bitter struggle for many months before Lever Bros, were defeated and forced to content themselves, for the time being at any rate, with only a minor share of the American soap-substitute market.

Now the scene has changed to this country, though the chief contenders are the same. On the one hand is Thomas Hedley & Co., the British subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble; on the other. Lever Bros, once more, fighting this time on their own ground. In addition there are a host of smaller fry, all trying hard to keep a foothold in a very precarious and uncertain market.

All of them, big and small, are spending large sums on advertising (Hedley’s and Lever Bros, are employing two of the biggest firms in the business). Hedley’s are reported to have already spent £72,000 on Press advertising for “Dreft,” besides about £100,000 on film publicity. Now they are busy launching “Tide” on the public, with what seems like lavishness of advertising even greater than that devoted to “Dreft.” Lever Bros, in their turn have already spent £73,000 on “Wisk,” and £22,000 on their liquid product “Quix.” Both seem ready to spend a lot more besides. These two big firms, it will be noticed, are playing the game of running two products, so giving themselves an opportunity of pitting one against the other, as well as against the products of their rivals. When one product really begins to outstrip the other, then they will probably drop the poorly-selling one and concentrate on the one that is selling well. One of them, perhaps both, may even now be working out plans to launch a third, so getting the additional advantage of newness—an important factor when each new product is launched with lavish publicity.

Just recently, the situation has been further complicated by a new big rival, the American Colgate-Palmolive-Peet combine, which plans to put its own product “Fab” on the market in a big way. The smaller fry are, of course, now some way behind, but they are all struggling hard for their own little place in the trade. Domestos Ltd., for example, have already spent £39,000 on advertising “ Stergene,” and the Brobat Mfg. Co. £33,000 on “Brobat.” Boots with “D.10,” and the Co-op with “Cascade,” are of course at some advantage in that they can distribute their products in their own shops, but their trade will in effect be confined to their own distribution system. They will not stand a chance on the open market unless they are prepared to risk a great deal of money in pushing their products. Having taken a look at the jungle outside, they have no doubt already decided to stay at home!

This high-pressure advertising is, of course, only the prelude to the fight. The first real blow was struck by Lever Bros, when they offered, temporarily, to let housewives have two packets of “Wisk” for the price of one. Hedley’s replied by covering large areas of London with vouchers offering a 1s. 7d. packet of “Tide” for 6d. Apart from stunts, prices generally are already on the way down. “Fab” recently dropped from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d.; “Dreft ” from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 4d.; and “Cascade ” from 8d. to 6d. (Price differences are largely accounted for by differences in the sizes of the packets). All of them are probably working frantically to think of other bright ideas which will enable them to gain an advantage.

Even when soap-rationing is abolished, all the manufacturers seem convinced that there is a future for detergents. If they did not think so, they obviously would not be doing what they are doing. Reinforcing them in their belief is their determination to bring down the price of detergents below the price of soap. One of the main ways in which this can be done is by reducing the price of the raw materials from which detergents are made.

Detergents, as is well known, are derived from petrol, and just as competition is now rife among the detergent manufacturers so is competition among the oil-producers. At least four companies are already producing raw materials for soap-substitutes, and others are thinking of doing so. Shell are the biggest producers at present with “Teepol.” After them come I.C.I. with “Lissapol,” Anglo-Iranian with “Comprox,” and Monsanto Chemicals with “ Santomerse ”— all struggling hard to get hold of as much of the rapidly growing market as they can. For detergents to really compete with soap, the oil-producers will have to cut their prices. That they can do so was shown when the soap ration was last increased—prices immediately dropped. They will probably find means of doing so again when rationing is fully lifted and their products have to compete on equal terms with soap.

Whatever form the struggle takes, it should be interesting to watch. The contestants may fight to the limit, as they did in the United States. They may try to reach a compromise, which will certainly be an uneasy and temporary one. Perhaps the abolition of soap-rationing will prick the whole bubble. We do not know, nor do we wish to speculate.

What is worthy of comment is the stupidity of a system in which huge sums of money are being spent in selling, one against the other, products between which there is probably not a scrap of difference worth troubling about; the stupidity of a system in which adults in complete possession of their senses spend their working hours thinking up new and better stunts to help sell these products; the stupidity of a system where other fully mature men and women worry themselves sick wondering whether “this” is a better name than “ that,” or “that” is a better name than “this” (we have it on no less an authority than the Financial Times that enormous care and market research is expended on choosing just the right brand name). The example of soap-substitutes can be multiplied a thousandfold, and the wastefulness in terms of wealth and human effort is correspondingly greater.

Capitalism has introduced a substitute for soap. When are you workers going to introduce the substitute for capitalism—socialism?

