Notes by the Way: A Spot of Bother for the Dean of Canterbury (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Spot of Bother for the Dean of Canterbury

In that wrongly named book “The Socialist Sixth of the World” the Dean of Canterbury endeavoured to show that all is for the best in state capitalist Russia. On page 212 of the 1944 issue (Gollancz edition) the Dean had something to say about the leaping production of “Socialist” tobacco and cigarettes.

“Tobacco is in demand in Russia as in other lands. The supply was short so long as tobacco was imported. Today the Soviet Union produces its own tobacco, the collective farms of Abkazia grow leaf equal to the finest Turkish brands, and Soviet cigars, an innovation, rapidly find favour. Variety of brands is large and increases. Professor Hanson remarked, as we stood in a tobacco shop in the Crimea, whereas two years previously he had counted a dozen varieties, today he observed a dozen times as many in that one shop alone. In 1937 the Soviet factories turned out 89,000 million cigarettes. The Soviet Union stands second in the world amongst tobacco-producing lands.”

Now read this from the News-Chronicle (24/6/49):

“The capitalist habit of smoking must be shunned by young Russians, says Dr. A. Kuznetsov in a Soviet youth magazine.

“Russian youths, he complains, tend to ‘use nicotine’ more, though they have the brightest of futures—unlike the children of capitalist countries ‘who are led to smoke by hunger, need and despair.’

” ‘In capitalist countries where the entire pattern of life drives a man to narcotics the urge for smoking can be understood,’ says Dr. Kuznetsov. But Russians do not need it. Youth must be instructed in the harmfulness of tobacco.”

Of course we do not know what is the explanation of the Doctor’s attack on smoking by Russians. Maybe the Russian Government merely wants to cut down smoking at home in order to export the tobacco; or perhaps Kuznetsov is only giving his own view and may shortly “confess” that he is a fascist-capitalist propagandist. Until the matter is straightened out the Dean will be wondering whether he ought to go on singing the praises of Russian tobacco or whether he should just cut the passage out of his next edition.

* * *

How much Unemployment is necessary to Capitalism?

An argument is going on about the amount of unemployment necessary to compel the workers to work harder. The Labour Government’s view was and presumably still is that the present condition with relatively little unemployment gives maximum production. Nevertheless all the Ministers keep on making speeches about the necessity of getting more production.

The Economist representing the tough capitalist viewpoint has long argued that unless there is a considerable amount of unemployment the workers won’t put their backs into it. In the issue for 4th June, 1949, the Economist repeated this: “As the Economist has said more than once in the past, full employment will not work without a million unemployed.”

The Economist returned to the subject in the issue of 9th July, 1949. The Economist urged the Labour Government to recognise and act on the overriding necessity of cheaper production, and said that if the Labour Government was alive to the urgency of the problem “it would insist on payment by results in every industry where a scheme could possibly be introduced. And if there were no other way of persuading the unions and their members to give value for money, it would welcome the therapeutic effect of a moderate degree of unemployment.”

The same article disclosed another interesting aspect of the capitalist attitude to the Labour Government— they think the Labour Party can put the screw on with less trouble than could a Conservative government:

“One must hope that the Labour Party will screw up its courage to undertake something of this order—for if anybody else has to do it, there is risk of serious civil commotion.”

* * *

The Capitalist Cycle : War—Trade War—War.

“Washington, Thursday.—Mr. Willard Thorp, Assistant Secretary of State, said today: ‘ Rivalries and conflicts are again beginning to appear in the world trade picture.

” ‘Some nations and interests are seeking to take over particular markets and exclude competitors.

” ‘The post-war honeymoon in international economic relations is drawing to a close.

” ‘The U.S. has made efforts to put Germany and Japan on their feet again. But those efforts conflict with the hopes of people who wish to prevent the return of those countries into the foreign trade field.’:—Express News Service.” (Daily Express, 26/6/49.)

* * *

The Workers and Nationalisation.

When the advocates of Railway Nationalisation first started their organised propaganda the chief emphasis was laid on the argument that Nationalisation would eliminate waste and overlapping, lead to economies and reduced staffs and thus provide efficient and cheaper transport. As this was not much of an inducement to railway workers propaganda turned more towards the alleged benefits nationalisation would bring to the workers.

Now that the railways are nationalised and are running at a loss the demand has gone forth for economies so that the losses can be wiped out and a profit realised. One of the Labour M.P’s, who supports railway nationalisation, Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield), wrote to the Times (8/7/49) agreeing with another correspondent who had said that “the most hopeful source of substantial and lasting economies in the working of British Railways lies in a reduction of the total wage and salaries bill,” and that if the average wage rate is to be maintained, man-power must be reduced.

Where Mr. Davies differs from the other correspondent. Dr. Gilbert Walker, is that he does not think it possible to cut labour costs now, it must wait until the Transport Commission has complete control of the whole of the rail and road transport system of the country.

We can leave those two disputants to argue about the best way of running capitalism but the railwaymen may well ask what they have got or will get out of nationalisation.

As a footnote we may add the following:

“Tokio, Tuesday.—The Japanese State Railways today began distributing dismissal notices to another 63,000 railway workers.” (Daily Mail,13/7/49.)

