The Plot to Educate. Why the Capitalist wants Brains. (1916)

From the September 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The clerk and the school-teacher boast that they live by their brains. The mechanic smiles in derision and claims that the real thing worth knowing is, how to do something useful. The capitalist and the slacker regard all kinds of education as worthless that do not help them to dodge work. These are personal view-points and much twaddle has been spoken and written on each, which is responsible for much of the confusion that exists on the subject of education.

The capitalist himself does not want to be troubled with education, as he understands it ; he pays someone else to acquire and use it in his interest. He does not object to some pains to obtain a smattering of general knowledge and that neurotic polish known and worshipped as culture. Some capitalists even pose as business men and indulge in vague generalities about “technical knowledge” and “the qualities that make for success.” These are the merchant princes and the qualities they laud were precisely the ones that made them such. The capitalist who soils his hands, or worries his brains over technicalities, it is almost needless to add, is the man who cannot afford to buy brains and must, perforce, use his own.

Science has become an adjunct of industry. Educated brains are as necessary to the capitalist as skilled hands and muscular are. Industry (read capitalists) needs both. Muscular energy and mechanical skill multiplies itself without much watering and manuring from the owners of capital. But the science of the business laboratory, and the knowledge necessary to organization on a large scale can only be acquired under special circumstances not attainable by the average worker.

There is no question of intelligence involved. The lad of average intellect given the opportunity to qualify could fill any post in the field of industry. There is no genius in evidence, nor is it required. High salaries are paid to the chemist and the organiser because their skill or ability is the product of many workers concentrated in one person. The opportunities to acquire this concentrated knowledge are rare, consequently those who possess it are scarce, their price on the labour market is high and their heads are swollen, not with the exercise of their brains, but with the idea that they are worth more than the mechanic or laboiner—to the capitalist.

And the latter, well, he wants more. Not like the worker who “wants more work in order to get less of it.” The capitalist wants more brain workers to get more—for less money. Hence the agitation in the Press. One writer says: “Germany did not sweep to such triumphs in the chemical world simply on the brains of one or two super-skilled men. She had armies of such men.” The capitalist wants to be quit of the Ramseys, Wallaces and Lodges who flirt with spooks and try to analyse ether. When they condescend to notice him from the heights of the Milky Way, the astral world, or a Park Lane drawing-room, their information was, to say the least, costly.

What the capitalist wants is to instal the brain-worker under his factory roof, with the rest of his workers, where he can see that his brain works—by the results. The first step to this end is to train the men. Supply of brain-workers must overtake demand. As was the case with school-teachers and clerks, competition will assert itself and the capitalist will get what he wants—cheap scientists and brain-workers.

The first move is a move in Parliament—the executive of the capitalists. Two committees are appointed, one for science, the other for languages. The terms of reference and constitution of the first are :

“To enquire into the position occupied by natural science in the educational system of Great Britain, especially in secondary schools and universities ; and to advise what measures are needed to promote its study, regard being had to the requirements of a liberal education, to the advancement of pure science, and to the interests of the trades, industries and professions which particularly depend upon applied science.”

The terms of the second are :

“To enquire into the position occupied by the study of modern languages in the educational system of Great Britain, especially in secondary schools and universities, and to advise what measures are required to promote their study, regard being had to the requirements of a liberal education, including an appreciation of the history, literature and civilisation of other countries and to the interests of commerce and public service”.

The unthinking one who reads the above will see nothing in it but the intention of Parliament to give facilities to the children of the poor to qualify for better jobs ; it entirely escapes his notice that the wholesale manufacture of applicants quickly robs the better job of its advantages. Capitalism by these very methods tends to reduce all workers to one dead level. Mechanical inventions eliminate skilled workers; ; lightning calculators scrap the clerk, and the man of muscle is superseded by magnetic cranes, etc.

Division of labour reduces the knowledge and skill required by each person to a minimum. Every man and woman specialises in one direction only ; and in that direction, because of the competition, must devote all his or her energies. To what end ? “The interests of trade, industry, and commerce.” All the educational roads lead to the same goal—the commercial interests of the capitalist class. If the worker wants to live he must get into one of the ruts provided, where his senses will be sharpened and his very thoughts moulded and curbed in the interest of commerce. Whether he works with his brain or his hands, or with, a combination of both—as, indeed, all forms of labour really are—he is subservient to commerce. Production and distribution, instead of being the means to satisfy his wants, enslaves him, plants him in a niche and keeps him busy with the routine of a department or the feeding of a machine.

Life for the average worker has no meaning outside the interests of commerce. The wonders of the universe, the beauties of nature, real knowledge and culture, are outside his ken : he is a mere cog in the machinery of wealth production—and remains poor. The accumulated knowledge of society built up by successive generations of workers has made possible a full and glorious life for all. Yet the life that comes to each of us but once is forced into a rut of toil that an idle class may flourish and revel in excessive luxury.

We Socialists are often accused of using strong language, but it is difficult to frame language that will convey an adequate idea of the hideous poverty of the great mass of the workers, according even to capitalist evidence. The cupidity and greed of the capitalist and the ignominy of the wage-slave have become ingrained in their respective natures. We Socialists, while not relinquishing the task of presenting to the workers a true perspective of their position, gladly welcome any capitalist writer of ability who contributes anything that will support our position, or help remove seme of the confusion prevalent on the subject of education.

The instructions given to the committee that is to investigate education reform are sufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy of the capitalist class. They plot to make all workers subservient to the interests of commerce, i.e., their interests, to prune knowledge—our common inheritance—till it, too, only serves their interests. Here, Mr. Donald Ross comes to our aid. He anticipated the Shylock character of education reform and exposed the whole plot.

According to Mr. Ross there are three aspects of education. “First,” he says,

“do we want to give our people greater culture ? Do we want to educate them in those things that make for greater personal charm and greater personal achievement purely in a social sense? I mean without any regard to utility. Naturally, we do. Culture is always worth while.”

Secondly he deals with education as it effects efficiency—the view-point of the capitalist. He says:

“In manufacture to-day the best brains directing the most capable hands will win to distinction. If we can educate all our workers in the technical sciences we shall undoubtedly produce better than our rivals and sweep the commercial field.”

But Mr. Ross does not finish there. He goes on to describe how the workers of Germany linked themselves up in association and enthusiastically set themselves to further the ends of industry by discussion and experiment.

Then he says :

“But you will notice that this did not make any difference to them financially. They improved the the machinery, increased production, took an absorbing interest in their work, and made vast profits for the manufacturer who employed them. That is one flaw in the argument for greater technical efficiency of craftsmen. Under the present system the craftsman turns round and says in effect, why should I spend time and trouble on becoming a more efficient machine to produce greater wealth for another ? That is his problem. Admittedly a worker here and there may “get on” because of his knowledge, but this is simply because the others have not the same knowledge.”

Next, Mr Ross states the problem, in language almost identical to our own :

“We all know that the production of wealth in manufacturing countries is enormous. It could be enormously increased. The trouble is that it is not properly distributed. The men who make it, the men in the factory, the forge and the field, get least of it. Their first problem, then, is not how to make more, but to get more of what they already make.”

Lastly, in bold language Mr. Ross outlines the solution of the problem.

“They need education in economics. They need to learn what are the forces at work in the modern world which help a small number of men to take the largest share of wealth. They require an education that will enable them to unravel the tangled skein of modern economics ; to review industry as a whole ; to find out why there are classes and masses, and then, understanding, to apply their knowledge to the refashioning of society, so that the worker shall get a greater share of the wealth he produces. It is often objected that this would be “class” education. It would ; and it is needed, and organised labour should see that the workers get it. So the three steps in labour education should be : First, class education, which will give labour ultimate control of industry; second, technical education which will allow it to produce more wealth ; third, cultural education which will allow them to enjoy it.”

In places, Mr. Ross lays himself open to misconstruction, but there is little doubt that he points to Socialism as the only remedy. In other places he has been responsible for some confusion, but the above quotations from an article appearing in “Reynolds’s Newspaper,” Aug. 13th, shows that he is capable of independent thought ; and what is more gratifying to the Socialist, when he exercises it honestly, he finds himself admitting and asserting the principles for which we have stood so long.

True he speaks of giving “labour ultimate control of industry,” and the worker getting “a greater share” of the wealth he produces, which is no doubt due to his own limited knowledge of economics, But once a man recognises the need for education of the workers on class lines, he has surmounted the worst obstacle. The rest is easy. For what purpose education unless it is to bind the working class in an organization to take and use the means of wealth production and distribution in their own interests ? The education needed by the working class is Socialist education, that includes economics. An education that explains to them how they are robbed, why they must organise on the basis of their class, capture the political machinery of the capitalist State and establish a system wherein wealth will be produced for use, and not for profit. Then technical education will mean greater production of wealth with less expenditure of labour power, and efficiency will no longer enrich a small class of idlers. Every invention that aids in the production of wealth, instead of being a curse, because it increases unemployment, will be welcomed because it gives more leisure to enjoy the good things of life. The instruments of production, instead of enchaining those who operate them, physically and mentally, will serve them as the means to satisfy their wants.

F. Foan

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the September 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

In carefully perusing the daily press unique opportunities are afforded the student of current events to observe the amazing contradictions recorded there from time to time. When one bears in mind the statement which has been repeated on so many occasions that the present conflict is a war of liberty and to secure the rights of small nations, etc., etc., it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile this view of things with the violation of all the pre-existing conditions. One is obliged to ask : What of the suppression of various newspapers, the placing under arrest of those against whom no charge has been preferred, the threatened deportation of political refugees, and a hundred and one other similar questions.

In view, therefore, of these things one wonders when the workers will take the blinkers from off their eyes and endeavour to see things as they actually are, instead of seeing them as labour leaders and other hirelings of the master class represent them to be. A few weeks ago a new and freakish organisation, the British Workers’ National League, organised a demonstration, and, according to a comic cuts or picture paper report, we read that Mr. G. Wardle, M.P., delivered a rousing speech from which I cull the following:

“I believe that out of the evil of this great war there is arising for the democracy of all the countries a new era. Oppression and militarism are already dead. The people of the Allies are all determined that as a final result of this great struggle there shall be throughout the world a better day for all men—the day of liberty, the day of democracy, the day of the people.—”Daily Sketch,” July 15th, 1916.

Doubtless the remark “a new era” is perfectly true. An era of intensified suffering for many, an era of desolation for many thousands of homes and an era of struggles for those left behind to make a miserable pittance stretch over the weekly period. The sentence “oppression and militarism are already dead” is decidedly rich, but maybe Mr. Wardle has just awakened from a long sleep. Oh, the pity of it !

* * *

Perhaps the before-mentioned gentleman in his wakeful moments may have been in the House a few days later when a question was asked regarding the punishment meted out to a driver in France for very slightly exceeding the speed limit, and who was “awarded 90 days’ field punishment, entailing being strapped to a wagon in full view of the troops for two hours a day, and a loss of 90 days’ pay, and the loss to the man’s wife of his allotment.” The official reply was “that the court-martial was quite within its rights in awarding the punishment named. Very strict regulations have been laid down to prevent reckless driving in France the authorities there having had their attention called to a number of cases where children had been injured owing to that cause.” One week after this case was again referred to and the same minister replied “that the G. O. C. remitted a month of the sentence, and it was afterwards wholly remitted. The effect of this was to restore to the man his pay, and also the allotment to his wife. The War Secretary did not see his way to make any alteration in the law in respect to field punishment.” (Quotations from “Daily Chronicle,” Aug. 2nd and 9th, 1916.) The headlines referring to this case are also an interesting study. On the first occasion I notice, “Field Punishment. Strapped to a wagon for two hours a day.” Second, “Degrading punishment of soldiers.” Sooner or later it may possibly dawn on the hon. Mr. G. Wardle that “oppression and militarism” are far from being “dead.”

* * *

A good illustration of precept and practice was brought to the notice of the House the other day on the subject of the soldiers’ pensions. In the course of the debate Mr. Will Crooks told of a soldier discharged with a pension of 7s. 6d. a week, and the letter he received from a lady who knew of the case. An extract is highly interesting reading. It runs as follows :

“I heard you speak in ——. You said that every wounded warrior would be properly looked after by his country. You are a liar (laughter.) And you knew you were a liar when you said it. (Renewed laughter.)”—”Reynolds’s,” August 20th, 1916.

The agitation which is gradually growing on this question is, of course, somewhat serious, particularly to the labour members who in the earlier days of the war placed themselves unreservedly at the disposal of the powers that be and stumped the country in aid of “voluntary enlistment,” the while telling the workers that a grateful country would look after those broken in the war. The columns of cases of hardship grow day by day and these patriotic labour leaders are now seeing that the promises so glibly made are being falsified by later events, and thus tend to place in jeopardy their future career. Hence the vim and vigour they are placing in their united efforts to obtain some measure of recognition for a more generous scale of pension. To show I am not exaggerating the position let me quote another labour man (Mr. G. N. Barnes) in an interview with a representative of “Reynolds’s.” Pointing to a sheaf of correspondence on his desk, he said:

“These things are getting on my nerves. I simply cannot sleep for them. They all refer to the same subject—men broken since they joined the Army and discharged without the slightest provision made for them or their families in the immediate future.” (Same paper, same date.)

One could fill an issue of the Socialist Standard quite easily with cases taken at random from our masters’ Press. Only the other day the “Daily Express” devoted a portion of its front page to the case of a man who was disabled and, owing to the gratefulness not having reached maturity, was obliged to take out a barrel organ in order to maintain a wife, three children and himself. Such is the generosity of our masters. War time or peace time we are sucked like an orange and then discarded.

* * *

In my perambulations recently I noticed several exhortations to “postpone your holidays,” which advice in many cases, including my own, is superfluous, or as Cabinet ministers would reply: “the question, therefore, does not arise.” But about the same time I read :

“The Hon. Mrs.——left for Kilmarnock.

Lord——left for Rufford Abbey.

The Earl of——left for Burton-on-Trent.

Lady——left for Edinburgh.

Etc., Etc.”——Evening News,” August 8th, 1916.

In no case did I notice that anyone left for—munition works. No, that is left for we workers!

* * *

I have been much interested of late in reading about cases before local Tribunals. Just picture the scene for yourself. Council chamber, and local bumbledom (all impartial gentlemen) with all the pomp and circumstance attaching to their high office, about to hear claims for exemption from military service. Recently I came across the following under the heading of “Wisdom of Mr. Solomon” :

“At the Aldershot Tribunal, Mr. Robertson, the chairman, asked : “What is a linotype operator?”

Mr. Solomon (a member of the Tribunal and a camp furnisher) : “One who lays lino on the floor.” —”Evening Standard,” August 11, 1916.

Were it not for the fact that I read this again in a morning newspaper I should have taken it an a joke on the part of the “Evening Standard.” What an exhibition of profundity ! And is this a specimen of judges of domestic or conscientious objections ?

* * *

It appears as if one of the results of the war will be to crush out of existence as such the small capitalist, and force him into the ranks of the workers. That there is some legitimate ground for this belief is evidenced from time to time in the papers. A recent illustration is to hand in an announcement issued the other day that the London Unionist members received a deputation from the small shell makers round London, who converted their plant, formerly used to make sewing machines, bicycles, etc., to the national uses.

“They complain that the subsequent establishment by the Government of great arsenals which can be run more economically has cut into their production, and that they are threatened with bankruptcy.”—”Daily News,” August l0th, 1916.

Here, then, we observe the pathetic wail of the small capitalist who is threatened with death and destruction—not as a result of the establishment of Socialism, which has been asserted by some to he the end of all things, but by the development of capitalism in itself.

* * *

A question regarding the cost of pauper indoor maintenance was recently asked in the House of Commons. The questioner desired to know “the average cost per head of pauper indoor maintenance on 31st March, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916 respectively ?” The reply was as follows: “The estimated average cost per indoor pauper in England and Wales for the year ended March, 1913 was £32 12s. 10¾d., and for the year ended March, 1914 £34 9s. 4¾d. Complete returns for the later years are not yet available.” (Official Report, Cols. 2488-9, Aug. 22nd, 1910.) An old age “pension” of 5s.per week, or £13 per year, is a grand thing for the capitalist class. The economy campaign commenced before the war. See what you save the master class by holding out your hand for a dollar a week to spend the evening of your days in your own chimney corner,

* * *

A case of exceptional hardship was given some prominence in a recent issue of a Sunday paper. The facts, according to the report, briefly stated are :

“The breadwinner in a military gaol because he remained with his wife when she was in the valley of the shadow.

Separation allowance; stopped.

Windows and door of the tenement removed by landlord’s agent.

Every pawnable possession gone for food. Parish rations.”

The item of news goes on to say that “some may be uncharitable enough to say that her husband should not have overstayed his leave, and then all this trouble would not have befallen his innocent wife and children. But there is no true man who, in similar circumstances, would not be where Private Price … is to-day. About nine weeks ago Mrs. Price risked her life to bring another little Briton into the world.” It continues by stating that the husband obtained leave to be near his wife, whose recovery was not rapid, and that he was confronted with the following dilemma :

(1) Return to duty and leave his wife with children to care for, and without relative or friend to aid her.

(2) Stay with her and chance the consequences.

“He chose the latter and when he returned to barracks was awarded 56 days’ detention.” We are further informed from this Press report that a representative of the “Illustrated Sunday Herald" visited the woman and her children “at their cheerless home” and “he found a spectacle which for sheer desolation and grief could not be found elsewhere in London.” A reference is made to the family subsisting on the following parochial fare:

1 tin of treacle.

1 tin of condensed milk.

2 loaves of bread.

1 lb. of rice.

issued every two or three days”—“Illustrated Sunday Herald,” Aug. 6th, 1916

This from a capitalist paper in every sense of the word patriotic is a striking commentary on the patriotism of our masters.

* * *

The answer to the question with regard to the employment of soldiers at the Llanelly Steel Works, their rate of pay, etc., came somewhat as a shock to some of the labour men in the House when it transpired that these men were doing civilian work for soldiers’ pay, the War Office appropriating the difference. So concerned were the Labour Party that they met to discuss Dr. Addison’s reply, and

“Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M. P., said yesterday that Dr. Addison’s own confession rendered it impossible for labour to ignore such a serious infraction of the arrangements which had been previously made, and he predicted that if parliamentary action did not avail Labour would consider other ways of stopping it.”— “Globe,” August 9th, 1916.

Is this Industrial Conscription ? At last the Labour fakirs wake up, and, they bark. To interfere with the freedom of the men in the matter of the disposal of their labour-power is poaching on the fakirs’ preserves, and if anything like that’s a doing, why, they have got to be paid THEIR price.

The Scout.

The true meaning of Welfare Supervision. (1916)

From the September 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Signs are not wanting that at the cessation of hostilities on the Continent and the other fronts a return of the old industrial struggles will once again be the order of the day. Even now politicians and the Press vie with each other in an endeavour to gloss over the struggle of the classes, and here and there ladle out to both employers and employees the need for a “give-and-take” policy.

The old wheezes of “co-partnery” and “profit-sharing,” which have been tried in certain businesses, have not worked out as satisfactorily as was anticipated, owing to the flood of light shed thereon by Socialist thought and criticism. And so to-day we find an agitation springing up on every hand for “Welfare Supervisors.” It is somewhat significant how fresh devices are introduced one after another in order to give a new lease of life to capitalist production and to further rivet the chains of wage-slavery around the workers.

With the institution of the ministry of munitions further official notice was given to this question of “Welfare Supervisors,” and at the same period “The Times” newspaper pointed out how, in the German workshops, this ministering to the inner man and attendance to the congenial conditions of workshop life greatly facilitated the method of production. The Health of Munition Workers Committee which was appointed issued a report in which they stated : “The provision of facilities for obtaining a hot meal at the factory are often inadequate, especially for night workers. Frequently the arrangements made for heating carried food are also wholly insufficient. Yet the munition worker, like the soldier, requires good rations to enable him to do good work.” The last clause of the report goes on to say : “The rapid growth of commercial undertakings, and in particular of munition works, makes it difficult or impracticable for the management to deal, unless by special arrangement, with the numerous problems of labour efficiency, and the personal welfare of the employee. Yet without some such special arrangement there cannot fail to be “diminished output, discontent, and unsmooth working.” Thus we see that ” Welfare Supervisors” are necessary in order to ensure that the workers shall at certain intervals, take in just sufficient fuel and oil to keep the machine running smoothly !

In this connection also “The Stratford Express” for August 12th and 19th published two articles entitled “The Human Element in Factories” by B. Seebohm Rowntree. To reverse the order of things, I venture to quote the concluding paragraph first. It says : “After more than 20 years experience of welfare supervision in my own factory, I am thoroughly convinced of the wisdom of appointing welfare supervisors where large numbers of girls are employed. They not only promote the well-being, the health and efficiency of the girls, but they save the management an enormous amount of trouble. And it must be remembered that an increase of efficiency is important, not only to employers, but also to the workers, for there cannot be progressive improvement in wages unless there is progressive improvement in methods of production.” Here we have the frank confession of a member of the employing class who freely admits that it pays to look after and improve the general conditions of factory life. The phase “it must be remembered that an increase of efficiency is important, not only to employers, but also to the workers, for there cannot be progressive, improvement in wages unless there is progressive improvement in methods of production,” merely demonstrates the fact that the more efficient the workers become, combined with the elimination of wasted energy and better conditions of labour, the greater is the surplus-value produced for the employer with a lesser number of wage-slaves required to produce a given quantity of commodities. The sop offered as an inducement to greater effort on the part of the workers—that they will get a “progressive improvement in wages”—further emphasises the measure of their exploitation.

Our author in his opening remarks tells his readers that “Welfare supervision is simply the creation in a factory of those conditions which enable each individual worker to be and to do his best.” He then goes on to say that so long as factories were small there was no need of any special organisation to secure this end, for with the close relationship of master and employee every worker could be put to the work best fitted for him ; but as factories grew larger and larger this personal relation was crowded out. “The employer no longer knew his workers even by name. They came to be impersonal ‘factory hands’ to him, who were treated in the mass, without individual consideration.” To most of our readers this will be commonplace.

Moreover, Mr. Rowntree says “some employers may think that welfare supervision is merely a fad. This is quite a mistaken view. It is not only good . . . but it is thoroughly sound business from the standpoint of the employer ;” and “it is stupid to treat workers in the mass.” Then, he goes on to ask : “What should we think of an employer who treated his machinery in the mass ? As a matter of fact he watches his mechanical equipment with extraordinary care. It is continually tested to find out if there is any overstrain. A man goes round with an oil can all day long to see that there is no unnecessary friction anywhere.” After pointing out the care and attention which is paid to the machinery the writer suggests that a similar method should be applied to the human beings who are infinitely more complex and delicate, and adds : “If only employers would treat their employees with as much consideration as they do their machines, they would have less difficulty in getting satisfactory output.” With regard to the hours of labour for girls and women a suggestion of a 48 hour week is put forward, and we are informed that the employer “is wise who adopts this course.” A little later one observes the following remark : “I question whether it ever pays to keep on working girls for more than 54 hours a week.” With regard to the question of workers partaking of lunch it is put forward with all seriousness that “a short break of, say, ten minutes in the middle of the morning is a distinct advantage.” On the subject of canteens the writer is equally emphatic, and he goes on to say that the Americans recognise “much more fuJly than we do the advantages of good canteen arrangements in the works, adding that unless girls (and the same is equally true regarding men) in a factory can get a comfortable midday meal and a restful dinner hour, they cannot be expected to do a good afternoon’s work. He also mentions that some employers look upon comfortable mess rooms and canteens as luxuries and an expense which brings in no return. “Nothing is further from the truth,” is his rejoinder to these people. Even such things as lighting, heating, and ventilation are touched upon, with the further remark that we (the bosses) are quite alive to the importance of these things in our own offices.

The method of engaging the newcomer to the factory is next dealt with at great length, it being suggested that the applicant should be engaged by the “welfare supervisor” instead of by the foreman. The supervisor would then have a talk with the applicant and ascertain her qualifications, and having decided to recommend her for employment would “try to interest her in it, making her feel both that the firm intends to do the ‘square thing’ by her, and that she must do the ‘square thing’ by the firm.” This reminds one of the old idea depicted on Trade Union banners showing the two hands clasped representing Capital and Labour ; and strange to say, these relics of the earlier days of trade union activity are still to be seen dragged through the streets on occasions when there is no possibility whatever of obscuring the class struggle ! The identity of interests, forsooth ! The robbed and the robbers doing “the square thing” ! What balderdash !

One could go on and quote more extensively from these articles, but I think sufficient has been culled to show that the whole purpose underlying them is simply an object lesson to the employing class on how, under the pretence of an interest in the welfare of their slaves, they can better exploit them. Fellow-workers, let it be an object lesson to you also.

T.

Book review: Flies in the ointment. (1916)

Book Review from the September 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New Protectionism, by J. A. Hobson, London. The Cobden Club, Westminster, and T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., Adelphi Terrace. 6d. Net.

That monumental piece of bluff and fatuity the Paris Economic Conference has been taken seriously, not by the German capitalists—-they are not entirely devoid of intelligence—but by the Free Trade apostles of this country. While almost everybody else has been laughing at the affair as a clumsy attempt to impress the mugs, not of the Germanic nations, but of the “entente” countries, the “economists” of the Cobden Club have been regarding the Conference as a sort of “red light,” and have even been moved in their trepidation to inflict upon an already sufficiently suffering world a 150 pages or so of very serious and solemn consideration of the matter.

That the recommendations of the Conference were ever seriously intended to be carried into effect after the war has been thought hardly worthy of space for discussion in these columns. It will be the wonder of the age if the “Allies” can hang together through all that they have yet to endure before they arrive at the goal of victory, or survive the conflict of interests at the settlement, much less bind up those clashing interests with fiscal bonds and the like. Those interests are by no means made one by the war. It is extremely doubtful, indeed, if those interests are unified even as far as a complete and crushing victory over the Teutonic powers.

Be it said at once that in the brochure under review the author adduces many cogent reasons why the attempt to carry out the recommendations of the Paris Economic Conference would be sheer idiocy. Having said that I have done with that side of the question. If any reader wishes to waste a tanner on those cogent reasons he has my gracious permission to do so, and incidentally he can have my copy for tuppence, with the comment chucked in that “the fool and his money’s soon parted.”

But if the Socialist is not concerned with the question of statesmen making asses of themselves by chewing “New Protectionism” thistles, he generally feels disposed to have a cut at bourgeois economics (!) when opportunity offers, and opportunity offers now.

Mr. Hobson opens thus :

“The policy of Free Trade is based upon a reasoned belief that all commerce is an exchange between the goods or services of one person and those of another, this exchange being usually effected by two monetary transactions an act of sale and act of purchase. both parties in such commerce are gainers from it: and their gains tend to be equal.”

Our author having firmly based his creed on the unshakable quagmire of an economic fallacy, proceeds to enlarge upon a “series of separatist fallacies,” of which

“the second is the separation of the interests of the seller from those of the buyer, and the false assertion that the interests of the former are, or ought to be, superior.”

If Free Trade is based upon the first-mentioned belief, then the Free Traders had better shut up shop, for the Protectionists have all the best of the argument. An exchange may be “two monetary transactions—an act of sale and an act of purchase” but there is a vast difference between the two. The seller of a commodity realizes profit, the buyer does not. The commodity is not produced for consumption, but for profit. This profit can only be realized by sale. The seller, then, is simply completing the process which finds its volition in the motive for all capitalist activity—the incentive of gain ; the lust for profit. Therefore, it is not true that both parties are equal gainers by exchange, and under the system the interest of the seller is the paramount interest.

As a matter of fact, of course, it is not at all necessary to believe that both parties concerned in an exchange benefit equally from it in order to become an advocate of Free Trade, and it is mere moonshine to say that the policy of Free Trade is based upon such a belief. The Free Trader who counts—the Free Trader among the ruling class—recognises the paramountcy of his interets as a seller, since he knows that in each cycle of his industrial operations—in which field the vast bulk of both his buying selling is done—he sells more than he buys, and this difference between what he buys and what he sells is the sole incentive of his buying and seeing at all.

He starts by buying raw material and labour-power, and he ends by selling the product of the combination of the two. And always, except in the comparatively rare instances where he has made a sad muddle of things, the amount of his sales exceed the amount of his purchases, else where does his profit come in ?

Free Trade is mainly the policy of the manufacturer who hopes to sell in foreign markets, and for these reasons : If he has to pay a duty on his raw materials he cannot recover it in the world market, hence he is handicapped as a seller ; i.e., he must either sell for more and consequently sell less, or he must sell for the same as has foreign competitors and himself shoulder the duty. In either case he realizes less profit. The second reason is that if his wage-workers have to pay a duty on their necessaries of life he, the employer, will have to pay more for their labour-power, and again when he sells his commodity he realizes less profit.

And now mark the working of the mind of the bourgeois Protectionist. He usually is producing for the home market. If he has to pay more for his raw materials because of a tariff, be can get that back in the protected home market, while if he has to pay more for his labour-power because of the tariff on his wage-slaves’ necessaries of subsistence, he calculates that the higher price and wider market Protection enables his commodities to enjoy will more than counterbalance that disadvantage.

The underlying motives, therefore, of both the Free Trade and the Protectionist policies are not any concern for the equality or inequality of benefit arising from exchange, but the desire to have established that system best suited to the economic of the individuals holding the respective views. And it may be said that the tendency is to protect the home market when that market is of greater importance than the world market, and to resort to Free Trade as the export trade is developed. In view of this we may expect to see a revivifying of the Protectionist policy as the development of the manufacture of the more backward countries brings about a relative restriction of the foreign market for every country.

In close connection with this phase of the question “Free Trade versus Protection” Mr. Hobson may be quoted again. He says on page 8 :

“If the Bradford weaver gets Protection and nobody else, he stands to gain. But if all other British trades, local and national, engaged in making articles he needs in his trade—e.g., wool, coal, machinery, dyes, etc.—or articles of food, clothing, furniture, on which he spends his wages, also get Protection, each duty to protect those other trades filches from him a bit of the gain he stood to make if the Bradford woollen trade were alone protected. A general tariff protecting all British trades equally would thus be found to make so many deductions from the value of the special Protection enjoyed by the woollen trade as to convert it from a gain into a loss. The higher prices of woollens which his Protection enabled him to get would be outweighed by the added higher prices of the various article required for use in his trade and for his private consumption.”

This, of course, is incorrect, as is easily demonstrated. Let us suppose “a general tariff protecting all British trades equally to the tune of, shall we say, 10 per cent. Our Bradford weaver buys “wool, coal, machinery, dyes, etc.” (much of which being home produce, he would not have to pay any duty on) value say, £100 prior to the tariff. He then purchases labour-power of the pre-tariff value of say £50. Even if we assume that the whole of the material had been subject to the tariff, and the labour-power had been produced entirely upon duty-bearing substance, the Bradford wearer would hare to pay on account of the tariff 10 per cent. on only the amount of his outlay, £150. But when he came to sell his commodity in the home market he would find his foreign competitor penalised to the extent of 10 per cent. of the full value of the commodity, which would he, say, £200. So against an penalty of 10 per cent. on £150 the Bradford weaver finds he has increased opportunities (so long as he sells in the protected market), in the way of increased sales and higher prices, equal to 10 per cent. on £200. “His private consumption” is by no means sufficient to materially affect this argument.

Again, on page 6, our author talks through his hat. He says of the Protectionist :

“He makes his separate appeal to the man as producer, tells him that selling is more important than buying, and that the money he receives is more important than what he can buy with it.

It is through consumption that the co-operative nature and value of commerce is realized.”

The crux of the whole matter is, who does the Protectionist appeal to, or, for that matter, who does the Cobdenite appeal to ? If to the capitalist, then it has already been shown that the capitalist is far more of a producer (in the controlling, not the operative sense) than consumer, and that it is to production that he owes all he possesses, which he realizes through the act of selling. It is logical, therefore to appeal to the capitalist as a producer, and both the Protectionist and the Free Trader are found to do so in the last analysis. Even Mr. Hobson does so when he says, “the higher prices . . which his Protection enabled him to get would be outweighed by the added higher prices of the various articles required for use in his trade.” On the other hand, if the appeal is to the workers, then it is about as logical to appeal to him as a consumer as it would he to try to interest a horse in the cost of his forage. Mr. Hobson assents to this when he states that the higher price of the worker’s “food, clothing, furniture, etc.,” “filches . . a bit of the gain” from the Bradford weaver.

There are plenty of other fallacies in the book under review, but I have room only to deal with one or two more. Mr. Hobscn says on page 4 that

“The notion that the expansion of foreign markets obtained within the last two decades by German or American traders is a corresponding loss to British traders is sheer nonsense. To a large extent those markets were “created” by the special economic and commercial activities of the German or American trader. For the rest, an enlargement of our foreign markets which, in default of German or American competition, might have taken place, would have involved a diminution of our home markets.”

What a conception of the capacity of the commodities market ! And what a conception of the modern capitalist power for production ! Mr. Hobson says it is a falsehood to represent the commercial competition between two nations as “a struggle between two nations for a limited amount of profitable foreign market.” He declares that “There is no such absolute limit to quantity of foreign market.” Yet our author admits that there is competition. It would be interesting to hear Mr. Hobson’s explanation of what that “commercial competition” is for, and how it arises. Nobody competes for that which is (in the practical sense) unlimited. It is limitation which is the very foundation of competition.

And then mark the ludicrous suggestion that it is productive capacity that is limited in that statement, “an enlargement of our foreign markets . . . would have involved a diminution of our home markets.” The army of unemployed means nothing to Mr. Hobson : the factories working short time or closed down are without significance to him ; the periodical crises, when the warehouses are choked with goods which can find no outlet in any market, at home or abroad, make no impression on his mind. One can go on producing to any extent, in our author’s view, and the problem of markets will solve itself. If the market does not exist you simply “create” it. The only danger is that, if you “create” much “foreign market” the home market will have to go short because capitalist production is so inelastic that it cannot respond to the call for expansion.

A. E. Jacomb

The "Free Health Scheme" Myth (1976)

From the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard 

It was all worked out so that sick people in Britain could be looked after and seek treatment undeterred by the financial disaster it previously entailed. So they were told — but it didn’t work out that way. In capitalist society you get nothing for nothing and the politicians (outright callous Tory or two-faced hypocritical Labour) make no bones about their ‘need’ to modify workers’ wages for (and limit the benefits of) a health scheme which fails to satisfy the “cheap healthy work force” expedient of those who planned it.

For let there be no mistake about the motive of those who devised the idea of a National Health Service, telling the world it was to ensure unfettered medical attention for all who needed it. It was (as many publications inadvertently disclose) to cut the cost to British capitalism in working hours lost to their businesses through workers’ sickness.

Now, these Capitalist interests are not happy with their own deal. They feel that British doctors are not doing their bit in the cheap maintenance of healthy wage slaves, but are spending too much capitalist money in the process by “overprescribing” for the sick who turn to them for help. A “free” health scheme (in fact it costs 20p per item on each prescription and there’s a lot of Parliamentary agitation to make it more) is all very well in the interests of the country’s employers — but if general practitioners take the thing too far they will have to be pulled into line. Thus Mr. Mike Thomas, Labour MP for Newcastle, has introduced a Bill demanding that registered medical practitioners be limited in the drugs they may prescribe to a small list and that their surgery treatment notes be made available to a panel who may have to “discuss” with them the treatment they arc making available to patients on the “National Health”.

Quote, from the doctors’ periodical Pulse 10.7.76: —

‘‘The Government may be forced into taking more radical action to reduce the level of prescribing, both within general practice and the hospital service in order to peg the rising drugs bill. Minister of State for Health, Dr. David Owen has called for ‘better prescribing overall’ and has reminded the profession, yet again, that it is now having to make economic decisions within the context of tightly reined resources. Unfortunately both Dr. Owen and Social Services Minister, Mr. David Ennals have reached that stage where they are issuing repeated warnings on the need for constraint in each sector of the Health Service, but no one knows precisely how the Government intends to cut back costs or what level of toughness it is prepared to use. The Department of Health circular issued last week, for example, was supposed to represent ‘Guidelines’ on the much-vaunted review of NHS management costs . . . Dodging the perfectly justifiable suggestions from one Tory questioner that there was need for a realistic uprating of prescription charges which still remain at their pre-inflation rate, Dr. Owen replied: “What is needed is better prescribing overall and a recognition by patients that not every ailment is cured by pills . . . The medical profession must recognize that it has to make economic decisions. At present the prescription Bill has no cash limit and is open-ended . . . But if the medical profession is not able to show some form of economic restraint in its budget, any Government would be forced to look at other measures ... At the moment we prefer to rely on education and we hope to keep the drugs bill within reasonable bounds by that method.’ ”

The article in Pulse continues:

The drugs bill to which Dr. Owen was referring amounted to £379 million during the last financial year in England. At £7.00 a year per person, was that not good value for money? Dr. Owen took this opportunity, replying to Labour back-bencher Dr. Maurice Miller, to confirm that the pharmaceutical industry was not guilty of drawing any excess profits — and that any blame for the escalating drugs bill lay with an over-demanding public and over-generous profession.

In other words, Dr. Owen has the gall to represent himself as unaware of how notorious drug firms are for their enormous profits, and upset by patient’s demands for adequate treatment and doctor’s desires to provide it!

Health at a Price

Quoting from the doctors’ periodical General Practitioner, 16.7.76, on page 8 we read:

A blunt warning that the National Health Service must ‘live within its means’ was given by the Prime Minister last week. Only 24 hours after the Cabinet began a series of meetings to prepare for public spending cuts totalling about £1,000 million next year, Mr. Callaghan made it clear that the NHS would not escape the treasury act. He told members of the Royal College of Surgeons at a dinner in London that ‘difficult choices and unwelcome decisions’ lay ahead in many areas of public expenditure. Doctors would be faced in their everyday work with a difficult period of adjustment from a fairly rapid rise in the amount of resources available in recent years to more stringent conditions.

This, of course, is a typical politician’s mealy-mouthed way of avoiding saying that National Health Service patients will have to suffer neglect by being denied benefits once promised by the British capitalist class. But to add insult to injury, listen to the sheer two-faced double-talk the Labour Leader follows it up with. Quote: “At a time when the ordinary wage earner is voluntarily cutting his own standards, the health service too must live within its means.”

In other words, Mr. Callaghan feels that if workers are being deprived in one way it is only fair that they also be deprived in another! This is the depth to which opportunist politicians will sink and a measure of the contempt they have for their wage slaves’ discernment.

This is but one of the many degrading aspects of life under capitalism, where men can dictate how much medical attention and care their fellows are “entitled to.” In a Socialist society such inhuman parsimony would be impossible. There would be no leaders able to hoodwink anyone, and not just  health care but all goods and services would be free to every one.

R. B. Gill

Filthy Rich (1976)

From the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the main points of the argument put forward by the SPGB is that capitalist society is divided into two classes; the working class, the largely propertlyless majority, and the capitalist class, those who own most of the wealth produced in the world and the physical means to make more of it. It is easy to identify the working class. For example you can see them at certain hours of the day pouring into the factories, offices, shops, mines railway stations etc. in order to work. That is why they are called workers. They receive at the end of their week or month’s work, a pay packet or salary cheque — the price at which they have sold their labour-power to the boss. Basically this will permit them to purchase sufficient to allow themselves and their families to subsist until the next pay packet. That’s simple.

But it is sometimes not quite so easy physically to identify the capitalist class. True you see the odd chauffeur driven Rolls with its owner frequently sprawled across the back seat, the assembly at Ascot, and those going in and out of Claridges, the Ritz etc. But some highly paid workers will use Claridges, so that can be confusing. And many members of the working class will go to Ascot to mimic the pastimes of their class exploiters. So identification lines can become blurred. In particular, when wealth ownership itself has become a most complicated and intricate network of title to deeds, bonds, shares etc. it all adds to the difficulty of identification It is no wonder many people are confused and ask the SPGB “Who are the capitalist class?” “Where are the capitalist class?” and so on.

Where there's a will

Well ironicaly, one of the easiest methods of identifying someone’s class position is not by the facts of his life, but by the effects of his death. When a worker dies, after funeral expenses have been paid, the H.P. company sorted out etc. there is not usually much left. Very often nothing at all. Born with nothing, the worker dies with nothing, leaving “not a rack behind” as Shakespeare put it. But the death of a capitalist is a different matter. For one thing it is noted in the papers — it is news. The Times for example runs a short daily column headed “Latest Wills”. Now these are not any old Wills — when you die, not only will they not bother to write your obituary in the Times, they won’t put in their latest Wills column how much you left to your family and friends. But a glance at the column for any day will show something interesting. The paper’s column for Wednesday July 14th 1976 (chosen entirely at random) is quite short. It reads as follows:

Lord Elphinsone of Drumkilbo, Meigle, Tayside, a first cousin of the Queen, has left estate totalling £890,907 gross according to his will published in Perth yesterday. It included £178,019 abroad. Other estates, include . . . Atkin, Mrs. Anita Constance Irene of Tonbridge £163,424; Bennett, Lady of Highgate, wife of Sir Thomas Bennett £143,390; Hawkin, Mrs. Levu Colin, of Caine, butcher, £345,293; Segravc, Mr. Charles Rodney of Chobham £515,275.

(The figures do not show the tax that will be payable on the deaths. Equally they do not show the amount the individual may have “disposed of” prior to death in part to avoid taxes. The true representation of the individual’s wealth may be much higher than the amount given.)

Another column which frequently pinpoints the capitalist at his hour of death is the obituary column. You don’t need to have done anything of note to merit an entry — provided you were very rich. J. Paul Getty died on 7th June this year. Some of the points about him which appeared from the Times of the next day are the following; at his death he was “estimated” (i.e. he was so rich they could not even count all his money and it had to be guessed) to be worth £1,000 million; he “lived simply amid considerable splendour at Sutton Place, near Guildford, the Elizabethan mansion set in 1,000 acres”; lest this home was not “simple” enough (how much more fawning can the capitalist press be than to say he lived “simply” — the reporter ought to visit some working class homes, or look round his own, and then see if Getty lived simply) he was having another house built for him at Malibu California where “he had built a museum to house his £100 million art collection”; by the age of 21 he had “made” 2 million dollars (but he had of course a rather good send off from his millionaire father), and by the same age he had had 2 divorces, (3 more marriages and divorces to follow); this displeased his “earnest Methodist” father, so much so that when the father died, he gave Getty only 500,000 dollars of his estate of 10 million dollars; but fear not, our hero was “not disheartened by the smallness of the legacy for he already had 4 million dollars of his own”; and on and on.

Thrift and Humbug

Like so many members of the class that has no social function whatever other than to accumulate the wealth produced by workers, Getty was fond of giving his opinions to all who cared to listen (and he was so rich many people did listen). The capitalist press repeat these pearls so that the swine before whom they are cast and who produced the wealth for him can be suitably impressed by the wisdom of their masters. For example; “The advice he was prone to give to others he had followed himself. This was to ‘be thrifty, save a little money and have a small surplus for investment’.” Or what about this gem: “He did not believe in charity. ‘I don’t know,’ he said, 'why I should distribute money right and left to people because they ask for it’”! well, quite right too! after all, if the world is so madly organized as to allow most people to live in want and provide Getty with such a crazy superabundance why should he be such a damn fool (as his methodist father with his religion humbug would no doubt have put it) as to give it back to them?

That’s one sadly deceased member of the parasite class. What about some living ones? The death of Getty brought forth speculations as to who was the richest person in the world now that both Getty and Howard Hughes are dead. As the Sunday Times reported (9/6/76) there is no shortage of candidates. Some of the most obvious candidates are to quote the Sunday Times “comparatively hard up”. Into that category they put people like Henry Ford, Woodruff of Coca Cola, Benton of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Forest E. Mars of Mars Bar fame and Dewott Wallace of Readers Digest. Some of the legendary wealthy American families (Rockefellers and the like) can’t compete for the title either because they have been too “busily giving their money away to distant members of the family in a desperate effort to avoid tax.” One possible candidate is Al Tajir. He is the ambassador to Britain from the United Arab Emirates and also their advisor on oil. He “has accrued his vast wealth from a variety of sources — mining in Africa, property in Western Europe, businesses in the Persian Gulf and Lebanon . . . he did once boast that whereas many governments would find it hard — if not impossible — to raise a billion dollars . . . it would take him only a morning” However the Sunday Times suggests that the man who must take the crown is currently little-known 78-year-old American, Daniel K. Ludwig.

Although it appears that Ludwig is somewhat coy about disclosing the extent of his interests (and he may not know — as Getty is supposed to have said, “you can’t be that rich if you know how much you have got”, it seems they include the following: “The American company National Bulk Carriers, a huge fleet of tankers, a shipyard in Japan, a large share in the National Mortgage Bank in America, a deep water port in Florida, a big interest in potash in Ethiopia, iron ore in India, oranges in Panama, a million acres of Venezuela, 3 million acres of Brazil and large chunks of Australia and the United States.”

A Bijou Nest

Another quietly comfortable family is the “Royal”. Despite the cries of poverty from them that have in recent years tugged at the worker’s heartstrings, the owners of the little home standing in the exclusive 40 acres of ground at Buckingham Palace (an estate agent’s dream) can’t be that hard up. They have recently bought a small present for their son-in-law and daughter. It is, according to the Daily Mail (24/6/76 a “730 acre property — complete with trout lake, a conservatory as long as a cricket pitch, 200 acres of mature woodland, a 530 acre farm, a folly and stables.” Mind you according to the report the stables probably need doing up, the kitchen (not that the dear couple can be expected to be doing that much washing up themselves) needs a coat or two of paint, the billiard room has a “dusty unused look and has been used as a store” (how low can you get?) and in general the 5 principal bedrooms, five secondary bedrooms (for the staff) and the four reception rooms clearly need tarting up. No doubt the locals will be able to see Anne and Mark on Saturday afternoon, their shirt sleeves rolled up to their royal elbows, scrubbing away for many years to come. No wonder the Queen only paid a bargain £750,000 for it.

Enough has been said to show that the capitalist class are still alive and well and thriving off the wealth produced by the workers. Though whether it is possible to identify them makes no difference to the system itself, or those that suffer from it. Whether you see your exploiter or not, he still exists. The workers in the so-called nationalized industries do not “know” their boss. Nonetheless they are still working for the sole benefit of a class other than their own, and it is from their work that all that wealth (only some examples of which have been mentioned in this article) comes. The wealth is produced not by the brains of the capitalist class but by the work of their employees. Quite simply what happens is that when the worker draws his wage, he does not receive from the boss the equivalent of what he has produced for him. He gets back just a proportion of the amount he has produced. The balance, i.e. the profit, is pocketed by the capitalist class and used to allow the Gettys and the ordinary rich to thrive. And they will continue to suck like the social leeches they are, until the working class as a whole say “Enough!" and decide to end property society once and for all.

Ronnie Warrington

For the Battle of Britain Sunday (1976)

From the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Where's Blunsdon?

“Uncle Bert, where’s Blunsdon?”

“Blunsdon? Now only in my mind old chap.

The shapes of buildings are still clear But names and faces aren’t I fear.

My memory’s a leaking tap.”

“Uncle Bert, what were they like?”

“Who?”

“Blunsdon people. Just like you?”

“What questions! — some ways yes, like me. 

They ate and drank and worked and swore 

And after, drank and swore some more.

In these ways people are like me.”

“Did they sing hymns 

Like we do here at school?”

“Of course. Some did, although not all,

In several churches, one quite old —

(St. Leonards) — and it was dammed cold,

And — ah yes! I now recall 

A school service on a drowsy day,

Outside the church we heard a noise 

And, jumping with excitement, (as do boys)

We saw some bomber planes “at play.”

There they were, winking in their silver grace, 

Heading East, a pretence in fun 

To direct bombs at a Blunsdon 

in some ungodly foreign place.”

(Aye! The Lord speaks through his preachers, versed

In schizoid phrases such as these:

“By all means love thy enemies,

But for Christ’s sake kill ’em first”).

So They Say: New Book — Old Story (1976)

The So They Say Column from the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

New Book — Old Story

In an interview published by the Times on 2nd August, Sir Harold Wilson let it be known that he has completed the first draft of a book called The Government of Britain. Apparently the work has much to commend it. “Every sentence was an intellectual challenge to try to remember things which will be useful as a kind of text-book, which in the past have been mainly written by academics from outside.” Such a description suggests a semi-autobiographical account of the attempts to administer capitalism over recent decades, and as such it can only be a commentary on the various acts of expediency employed in order to paper over the basic contradictions. Acts of expediency in our description, governments choose to call them “policies.”

Even Wilson appears to acknowledge that the “Governance” in his title is only alleged when he remarks “In the compulsions of taking decisions, of course, you cannot forecast whether this decision will come off.” Of course. Capitalism is a system of society in which there is no social control over the means of wealth production and distribution. The owners, a non-working minority, allow production to take place only when there is a likelihood of a profit. Wilson and the Labour Party have preferred to tinker with the effects of such a system and shy clear of the revolutionary solution — hence the never-ending “compulsions” they have been faced with. The frequency of the calls upon Wilson’s juggling ability meant that among other things his reading suffered.

I have never even read Marx, couldn’t get past the second page because of that whacking great footnote which bores me every time I ever try to read it. Although I think I have a vague idea of what he was after in his concept, it is not what I understand by British socialism.

Were Marx alive, we feel sure he would concur with the conclusion.

The Devil You Know

George Bernard Shaw wrote somewhat sarcastically that “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world.” Recently those most reasonable of men, the Labour Party Tribune Group, have been giving an excellent display of their adaptability. The Conservatives tabled a motion in Parliament for the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s salary (£15,000) to be halved. This amounted, in the words of the Times report of 2nd August, to “a criticism of the public expenditure cuts announced on July 22nd, and a condemnation of the Government’s economic and financial policies in general.” Amid the hot air and other gaseous emissions in that Palace, Tribune group members have been loud in their criticism of the cuts. Consequently the possibility of their abstention from the vote with a resultant government defeat was raised. The time for these men of principle had come.

However, adaptability prevailed. First they issued what we have come to expect from Tribune Group MPs — “a token protest.” The “left” pulls no punches, their amendment called for a reduction in Healey’s salary of £5.00 per annum. Next Mr. Norman Atkinson, one of their leading if somewhat dim lights, explained why his group should not risk a government defeat.

The Government have made it clear that they support the central banks about the use of international credits . . . It seems logical therefore, that all those who seek to sustain the Government in office must accept the bankers' cuts in principle, not in their entirety, but in principle. The only alternative was to force the Government to go to the country for a general election. But such action would make little sense . . . because if Labour won it would be taken as an endorsement of the bankers’ policies and it would mute the left for a long time to come.

This, we understand, is known as keeping all the options open. The Tribune Group wish to preserve the Labour Government because they prefer to mouth disagreement from the government benches. In this way their posturing attracts more attention than it otherwise would. Mr. Atkinson was simply overflowing with sweet reason and “left-wing” principle:

Only the 2 per cent levy on employers through national insurance contributions will attract combined opposition from the Tories, the nationalists and the Liberals, he said. Because the measure must mean at least 50,000 sackings in addition to those already announced, the left must face the sacrifice of jobs to keep the Government in office. We have no alternative, and neither has the Trades Union Congress in four week’s time, that is the brutal reality.

Facing reality must necessarily strike the Tribune Group as brutal, they are more used to dealing in hypocrisy.

Con on Class

While giving a public pep-talk to fellow conservatives in the columns of the Daily Telegraph, Sir Geoffrey Howe MP indicated that times are a-changing. He argued that changes had to be made to the Conservative Party image if the electorate was to be persuaded that the party did not stand “only for bosses, rich people, upper classes.” Unless the common man discarded such misapprehensions, Howe ominously concludes, “This could bode ill for the future.” Apparently he has been inspired to speak out following numerous reports that the typical response to Conservative canvassers has been “We re all Labour voters in this house. We’ve got to be haven’t we? We’re a working class family you see.” We do not deal with this ill-founded statement here, but note the politician’s attitude to it.

It makes it difficult to argue that class is not a significant factor in British politics.

Daily Telegraph, 2nd August ’76

Which is extremely tiresome for politicians no doubt. A class-divided society necessarily produces such handicaps for them. However, Mr. Howe, who thinks that there are several classes rather than two, is ready to throw one of them overboard in his search for conservative voters.

The son of a successful entrepreneur — even the grand daughter of a Prime Minister — is bound to acquire knowledge and experience that will confer advantage in the next generation. But let us certainly reject the suggestion that we favour the concept of a ruling class or anything like it.

But wait, he would only reject the suggestion that they favour the concept. The ruling class, no doubt rattled, can breathe again.

Will He, Wont He?

A glittering exchange took place between Mrs. Thatcher and the Prime Minister shortly before the parliamentary recess. The Conservative leader asked what the Prime Minister expected to be the maximum number of people unemployed in 1976. Mr. Callaghan replied:

The Chancellor has said he expects unemployment to begin to go down by the end of the year. I cannot improve on that forecast. I have come without the figures in any case.

Times, 6th August ’76

After other remarks, Mrs. Thatcher rose again.

The Chancellor did not give any figures. He refused to give figures when cross-examined by both sides of the House. I would have thought that the Prime Minister would automatically have informed himself about one of the main figures, which is the maximum unemployment expected during the next year. Is he saying he has not?

With considerable politeness, Mr. Callaghan informed the enquirer “Yes, I am saying that because I find these forecasts often cancel out . . .” He also had some advice for her.

I would beg her not to take too much notice of forecasts. So many of them often proved wrong over the last six months . . .

The performance and the show (the longest-running in the west and) will continue after the interval.

From Bad to Bad

However there is a time and place for everything, and Mr. Callaghan is not adverse to making forecasts when it suits him. In October 1975 he informed us that over the (then) oncoming year “British families will suffer a sharp drop in their living standards.” His description was “a temporary sacrifice.” We ventured to suggest then that the “temporary” label might be forgotten and apparently it has.

I think industry can say the conditions are present to enable us to have a reasonable bet on the prospects of viable expansion that will continue. I don’t want to boom and bust. The real traumatic period for this country is between now and 1980 and this is the period we’ve got to concentrate on.

Daily Telegraph, 9th August ’76

Members of the working class take note, the traumas will be yours. Unless you are prepared to study Socialist ideas and work for the abolition of the private property system, the only “reasonable bet” to be had here is that shortly before the end of 1980, Mr. Callaghan or his equivalent (we include conservatives) will be telling us that the forecasts had been wrong; the real traumatic period was to be extended until the mid-1980s. In the meantime working-class poverty will continue.

Alan D'Arcy