Stan Hampson

Knees bend! (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our propaganda activities we often point out that education is subordinated to needs of capitalism.

The vast sums of money spent on universities and education in general are spent, in the main, to ensures steady supply of efficient wage slaves.

Recently, in Glasgow, at a conscientious objector’s court, during a hearing given to a young doctor who was opposed to becoming part of the military machine, evidence was supplied by a Professor McRobert of the Glasgow University, which helps to substantiate our assertions.

The doctor who had registered for military service on first taking up medicine, had changed his views on the army somewhat by the time he had qualified six years later, in, 1950, with the result, he registered as a Conscientious Objector when he became a doctor.

Professor McRobert who was in the court during the hearing made the following comment to the doctor, “If you had not registered for military service you would have been rejected. You kept out another man who would have been willing to do this work ” (Glasgow Evening News, May 1, 1950). When this statement is examined it is obvious that the democracy the tribunals are so fond of reminding C.O.s about, does not exist in the university. An applicant for admission to the medical profession could be most capable in every respect, but unless he bows the knee to the state his entry is barred.

What better proof could be offered against those apologists for capitalism, who say that the clever and the industrious are assured of success and that this wonderful system makes for the survival of the fittest.

BEE VEE

Blogger's Note:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that 'BEE VEE' was a one off pen-name for Glasgow Branch's Bert Vallar. The giveaway is the quotation from the Glasgow Evening News.

The goose is bored (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

When capitalism was young and trade unionism was in its infancy, the masters took very little interest in the welfare and education of the “philanthropists” who provided their comforts. But with the development of the tools of production and the necessity for a more highly trained working population, the masters discovered, to their dismay, that the rabble had to be equipped with a certain amount of knowledge. Consequently, schools quickly sprung up and in a surprisingly short period of time the working class had mastered the three "Rs.” Of course, although the masters are well aware that their workers must read and write in order to run the system for them, the disadvantage is that there is no check upon what they read and write. Therefore it is necessary for the capitalist class to engage in a ceaseless barrage of propaganda through the medium of the press and radio, to convince workers that this is the best of all possible systems and that they (the Capitalists) are here to stay. Nevertheless it has become increasingly obvious to the masters that although the “Goose that lays the Golden Eggs” is still blissfully unaware of his amazing qualities and capabilities, there is a considerable amount of drudgery in the poor wretches' life which, if not arrested, might result in a smaller egg. Therefore during recent years it has been found advantageous to invest a little capital in brightening up factory conditions and providing all sorts of undreamt-of welfare amenities to make things more agreeable to the inmates.

It has been proved conclusively that we workers lend and apply ourselves far more willingly to the process of being exploited under congenial conditions., than under the dark and miserable conditions of years ago. This fact reflects itself immediately in an egg of considerably larger dimensions.

So much are our masters aware of the growing lethargy in our ranks that they often print bright little articles in the press suggesting ways and means that we ourselves can assist in making this life a little less humdrum. For instance, the person who travels to work by bus every day along the same old route with the same familiar faces, passing the same familiar objects; he should go by train for a change. Undoubtedly this momentous step in his life will present fresh fields to conquer and provide many exciting hours eagerly scanning fresh faces and scenery. Of course the period in between coming and going will unfortunately remain unchanged but no doubt this will lose some of its boredom with the anticipation of the new and exciting journey home.

Almost every day we read about young people who, rather than spend their lives unobtrusively in factory or office, revolt, and seek to satisfy their craving for colour and excitement along other channels. It is significant that today the prisons and mental institutions are overflowing with customers requiring treatment. It is more than coincidental that with the development of modern capitalism, the population of these respective centres has more than doubled during recent years, and given the continuation of capitalism it is extremely likely that we shall eventually run out of storage space for these unfortunate individuals.

On the industrial field we find that the inevitable trend of capitalism is to reduce previously complicated tasks that required individual attention and skill into simpler operations. The introduction of the conveyor belt system has banished the old craftsman and taken the joy of creating beautiful articles away from mankind, substituting the mass production of shoddy and cheap commodities. To such an extent has this change been accomplished that it is no wonder that society has temporarily forgotten how to appreciate well balanced design and beauty, even to the extent of preferring the ugly to the beautiful, or further, being incapable of distinguishing either.

It is comforting at least to know that capitalism, in spite of its apparent strength and universal acceptance, cannot exist for ever and that a new and better form of society will one day replace it. This will bring with it the joy of living and working for the benefit of all mankind and will instil new and finer characteristics into man’s mental and physical make up.