* * *

Cripps on the Standard of Living.

“The Chancellor declared that for the greatest proportion of the population we had today a better standard of living than ever before. It was fantastic to say that they were worse off.” (Daily Herald, 19/5/49, report of Cripps’ speech in House of Commons.)

* * *

Drastic Strike Powers used by Australian Labour Government.

The Australian Labour Party, administering capitalism in Australia, has got into the same kind of mess as its companion party in Britain. The coal miners having made claims for shorter hours and higher pay to the Arbitration Tribunal decided to go on strike without waiting for the award. This the Government holds to be illegal and amidst a familiar denunciation of Communist agitators it took legal proceedings to freeze the funds of the Miners’ Federation.

The following is from the Times (15/7/49):

“From our correspondent, Sydney, July 14th.— Four hundred police, including more than 200 from Sydney, are tonight spread out over the coalfields as a protective force for tomorrow, when an attempt is likely to be made to move large stocks of coal standing in trucks on the coalfields to help maintain Sydney’s lean electricity and gas ration.

“There are now six union leaders in prison, including William Parkinson, acting general president of the Miners’ Federation, and Morris Michael Fitzgibbon, secretary-treasurer of the southern miners’ district, who were both sentenced today by-Judge Foster to 12 months’ imprisonment with light labour for contempt of court by failing to produce £A4,200 withdrawn from the bank and intended to aid the strikers. Parkinson had been acting president for only a day having been chosen when the president, Idris Williams, was sent to prison.”

One Feature of the Australian Strike Deserves Notice. 

Here the Government and the Press denounce strikes because they are “unofficial.” The Australian strike is officially conducted by the Union—but it is condemned just the same.

* * *

Food Production—What Could be Done.

The following news item from Rome is taken from a Report submitted to member governments by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation:

“World food production could be almost doubled in ‘a relatively short time’ by the use of modern technology.

“This estimate is made in a report of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation issued here today.

“Unexplored stretches of sea await the application of modern fishery methods to unlock new food resources, it said.

“World livestock could be stepped up by at least 25 per cent, in ten years through the general application of modern breeding methods.” (News Chronicle, 13/7/49.)

Edgar Hardcastle 

Some implications of Socialism (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the end of the war the workers have been the target of production campaigns, on the screen, on the platforms and in print, urging them to work harder because the world at large was suffering from a tremendous shortage of goods; a shortage that it was claimed would continue for many years. In the last few weeks, however, the tune has begun to change and there are ominous whispers that we are on the verge of another crisis of “overproduction”; this in spite of rationing and of the genuine shortage suffered by the mass of the population. It is the old old story of capitalism that will continue as long as capitalism lasts; its basis is the class ownership of the means of production under which goods are only produced for the purpose of realising a profit to the class that owns the means of production and distribution.

When the Labour Party took over the government and commenced nationalising some industries many workers were misled into the belief that capitalist private ownership was passing away. It was overlooked that the wage system in all its vileness still remained and that the former shareholders in the industries that had been nationalised had simply changed into holders of government securities, the interest on which had to be provided out of the nationalised industry; that these securities were, on the whole, as lucrative as the former shares had been and, moreover, were much safer because the interest was guaranteed at a fixed rate by the government.

Nationalisation has been a good thing for the capitalists but it has tied the worker more firmly to the wheels of industry, limiting the range of employment for those who cannot keep up the pace and tightening up the system of recording how, where and when each worker employs his energy.

The threatened onset of another crisis in a world where the mass of the people are still going short is irrefutable proof that capitalism cannot solve the problems it throws up, including the terrible problem of war for which all nations are at present preparing by building up gigantic armaments with a despairing fatalism.

Only the Socialist has the answer to these major social problems because only Socialism, the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, can guarantee to the whole of the people of the earth comfort, security, and a world freed for ever from the shadows of war and the perplexities of economic crises.

Let us consider some of the implications of Socialism.

As the means for meeting the needs of all the people will be commonly owned and democratically controlled, everyone being on an equal footing economically and politically, there will be no privileged groups, nor will there be privileged individuals, except of course the old, the infirm and the young.

From this it also follows that there will be no State nor will there be State ownership of anything, A State only exists where there is privilege, and it is the purpose of a State to make and administer laws that are based upon the existence of privilege; to defend the privileged group from attacks upon their privileges, either by the unprivileged or by an external privileged group. The crimes that give occupation to thousands upon thousands of police, lawyers, judges and other legal functionaries are crimes against property, or arising out of private property based society, which would disappear with the disappearance of private property. Thus, when we see that every country in the world, including Russia and its satellites, has either a strongly organised state or one in the process of development, we know, without the need for further evidence, that in every country there are privileged and unprivileged classes, and all the evils that flow from this class division.

Under Socialism there will be no buying, no selling and no money; the latter only exists as a means to buy and sell. As each person will have free access to what is produced, in the same way as he has free access to air, there will be nothing to buy, nothing to sell and, therefore, money will have no function to perform. There was a time, in the primitive communistic groups that flourished before civilisation began, when money was unknown; it only came into existence when property, and with property buying and selling, invaded and finally broke up the old tribal communities. Books of the last century contain the innocent amazement of travellers in backward areas who came across groups of natives who knew nothing whatever of money or its uses.

Another implication of Socialism is that there will be no class distinctions of any political or economic kind. Class distinctions are an attribute of privilege. The class distinction of modern times, that is between capitalist and worker, is reflected in many forms of snobbery that have caused disunion in the working class movement. These forms of snobbery are slowly passing away as the bonds of wage slavery sear the flesh of all with equal fierceness, but they still have some influence on the outlook of sections of the working class. Two forms of snobbery, in particular, still persist both of which are based upon the false distinction between the so-called professional worker and those that are not included in this category; the scientist, the artist, and the rest of the workers. Although commercialism is gradually killing these fictitious distinctions they still have considerable sway. Both derive from the past when the professional groups were hangers-on, or panderers to the whims and luxuries of the ruling aristocracies. The growing body of scientists is greatly afflicted with the idea that they are a class apart from and above the sordid everyday struggle. When it suits the members of the ruling class they foster this idea— when it does not suit them the scientist is brought to heel. There was an example of this in recent cases connected with the disclosure of atom bomb secrets. It may be added that under Socialism there will be no “secrets”; all information and all steps forward in conquering the forces of nature will be spread as widely and as rapidly as possible to assist the people of the world to take full advantage of the inexhaustible fertility of the human brain. All the people of the world being on an equal footing there will be none of the distinctions, false or real, that trouble the world today.

Still another implication of Socialism is that there will be no national frontiers as the people of the world will be one vast family, regardless of colour or alleged race. Each will be free to wander over the earth as the primitive savage was to wander in the primeval forests before the growth of property placed bars across his path, eventually secluding some into reservations and driving others, the unluckier ones, into the bosom of eternity.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Socialism signifies a fundamental social revolution, a complete change in the basis of society from private ownership to its opposite. There can be no half-way house between private ownership and common ownership. Private ownership cannot be abolished little by little and bit by bit. Some supporters of the Labour Party claim that it can, but after four years of Labour Government, jewels, fur coats and fortunes are still the lot of the privileged and there are rich harvests for burglars, both the legal and the illegal. The burglars, like the poor, we always have with us, and for the same reason.

Finally let us mention one more implication of Socialism—that democracy is essential. The Socialist movement is a movement of the working class in the interests of society as a whole and, therefore, freedom of discussion, freedom of expression, freedom of meetings and the like are essential in order that the foundations of the new society may be laid in lasting fashion.

There is no productive bar to the establishment of Socialism tomorrow; the only bar is lack of understanding and desire on the part of the workers of the world. The capacity to meet the needs of every man, woman and child in the world exists today but most of this capacity is wasted. One need only look at the vast amount of energy wasted on war preparations, on materials such as coal and steel that are only connected with war purposes, as well as the energy wasted on the multitudinous matters solely connected with buying and selling, to realize what a vast amount of productive and distributive capacity slumbers in the bosom of capitalism. And, further, what inventive capacities will be released when no longer curbed by the system that demands the production of only those articles which can command sufficient paying customers to provide unearned incomes for the class that lives like leeches on the backs of the workers.

Gilmac.

Nature study —the Cuckoo (1949)

A Short Story from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The common cuckoo that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds, and lets them have the bother of rearing them is well known. This article deals with the habits of the Wingless Cuckoo or Parasitus Capitalismus.

This magnificent specimen has gone much further than the old type. For instance, the one that flies leaves the nest when fully grown, not so our second species.

The Wingless Cuckoo, so called because it never flies from the nest, has a neat racket.

The species developed very quickly in the 19th century, out of an earlier kindred type known as the Merchantus Parasitus. There were many intervening centuries between the early appearance of this bird and its fully-fledged descendant.

The Parasitus Capitalismus does not throw the young chicks of the parent birds out of the nest. It is astute enough to know that after the death of its hosts it requires other generations to bring it food.

It claimed the ownership of all the worms and grubs that birds eat. The new Cuckoo then said to the other birds, that is, to the male ones, “If I allow you to collect my worms for me, I shall let you have enough worms to feed you and your family.”

Then came the next bright idea: “If I give the male bird too few worms, then his female mate will also have to collect worms for me. If I work it right then I need only give them the same amount of worms between them and yet have two collecting agents working for me.”

The moral was obvious and was soon extended to the little members of the family.

It is said that after a number of years with many birds collecting for them, some of the Cuckoos used to say, “I came into this nest with no feathers on my back and by sheer hard work I now have an enormous pile of worms.”

Of course they never said whose hard work. Some bird-watchers perceived that the greediness of the Cuckoo was having a bad effect on the other birds. They were being allowed so little, that they were dying pretty quickly.

These bird-watchers realised that if the birds all died, then the Parasitus Capitalismus would soon become extinct itself. So they attempted to warn others of the danger.

Some wrote heart-rending stories of birds asking for more in the workhouse, and such-like tales. You see they did not wish the death of their favourite species.

They were fairly safe in writing stories, because at the time only the Cuckoos and the Cuckoo’s favourite servants could read.

The Cuckoos at last realised that something must be done (or more correctly, some realised and did so well out of it that the others followed suit).

A system called mass-catching was devised whereby each bird did only one operation, one bird with sharp eyes spotted the worms, one with a sharp beak picked them up and a pelican carried them back to the cuckoos’ nest. Yes, by now the nest had become the cuckoos’ and not the tenants’ property.

Thus they were able to leave the younger generation and yet still get more worms.

You might ask what do the other birds get out of this? The answer is as little as will keep them at work hunting or catching or carrying worms and slugs for the Cuckoos.

Then you will probably say, as there are more birds than there are Cuckoos why do they not band together and throw them out of the nest?

Again the answer is a simple one; the majority of them do not yet realise why they work all day and yet get precious few worms. They have not tumbled to it. When they do find out, they will know what to do.

A few of them have already done so, and are busy spreading the news abroad. What they need is the help of all you other bird lovers; so come on, lend a claw, and help us abolish Cuckooism.

J.J.S.

You—and the next General Election (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will be contesting two constituencies at the next General Election —North Paddington and East Ham South.

At the last General Election a majority of you voted a Labour Government into power. Are you satisfied with what you did? What have you gained from Labour Government? In their election programmes Labour Candidates promised you “Real Peace, a Good Home, a Good Job, Good Wages, a Chance for the Children, Rising Standards of Living for the Whole Population” and “Public Ownership—the organisation and control of the nation’s wealth and resources for the benefit of the Whole Nation—is needed to give our people a Better Britain.” Do you remember these promises, or is your memory so short that you have forgotten them? Look up the Labour programmes again and then compare the accomplishments with the promises.

Real Peace, a Good Home, Rising Standards of Living; what a cruel disillusionment! The armaments race is in full swing in preparation for another war; this time with one of the erstwhile Allies. The “good homes” have vanished in face of a greater housing problem for the workers than has ever been experienced before. The standards of living are going down as prices go up and the Government is appealing to you to abandon demands for higher wages. It is also throwing its weight against you, just as Tory and Liberal Governments did, when you come out on strike. Many large industries have been nationalised—has this meant a “Better Britain” for you? In all of them there is discontent and the workers are either on strike or threatening to do so. Where an industry has been nationalised you have only one employer; when you get the sack you are done for. Miners have already learnt this to their cost.

Labour Government is fundamentally no different from Tory or Liberal Government; each of them governs on behalf of the capitalist class and for the benefit of that class.

Before you voted last time we urged you to think very seriously about what you were doing. But you did not do so; you swallowed the hoary old promises that were so often broken. Your present bewilderment and apprehension in face of a world moving steadily towards another catastrophe is the logical result of the vote you cast at the last General Election. Once again we urge you to spend a few months in serious thought before the time comes to cast your vote. Give up trusting in promises and look behind promises to the facts of the life you are compelled to live. Here are some of the facts.

Within the last fifty years the means to produce and distribute wealth have been vastly improved and expanded. So prolific have been the social productive powers that, repeatedly, steps have had to be taken to limit production, and even to destroy large quantities of essential products that have been produced in excess of the market requirements. During the same period a relatively small section of the world’s population has been enjoying unprecedented wealth and luxury, whilst the vast mass of the people have been living on or near the poverty line, harassed by the dread born out of insecurity, and suffering most when the shops are glutted with the things they need but cannot buy.

During these fifty years the world has been torn by two devastating wars, bringing death, disablement and misery to millions of people, as well as diverting the energies of a large part of the world’s population to production for war purposes—that is production that makes and feeds implements of destruction. Neither Labour, Tory nor Liberal Government can find a solution to the problem of war. You who are workers produce the munitions of war, and give up your lives on the battlefields as well as behind the official front lines. What have you gained by your sacrifice? Nothing! After the first Great War unemployment and insecurity reached dimensions never experienced before. After the second Great War the housing problem has reached a pitch that is staggering and, allied with the scanty housing ration is the scantiness and soaring prices of needful things. Just imagine what it was like when oranges, bananas and the like were cheap and plentiful. No, you have gained nothing from war except misery.

All the arts of “leaders,” diplomats and governments are incapable of abolishing war because war is an integral part of the present social order whose basis is the production of goods for sale at a profit. Wars are waged for plunder, and the source of this plunder is the wealth you produce above what it costs to keep you and your families.

You are told that we are living in difficult times and that you must curb your demands for better wages because the war has left the world short of necessary goods. Yet, since the war, fortunes have been left by those who live on your work; banquets are given by the wealthy and Continental resorts still thrive out of their visits. If you had the money you could buy anything anywhere as the wealthy do. There is no shortage for them. Have you asked yourselves why your class must pull in its belt while the wealthy class can thrive in luxury in spite of a devastated world?

These are some facts over which you should ponder before going to the polling booths next time; but they are only a beginning.

Gilmac.

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Slums, like Poverty, are still with us.

Mr. Gibson (Labour, Kennington): ". . . There is no excuse whatever for the slightest complacency, for much remains to be done; in addition, there are slums which need to be pulled down; some of us have already made a start on slum clearance. I always thought that I knew something about slum conditions, but last week, when I went into one of the worst slum areas in London, I was appalled at the conditions existing in one part of Islington. The houses themselves are so sound structurally that medical officers of health are dubious about condemning them, but inside they have been allowed to become festering dens of unhealthy life, with walls falling down, floors cracking, no proper convenience, and no water. There are thousands of houses like these, not only in London but in many other large cities, which must be dealt with. There is, therefore, no call for anyone to imagine that there is not still a great deal to be done in the building of new houses.”

(Housing Debate, 4/7/49.)

* * *

Day to Day Struggle—Matches Front.

Mr. W. Gallagher (Communist, East Fife): “ . . . In this particular matter of matches, as a pipe smoker and as one who uses a very considerable amount of matches, I ask the Economic Secretary to discuss the matter again with the Chancellor and see whether they cannot find some other way of assisting the manufacturers to meet the costs of production rather than by way of making an increase of this kind. I ask him very sincerely to withdraw this proposal.”

(Finance Bill, Proposal to raise price of matches by halfpenny a box. 22/6/49.)

* * *

Members of Nationalised Boards.

Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): “… All those who have any responsibility for airline operation are in favour of this Bill; not only that, they ask for it to be given legislative effect at the earliest possible moment. The boards of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are in favour of the Bill, and those boards are composed of business men—men who prior to coming into association with civil air transport were and in some cases still are associated with successful private enterprise …”

(Airways Corporation Bill, Second Reading, 29/6/49.)

* * *

A Man in an Absolute Muddle

Mr. J. Scollan (Labour, West Renfrew): ". . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us about the dollar crisis. What was the panacea that he had to offer for the problem facing us? Was it not the same as was offered in the 1930’s during the depression: reduce costs and increase production? Did not wages go down in the 1930’s? Had not we a lock-out in 1926 for the miners? Were not the miners locked out for weeks on end, until prices were brought down? Did that bring prosperity? It brought misery, poverty and degradation. I am surprised to hear some of the arguments today. What are the Government going to do to see that we can meet France and other countries in fair competition? It does not seem to occur to anyone that we recently decided upon a European bloc and unity. Now we are deciding to go into competition with the very people with whom we were to be united. We are hoping that instead of unemployment being in Scotland, it will be in France. That is the cure. I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if Scotland were a free and independent country—I am not pleading Nationalism— it could stand on its own economy in the world blizzard that is likely to hit us.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Bouquet for American Capitalism—from a Labourite

Mr. J. Carmichael (Labour, Glasgow, Bridgeton): “. . . My only trouble is the attempt on the part of some people to complain about the interference of American capitalism. Does anybody doubt the fact that whatever Government would have been in, there would have been need of American aid? Our complaint all along has been that America might have been more liberal in her aid, recognising the great economic sacrifices made by this country during the war. They were compelled to intervene. I do not complain about American financial intervention. I welcome it, because today in Scotland we have less unemployment than we had in the bad old days.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

Plain Words from a Tory

Major G. Lloyd (Conservative, East Renfrew): “. . . The solution is to be found in a steady courageous determination to bring down costs of production, to make it easier in a buyers’ market for our industrialists, traders and men of commerce to sell the goods, as a result of which alone they can employ the people . . . People can only be employed if our industrialists can sell goods. If they cannot do that, they cannot employ the people. There is no politics in it. It is a matter of plain economic common-sense.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Labour Leader talks Capitalist Economics

Mr. A. Woodburn (Secretary .of State for Scotland): “. . . However, one thing is certain, that the buyers’ market which has obtained since the war is ending. Just as we may have to go without some imports, so other countries may have to do without what we would like to send them. We may have to make both effort and sacrifice to stimulate trade by quality, price and delivery. If then, we are to keep vital trade going, our efforts must be directed to producing goods which the world wants at the prices at which other people are able or ready to pay. We cannot live without imports. This country must trade, or die.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Letter: Landlords and capitalists (1949)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received the following letter from Mr. C. Stowasser, Manchester, who writes on the notepaper of the “Henry George School of Social Science.” Ed. Comm.)

Dear Sir,

In the interesting article of your May issue, “A Budget Secret Revealed,” you made one or two statements which I would like to comment on. In the first place you implied that the subsidy system should have been extended by increases of subsidies on foodstuffs. There are two points to be made on this: (a) subsidies, like taxes, ultimately come for the most part out of the pockets of the workers; (b) subsidies instead of increasing production merely help to increase land rents and are therefore of benefit to the landlords only. In the second place you implied that all incomes should be equalised. Now, although I sympathise strongly with this idea, 1 should like to point out that even if there was a completely equal distribution of wealth in this country it would only raise workers’ wages by about five pounds per annum. So you see the question is really and truly mainly one of production and redistribution. Now what all Socialists fail to see is that full production can only be achieved when we break down that all powerful barrier, the Land Monopoly. As you well know, since there is no tax on the site-value of land, the landowner is able to withhold valuable town land from use and by so doing creates a tremendously high monopoly value of land. Is it any wonder that there is poverty and unemployment when the community must pay a toll, amounting to as much as £500,000 or £600,000 an acre in the case of towns, for the right to use land. If we taxed landowners on the positional value of their land all landowners would be forced either to use their land fully or sell cheap—there would be full employment and plenty of houses—the exploitation of the worker would cease. Your paper shows clearly that autocratic planning does not bring prosperity—why don’t you go one step further and proclaim that true freedom can only come by giving all men access to the land through the taxation of land values.

Yours sincerely,

C. Stowasser, B.A. Comm.

Reply:

Our correspondent reads into the article he criticises (“A Budget Secret Revealed,” Socialist Standard, May) implications that were not suggested or intended, and that were in fact expressly disowned. He assumes that we are in favour of an increase of the subsidies on foodstuffs, and that we “implied that all incomes should be equalised.” He is quite mistaken. The S.P.G.B. stands for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. We hold that there are no ways in which capitalism can be made to function in the interests of the working class. We do not say that the Labour government in general and Sir Stafford Cripps in particular have followed a wrong budgetary policy and that all would be well if they followed some other policy. As we pointed out in the article,

“Budgets are the financial arrangements made for the conduct of the capitalist state and it is childish muddle-headedness to ask that they be transformed into ‘Socialist’ budgets.”

Having taken on the job of administering capitalism “they are forced within very narrow limits to do those things that capitalism requires.”

On the question of equalising incomes our correspondent is equally wide of the mark. Under capitalism incomes come from wages or from the ownership of property and they vary greatly in amount. Socialism is not a scheme for making them equal. Wages and incomes from property-owning will both disappear under Socialism. The principal way in which Socialism will lessen the labour and increase the consumption of those who under capitalism are the working class will be by cutting out the enormous waste of labour inseparable from capitalism.

Having disposed of one correspondent’s misconceptions about Socialism now let us look at his scheme for reforming capitalism by the levying of “a tax on the site-value of land.” This is not a working-class issue but a hangover of the conflict of interests between landowners and industrial capitalists. It is not even a vital issue to the capitalists any longer. When the land was monopolised by a relatively small number of big landowners the industrial capitalists suffered the mortification of having to give up to the landowners a large part of the proceeds of their exploitation of the workers. They resented it and would have liked to escape that burden. The result, however, would have been to increase the profits of the capitalists; it would not have lessened the exploitation of the workers. But in the past half century landownership has undergone great changes. We read in the Sunday Express (20/3/49) that whereas “less than 50 years ago 2,500 private landlords shared between them over half of Britain, today, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, there are only 469 estates of more than 1,000 acres left.” The government itself, the Local Authorities and the nationalised industries have vastly increased their holdings of land and much land is now owned by farmers: “of Britain’s 370,508 farms, a third are now owner-occupied. ” Also much land is now owned by estate companies and industrial companies and the writer in the Sunday Express states that the Prudential alone owns land valued at £35 million. These changes have taken place but they have not in the least improved the position of the working class.

In a leaflet that our correspondent sends us we arc assured that the scheme he recommends would “provide public revenue without hampering industry,” and that the burden would fall only on the landlord. But nowhere are we told why the working class should object to the landlord receiving part of the proceeds of working class exploitation without also objecting to the industrial, commercial and financial capitalists receiving a much larger part. According to official estimates the receivers of rent from land and buildings took £430 millions in 1948; but the profits of traders and partnerships amounted to £970 millions, and the trading profits of companies were £1,639 millions. In 10 years the percentage of the total national income going to receivers of rent has fallen from 8.5 per cent., to 4.4 per cent., while the other two groups of exploiters have increased their percentage from 21.2 per cent. to 27 per cent. This may please the capitalists but it is no concern of the working class.

The S.P.G.B. urges the workers not to interest themselves in the internal squabble of the exploiters but to work for the abolition of all exploitation.

Ed. Comm.

The Emergency Regulations in the Dock Dispute (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

By proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, the Labour Government on 11th July issued Emergency Regulations dealing with the dock dispute. The 1920 Act authorising the use of emergency powers was parsed by the Lloyd George Coalition Government against the fierce opposition of the Labour Party and Trades Union Congress. Its repeal was demanded by the Labour Party Conference in 1921, the resolution being moved by a docker. The Act was used by the Tories against the General Strike in 1926 and the T.U.C. that year carried a resolution which held that at no time during the strike need the Act have been used.

Yet this is the Act now used by a Labour Government in a dispute that is of negligible proportions compared with the 1926 General Strike.

The sixteen Emergency regulations give the Government sweeping powers over the working of the docks and over any attempt to interfere with the carrying on of work. The Daily Herald (12/7/49) published a summary of all sixteen regulations from which the following are quoted:

“Regulation 3. This concerns acts of sabotage and declares:

” ‘No person shall do any act with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working or movement of any vessel, aircraft, vehicle, machinery, apparatus or other thing used or intended to be used in the performance of essential services.’

“Regulation 4. Deals with trespassing and loitering on any premises taken over for the maintenance of essential services.

”Mere presence in or near such premises is sufficient for conviction, if it can be shown that the person’s character suggest a purpose prejudicial to public safety’

“Regulation 5. Covers acts of violence endangering, obstructing or interfering with troops, police and others engaged in essential services.

“Regulation 6. Makes it an offence to induce any troops or police to commit breaches of discipline. Possession or distribution of leaflets or other documents likely to cause disaffection comes under this heading.

“Regulation 7. Authorises the Home Secretary to employ police from outside the area for the maintenance of public order.

“Regulation 8. Gives powers for billeting of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

“Regulation 9. The Postmaster-General is authorised to hold up the delivery of packages and refuse the use of telephone and telegraph services as he thinks fit.

“Regulation 11. Gives police power to stop any vehicle if it is suspected that an offence is being committed against the Regulations. A constable may seize any incriminating evidence he finds.

“Regulation 12. Gives to any constable power of arrest of suspects without obtaining a warrant.

“Regulation 13. Makes it an offence to incite any person to commit offences against the Regulations.

“Regulation 14. Directors, general managers or secretaries of companies or corporations offending against the Regulations will be liable unless they can show that the offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance.

“Regulation 15. Provides that persons convicted shall be liable to three months jail or a fine of up to £100 or both.

“Taking part in, or peacefully persuading a person or persons to take part in a strike is not an offence.

“Regulation 16. Enables the authorities to seize any articles believed to provide evidence of an offence.”

The use of troops and of civilian workers brought into the docks from outside is governed by Regulation 2.

In spite of the long years of Labour Party denunciation of the Emergency Powers Act the Emergency Regulations received the sweeping support of Labour M.P’s. Not one Labour M.P. voted against.

Blogger's Note:

This issue of the Socialist Standard also carried two other pieces on the Dockers' dispute:

• Editorial: The attitude of the London Dockers
• The Dispute at the London Docks

Passing thoughts (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

To rebel against convention is a good thing; a sign that the bonds of tradition are loosening. To rebel against wage-labour is a better thing; a sign that the understanding of social bondage is dawning. To rebel against wage-labour and to understand how to end social bondage is the best thing; a sign that comfort and security for the whole of humanity is within measurable distance of accomplishment.

When two young people love one another how sad it is that lack of money so often interferes with their unity. When two young people love one another and unite how still more sad it is that lack of money so often breaks up their unity. What a paradise Britain would be shorn of buying, banks and dividends.

The tragedy of modern war is that thousands upon thousands of bright young lives are snuffed out before they can enjoy to the full their birthright, love and laughter; the essence of the tragedy is “Not that they die, but that they die like sheep.”

A dreamer is a common butt of the stage, the screen and the platform; but when the dreamer keeps his feet upon solid ground and dreams of those things that are possible then his dreams merit serious thought instead of idle laughter. A Socialist is a dreamer, but he dreams of a world that can and will be.

Doctors, psychologists, social workers and government officials speak with smug satisfaction about the modern treatment of mental troubles, and the wonderful hospitals provided for poor mental wrecks. How shocking it is to realise that all their work and satisfaction proceeds from the wrong point of view. The mental sufferer is treated from the individual point of view, striving to adjust him to his surroundings instead of striving to alter the surroundings so that maladjustment cannot occur. Since the upheaval of the industrial revolution and social absorption with speed, with markets, with wars, humanity has been unable to adjust itself fast enough to rapidly changing conditions; it is always mentally behind, and unluckier sections mentally break down. When the world becomes a place of security and happiness by removing the source of these too rapid changes, maladjustment, and the resulting mental disorganisation, will vanish.

Gilmac.

Those noble slogans (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

For four solid years the British working-class has been urged, entreated, and cajoled to work harder and produce more. Hardly a day has passed without an appeal or exhortation from someone or another for increased output, until one would have thought that the very weight of words would have proved too much even for workers, and they would have thrown up the sponge in sheer weariness and disgust. The fact remains that they did not do this—rather did they put their noses to the grindstone and increase production to record heights

With what result? With one result at any rate—that the production programme of Messrs. Marshall, Sons and Co. Ltd., one of the largest groups of agricultural engineers in the country, is now being halved and more than 400 men have been dismissed. The statement made by the firm about the dismissals sums up the economics of capitalism so well that it is worth quoting in full. This is what it says:

“There is no sense in making machines that cannot be sold. Something has to be done and the first thing is to cut the programme for the time being in half and thereby at least halve our worries, liabilities, and costs.

“The cut leaves us with a number of people for whom there is no employment, and it is just not possible, at a time when costs must be cut to an absolute minimum, for those people to be given alternative employment unless that employment is going to contribute to the general economy. The first step, obviously, is to cut down on non­-productive labour, the next step is to cut down on certain productive elements. Length of service, age, past record (absenteeism, lateness, general behaviour, and performance) all have to be taken into account.

“Most of us are working hard and working properly, but there are those who are not, and we can’t afford it any longer. The war is over and the post-war boom is finished, money is tight and getting tighter. We’ve got to earn our living now and we can’t afford passengers.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/7/49.)

We wonder how those noble slogans “Work or Want” and “More from each is more for all” are sounding in the ears of those who got the sack, and in the ears of the rest of the firm’s workers who are wondering whether it will be their turn next.

Stan Hampson

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Week-end Summer School has been arranged to be held on Saturday and Sunday, September 17th and 18th. The school will be at Tree Tops Holiday Camp, Farley Green, near Guildford in Surrey. Those who know this area will be aware that it is as pleasant a district as one can find in the county.

Arrangements are also in hand for private coach transport between London and the camp. The charge for accommodation and meals at the camp will be 18s. a head, the coach transport will be extra. The camp offers pleasant accommodation in chalets, individual, double and triple and it has a variety of attractions such as a swimming pool, tennis courts, pleasant walks, etc.

It is intended to arrange for a two o’clock departure from London on the Saturday afternoon. There will be no lectures on the Saturday, but a social evening is being organised. Two lectures are arranged for the Sunday, and it is hoped to be able to hold them outdoors on the lawns. The school will disband after supper on Sunday evening. Accommodation is very limited so those who are anxious to attend should get in touch with the Social Committee or the Central Organiser at once. In order to be assured of accommodation we suggest that intending visitors should send a cash deposit. It will help the organiser to conclude the arrangements.

St. Pancras Branch is holding some very successful meetings at mid-day on Sundays on the Broad Walk in Regents Park, London. On Whit Monday the branch held a marathon meeting at this spot, lasting from noon until 9.30 p.m. It has been decided to continue these marathons, with relays of speakers on Sundays throughout the season. Members can enjoy the amenities of the park whilst engaged in Socialist activity.

Lunch Hour Meetings in London are encouraging. Meetings at Lincoln's Inn Fields on Tuesdays and Fridays are always a well attended success. Tower Hill on Thursday and Finsbury Pavement on Wednesday are now on an organised footing. The propaganda committee has obtained the services of two additional speakers for mid-day meetings and is trying to work the meetings on a rota basis. It is intended, if possible, to extend the activity to include other places, such as, we believe, Leather Lane on Mondays.

Provincial Propaganda is being extended. The central organiser with the propaganda committee are arranging for speakers to visit various provincial towns, where a branch or a group of members can render assistance, throughout the summer season.

Central Branch Representation at Annual Conferences has been engaging the attention of the Executive Committee. Acting on a resolution passed at the last Annual Conference, the E.C. has agreed to a scheme whereby Central Branch members will each receive, before the Annual Conference, a ballot paper bearing all the resolutions and amendments that are embodied in the Conference Final Agenda. They can then vote “for” or “against” each item and the voting at the Conference will be on the basis of one vote for each ten, or part of ten, votes cast either “for” or “against.” Thus, if 68 Central branch members vote in favour of a certain resolution and 33 vote against it, the voting accepted on behalf of Central Branch at the Conference will be seven votes “for” and four votes “against.” This proposal will be placed before the Autumn delegate meeting.

Dublin Branch of the S.P. of Ireland has commenced a series of outdoor meetings in that city. At the first meeting, a comrade who had never mounted an outdoor platform before, a Dublin busman, spoke for 25 minutes and attracted an audience of between 400 and 500 workers. Despite interruptions about Cardinal Mindszentsy and Moscow he spoke for much longer than his colleagues anticipated. When the official speaker mounted the platform, the heckling became more persistent. Those in front of the platform who had been interrupting on the religious angle now made it apparent that they were carrying out an organised attempt to break up the meeting. They kept up a continual shout about religion and Moscow until our comrades had to appeal to the one of the two “guards” who were present. But the police merely smiled and shrugged their shoulders. This gave the interrupters encouragement and the cries became louder. The speaker continued in a good voice and a number of supporters and members of radical organisations who were present voiced their protests at the interruptions. The meeting had, by this time, grown in numbers to between 600 and 700 and, one of our Dublin comrades writes, “by now the atmosphere was like that of a Fascist meeting down at Ridley Road—only worse.” The Catholic Actionists, who were the instigators of the disturbance, then started to sing their well known hymn, “Faith of my Fathers.” This is the hymn that they sang a year ago when they attacked the headquarters of the Communist Party of Ireland. “But this time it didn’t have the desired effect the singers thought—nobody joined in.” As the police still took no notice the Catholic Actionists became bolder and threatened the speaker, making a move towards the platform. The speaker defied them and nobody accepted his challenge to try to put him off the platform. But at this point the police decided that the meeting should close as a breach of the peace was being committed. The police said that they knew that the meeting had been reported to Police Headquarters and that it was within constitutional rights, but if they left for re-inforcements the platform might be rushed and considerable trouble caused. So the meeting closed. Our Irish comrades are taking steps to try to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances, but they are determined not to surrender their meetings to the religious fanatics. One thing pleases them considerably. That is, that the organised interrupters got no support from the rest of the audience. They anticipate that more than 90 per cent. of the audience disagreed with the Socialist case, “but they wanted to listen to the speaker.” A letter just arrived from the Dublin Branch literature secretary orders an additional quantity of Socialist Standards in preparation for the next outdoor meeting.

All members of the Socialist Party of Ireland wish to convey their thanks to the S.P.G.B. for the valuable assistance given them, “without which the task of forming our Party would have been much more difficult.” “We would like workers everywhere to learn of this splendid example of Socialist co-operation.”

The S.P.I, is preparing a manifesto. It will be completed in the very near future.

The Socialist Party of Canada writes: “Though the Dominion Elections are due this month (June) we find ourselves unable to conduct an extensive campaign and as a result of financial deficiencies we are issuing only 5,000 copies of a leaflet.”

Visits from Overseas Comrades—During July and August we are anticipating meeting a number of comrades and friends who will be visiting this country from Africa, America, Canada and different parts of Europe. We extend a comradely welcome to them all.

W. Waters

SPGB Meetings (1949)

Party News from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard