Running Commentary: Clerics’ confusion (1986)

The Running Commentary column from the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Clerics’ confusion

Are we all god 's children, or are some of us — women — rather more distant relations of his — nieces perhaps? Are we all made in his immaculate image or are those of us in the female sex less capable than those of the male gender?

The Church of England, which purports to instruct us in morality and keeping our place as docile wage slaves in the capitalist order of things, is having difficulty in deciding whether to allow women the same opportunity to be ordained as men. The recent vote of the Synod, to refer the issue to a panel of 53 bishops, was not so much a decision as a deferment, in the hope that the slickest religious brains in the church can use the next six months or so to cook up a face-saving compromise.

This is all rather curious. The church has been operating for centuries as a bunch of intellectual storm-troopers (although latterly rather more like a company in Dad's Army) for class society. Do they think they might perform better, on behalf of the ruling class, if women were allowed to dress up in those silly clothes, perform the same meaningless rituals and preach to us about the rewards waiting in heaven for all who do their duty for capitalism?

On the other hand, why should any of them oppose women priests? (Graham Leonard, the Bishop of London, hinted broadly that he would leave the church if women are to be ordained. Not exactly a grievous loss to us if he did). Other churches have female priests, as does the Anglican church in some other countries. They don't seem to have any problems in doing the church's work of putting across the baseless, reactionary nonsense of religion.

This brings us to the most important question, of why women should want an equal right to become priests, especially if this means first being insulted by people like Graham Leonard. Of course, it's all part of the drive for sexual equality, for proving that women can do any job as efficiently as men. So far the jobs where this has been proved have included the armed forces (in some states there are female combat troops); the police (watch Hill Street Blues of a Saturday night to see how a girl can handle a truncheon); the prison service (there are now female governors of male prisons in Britain, making sure the prisoners are firmly locked away and punished appropriately); and of course there's the Prime Ministership . . .

Perhaps there are some women libbers who think it is a worthwhile result for their long campaign, that they can now do the same dirty work for capitalism as men. In fact, there are worthier aims to campaign for. Like a society free, not just of sexual inequality and repression but also of the religious hypocrisy which has helped to keep us all — and especially women — enslaved for too long.

Health service priorities

Another recent demonstration of the perverse priorities in capitalism is the statement by Norman Fowler, the Social Services secretary, that he has authorised health authorities to pay managers bonuses of up to £3.960 for making cuts in health service expenditure — cuts that are likely to entail the closure of hospitals.

Health service managers who don't mind acting as the government’s hatchet people can expect an extra £ 1.660 a year if they are general managers (five per cent on top of their annual salary of £33.200); for district managers £3,160 (ten per cent of their maximum of £31.600); and for unit managers. who run individual hospitals, an extra £3.960. or up to 15 per cent of the maximum salary of £26.400.

One of the ways in which the government seeks to justify its programme of hospital closures is through the cosy euphemism of "community care". This is the name given to the plan to remove many long-term sick, disabled and mentally ill from hospitals to be "cared for" in the community. Most people would accept that being looked after by loving friends, family or neighbours backed up by appropriate medical, nursing and social work support is preferable to incarceration in impersonal hospital wards. Unfortunately the reality of "community care" is often very different. Many long-stay hospital patients have remained in hospital precisely because they don't have family or friends willing or able to care for them; social services and community medical provision are already over-stretched and are unable to provide the support that would make "community care" a reality; there are insufficient resources being put into sheltered housing, group homes and day centres. The result is that the reality of "community care" for many people is a lonely, near-destitute existence in a depressing hostel; or homelessness or. for some, relapse into illness and a return to hospital.

Health service managers are being offered bribes to close hospitals, not because they are no longer needed but because meeting the needs of those who make up waiting list statistics is too expensive. Neither are hospitals being closed because "community care" is a more humane alternative. They are being closed because it is a cheaper alternative.

Policing pupils

Over the last few months the government has done its best to try to divert attention away from uncomfortable, but real, issues such as the continuing suffering caused by apartheid in South Africa, the failure of economic policies to stem the rise in unemployment, questions being asked about the nuclear power industry after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and so on. Instead we have had our attention focused on a series of pseudo-issues which can be "solved" easily. Litter in the streets: solution — call in capitalist entrepreneur Richard Branson to start a "Clean-Up Britain" campaign. Hippy peace convoys in the New Forest: mobilise an army of police at five in the morning to break up and disperse the camp. Sexual promiscuity among the young: introduce an amendment to the Education Bill to require teachers to stress moral values and family life in sex education classes.

This amendment to the Education Bill attracted considerable media attention and yet at the same time another two amendments were being tacked on to the Bill which, although they attracted less comment, are perhaps more insidious. They will require school governors to pay attention to the view of Chief Officers of the police when making decisions about school curricula and head teachers to take account of Chief Officers' views when organising lessons.

Are the police going to use their newly-acquired influence to ensure that children are taught about road safety, or the necessity of having lights on their bicycles, or what to do if they witness an accident7 So far the evidence suggests that this is not what the police have in mind. The 1983 report from the schools inspectors suggested that the value (to the police) of closer liaison between the police and schools would be that of "intelligence-gathering":

Police forces generally attach considerable importance to the advantages to be gained through unofficial contact with schools. Home-beat officers “drop in" at school during break for a chat with pupils or teachers . . . Most schools welcome and encourage this informal contact and may ask home-beat officers or juvenile bureau officers to have an unofficial "word" with pupils, or their parents, about whom they feel anxious in relation to criminal activity.

Of course there's an official term for this informal, unofficial contact between police and schools — "multi-agency policing". In practice this means that as many different people as possible are co-opted to do the dirty work of the police and inform on their neighbours and fellow workers through neighbourhood watch schemes and the involvement of social workers. Now it seems that the police, having got their foot in the door of school, are going to be allowed some input into the curriculum too.

Most teachers who attempt to talk about the morality of family life in sex education lessons will simply be laughed down by sophisticated teenagers who have their own moral code. But it's much harder to laugh down a police officer who enters the classroom to glean information through chats with pupils or teachers, or a Chief Constable who insists on his right to vet the curriculum.

Blogger's Note:

Though this Running Commentary column is unsigned, there's a strong chance it was written by Janie Percy-Smith. During this period, she was on the Standard editorial committee and was one of the journal's most prolific writers, and the 'Clerics' confusion' piece indicates that the author is female.

It's a rich man's world . . .

 From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

This cartoon was originally part of the Malcolm Prangell article but I believe it merits its own post.

Social reality and social revolution (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whenever workers endeavour to gain a few extra crumbs from the cake they themselves bake the capitalist class and its apologists remind them of the need to be realistic. By which they do not mean that workers should acquaint themselves with Marxian economics and the workings of the class struggle but rather that the employee class should accept less today in exchange for a promise of a share in Utopia tomorrow. In the meantime the working class have to endure the deprivation of their inferior social position, while the capitalist class can continue to enjoy their parasitic privileges derived from profit, interest and rent.

The only problem with the capitalist Utopia of tomorrow is that the closer it gets, the more it resembles the capitalist nightmare of the present. Just like the Christian fairy stories of life after death for those who accept hell on earth, so the economic gurus and assorted media hacks try to convince us that their masters’ fantasies have some basis in reality; prosperity is round the corner. Just be patient. King Capital has only reigned for three centuries. All we have to do is wait a little longer and as if by magic, all social evils will vanish. Magic is the appropriate word; it is probably the greatest con-trick in history.

Capitalism is not the only social system through which human evolution has passed. Before private property relationships evolved the hunter-gatherer groups practised a form of primitive communism. Society was organised on this basis for about 40.000 years. As people discovered new ways of living such as farming in settled communities so the communistic social relationships became a fetter to further development. Economic necessity produced the change to private ownership initially taking the form of chattel slavery, then feudalism and finally capitalism. Capitalism has not always been with us and there is no reason to assume it will be. Human society is constantly changing — at times slowly but at others open revolution occurs, as in the capitalist revolutions of 1789 in France and of 1917 in Russia.

But why do societies undergo changes? The realists might explain change by reference to the supernatural (God's will) or the superhuman (the Great Man theory). Socialists look at history in terms of cause and effect. In order to survive men and women must produce and distribute the necessities of life; food, clothing, shelter and so on. Consequently the most important aspect of social organisation is concerned with the ways in which the production and distribution of wealth is arranged.

As Marx wrote in The German Ideology:

We set out from real, active men. and on the basis of their real-life process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily. sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality. religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence They have no history, no development; but men. developing their material production and material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness. but consciousness by life.

In other words history is concerned with the development of material production and its effects on other aspects of human society. As the methods of production change they come into conflict with the existing social relationships — a contradiction that can only be resolved by revolution.

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious. artistic or philosophic in short ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. 

(Karl Marx: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Lawrence & Wishart. pp.20-21.)

The key to understanding any social system is that the economic foundation of society is the basis on which the intellectual superstructure is built; changes in the former lead inevitably to changes in the latter. This does not deny the influence of ideas on history. but analyses the source of these ideas.

Capitalism is a social system based on the private or state ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth. The riches of society are monopolised by a parasitical minority; the capitalist class. In contrast the majority working class who produce all the wealth of society have no stake in capitalism. As the means of life are owned by the capitalists, the working class must sell theirmental and physical energies to the capitalists in exchange for a wage or salary. In return the capitalists employ the labour of the wealth producing class in the process of producing and distributing goods and services in the form of commodities. They do this not out of any philanthropic concern for the workers, but with the intention of selling the products on the market at a profit.

Surplus-value does not originate from any special or superior qualities on the part of the capitalists; since labour is the only source of wealth (other than nature) then it follows that it must be the source of the proportion of that wealth which is appropriated by the capitalist class as surplus-value. This is only possible because workers are capable of producing new values in the production process in excess of what is required for the reproduction of their ability to work. Like all other commodities the price that this ability to work (labour-power) can command in the market is determined by what is needed to produce and reproduce it. which means workers are paid as much as they need to go on living.

A class struggle is an inevitable result of the division between those who produce but do not own and those who own and do not produce. Each class tries to increase its share of the socially produced wealth at the expense of the other. The class conflict is institutionalised with the use of trade unions on one side and employers' federations such as the CBI on the other. Generally workers are more successful in periods of boom when the employers seek to avoid interruptions in production. Conversely, during trade depressions workers have to accept less or face the dole, as competition for employment tends to reduce wages and salaries. Necessary though this struggle is. it can never change the inherent nature of capitalism. The ruling class remains and through the state it controls the police, the armed forces and the judiciary; all of which can be deployed in the class struggle.

Production under capitalism is anarchic, as the profit requirement must be placed before the needs of the majority. Capitalism does not exist to serve human need; if the state of the market dictates that goods cannot be sold at a profit production is curtailed, workers sacked and stocks destroyed. That is why tens of millions of human beings starve to death every year, while farmers are subsidised not to produce food and food is accumulated in storage mountains. Alongside over-production for the market there is under-production for human need.

This basic contradiction has remained despite reformist attempts to eradicate working class social problems. They have failed as they address effects rather than the cause: commodity production. Capitalist parties of left, right and centre all claim they can control capitalism; history proves otherwise. Numerous governments have introduced legislation to solve problems such as inadequate housing, unemployment, pollution and racism. Yet all these problems stubbornly remain. Over the last one hundred years politicians, whether sincere or opportunist, have promised us the world; they have delivered today's horror story.

Socialists are not cynics, sneering at the efforts of reformists and offering no solutions of our own. Unlike the reformists, the SPGB and its companion parties abroad do not make promises of Utopia. Indeed we make no promises at all. The social relationships of capitalism must be replaced with those of socialism. Private and state ownership will give way to common ownership and democratic control of the world's resources. Access to wealth will be on the basis of self-determined need and individuals will contribute to society according to their ability. Commodity production with its absurd mechanisms of buying and selling will be confined to the history books.

Socialism will not create itself, nor can it be established by a vanguard. The inhabitants of a society of democratic participation will necessarily have reached a level of consciousness capable of administering it. Socialism presupposes socialist consciousness on the part of the majority, before the revolution. The socialist majority will be able to use bourgeois parliaments and congresses to capture political power and convert the private property relationships into those of common ownership and thereby abolish the state. The great task which confronts the working class is to organise consciously, politically, and democratically throughout the globe so that a speedy end may be wrought to the system which denies us access to the full benefits of modern technology and of the world s resources.

Malcolm Prangell

What price energy? (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The main problem facing humanity when it comes to satisfying its needs is not so much resources — either mineral resources or food resources — as energy. Resources are virtually infinite, the problem is to find the energy to get at them. For most of human existence on the planet Earth the main source of energy for production was the energy of human beings and domestic animals, supplemented by various mechanical devices and by limited amounts of wind and water power. Then, beginning in the 18th century, came the widespread use of steam power (based on burning wood and later coal to heat the water) and. at the beginning of the 20th century. the internal combustion engine (based on burning another fossil fuel. oil).

What will probably turn out to have been the greatest technological advance made by humans since the introduction of agriculture was the discovery of how to generate and use electricity in the second half of the 19th century. Electricity is a form of energy that can be generated by mechanical means (by turbines) and then later transformed back again into mechanical energy to be applied to production when and where required. It can be generated on a large scale (in power stations) or on a small scale (as by windmills and waterfalls) and so can be adapted to various different ways and combinations of ways of living.

Most of the electricity used in the world today is generated by huge steam-powered turbines in which the steam is still, overwhelmingly. raised by burning fossil fuels but also, increasingly, by the heat given off when atoms of uranium and now plutonium are split (nuclear fission). Electricity generated by using turbines turned by water, wind or tidal power is still relatively marginal. From an ideal point of view, burning fossil fuels is an irrational way of using these natural resources since this wastes a large part of their potential as useless and harmful gases.

Nuclear fission, too. is not the long-term solution to humanity’s energy problem since it has been well described as "the dirtiest and most unpleasant method of releasing energy that man has ever discovered". It merits this description because, besides heat, the process of splitting the atom releases lethal radioactivity which can escape into the atmosphere (as at Chernobyl) and which, in any case, remains in the waste products. Nuclear fission reactors should be quickly phased out.if not stopped completely, in any rationally-organised human society, rather than being extended to meet the problem in the supply of fossil fuels. Certainly there can be no humane justification for embarking on the mad idea of building more and more "breeder" reactors (so called because they produce radioactive plutonium which can be re-used as a nuclear fuel).

So what, in a rational world of common ownership and production solely for use, could be the solution to the energy problem? In the light of present-day scientific knowledge. there are two main candidates for the not-too-distant future: solar power and nuclear fusion. Solar energy, in its natural form of heat and light, is the product of nuclear fusion, the sun being a sort of fusion reactor in which atoms of hydrogen are continually being fused into becoming helium, a process which generates huge amounts of heat and light energy. The sun is in fact the source of the energy that sustains all life on Earth (its rays being converted, in the first instance, by plants into chemical energy which serves as food for animals including humans); solar energy is thus nature’s source of energy. It is also the indirect source of some of the other forms of natural energy that humans have been able to harness such as wind and water power. If humans could find a way of harnessing solar energy, then our energy problem would be solved.

Solar batteries, which directly convert the sun’s light rays into electrical energy, already exist and are used in satellites and space vehicles. But an efficient method of doing this at Earth ground-level — where the sun’s rays are much less powerful — has yet to be devised, as the experimental batteries being developed use up more energy than they create. Further research into this is still necessary but a world socialist society would be able to direct resources, such as those that will be released by abandoning all military research, towards it. Another possibility would be to launch a satellite that would function as a power station, converting the sun’s light rays into energy and beaming this down to Earth. But once again until more research has been done, more energy would be needed to get such a power station into orbit than it would initially produce.

At the moment the only practical way of using solar energy, apart from small scale uses in particularly sunny parts of the world, is to use the heat from the sun to raise steam to drive electricity-generating turbines. Such power stations using mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays could be situated in sunny, desert areas and linked to a grid that would allow the electricity to be transported to whatever part of the world it was needed. Since, however, considerable amounts of electricity are lost in transport, such a change-over from fossil fuel and nuclear fission power stations to solar power stations. to be most effective, would demand a corresponding re-allocation of industry to the sunnier parts of the world.

In view of the geo-political considerations involved under capitalism in such a re-allocation of industry — and so also of economic and political power — a change to solar power on a massive scale is unlikely to occur while capitalism lasts. If capitalism is allowed to continue, it is much more likely that the states where industry is currently concentrated will choose to develop nuclear fission power stations, including breeder reactors, in these areas as a way of maintaining their economic and political power. This is one example of how capitalism prevents a rational solution to humanity’s energy problem and a reason why anti-nuclear protestors. justified as their protests are. are unlikely to succeed as long as capitalism lasts.

Nuclear fusion has nothing in common with nuclear fission beyond the fact that both are examples of nuclear engineering. Nuclear fusion is. as its name suggests, a process whereby atoms of the lightest chemical elements are fused together (as in the sun) as opposed to fission when atoms of the heaviest elements are split. Both processes release energy in the form of heat but fission also leaves a radioactive waste material, some of it extremely dangerous, fusion does not. and so to this extent is a clean source of energy.

It is true that, as the equipment used to contain the fusion process will become radioactive, fusion power will not be entirely clean, though the levels of radioactivity involved would be nowhere near those caused by the process of nuclear fission. It is also true that the technically-easiest process, now in the experimental stage, does involve the production of a radioactive gas. but other possible fusion processes could avoid this. If the technical problems involved in these latter can be solved, humanity will have at its disposal a relatively clean and virtually unlimited source of energy since the raw material — an isotope of hydrogen, deuterium — exists in abundance in the sea. to the extent of 1 gramme in every 30 litres.

Since neither solar batteries nor fusion power yet exist in a form that can be applied to production, it is clear that if socialism is established in the near future it is going to have to rely on existing ways of generating electricity, essentially burning oil and coal even if. ideally, this is not the best way of using these resources. Since socialist society will need all the energy it can muster to clean up the initial problem of world poverty and hunger it will inherit from capitalism, on present day knowledge it may well not be able to afford not to use any nuclear fission reactors in existence at the time, dirty and dangerous though they are — though, freed from the profit and cost considerations of capitalism they could be and would be made less dangerous than they are now. It will be a question of deciding to use them temporarily to help eliminate the more pressing evil of deaths from world hunger, disease and poverty. But the aim will have to be to take such reactors out of service as soon as these immediate problems have been cleared up. Nuclear fission reactors have no long-term or even a medium-term future in socialism.

As to whether the substitute that will sooner or later be necessary for power stations based on burning coal or oil will be solar power or nuclear fusion, only future socialist society can decide but since certain forms of power can be applied straight away this would seem to be the obvious choice at the moment.

Adam Buick

Nuclear power — making it clear (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been drawn to our attention that the statement in the June Socialist Standard that "nuclear power could be safe” needs qualifying.

Nuclear fission (splitting the atom) which is the process used in all existing nuclear power stations can never be made safe, not even in socialism, since this is a question of physics not economics It can only be made less dangerous.

What we had in mind was the possibility of being able, within a generation, to construct power stations based on the principle of nuclear fusion. This is a quite different nuclear process in which there would be no danger of a melt-down, nor of any accidental release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. nor any radioactive waste products, the only problem in this respect would be that the equipment used to contain the process would acquire a relatively short-lived radioactivity

Editors.

The teaching business (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

You may have seen adverts for those very exclusive sounding little "tutorial colleges", private cramming colleges, places which seek to guarantee urgently needed A-level or O-level results in a hurry, in return for a suitable fee. All very discreet and polite, very popular perhaps with young students whose parents have got a few quid to spare and who forgot, during their two years of working for A-levels, that that was what they were doing. No Arthur Daleys here, you might think. This is the world of education, and the people who run these colleges must be fine pillars of the educational establishment, devoted to enhancing the cultural tone of life in the 'eighties and getting those diligent pupils through such very noble examinations.

Well, don't you believe it. Having just been employed by a private tutorial college for the past year. 1 can assure you that such colleges measure their so-called educational achievements in pounds and pence from start to finish. Let us start by looking at the glossy prospectus which publicises the college. We are dealing here with a business, a company, an enterprise. The fact that it is supposed to be a question of learning means nothing. Education, like every other human activity, has to be debased by capitalism into a crude transaction, an exchange fraught with fraudulence. The prospectus is distributed mainly in Hong Kong, parts of Africa and the Middle East, as British universities are popular with students from those areas, and to be eligible to take A-levels in local authority colleges you need to have lived in Britain for some time. The prospectus displays an attractive photograph of the London University Senate Building (which, incidentally, was taken over by the government during the second world war for use by the BBC misinformation service. George Orwell worked there and used it as the model for the Ministry of Truth building which he describes in 1984). In very small print it is stated that the college which the prospectus is advertising is round the corner from this imposing building.

Union organisation among the teachers in these colleges is (so far) virtually unheard of. although facilities and conditions for the teaching staff are in many ways particularly poor. The teachers' unions negotiate nationally with the association uniting local authority employers, whose agreements are not binding on this private sector. Pay is strictly by the hour. There is no pay at all during any holidays, bank holidays, absence (even through illness) and so on. Students pay approximately £600 for every O-level they are taking, and £800 for every A-level. Courses in English as a Foreign Language often cost well over £1.000. The college I have been working for has over 300 students registered. I had the opportunity on one occasion to see a note in which the owner has been totting up the accumulated income from these students, which ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Towards the end of the year, some students were complaining that they had not been warned against being over-ambitious in taking on too many subjects at A-level at the start. Standards of teaching are not properly monitored, with teachers being pressurised into teaching subjects which they may not be properly qualified for, rather than turn away potential fee-payers for a possible course. Some teachers, anxious to save some money for the holiday periods when their pay will abruptly cease, take on so many hours of teaching that they cannot possibly hope to prepare all their lessons properly. All of this, combined with the fact that a majority of students have been thrust too rapidly into writing exam papers in English even though it is not their first language, leads to a very poor level of results in many cases. The owner confided to me in an oddly candid moment that an appalling set of results has become the annual expectation. This situation is tolerated as long as it does not form into such a widespread bad reputation that there are no further queues of candidates.

Finally, the payment of teachers is carried out with a penny-pinching obsession which defies comprehension. I have personally kept (and framed) pay-slips which include deductions for "lateness" measured minute by minute, penny by penny. "Teaching" is regarded as a mechanical process, and if a moment passes when that process is not "happening" then the teacher must not be paid for that moment. The terms of the contract of employment are quite draconian: "a teacher who fails to attend any class . . . is liable to instant dismissal. Breach of College Regulations renders the teacher liable to instant dismissal" and so on.

No doubt Kenneth Baker would find all this very inspiring. After all. even the state education system is dominated by commercial considerations, ranging from the poor provision of facilities, understaffing and the present conflict over pay, to the underlying aim of turning out model wage-slaves (who should be expertly adaptable to the art of dealing with the DHSS for long periods). In either case, it is safe to assume that real education. the free process of social learning, has hardly begun.

Clifford Slapper

The Trouble in Berlin (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

It stands to reason that when rival Powers are forced to unite by fear of a common enemy the one thing that cannot fail to bring their loving association to an abrupt end is the destruction of their enemy. Ostensibly the four Allied Powers agreed together to occupy the four Zones of Germany in order “to keep the Germans down” ; but only the very simple believed it would last. The destruction of German might in 1945 was bound to have the same kind of sequel as it had in 1918. Then it was France and Britain that were soon at daggers drawn, this time, with Germany crushed, it is Russia and the Western Powers that fear each other and are trying to win support for their respective policies among the Germans themselves. All the occupying Powers were in an awkward position when it came to making advances to the Germans. They had to explain by what right they remained in occupation of Germany after the end of the fighting. To each other they kept up for a time the fiction that they were united allies who were in Germany because each wanted the other to be there just out of comradely feeling and under amicably negotiated agreements.

As their quarrels became more open and heated this ceased to be of any use, especially as both sides accused the other of having broken the agreements. The other and only real “right” to be there was the “right of conquest,” since not even the most brazen politician could argue that they were there by invitation of the population. But when allies get to the stage of arguing about the right of might danger is in the air. When each side accused the other of wanting to split Germany both were evading the issue. Each wanted a united Germany provided the government would be subservient: neither wanted a united Germany which would back the other side. Russia had an advantage because its zone encircled Berlin, the traditional capital, but it still remained to squeeze America, Britain and France out of their sectors of Berlin itself. The latter governments stood on their right to be there by agreement, to which the Daily Worker (10/7/48), retorted with the answer that the Russians got to Berlin first and “invited” the other Powers, to join them because they then supposed that “the British, Americans and French were at one with the Russians in sincerely desiring the united control of Germany.” The major reason given by the Worker is, however, that “the Russians took Berlin with tremendous loss and sacrifice by their own forces. . . .”—in other words the “right of conquest.” The inevitable answer to the argument that one Power holds something by right of force is for some other Power to threaten to use more force to change the “right.” And that was the position in July when all sorts of vague threats of never yielding were being bandied about by both sides. The Observer’s Washington correspondent summed it up as follows: “There is every reason to believe that the American Government, and indeed all three Western occupying Powers, have accepted the risk of war which is inherent in the Berlin note to Russia.” (Observer, 11 7 48).

This Correspondent quoted a diplomatic informant who brightly remarked : “We have put our boat in at the head of the rapids and will just have to see how it turns out.” So the preliminary manoeuvring for the third world war goes on over the, at present, prostrate body of Germany. What the future will bring when some day the boat does “shoot the rapids” everyone can imagine.

In the meantime the palm for stupidity surely goes to the Labour Government’s Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, who as an ex-teacher must have learned nothing from history and as an ex-soldier must have learned nothing from war. and could actually talk in our age of war “for honour.” Speaking at a British Legion meeting in South Shields he said : “There is one price we are not prepared to pay for peace. That is the loss of our honour.” (Daily Telegraph, 12/7/48).

The joint military occupation of Germany was hound to fail because in a capitalist world the formerly allied capitalisms have real things to fight about among themselves.—the capture of markets and control of regions of economic and strategic importance. If the workers of the world were alive to their common interest in the struggle against Capitalism and for Socialism they would have opposed from the start any attempt to impose a settlement by armies of occupation. The German workers, like the workers of Russia and the West, have to learn to achieve their own emancipation for themselves: and behind the problem of destroying militarism, which is but one of the effects of capitalism, is the fundamental problem of destroying capitalism itself, a task for the working class of all lands.

Edgar Hardcastle

Behind the gathering war clouds (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the course of the last fifty years there have been two major wars and many smaller ones. The second major war, that which ended in 1945, involved the greater part of the world’s population in its devastation and misery. It left behind it sufferings and hatreds, problems and disorders, that still paralyse efforts at amelioration. But war on a still vaster scale is already on the horizon ; war will always be either with us or on the horizon while Capitalism lasts, because modern wars are caused by the clash of interests inseparable from Capitalism and stemming from its root, the control and disposal of the surplus wealth wrung from the workers in all lands.

War is only possible because the workers of the world have not yet understood the identity of their interests as workers in opposition to the interests of their masters, regardless of colour, race or creed. Whilst this condition remains, workers of different nations can be inveigled into shedding their blood for alleged objectives that, even if accomplished, leave them still an enslaved and exploited class; beasts of burden, crushed down by the weight of modern industry. In days gone by many subterfuges have been used to entice workers into the support of war; such are the alleged defence of democracy and of the right of small nations to self-determination, resisting the alleged aggression of other nations, safeguarding essential sources of food supply, and so on. Yet when war has ended in the victory of the groups that put forward these seductive objects not only have the workers experienced no amelioration in their conditions of exploitation but again they are called to war for the very same objects, though in the meantime some of the enemies have become allies, some of the allies have become enemies, and the exploiting system has gained a firmer strangle-hold upon the world at large. And so it goes on and always will go on while the workers are deprived of the ownership of the means of production, and Capitalism, with its economic rivalries, its brutalities and its oppressions, continues to darken the world we live in.

The economic rivalries, produced by Capitalism, which lead to wars, are complex and changing, like the shifting dominance of different capitalist sections; at one time it is the demand of the cotton section for raw materials and the power to force their goods into reluctant markets, at another time it is the steel section whose interests have to be served, or the shipping section that demands protection against competitors, or the financial section that demands protection for its investments abroad, and at yet another time the demands of the oil section of the capitalist class are the ruling factor. The demands of all these sections are always operating, but at a given moment one of them becomes so insistent, that it tips the scale in favour of war. These are the real factors that, individually or in combination, produce modern wars, but they are not the professed ones; over these factors is drawn a curtain of high-flown and empty ideals. Therefore in order to understand the immediate influences, behind an impending war it is necessary to examine the shape of these economic rivalries and to see which are most pregnant with armed conflict.

Two fundamental events of recent years have an important influence on the war situation ; one is the emergence of Russia as a first class imperialist power, and the other is the intrusion of America into Europe, the Middle East and beyond. Russia has undergone a hothouse development in the past thirty years, but it still lags behind economically. It is attempting to make up for this lag by spreading wider and wider over border states and absorbing their economic resources as well as, at the same time, cutting off markets and sources of raw materials that were formerly open to the West. America, the state upon which others outside Russian influence have been compelled to lean more and more heavily, must find markets for its superabundant production and raw materials to supplement its own now inadequate supplies. Russia stands more and more firmly as a barrier across its path. The breaking up of the British Empire, the downfall of Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan, and the disintegration of French economy by the war, reduces these powers to the position of poor relations leaning upon America or Russia according to which of the two appears to offer the best hope of wealth and security to their respective capitalists.

In furthering their economic ends the leading states have two objectives that are complementary. One consists of those actions, economic, political and diplomatic, which enable them to enlarge the market for their, goods and secure sources of supply; the other consists of those actions which are intended to enable them to resist armed attack, or force submission, by building up the most murderous forms of armament within the present range of human ingenuity. The building up of armaments in turn breeds fresh economic struggles in the effort to accumulate the material that forms the basis of armament. The development of the atomic bomb is an example of this and is expressed in the search for, and the conservation of, the materials essential for atomic bomb production. Thus there is an intermingling of economic motives in the pursuit of economic and military dominance, because the means to carry on modem warfare are rooted in the quantity, diversity and development of the resources for building up methods of destruction. Along with this is the tragic circumstance that whether production is adjusted for peaceful or for warlike purposes, sections of the international capitalist class accumulate wealth out of the labour extracted from the working class, and they do so without even coming within the familiar category of ”war profiteers.”

We have briefly related the general economic circumstances bound up with the breaking out of warfare and which apply with equal force to the conflagration which is already casting its shadow before. What particular set of interests will finally precipitate the armed struggle it is too early yet to say with any degree of certainty, although those concerned with oil are, at the moment, the most prominent. To all the first class powers oil is essential both for peace and war purposes. Motorisation for road and air tranport alone requires enormous quantities of oil, quantities greater than any of the leading states have so far found within their own frontiers. Hence the international preoccupation, with the Middle East and its future which has partly obscured the success of Russian penetration in Burma. The struggle over oil has brought America permanently into the maelstrom of political ferment in Europe and the Middle East as the big stick with which to curb Russia’s imperial penetration. In co-operation with the European States America is the potent influence in the attempt to build a wall (which keeps crumbling in places) of resistance around Russia; a wall whose ramparts they hope may penetrate the iron curtain.

Since the last war Russian expansion has continued to creep along successfully, largely because their methods, like Hitler’s, have included the open use of brutal and naked force. They have also been considerably helped by the successful appeal their propaganda makes to large groups in the areas they have more or less tightly annexed to the new Russian Empire. It is this propaganda, false though much of it is, that inspires alarm in the rulers of the Western states. Like the French Revolution it has built up large bodies of admirers in the camp of the enemy. In a wild attempt to eliminate the. results of this propaganda, stupid attacks are being made upon the holding of political opinions antagonistic to the ruling powers. Capitalism in the West has produced so much misery for the mass of the people that its supporters can no longer find convincing arguments in favour of its continuance. It is for this reason that many disillusioned workers give willing ear to the false promises that come from the East shutting their eyes to the manifest evils of Russian domination. It is like the old internal business, of voting first one capitalist party into power and then, disgusted wilh the result, voting the other capitalist party into power, and so on backward and forward.

The extent of Russian penetration, and the, seriousness of its threat to the economic interests of Western capitalists, can only be properly appreciated if the enormous area covered by it is realised. This area, starting in Finland, sweeps round through Germany, Czecho-slovakia, Hungary, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia, and includes Italy, Greece, Burma, and other states. Farther East it is a matter of speculation what may be in process of preparation on the Siberian side of the Bering Strait opposite Alaska.

In Europe a desperate attempt is being made to create, a West European-British bloc that will be large enough to provide an internal market for mass production industry and some military backbone that might induce the weaker states to refrain from entering the Russian maw. In the East, China is being left to resist the invader as it can, and Japan is an uneasy protege of distant sea-powers.

Russia is admirably situated for military operations on land that would be difficult to resist by powers that must depend largely upon transportation by sea and air; it covers so vast an area, and its main centres are so far apart, that it is problematical whether even atomic warfare at its present level would be able to deliver a crushing blow, though it would cause an enormous amount of devastation. It is probably this last fact that is mainly behind Russian readiness to strain diplomatic pressure to the limit but not beyond. Russia’s over-riding problem at present is economic backwardness which will require some years to overcome, even with the assistance of the areas over which it is gaining control. In the meantime the Russian Government is trying to accomplish its ends by diplomatic bludgeoning without going far enough to precipitate conflict.

Thus the struggle goes on with increased tension, for oil, uranium, rubber, and other essential products that are widely distributed. The game of penetration, resistance and counter penetration, however, is fast reaching the point when, however disinclined either group may be to take the risk, war will be the final arbiter between their respective claims to dominate the world, unless the workers take their long overdue hand in the game and decide that what their own hands and brains are responsible for producing should he the equal and common heritage of all mankind; that the world, free from the ominous shadow of war, wherein all the inhabitants can enjoy comfort and security is worth the thought and effort required to achieve it.

All the present signs point to the next war involving America and Russia as the principal antagonists, with Britain the leading ally of America and the attitude of the lesser states doubtful. Economic development and political changes, however, are always liable to affect the line up in the course of time, though these changes only accelerate the forces driving society in armed conflicts under Capitalism. It may be that Germany, the “villain” of the last two great wars, will become the darling child of the Western allies in the next. If this happens then all the fanciful tales about the innate barbarism of Germans, with which we have been fed for years, will suffer a temporary burial.

Whether the groups who form the privileged class of the world play their parts under Democratic Governments, Labour Governments. Communist Dictatorships, or any other titles, they are equally tied to a system of commodity production that contains the seeds of war and hence are opposed to the freedom of the workers from exploitation.

War has never solved, and can never solve, any working class problem; it only helps to make the workers’ position worse in the long run. It brutalises all those concerned in it, cheapening the feeling for human life and all that makes life worth while. Only the continued existence of Capitalism drives society to warfare. The abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism will remove the causes of war, and is the only way to remove them. Our fellow workers in this and other lands must, therefore, turn a deaf ear to those who, from the East or the West, are striving to get their support for policies that can only lead to the shambles. We urge them to recognise their fundamental identity of interest as the wealth producers of the world ; join together for the purpose of abolishing capitalist domination in all its forms and, by establishing Socialism, make the earth and its products the common inheritance of all. Only then will it be possible to put into operation the socialist principle that will ensure the comfort, security and happiness of the whole of human kind – ”From each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs.”

Gilmac.

Editorial: The Dock Strike and the Emergency Powers Act (1948)

Editorial from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the unofficial strike of London dockers had lasted several weeks and sympathetic strikes were taking place at other docks the Labour Government on 28th June declared a state of emergency under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. The Daily Herald the next day reported this as follows:

“Armed with full powers under the State of Emergency plroclamation signed by the King, the Cabinet last night prepared regulations to meet any possible crisis arising from the dock strikes.”

“The government, with its emergency powers, will, if necessary, requisition accommodation in and near the London docks for troops and other labour, and seize warehouses for storage. It is also expected to take powers for the control of all arrangements at ports, including the turn-round of ships, and for dealing with acts of sabotage or attempts to dissuade troops from carrying out their duties.” (Daily Herald, 29/6/48).

The Prime Minister swiftly followed up the proclamation with a broadcast appeal to the men on strike and the next day the strike was called off. Whether the strikers were more influenced by the appeal, or by the threat, is a matter of opinion, but there is no doubt what would have been the outcome had the strike continued. The prestige and continuance in office of the Labour Government were at stake and it would have been a fight to a finish.

Labour M.Ps. and supporters saw in the incident a personal triumph for the Prime Minister’s eloquence and sincerity. The Opposition had a double target to attack. They abused the Ministers, for dilatoriness and lack of courage, especially Mr. Isaacs. Minister of Labour, who, they gleefully pointed out, had not only flown off to America to attend an I.L.O. Conference but had actually done so in an American plane. They also laid the blame at the doors of the mammoth Transport and General Workers Union, which, they said, must be badly managed and quite incapable of serving its members properly since the latter repeatedly show their discontent by ignoring the Union and striking against its advice. Others saw in the whole affair a Moscow-inspired Communist plot to upset the Labour Government and sow dissension between workers and their anti-Communist officials.

Mr. Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, indignantly defended himself and his Executive against all the charges levelled at the Union. Writing in the Record (July) he made what is on paper a good case. Its fatal fault is that it is too good since it claims to demonstrate that the men had nothing to strike about. Thousands of men do not stop work, remain out for weeks on end without strike pay, bitterly denounce their officials and shout down speeches urging a return to work if, as Mr. Deakin writes, “there was no reason for the strike to start.” Mr. Deakin’s account is as follows : The dispute arose about the piece-work rate for unloading zinc oxide and on several occasions the men refused to complete the job. For this breach of discipline they were punished with suspension for one week and disentitlement to attendance money (i.e. their minimum guaranteed pay) for 13 weeks. They appealed but came out on strike before the appeal was heard. Subsequently after an appeal tribunal had failed to agree a new tribunal was set up under an independent chairman and reduced the disentitlement to two weeks. Mr. Deakin makes much of the fact that the bodies which imposed the penalty and heard the appeal are joint bodies on which the Union is represented, and also of the point that because the strike was a breach of agreements entered into by the Union “it had no alternative but to honour its obligations and order a return to work.” He maintains that the agreements had been “at every stage approved by constitutionally elected lay committees of rank and file members” and concludes therefore that “there was no reason for the strike to start, and every reason why work should have been resumed immediately the appeal tribunal gave its decision.”

To all of this, as has already been indicated, the existence of bitter discontent in the minds of the men is a complete answer. They belong to and pay into the Union in order to be protected in disputes with the employer. They are entitled to get it even though their officials may think and tell them that the action they propose to take is unreasonable, unwise and unnecessary. They are, after all, likely to he the best judges of where the shoe pinches.

There is another and equally vital aspect of the dispute. The Labour Party does not believe that strikes are an inevitable outcome of the class-struggle which underlies the capitalist system. They have told us so often how a Labour Government would avoid strikes; by a policy of high wages and low prices, by arbitration and conciliation, by nationalisation which would “eliminate the profit motive,” by a wise and humane administration of industry including trade union representation on disciplinary bodies. These and other things were offered as an alternative to the Socialist remedy of abolishing capitalism and with it the wages system. Yet what happens in practice? Not high wages but “wage-freezing,” not lower prices but rising prices. Not the cessation of strikes, but over 600,000 workers involved in strikes (mostly unofficial) in 1947. Not industrial harmony but the invoking of the much-hated Emergency Powers Act. This is an Act that was passed under Lloyd George’s Tory-Liberal Coalition Government, in 1920. It was opposed at the time by the Trade Unions and the Labour Party. At the 1921 Labour Party Conference a resolution demading its repeal was carried. (It was moved by a delegate of the Dock Workers’ Union.) The Act was used by the Baldwin Tory Government against the General Strike in 1926. At the T.U.C. that year a resolution of condemnation was carried which held that at no time during the General Strike was it necessary to apply the Act.

Yet this is the Act invoked by a Labour Government in a relatively small dispute.

Of course they have their excuses ready: we live in critical times which necessitate wage-freezing; the people must be fed even if it means using troops and in effect smashing a strike; if you have capitalism and the wages system the Government cannot tolerate failure to keep agreements between workers and employers; and finally the Government administering capitalism must govern in such a way as to keep the system functioning. It is not worth while arguing about these various points. All they add up to is that the way to working class emancipation does not lie through Labour Government. No matter how much Labour Ministers may hope and strive through humane administration to “decapitalise” capitalism their actions are broadly determined by the necessities of that system. The road to crisis, class conflict and war is paved with the good intentions of Labour Governments.

Notes by the Way: What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders

Writing on the Dock strike Mr. Trevor Evans (Daily Express, 30/6/48) says that Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union “made the elementary mistake last Sunday morning of arriving at the gates of the dock where he was to address the strikers in a chauffeur-driven, impressive limousine.”

Mr. Evans thinks that the above is the kind of thing that has undermined Mr. Deakin’s influence with the members of the union. Doubtless he is right. On the same day, however, Mr. Alexander Werth, Manchester Guardian correspondent in Moscow, expressed the view that the differences of wealth between the poor and the privileged in Russia have no such effect. “There are,” he writes, ” no murmurs when a chief engineer or a general is given a three-room flat in a new block in Moscow.”

Mr. Werth may be right, hut perhaps it is merely that he didn’t hear the murmurs. As he explained (Manchester Guardian, 25/6/48) that ”many Russian town-dwellers still live in conditions of what we would consider intolerable squalor and overcrowding,” and that in Moscow u four or five to a room is not uncommon,” it seems much more likely that the privileges of the lucky few are resented even if it is not wise for the Russian worker to express his resentment aloud.

The Communists and Unofficial Strikes

Recently the Communists have been giving their support to “unofficial” strikes, as when the Dockers came out. It would be a mistake to think from this that the Communists have consistently done so. Until they decided to come out in opposition to the Labour Government, which they had supported at the General Election and for long afterwards, they opposed unofficial strikes and denounced the strikers as the following examples will show. On 26th November, 1945, Mr. Ian Mackay, Industrial Correspondent of the News Chronicle, quoted from a speech made by Mr. Harry Pollitt at the Annual Congress of the Communist Party held in London on 25th November. Mr. Pollitt said :

“I am going to face you with the direct issue. You are either in favour of the party line as set out in the report or the line that mass strikes are the only way to realise the workers’ ends. If you are in favour of strikes I warn you that you are playing with fire in a way that can help to lose the peace and reduce this country to ashes . . . You can get a coal strike in the coalfields tomorrow if you want it. But if you do will it advance the working-class movement of this country or the prospect of our nation remaining first rate in the family of the United Nations?” (News Chronicle, 26/11/45.)

While Mr. Pollitt was making his speech London gas workers were actually out on .strike.

As recently as September. 1947, when the Grimthorpe miners were out on strike the Daily Worker featured a speech by Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, under the bold heading: “Horner Says Grimethorpe Men Are Wrong.” (Daily Worker, 9/9/47.)

The Daily Worker commenced the report of Horner’s speech with the following summary : “The 140 Grimethorpe strikers were accused yesterday by Mr. Arthur Horner. the Miner’s secretary, of holding their 700,000 mining colleagues to ransom and threatening to destroy all the benefits of the five-day week.” Mr. Horner’s argument was that the Union bad given a pledge to the Coal Board and Government that the miners would produce as much coal with the 5-day week as they did before in 5½ days. If they did not produce the output lack of coal can “bring down the Labour Government.” Of the Yorkshire men he said:

“The attitude of the Yorkshire miners was also wrecking the whole policy of reforms which the Union was aiming at.”

These were hard words for a Union official to apply to his own members and they contrast strongly with his remarks to Lord Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, made at Whitley Bay during the Mineworkers’ Conference. To Lord Hyndley who was on the platform, Mr. Horner said : “By and large we can say you have done well and we will continue to help you to do very much better.” The Daily Herald (9/7/48) reporting this, says it was made “with a slight bow to Lord Hyndley.”

Labour Government and Profit Boom

Under the heading ”Has the Profit Boom Ended?” a City Correspondent of the Daily Herald (27/6/48) wrote that “there is substance in the belief that for some companies the industrial profit boom is at an end, and lower earnings during the next year or two may mean dividends cannot be maintained at the current level.”

The Labour Government holds that it is not only practicable but necessary to plan the running of the social system. They have plans for everything and claim to be able to mould the system to their will. How then did it come about that there has been a profit boom? It would seem either that the boom in profits was in accordance with the Labour Government’s plan, or that it happened because their planning did not work. In either event it leaves them with some explaining to do.

Full Employment, for how long?

The Central Wandsworth Labour Party (Mr. Bevin’s constituency) has published a leaflet urging electors to join the Labour Party if “interested in maintaining full employment and all the other advantages that the Labour Government have gained for you.”

It also tells us that “unemployment is less than it has been since the first count 50 years ago.”

The conclusion we are asked to accept is that so long as we have Labour Government unemployment will remain at the present comparatively low figure of 300,000. It is very doubtful whether Mr. Bevin and the other leaders still believe that they can prevent capitalism from producing its periodic industrial crises, but whether they still believe it or not we shall in due course see unemployment jumping up to the million or two million mark again when the increased production campaigns here and elsewhere have run their course.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan on Tory vermin

In a speech at Manchester Mr. Bevan, Minister of Health, let himself go about the Tory Party. “They are lower than vermin,” he said. (Daily Mail, 5/7/48). For them he had “a deep burning hatred in his heart.”

It was not always so however. In 1940 when the Labour Party decided to enter into coalition with the Tory Party under a Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Bevan said:

“The Government have been in office for two weeks and like my hon. Friend the member for Llanelly . . . I felicitate them upon the way in which they have set about their task.” (Hansard, 30th May, 1940.)

The Press naturally made much of Mr. Bevan’s abuse of the Tory Party but actually a more revealing passage in his speech was one that attracted no comment. He said that Churchill’s policy would mean ”cinemas, mansions, hotels and theatres going up, hut no houses for the poor.” (Daily Mail, 5/7/18.)

It is the last phrase that is significant. Mr. Bevan and the Labour Party charge the Tories with seeking to meet the needs of the rich. The Labour alternative is to try to help the poor by building comparatively low rented (and small) houses for them. It is only Socialists who seek the abolition of both rich and poor, of both the property-owning class and the propertyless working class.

Edgar Hardcastle

. . . . Begger Man, Thief (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a well known spokesman of the Tory section of the British Capitalist Class, G. L. Schwartz seems to write the most incredible nonsense, especially when he gets on the subject of economics in his article, “Rich Man, Poor Man.” (Sunday Times, May 30th, 1948.) He is twitting the Labour Government for their caution in lifting controls, and says

“A thing is in short supply unless it is in absolute abundance like fresh air in the open or salt water at the sea shore. There is, a simple test, Has it a price? If it has a price even of one farthing per unit, there is a shortage.”

So presumably he is telling us that the Capitalist class put a price on commodities only when there are not enough of them to satisfy everybody’s needs. We rather wonder why capitalists have been known to burn tons of wheat, and dump other unsaleable, commodities into the sea, not because these goods had no price, but simply because the price was not high enough for them to realise their profits. Since these goods had a price they must have been in short supply, according to Mr. Schwartz’s theory—and yet they were dumped! Mr. Schwartz mentions two things, which are absolutely free—fresh air and salt water; we have an uncomfortable feeling that if it were at all possible to commercialise them, these too would have their price—after all if a man’s potential energies can be given a price why not?

It is however rather comforting when one is feeling weak at the knees about the task of converting the world’s millions to Socialism, to find Mr. Schwartz putting over a point which the Socialist Party is always making. Supporters of the capitalist class are fond of telling us that Socialism won’t work, because human nature being what it is, certain greedy people would not be content with taking just what they need, but would proceed to grab as much as possible, and here is one of their own spokesmen making the point for us : He says,

“Gloves and ties are coming off the ration. They are still in ‘short’ supply for they still have price tags. Now let’s see if the rich buy up the whole lot, Here’s a chance for my Lord Croesus to fit glass cases in his bedroom, and collect ties by the thousands including first editions.”

True he is only making a point for the capitalists’ pet squabble at the moment about which controls to lift, but you see even capitalists (known to be the greediest specie) can only wear one tie, and one pair of gloves at a time. Mr. Schwartz also has a very queer idea about equality. He tells us a little story. About 50 years ago he used to get a penny a week pocket money, and the grocer’s son got tuppence. Well he so hated this inequality that he knocked all the boy’s sweets out of his hand into the gutter. He speaks of this as his “early essay in equalitarianism” of which apparently he is rather ashamed ; but he comforts himself by saying that he might have been in the present Cabinet if instead of sublimating his inhibition he had bottled it up until it was sour. Well this is not even the Labour government’s idea of equality. Their idea is not to knock the sweets right out of the hands of the owning class but merely to abstract a few (just a very few, mind) and pour them into the hands of the very poor. As far as we are concerned in a Socialist system someone will not come, along and say “Here’s two for you and two for you and two for you !” This is not equality—it is absurdity. Under Socialism each shall have according to his needs, be it one or two or three or more, and despite what Mr. Schwartz says about a perpetual shortage, there could he enough and to spare even now, and still more reason to suppose there will he under Socialism, when everybody capable of it is doing a useful job of work instead of a large proportion of them doing useless jobs like ticket collecting, rent collecting —and peddling false notions of economics in Sunday newspapers.

E.D.

SPGB Meetings (1948)

Party News from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• The SPGBer speaker for the debate with the IWW was Bill Waters. There was a report of the debate in the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard. It'd be interesting to know how big the IWW was in Britain in the late 1940s.
• I'm intrigued about the notice for the special meeting of Party members on the subject of "Socialism and Violence". I wonder what prompted the meeting? I cannot see any report of the meeting in later issues of the Standard from that period,
• I included details of the Dublin Socialist Group 'cos it gives me another excuse to post a link to the obituary for Mick Cullen from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard. Another stalwart from our tradition. Sounds like an incredible bloke.

The Development of Socialism in England. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

And the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

If you wish to fix the responsibility for the growth of the Socialist movement in England, you have only to go to the organs of the various parties claiming to stand for working-class interests, and your thirst for definite knowledge is immediately slaked. The policy of the Independent Labour Party, says the Labour Leader, has been and is the most potent factor in the development of the Socialist idea. The work of the Social-Democratic Federation made Socialism possible at all, says Justice. To the Clarion is the credit mainly due, says the modest, unassuming editor of the Clarion. If there is one organisation more than another that has made Socialism a live issue it is the Fabian Society, says Bernard Shaw, the “organ” of that pseudo-intellectual body; while a writer in the New Age, a “Socialist” paper standing for the interests of a couple of rather bumptious young “Shavers” (a term preferable to “Shavians” as descriptive of the admirers of the great and one and only G.B.S.), has discovered that “the Daily Mail in six months taught the English people more Socialism than all the Marxist and Reformist teachers had expounded in half a century.”

So once more you pay your penny and accept whichever assertion you prefer ; although if you are already a Socialist you will know that neither statement is true. The Socialist idea has developed through the increasing

PRESSURE OF ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCE

operating to the detriment of working-class well-being, and producing in the working-class mind a spirit of revolt to which the Socialist propagandist has made appeal with the irrefutable logic of his message.

These Socialist propagandists may have been in all the organisations mentioned or in none of them. But if they were in those organisations they have the satisfaction of knowing that the Socialist idea has not developed in England in anything like the degree it might have done if the organisations had not existed at all. Our bodies referred to will of course not agree with me—unless he is prepared to sit down and weigh the matter up calmly and dispassionately. Then he must see that the appeal of his advocacy of Socialism has been largely, and in many instances entirely, nullified by the association of himself with his organisation, and the association of his organisation with proposals that, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la, have nothing to do with the work of a Socialist party as such. These proposals—”palliatives” as they are called—offer no explanation of the economic hardship the worker is in revolt against; they would leave him, as a class, in exactly the same position as he was before, even if were, after much labour realised ; and if they are piled upon his attention in annual multiplication, until the Socialism which the Socialist propagandist set out with a high heart and in all honesty to preach as

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERED,

has receded to a position of comparative unimportance. Socialism has become a matter of no immediate moment. The wood is obscured by the trees. The stepping-stones (which are not necessarily stepping-stones at all) have smothered the goal they are supposed to be leading to.

It is all very well for our Socialist propagandist, tied up to an organisation of the kind referred to, to protest that his party is out for Socialism “same as us,” and that therefore the only question at issue is one of method. The protest simply evades the point. It does not meet it. The point is that Socialism is the only thing that matters to a Socialist party; that the Socialist is therefore entirely concerned to induce the working cluss to accept the same conclusion; that if he is not doing that he is fostering an illusion—because he must know well that all the palliative mongering in the world doesn’t matter tuppence from a purely working-class point of view. All the proposals on all the “reform,” “stepping-stone,” “half-loaf” programmes that muddle-headedness ever gave birth to, while they might palliate a little hardship here or there, wouldn’t necessarily advance the revolutionary idea ; wouldn’t necessarily make a single Socialist. Whereas, if attention was entirely concentrated upon Socialism, and all energies were directed to the organisation of the working class upon the lines of distinctive class interests, the political heavens would simply

RAIN PALLIATIVES.

Isn’t that obvious from the statements repeatedly appearing in the press of the capitalist parties ? “Social Reform, a policy of sound constructive proposals for the amelioration of the admittedly hard lot of the deserving working population must be our object,” “against the principles of Socialism only the confidence of Labour in the determination of the Government ——,” etc., etc., etc. The phrases are familiar enough. What is the first thing a Government in a funk sets itself to do ? It flings out a half-loaf to the “deserving working class,” or rather it breaks the half-loaf into crumbs and holds them ready to throw. That is generally good enough. When it isn’t they are thrown out—one at a time.

You can make a lot of crumbs out of a half-loaf. And it takes a long time to throw them all out. Not that it would matter much if they were all thrown out at once. Altogether, they will only make a half-loaf; and as somebody said somewhere, “We are after the whole damned baker’s shop !”

Very well. What do we want to palter and fritter our time and energy away on crumbs for ? Let’s go for that baker’s shop. Let’s upset the complacency of the profit-spinners and put a holy terror into their souls for a change. It will be worth while. As it is they sit quite calmly, holding the key to our baker’s shop, and laugh —how they must laugh—while you, my friend of the S.D.P., I.L.P., or whatever it is,

WASTE YOUR SUBSTANCE

in riotous advocacy of the things that don’t matter. The working class cry for the bread of Socialism, and you offer them—a stepping-stone. Or if you don’t personally, your organisation does. And that’s what I mean when I say that it would have been better for you and your work for Socialism if your organisation had never existed. You have preached the pure milk of the word, and your organisation has come along and watered it. And I hope you. are properly grateful.

Yes, Socialism has advanced in England somewhat. That is undeniable except by those who are interested to maintain present conditions. And they only deny it with their mouths. And because of this, all the parties are rushing in to claim credit for the result—especially those who have contributed least to it.

So that even in this they are at sixes and sevens. Even in this, supposing them inquisitive enough to refer to their party organs for information, the workers would be confused. Each of them has been the “principal factor,” and neither of them is right ! The Socialist idea has developed in spite of their organisations. Had they been composed entirely of Socialists, and taken Socialist action consistently, the Socialist movement might to-day have been far greater, far more powerful. Because Socialists organised are far more powerful for Socialism than Socialists fighting a lone hand. When, however, the Socialist voluntarily curries the sins of a non-Socialist organisation, like an Old Man of the Sea, on his shoulders, he becomes well-nigh impotent.

That is why the Socialist Party of Great Britain came into existence. We want our

WORK FOR SOCIALISM TO TELL

—to bear all the fruit it can. We know that, organised, we are stronger than we should be as individual units. We found the other organisations unsatisfactory. They were simply confusing the working-class mind by non-Socialist, often by anti-Socialist action. We refused to accept responsibility for their sins. The working class wanted a clear issue set before them. Socialism and the significance of the class struggle contained the issue. We knew that that issue was so simple that the wayfaring mind was as capable of appreciating it—more capable in fact—as it was of appreciating the pointless issues of “Reform” propaganda. We knew, therefore, that the justification of the “Reformers,” viz., the inability of the working class to assimilate Socialism, was piffle—honest or otherwise. We formed our Party, and because it is the only Party that insists upon Socialism and Socialism alone, we claim it as the only Socialist Party. Because the other parties are continually insisting upon something other than Socialism, and because we hold with all our minds and strength that in doing it they are putting the progress of Socialism to a disadvantage by obscuring it and confusing the issue it raises ; we are in opposition to them, accepting their maledictions, their misrepresentations, often their deliberate lying (I am sorry it should be necessary to say that), as evidence of the

CORRECTNESS OF OUR POSITION.

We do not make our claim as the only party in Great Britain that may logically and justly accept the name and the responsibilities of a Socialist Party, in any spirit of braggadoccia. There is nothing to brag about. Nor is it brag to assert that; because we are the only Socialist Party. We have during our short existence done more within the limits of our powers to educate the working class and develop the Socialist idea than any other party. The fact is obvious if the premises are conceded. If the premises are not conceded, wherein are they wrong ? That is the question we put to the honest S.D.-cum-I.L.P.’er or anyone else. If they choose to answer we shall always be delighted to argue with them, and give them fairer play than their parties and organs are prepared to give us. We can afford to do that because our position is impregnable, we believe, and in any case, having no “leaders” we stand to lose nothing. The other crowds prefer to ignore us, or vilify us, or in some other way endeavour to do us injury because they know their positions are far from impregnable, and because their leaders have

A GOOD DEAL TO LOSE.

Well, we are the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the others are wrong even upon so simple a question as the causes of the development of Socialism in England. What have our critics got to say about it ?

Alec James.