G. L.

Editorial: Marx, Methodism and the Labour Party (1950)

Editorial from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party has caused a stir by the way he has restated the outlook of his Party. In a speech to a gathering of European Labour Parties at Copenhagen he elaborated the proposition that the philosophy and method of the British organisation is “Methodist rather than Marxist.” Here are some of his statements.

“British socialism owes little to Karl Marx, either in theory or practice, or in its methods of organising the working classes. Marx’s economics as well as his politics were challenged and finally renounced by the founders and teachers of the British Labour Party.” 

“Marx’s conception of the political organisation required for waging the class war was not accepted by the British Labour movement.”

". . . Marxism as a philosophy of materialism, as an economic theory, and as a form of political organisation with revolutionary intention and aim, is historically an aberrant tendency in the development of British Socialism.”

“British Socialists do not consider it at all a reproach or a source of weakness in their intellectual and political positions that their movement has been profoundly influenced by religious thought. The very organisation of our British working-class movement embodies methods we have taken over from religious institutions.” (Manchester Guardian, 3/6/50).

Among the religious influences he mentioned particularly is Methodism. There is nothing new in this. It was said by many of the early leaders of the Labour Party and was a commonplace criticism of them in S.P.G.B. propaganda forty years ago.

In 1922 the late Phillip Snowden wrote of his Party:—“The British Labour Party is certainly not Socialist in the sense in which socialism is understood upon the Continent. It is not based upon the recognition of the class struggle; it does not accept the teachings of Marx.” (Manchester Guardian Reconstruction Supplement, October 26, 1922).

But though it is not new it has a significance now that it did not have years ago. When the British Labour Party was younger, before it had had experience as a government, and before the Communists seized power in Russia, the lead among the Labour Parties of Europe was taken by the German Party. It was the German Social Democratic Party that was largest and seemed to be most successful and nearest to becoming the government. The future of Labourism throughout Europe was thought to be bound up with the fate of the German party. Like all of the continental parties the German S.D.P. was traditionally hostile towards religion and the church and paid lip service to Marxism.

Now several new factors have brought the British Labour Party into greater prominence and influence. The German S.D.P. was greatly weakened by the war and by the rise of the Communists; Marxism has been brought into popular disrepute by the distortion of it associated with the Russian dictatorship; the new balance of world capitalism has produced the line-up of America, Britain and Western Europe on the one side against Russia and her satellites on the other; and lastly the British Labour Party is now almost alone among the Labour parties of Europe in holding governmental power. In these circumstances the lead among the Labour Parties has been taken by the British Party, and the prospect is that the traditional lip service paid to Marxism by the Continental parties will be allowed to fall into the background.

This development represents a certain change; but no progress towards a greater understanding of socialism. It exposes the fundamental lack of socialist principle that characterises all the Labour parties, and shows the extent to which their policies are in fact bound up with the requirements of capitalism in the various countries. It needs to be studied in relation to another pronouncement made by Morgan Phillips at the same conference. Because the West European Trade Unions and Labour parties are now backing Marshall Aid and the tie-up with U.S.A., and the American trade unions play an increasingly influential role in the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in its fight with the Communist World Federation of Trade Unions, it becomes expedient to whitewash American capitalism, hence the following from Mr. Phillips: —

“Socialist prejudice against the United States must be exposed as out of date. For more than two decades the United States has been the most progressive country in the world outside Britain and Scandinavia. . . . At present most European Governments are less progressive than the Truman administration. I hope you will forgive me if I say that we must not be too smug about European traditions. It must not be forgotten that in the period between the two world wars America reacted to the world crisis by producing Roosevelt and the New Deal while Europe produced Hitler and Mussolini. Totalitarianism is in fact a European product.”

(Manchester Guardian 5/6/50).

There is nothing at all illogical in the British Labour Party, which stands for the reform of capitalism, looking with a sympathetic eye on Roosevelt’s and Truman’s reforms of American capitalism. It does not surprise Socialists though it may be a bitter pill for those Labourites to swallow who have liked to cherish the delusion that the Labour Party stands for something distinctive. Like Morgan Phillips they will seek comfort in the notion that at least they have been consistent in abhorring totalitarianism. But even here they are doomed to disappointment. Just now Mr. Phillips is asking them to admire the progressiveness of democratic American capitalism under Truman but not so long ago—before the opening of the “cold war”—Mr. Phillips was equally admiring of totalitarian capitalism in Russia., He visited Russia in 1946 and wrote up his observations in the Daily Herald (20 August, 1946). This is one of his remarks: —

“In Britain we are only just beginning our Socialist planning; in Russia it has been going on for 28 years. In some ways British social standards are well ahead of the Russian, and in others the Russians can teach us a lot.”

Before leaving Mr. Phillips and his views on Socialism we may usefully quote what he has to say of the aim the British.Labour Party sets before itself:—“It promises . . .  the attainment of a planned economy in which proletarian exploitation is not tolerated, and where the fundamental freedoms of the individual citizens, worker and wage-earner are safeguarded ” Marx showed conclusively that the exploitation of the working class cannot be ended while the workers continue to be a wage-earning class, hence his insistence that the unions should see the need to aim at the abolition of the wages system. Morgan Phillips, lacking Marx’s understanding of capitalism and socialism, cannot even perceive that the continued existence of the wages system in Russia and Britain makes nonsense of the claim in both countries to have ended exploitation and introduced socialism. He glories in the fact that the Labour Party rejected Marxism but cannot see that in so doing it was rejecting Socialism.

A Chemical Octopus (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. have issued their Annual Report for 1949. The Report contains some interesting information.

The capital, issued and converted into stock is £84 millions; the Reserves are £39 million, making a total of £123 millions. There is also a Central Obsolescence and Depreciation Provision of £35 millions. The Company has 93 subsidiaries covering Europe, S. & E. Africa, N. America, S. America, Australasia, Far East, Near East and Indian Sub-Continent. Its products include Chemicals, Metals, Paper Goods, Lime, Leather Cloth, Dyestuffs, Explosives, Glass, Paints, Plastics, Salt, Petrol and Cement.

There is a common idea that nationalisation is the last word in combination but what nationalised industry can compare with this gigantic concern which produces such a variety of different products and whose tentacles stretch all over the earth? The direct exports alone amounted to £38 million.

There is, however, an ominous statement in the early part of the report:

“German and Japanese competition has been limited, partly owing to restrictions imposed by the occupying powers, but there are now clear signs that this competition will become a problem in the near future.” (page 4)

There are, however, brighter statements further on. For instance:

“The production of the Dyestuffs Division has shown a remarkable increase during recent years. On the outbreak of war in 1939 responsibility for meeting the demands for dyestuffs throughout Great Britain and the Commonwealth fell largely on the Dyestuffs Division. Production had therefore to be increased by modifying plants and improving and shortening the chemical processes involved' and the measures were so successful that in 1949 production was about three times as great as in pre-war years, although substantially the same plants were in use.” (page 6)

And further:

“African Explosives and Chemical Industries, Ltd., in which the Company and De Beers Industrial Corporation Ltd. are the principal shareholders, achieved new records in the sales of both explosives and fertilizers. Devaluation has increased the profitability and length of life of African gold mines.” (page 12)

And still further:

“The prospects of future trading in China remain obscure. It appears to be the intention of the new Government to use Government trading agencies for all exports and imports but it is likely that they will continue to do business with the local representatives of foreign manufacturing companies, if it is in their interest to do so.” (page 13)

We have been reading for some time news of the disturbances in Malaya, of the bandit menace and of the bodies of troops drafted there to root out the bandits. We have even seen a newsreel of Mr. Strachey handling a gun on one of the expeditions against the bandits. These matters make the following extract from the report topical and interesting:

“Imperial Chemicals (Malaya) Ltd. was able to exceed by 20 per cent its record turnover of the previous year, mainly because of increased supplies, and its profits were again very satisfactory.” (page 13)

We have often been urged in the past to admire the philanthropy and disinterestedness of individuals and companies that make large donations to universities. Being of a suspicious turn of mind we have—suspected. In their earnest desire to impress shareholders with their efficiency and foresight the directors of the company have thrown some light on the subject. This is what they say:

“If a large research organisation, such as the Company's, is to justify its existence over a prolonged period, it is essential that it should be able to secure the services of numbers of able and well-trained scientists, and also to have available a continuous flow of new fundamental knowledge which it can use in solving the practical problems of industry. For this reason it is in the interests of the Company to assist, wherever it can, the universities and other educational bodies, which are responsible for the training of scientists and are engaged in the production of new basic knowledge. For many years, therefore, the Company has made a practice of assisting educational establishments with financial grants. . . .” (page 15)

Then follows a list of some of these grants which include: Post graduate research fellowships about £55,000 a year, and in addition over £4,000 a year on scholarships; Special donations about £20,000 a year; special researches about £8,000 a year; Grants for apparatus and chemicals about £25,000. This makes a total of about £112,000 a year. After the list of donations we find this naive paragraph:

“Except in the cases of the special researches, which are on subjects of direct interest to the company, no attempt is made to influence in any way the choice of the research projects, and the company’s practice of making these grants without attaching conditions is regarded by the University authorities as one of their most valuable features.” (page 15)

How very altruistic. The innocence of them! As if the grateful universities won’t give them “most favoured nations” treatment in order to get further donations. As a matter of interest we get a line on this a few pages later in the Report:

“The Company has found difficulty in recruiting in satisfactory numbers the high grade technical staff which is required, not only for design and construction, but also for all aspects of research and production. Energetic action if needed to increase the number of scientific and technical graduates coming from universities and technical colleges, and to improve and extend its teaching of science in the schools where there is generally a regrettable shortage-of science masters. The Company is maintaining particularly close contact with the Appointments Boards of the Universities and as a result it has been possible to recruit during the year 265 chemists, physicists; engineers and other scientists, of whom 200 came direct from the Universities. This will help the Company to carry out its extensive and varied research programme and to maintain its high standard of technical management.” (page 20)

So they get what they pay for!

There is a great deal more of interest in this Report but we cannot take up more space recording it. However we must not conclude without recording the following tribute to those upon whose work the Company owes its prosperity.

“The Company’s progress was sustained last year, as it has always been in the past, by the loyalty and zeal which was shown, in this country and overseas, by factory managers, foremen and workpeople, commercial, technical and clerical staff, and all other grades of employees. The Directors would like to record their sincere appreciation of such conscientious service and cooperation and wish to mention in particular the support which has been given to schemes for increasing the manufacturing efficiency of the Company.” (page 21)

Now that is real decent of them. It is true that words are cheap, it is also true that those who lack zeal get the sack; still, it is very sporting of them— three cheers for the Company!

Gilmac

No Orchids For Sweet William (1950)

Film Review from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although socialists agree about the solution to social problems, when it comes to other issues differences of opinion can and do arise. What is a “good” film, is a question about which socialists can and do disagree. Some attach great importance to colouring, dresses and scenery, others to acting, sound recording, and the tempo of the drama. In short the same film is “good” to some and “bad” to others. For that reason we cannot exhaust these columns with personal views on the technical merits or demerits of films. What we can do is turn the socialist searchlight on the silver screen and show how the need for socialism is reflected in film stories.

For example take a recent production—“All the King’s Men.” This film, given academy awards, is the story of the rise to power and privilege of Willie Stark; a story adapted from real life.

Willie Stark starts off with poverty and honesty. During his struggles for political power he loses both, and finally “stops a bullet”—just before the National Anthem. That is the story in a nut shell as far as many people are concerned, but for socialists what is much more to the point is the social background of squalor and discontent that makes the story possible.

In the film we are shown glimpses of the poverty and humiliation experienced by workers, and the corruption, bribery and trickery that characterises world of rich and poor. We hear speeches by politicians anxious to turn the votes of working people to their own ends. Moreover we see in the political careerism of a Willie Stark only a melodramatic version of many a real life would-be reformer. Starting off with the desire to do something for workers and ending by doing something to them. Willie Stark, like many another before him, thought he could separate means from ends in his efforts to solve social problems. He thought he could gain political power by any means and wield it to benefit ordinary working people. Instead, having gained the support of people easily swayed by promises he had to resort to every kind of deceit to retain their support and his position of power.

Willie is not alone. Many have thought, and still think, that any kind of voter will do to solve the problems of working people. History belies this fallacy. The history of the working class in all countries shows that only a majority of working people equipped with socialist knowledge can solve their problems. This is an assertion to the validity of which the columns of this journal over many years bear ample testimony, and is in fact a touch stone of the Socialist movement.

Socialism, a world of common ownership and democratic control where all have free access to the things they need, will give the “Willie Stark’s” of this world no opportunity to harm others by their ill-informed efforts to rid the world of problems they do not fully understand. More important still Socialism, by ensuring the well-being of everyone, will eliminate the discontent and misery which is the breeding ground of those who aspire to personal power.

These then are some of the thoughts of socialists when they pay their one and nine’s to see the world of make-believe reflecting unwittingly the problems of our time. Our task as socialists is to change reality thereby changing the reflection. Why not join us?

John Moore

The Schuman Plan and the International Control of Basic Industries (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The French government has announced that six European countries would go ahead with negotiations on the Schuman plan to pool coal and steel resources—without Britain.

The British Government wanted a preliminary conference of Ministers on procedure. France turned this down.

The daily press in the last few months have given the Schuman plan a great deal of publicity. The British government has been reluctant to commit itself, and by requesting that discussions be held in order to clarify the practical application of the French proposals, hoped to avoid friction with the French government without having to either commit itself or give a complete rejection of the plan.

The chief point of the Schuman plan is the scheme to pool the coal and steel resources of western Europe.

The British Labour Party in April, 1950, published a pamphlet on behalf of the so-called International Socialist Conference which met at Witten, Ruhr, Germany, in March, 1950. The pamphlet, an individual work by W. Fienburgh, is entitled “International Control of Basic Industries.”

On page 2 he states under the heading “ The present position in the basic industries” the following:—

“Europe is nearing the end of a period during which, as far as the basic raw materials are concerned, demand has outstripped supply." On the same page he states “ . . . there is ample evidence that the main producing nations are expanding towards export targets which, in sum, exceed the import programmes of the importing nations of Western Europe and may exceed also the effective demand anticipated from the rest of the world. This raises the possibility of a restriction of expansion and production accompanied by a price war in European and world markets.”

He goes on “. . . To avoid these consequences it is essential, before the event is upon us, to make some approach to inter-European organisation in the basic industries.”

After stating that today, supply and demand in coal and steel at least are almost in balance, and talking about the possibility of a restriction of expansion and production he states on page 3, under the heading “The Aims of International Control,”—“International control should be designed to ensure that the basic industries were expanding fast enough and efficiently enough to meet the maximum demand for the product in the whole area, plus whatever export volume is needed to meet the over-all Western European balance of payments problem. Assessment of demand should be based upon the maintenance of full employment.”

If the supply has caught up or nearly caught up with the demand on the market, why all the plans for International control to ensure that the basic industries were expanding fast enough? One of the ideas as explained later in the pamphlet is “To gain the advantages of Rationalisation,” that is the most economical use of resources leading to greater over-all efficiency and lower costs.

This is the real reason of the plan. Talk of ensuring that the basic industries are expanding fast enough is put in to make the scheme attractive to workers seeking employment or who are fearing losing their jobs. For on page 4 he writes: —

“International control should ensure that basic industries do not expand production faster than the ability of the rest of the industry to consume the product.”

Like most members of the Labour Party he believes that by state control the government can run the economic life of the country according to plan.

Despite their failures they still draft new plans as fast as the old ones prove their bankruptcy. W. Fienburgh puts the cart before the horse when he states “The full employment economy is expansionist. The unemployment economy is restrictive.”

In actual fact the expansionist economy tends to lead to full employment, but when after a war the shortages are made up by the expansionist economy, capitalism reverts to the restrictive economy which leads to large scale unemployment.

The conclusions given by W. Fienburgh at the end of the first half of the pamphlet are interesting. Firstly he states:—

“It should be firmly noted that we cannot hope, through international control of basic industries, to impose socialism on countries which have not accepted it at the moment.” The fact that Socialism cannot be imposed on countries which have not accepted it is correct. However when a member of the Labour Party speaks of socialism he means state capitalism. Secondly he states ”. . . that each country should run its economy with the objective of maintaining full employment . . .”

It should be apparent that the economy of the country is not run with the objective of maintaining full employment, but is run with the idea of making a profit for the members of the capitalist class.

The competitive nature of the capitalist system, the economic rivalry between the national states for raw materials and markets for the commodities they produce, foredoom all the plans for international control of the basic industries to failure.

To sum up the scheme by an understatement, we quote the final sentence on page 8 of the pamphlet. “On balance the prospects of immediate internationalisation seem dim.”

D.L.

Passing Comments: Visit to Malaya (1950)

The Passing Comments Column from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Visit to Malaya

Mr. James Griffiths, the Colonial Secretary, and Mr. Strachey, the War Minister, have gone to Malaya to see for themselves the scenes of the operations against the guerillas. It is not very long since Mr. Griffiths made an electioneering broadcast about the benefits conferred on us by the Labour government. He finished by a touching reference to the “Old Book” which must have been worth hundreds of votes among the Nonconformists of Llanelly; he claimed that the Labour Party had really done nothing more than try to carry out some of the precepts to be found in the Bible. Does he think he can find justification in the New Testament for the bombing of villages in Malaya? Perhaps Mr. Griffith’s Bible reads “Thou shalt not kill—except when you think the other fellow might be a Stalinist.”

As for Mr. Strachey, his book on “Socialism in Theory and Practice” is too well known to be quoted here. Mr. Strachey must regard the war in Malaya as a bit of Socialism in practice. But the real explanation of the Strachey dilemma—why he is considered so revolutionary out of office and so reactionary in office is that he believes, like all the other Social Democratic and Stalinist leaders, that he can run the capitalist system for the benefit of the workers. But when he gets into the government he finds that a capitalist system can only be run as the capitalists want it to be run. And that is why we get self-styled Socialists directing the slaughter of Malayan workers by British workers on behalf of British rubber and tin shareholders.

South Africa

Dr. Malan continues to enforce his policy of race-segregation in South Africa. If the white South Africans find the near presence of black South Africans disturbing, the logical thing for them to do would be to withdraw to a strip of territory along the coast, sufficient to supply them with food and raw materials; they could then set up an all-white state, and keep themselves aloof from the Negroes and Indians. But Dr. Malan is not a “ doctrinaire ” politician: he is not so insistent on apartheid as to refuse contact altogether with the black population. Somebody has to do the hard work in the mines and the docks. However strongly the whites feel about “race purity,” they are not going to deny themselves the pleasures of exploiting the great reservoir of labour-power provided by the nine million coloured people of the Union. In fact, so entrancing does this reservoir appear to Dr. Malan that he wants to enlarge it. He is now demanding that South Africa should be given control of the three British protectorates which border on the Union— Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and Basutoland. Dr. Malan justifies his apartheid policy by drawing a picture of a minority of white South Africans surrounded by a horde of uncivilised natives; but this does not prevent him from trying to increase the numbers of the “horde” by dragging several hundred thousand more Negroes into the South African economic and political system. What it all amounts to is that Dr. Malan makes, a generous concession in the otherwise absolute policy of apartheid he hopes to impose—the Negroes can work for the whites; but with that privilege they must be content.

The Schism between Classes

The National Union of Railwaymen banned Mr. Arthur Birch from holding office in the Union because he refused to pay the political levy. He protested in the courts against this decision, and won his case. This drew an approving leader from the Daily Mail (26-5-50), which went on to deplore the trade unions’ intervention in politics—“ Perhaps he saw that this very obsession with political power was largely responsible for the schism between the bosses and the workers.” So the ”schism between bosses and workers” isn’t due to the fact that the former are exploiting the latter; the “obsessions” of the trade unions are “largely responsible.” The leader-writer of the Daily Mail is driven to ridiculous extremes to explain the rift between the two classes in society which is the natural result of the capitalist system.

How We Got the Empire

The Daily Mirror (22-5-50) carried a report of the Bishop of Croydon’s sermon at an Empire Youth Service in Westminster Abbey, which was attended by 2,000 people, including Princess Margaret. An occasion of this kind would give the bishop, one might have thought, a good opportunity for talking about some aspect of Christianity. Instead, he took it upon himself to defend British Imperialism. "Between the wars we were led by some people to believe that the Empire had been built up by grab, and that it was held together by the wilful under-development of the native races. How far from the truth that is.” Evidently the bishop has not forgotten that in the first place a state-church is created to prevent the religious feelings of the nation being turned into channels hostile to the interests of the state. Or perhaps he was afraid that Princess Margaret had been listening to the agitators in Hyde Park.

Mr. Rank and Religion

Why do great capitalists build up new companies? Mr. J. Arthur Rank threw some new light on the subject in an interview with the Methodist Recorder in 1942, quoted in “Lilliput” of May 1950. Mr. Rank said “ If I could relate to you some of my adventures and experiences in the larger film world, you would not only be astonished, but it would I think be as plain to you as it is to me that I was being led by God.” It seems that the search for even greater profits does not come into it. When one surveys the vast field of Mr. Rank’s business enterprises, it becomes clear that he must have more pull in Heaven than most of us.

When Wars Were Fought by Gentlemen 

A recorded talk by the late Lord Baden-Powell which was broadcast on May 20th contained some reminders of the progress we have made during so short a time as the last fifty years. When the Boers were advancing on Mafeking, Baden-Powell had boxes of sand buried at intervals round the perimeter, and put it about that they were mines. This was reported to the Boers, and when they came up to the town their commander sent in an indignant mote demanding that the mines be taken away immediately, since their use was contrary to the rules of warfare observed by civilised nations. What would the Boer commander have said about the atom-bomb?

On Sundays there was no fighting; the Boers and the British, in full view of each other, came out of their fortified positions and stretched their legs. But these polite ways of fighting were already on the way out; and as more and more countries entered the struggle for markets and raw materials, they vanished altogether. In the modern world, both totalitarian and democratic states are compelled to fight total wars. With the advent of bacteriological and atomic warfare, it seems as if the ideas of six-days-a-week fighting will be left even farther behind.

Notable Victory

Tom Driberg, in Reynolds News (7-5-50), tells of yet another advance on the day-to-day front. “Under George Buchanan's benign chairmanship, the National Assistance Board is moving steadily further from the old, cold, bureaucratic outlook. Will Paling, M.P. for Dewsbury, has just scored a notable victory for an old lady in his constituency. She draws only five shillings a week from the Board, 2s. of which is for laundry; but Paling has persuaded them (on medical advice) to allow her a further 3/6d., for the purchase of brandy.” Driberg must be short of news about the achievements of the Labour Party if he is forced to draw attention to a case where the charity received by an old lady from the National Assistance Board has been increased by the sum of 3s. 6d. weekly.

Alwyn Edgar

Waste (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Waste, ruthless and rife, is indisputably one of the outstanding characteristics of present-day capitalistic society.

War, of course, is synonymous with waste; some of it’s recognisable features being the mass destruction of useful lives, the squandering of human energy and the prostitution of scientific achievements so laboriously acquired through long years of intensive social effort. Man’s age-long struggles with Nature culminating in the vast areas of habitable territory and the useful buildings of the times fall swift prey to the ravages of war.

So man must work, and war must take! “War and Waste” could fill the pages of quite a hefty tome but as it is not the title of this particular article we will proceed on more general lines.

Recent reports have appeared telling of unrestrained and deliberate acts of food destruction in the U.S.A. in particular and elsewhere wherever the profit motive in production prevails. That makes one wince most for the intake of food being man's strongest impulse coupled with the tragic fact that hundreds of millions of the world’s inhabitants are at the present time, in the throes of actual and partial starvation—or else in the relatively happier condition of never having really enough to eat!

Waste is apparent in the distribution of most things in most places. Individual needs are ignored in homage to capitalism’s lust for keeping markets “open” and prices “right.”

A particular example looms up into memory as these words are being written, which occurred about three years ago. Following the Peace-that-was-to-have-been-Eternal, the War Office found itself with about sixty thousand surplus, but good and usable, radio-sets on its hands. The Press and other mediums were then, as they still do from time to time, featuring appeals from interested individuals and welfare organisations asking that free sets should be issued to the chronic bed-ridden, T.B. sufferers, old-age pensioners and others who are for the most part confined to the home, and could not possibly afford to buy sets out of their meagre pensions.

Were those surplus thousands diverted to that necessitous channel?

Not a bit of it! For away in the West Country were some nice, disused and apparently inaccessible quarries deemed by His Majesty’s Labour Government —War Department, to be even more worthy recipients!

In passing, it should be noted that the issue of free wireless-sets to the registered blind has no connection with the disposal of governmental stocks. These sets are bought new direct from the makers with funds raised by charitable associations formed for that express purpose.

So the halt and the lame and the chronic bed-ridden are still without, for the most part, whilst those disused quarry-pits in far-away-places hold fast to what should have been the means of bringing much needed music and mirth (the latter in more senses than one!) into dreary lives.

But it should not be imagined that it is only the industrial rejects who are too poor to buy necessities. The great majority of the workers in this country are, for the present, in constant work and yet cannot afford to buy the requirements of a decent existence.

The harvest of work and wages (such as they are) engendered by the War is steadily petering out. Soon the relatively small acts of, say, throwing edible fish back into the seas as takes place frequently in this country and the destruction of good wheat in the Argentine will magnify and accelerate into far greater dimensions than ever before encountered. For, with the development of capitalism the workers progressively receive relatively less of the total wealth they produce.

It is not to be inferred that it is only the concrete commodities that are wasted, for look at the many and varied ways in which labour-power is dissipated on services that would have no place in a socialist system of society.

They are so very numerous that it is difficult to know where to begin. But as we have already touched on the subject of war and waste it may be as well to commence with those unfortunate fellow-workers, who are mainly forced into the armed forces by economic pressure or legal conscription. In addition, there are all those engaged in the making of all manner of destructive weapons and equipment for the war-machine. Amongst the exceedingly large number of unproductive occupations are those of the police-force, prison-warders. workhouse attendants, burglars, forgers, arson-mongers, "black” and "white” marketeers and spivs generally. Stock-exchange and insurance workers; politicians and trade-union officials; bankers and pawnbrokers; priests, pimps and parsons besides the advertising and time-motion-study parasites. Then there is the enormous gambling fraternity, all those engaged in whatever capacity in horse and hound racing, football pools (such an enormous industry) etc., and the terrific army of printers, clerks, electricians and telephonists involved.

The long procession of unproductive workers continue on and on and on . . . but the pages of the Socialist Standard do not so we will strike a concluding note with a reference to those large numbers of domestic workers; cooks, charwomen, boot-blacks, waiters and waitresses, chamber-maids and so on who slave for those usually in a far better position to do their own chores than the servants themselves through having superior material conditions under which to live.

Man, that creature with the sensitive hands, the agile brain and the keen senses, has already done much that is useful and good under severely limited social conditions. How much more will he do; will he want to do; when the earth and all that is on it—and can be on it—with all avoidable waste eliminated, becomes the common property of all mankind?

That state of Affairs will be known as Socialism and it is up to you to help hasten the day.

Linda.

SPGB Meetings and News (1950)

Party News from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard