This Month's Quotation: F. Engels. (1933)

The Front Page quote from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses."

Frederick Engels

The Shorter Working Week in Australia: What it means to the workers (1933)

From the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the present time, throughout the world, there is much talk about the shorter working week. Mussolini has made some suggestions to the League of Nations .on the question; President Roosevelt has intimated that he intends taking steps to reduce the working week in the United States; the Australian Trade Union Congress carried resolutions calling upon workers to organise to bring about a reduction in hours so that unemployment might be decreased. Recently the workers in Queensland applied to the State authorities for a forty-hour week.

In addition to the above the Communists have been agitating for a thirty-hour week of five days. In a pamphlet issued by the Communist Party of Australia, in 1931, entitled “The Communist way out of the Crisis," we find the following: —

By introducing the seven-hour day and the five-day week, and by raising the purchasing power of the masses, we will abolish unemployment. (Page 6.)

The shallowness of the Communist Party's economics is revealed here; even the Trades Union Congress did not propose to abolish unemployment with its thirty-hour week.

Less Hours—More Wealth

The history of capitalism shows that the introduction of a shorter working week does not mean the absorption of more workers to keep up the output. When the factory system began there were few regulations governing the length of time a worker could be kept on the job. Sixteen and eighteen hours per day in English factories was a common occurrence; workers were worked even longer, and such conditions exist in many workshops in Japan to-day.

In England the twelve-hour day became general and, subsequently, by legislative enactment, the ten-hour day was introduced. In Australia, for many years, there has been a legally-fixed eight-hour working day, and it is a proud boast of many old-timers that they participated in the fight for eight hours’ work, eight hours’ recreation, and eight hours’ rest. In some individual workshops such as Lever Bros., Port Sunlight, there is a six-hour working day.

Recently, in Sydney, New South Wales, the Industrial Commission inquired into the question of the working week. The Government desired to restore the forty-eight instead of the existing forty-four-hour week. The President of the Trade Union Secretaries’ Association presented the following remarkable facts at the inquiry:—

“The productive capacity of the industries of this State was greater than those in Victoria before the introduction of the 44-hour week in New South Wales, and was greater since the introduction of the shorter working week; also that for a given amount of goods the percentage outlay on wages in New South Wales was less than in Victoria (48-hour week) and the margin available for profit and interest was greater in New South Wales than in Victoria prior to and during the operation of the 44-hour week.

“A table of statistics from official sources showed that the percentage of wages to value of output in 1930-31 was 21.7 in New South Wales, and 22.86 in Victoria. The average value of production per employee was: 

"The average production in New South Wales had been considerably higher in this period, which included the depression year, than in Victoria. In the years 1926-7 to 1929-80, when the 44-hour Act was enforced in New South Wales, the production per employee rose by £21 in New South Wales and by £3 in Victoria—SEVEN TIMES GREATER.

"These figures demonstrated that a reduction in standard hours not only maintained but improved the productive capacity of employees”

(Labour Daily, 17/3/33.) 

Yet, in the same issue of the Labour Daily, Alderman J. S. Garden, of Sydney City Council, Secretary of the Trades Hall Council, prominent member of the Australian Labour Party, and one of Mr Lang’s foremost boosters, while speaking on unemployment, stated: —

“ . . .  the people who were advocating 'complete socialism or nothing’ were talking absolute nonsense. . . . The basis on which the forthcoming campaign is to be waged will be a thirty-hour working week, restoration of wage cuts, etc. . .

(Labour Daily, 17/3/33.) 

The knowledge that the “forthcoming campaign” will be based upon the advocacy of a shorter working week will bring little consolation to the workless after they glance through the statistics set out above.

These statistics reflect the result of the application of more up-to-date machinery to the productive process. The employers invariably find ways and means of adjusting their plant and methods when such concessions are forced from them. When we point this out we are not to be taken as being against the introduction of a shorter working week; we merely stress its ineffectiveness as a solution for unemployment.

As long as the means of production are owned and controlled by the capitalist class, that class will reap the benefits of the increased application of machinery. They own the products and decide how they will be distributed.

The lesson to be learned is that if the workers, as a class, are to gain from improvements in the means of production, they must organise on a class basis for the conquest of political power to bring about the common ownership of the means of wealth production. This is the aim of the Socialist Party. What about falling into line with us, fellow-workers?

W. J. Clarke,

Socialist Party of Australia, Melbourne.

Editorial: Are We Progressing? (1933)

Editorial from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hopes and Fears for Socialism

The man who says that he has no use for theory is wrong—and dangerous. Yet the Socialist is always coming up against people who justify their lack of concern about Socialist theory by some such jibe at all theory. In the matter of politics, as in the care of the human body, the man who believes that he acts on no theory at all, but on “common-sense,” is, in fact, only acting on the theories which happen to be most widely accepted at the moment. In the field of politics this is almost tantamount to saying that such a man is bound to be wrong, for are not the existing widely-accepted theories the ones which have been applied without success as a cure for the existing evils?

There are sound theories, that is theories which are in accord with the existing facts and which, if applied, will produce the result intended; and there are unsound theories. The man who “does not believe in theory” is blindly accepting the unsound theories propagated by those who do not understand the economic and political situation and by those who have an interest in maintaining it as it is, evils included. The two theories found most frequently among those who will not listen to the Socialist case are not confined to any one political party, but are common among Liberals and Tories, Labourites and Communists. The first is the theory that conscious organised action to achieve Socialism is not necessary because, in spite of appearances, “things are getting constantly better and better.” The second is the theory that conscious organised action need not be taken because everything will go on getting worse and worse until there is a really terrifying crash “which will simply force people to do something.”

Superficially both theories appear to be plausible enough: fundamentally both are hopelessly wrong. They are dangerous to those who hold them and a serious obstacle standing in the way of the Socialist movement.

The first theory appears to be true because at any given moment there always does seem to be a great deal of activity directed towards making things better. Just at present we are being promised better trade and less unemployment, the abolition of slums, a better organised milk supply, better transport, shorter hours, electricity in our homes—and, of course, higher wages. The snag in it is twofold, firstly it is so far all talk, and the resulting performance—when it comes—will produce quite a small mouse compared with the mountain of promises, and, secondly, that by the time this mouse has been brought forth, capitalism, the source of our present troubles, will have given birth to a large number of other terrifying evils. If you doubt this look back over the past hundred years of “solutions” of the housing problem, the poverty problem, the unemployment problem, the hours problem and the wages problem. They are always being solved. “Solutions” are the permanent stock-in-trade of the capitalist politicians. If you feel disposed to give a chance to some young political group which roundly denounces the old gangs for their failure, remember that the old gangs all began as young fire-eaters; and observe that the planks in the programmes of the new gangsters, are only the same old worm-eaten rubbish with a new coat of paint.

The other theory, the theory of “crash,” looks plausible because periodically unintelligent discontent does burst forth in the shape of violence and destruction.

Yet both theories are unsound. Neither the gradual accumulation of social reforms, nor the periodical outburst of violence solves the problem which faces us. To see that this is so it is only necessary to glance over the events of the past 30 years. In spite of wars and upheavals, Labour Governments and dictatorships, capitalism persists without any essential change for better or for worse. It makes a little adjustment here and another there, it replaces one set of rulers by another set, it calls things by different names, but the same essential capitalism is here with us yet.

Thirty years ago dawn was announced in the Welsh hills by David Lloyd George. Poverty was to be abolished from this land of plenty. Health insurance—9d. for 4d.—was to guard us against the hardships of illness. Labour exchanges would find work for the unemployed. The land tax would undermine the power of the privileged class. If there were anything in the theory that progress only needs a “good leader,” here was the man. Energetic, clear-headed, bold and able to understand working-class problems. What happened ? Nothing very much. The hopes of the workers and the fears of the rich were alike confounded.

Then came the crash, the war. Now—so we were told—the workers would be driven to revolt, and then the new world would be ushered in. The results were otherwise. War-weariness was astutely canalized by this same Lloyd George, with his promises of a ”land fit for heroes to live in,” and his rallying cry to the workers to ”be audacious.” In Great Britain the end of the war saw the workers marching happily behind the man who had betrayed them before.

Then the dawn suddenly shot up in several places all at about the same time. Labour Governments in Australia, so-called Socialist revolutions in Russia, Germany and Austria, followed by a short-lived Bolshevist triumph in Hungary.

What now has happened to those extravagant early hopes? The Socialist Party of Great Britain stood alone in this country when it warned the workers that they were putting their trust in shadows. All those dawns have faded, even if some are not yet everywhere recognised for what they are. The same thing happened with the two Labour Governments in Great Britain, 1924 and 1929- 31.

Then there came hopes and crashes of a different sort, the rise of the Fascists in Italy, followed in 1931 by the National Government in England, and in 1933 by the rise of Hitler in Germany. Part of the working class hailed these events with just the same pathetic fervour as was shown by another part of the working class at the rise of Labour Governments and the rise of the Bolsheviks. So that there was the curious spectacle of one section of the workers looking on MacDonald, Mussolini and Hitler as heroes come to save them, while other workers regarded these men as the embodiments of evil, signifying the collapse of economic life as we have known it, which in fact would mean the collapse of capitalism.

Yet it goes on. Capitalism adjusts itself. Workers go to work under much the same conditions as before. Unemployment, poverty and bad housing continue under dictatorships of the “left” and “right” just as they do under limited monarchies and democratic republics. The means of production and distribution go on being privately owned. Rent, interest and profits, that holy trinity, continue whatever the political form under which capitalism is governed, and whatever political doctrines the ruling clique profess to hold.

Capitalism persists in spite of all the energy and enthusiasm swallowed up in the movements of reform by peaceful penetration and the movements of reform by violence and collapse.

The “inevitability of gradualness” flounders in the same bog as the communist - fascist theory of progress by chaos.

That is the result of following two unsound theories.

Correspondence: Wages and Prices (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wages and Prices

Are wage increases an illusion? 

A correspondent asks the following question : —

Would the workers be better off if they had higher wages? As far as I can see, if there is an appreciable rise in wages, the price of goods must be higher. Am I right or wrong?

Reply.

This question is one of which little has been heard during the past ten years, but during the years 1914 to 1921, when prices were rising, it was in the forefront of every discussion at trade union and political meetings. If prices rise again this old bogey will be trotted out once more. How old it is can be seen from the fact that the question was put to Marx nearly seventy years ago, and was answered by him in the lecture which is republished in the pamphlet, “Value, Price and Profit.” That answer has stood the test of time, and has never been bettered. Our correspondent and others who are interested are strongly advised to read it in order to supplement the brief explanation given below, and the somewhat fuller treatment in our pamphlet, Socialism.

The first thing to notice is that the prices at which articles sell are not fixed at whatever amount the capitalist chooses to select. Competition between capitalists, each trying to realise a profit by selling his goods, prevents the individual capitalist charging a price far above the average market price for that article. The determining factor in all prices is the value of the article, that is, the amount of labour required in its production, including, of course, the amount of labour required in the production of machinery, fuel, buildings, etc., with the aid of which the process of production is carried out. When we say that a bicycle is worth £5, what we are really saying is that the amount of labour required to produce the bicycle is the same as the amount of labour required to produce the weight of gold represented by five £1 notes.

“Labour-power,” which is the commodity sold by the workers to the capitalists, has its value determined in a similar way. The value of labour-power is determined by the amount of labour required for the upkeep of the worker and his family. The price at which the worker sells his labour-power is his wages.

We see, therefore, that prices and wages, under a given set of conditions, are alike determined by factors outside the control of the capitalists.

The next point to realise is that the values of the goods produced by the workers are not determined by the amount of the workers’ wages. The values of the goods are determined by the average amount of labour (number of hours of labour) required in their production.

For example, in a 48-hour week, a worker might produce goods whose value is £5, but the amount of labour required for the upkeep of the worker is only 24 hours, which would mean that his wage is about £2 10s. The capitalist keeps the difference between the worker’s product and the worker’s wages.

If wages fall and the product remains the same, the employer’s profits are increased. If wages rise the employer’s profits are decreased.

Therefore, it is not true that higher wages are of no good to the worker. Nor is it true that higher wages lead to higher prices.

The truth of this can be tested by observation. If the capitalists could raise prices just how they like they would never object to higher wages or to higher taxes. Yet we see in practice that the capitalists will go to enormous trouble and expense to defeat a demand for higher wages or higher taxes. They know very well indeed that higher wages mean smaller profits.

The truth of the position outlined above is easily seen at times when the general level of prices remains unchanged. It is, however, not so clear when prices are rising or falling. Owing to changes in the amount of labour required in the production of articles of all kinds, or in the production of gold (due, for example, to new machinery and new methods), it is possible for all prices to rise or fall. When prices rise it costs more to provide for the upkeep of the worker, and consequently wages rise also, although in practice we generally find wages rising more slowly than the workers’ cost of living.

When prices fall it costs the worker less to provide for himself and family, and wages then come down along with prices. Sometimes, as in Great Britain, during recent years, wages fall rather more slowly than prices.

At times of rising prices, the capitalists and their agents and also many muddleheaded labour leaders, put forward this false theory that wage increases lead to higher prices, and are useless. The capitalists do this because they hope thereby to dissuade the workers from striking for higher wages, and hope to get them to accept permanently a lower standard of living. The workers should resist such attempts and should never miss a real opportunity of struggling for higher wages.

At a superficial view it may look inconsistent to struggle to raise the standard of living if the workers’ wages are based on what it costs to keep him and his family. It is, however, not inconsistent because the workers’ cost of living is not merely the cost of bare necessities. It can, and usually does, include other factors depending on tradition and the needs and customs of the trade in which the worker is employed and of the country in which he lives. If the workers are able at a particular time to resist wage reductions during a period of falling prices, or are able to gain and hold wage increases at a time of stable prices, they can to that extent better their position and improve their standard of living. As, however, this can only be done at the immediate expense of the employers, the latter will always strive to prevent it, and if the employers find it expedient to give way at the time, they will always endeavour to recoup themselves later on by speeding-up the work, introducing “labour-saving” machinery, employing a cheaper type of labour, employing women and juveniles in place of men, etc.

Therefore, while the wage struggle is necessary and it would be disastrous to give it up, it can never solve the real problem which faces the workers. That cannot be done by the day-to-day struggle against the capitalists. It can only be done by gaining control of the machinery of government and abolishing capitalist ownership and control of the land, factories, railways, etc.

Ed. Comm.

Correction (1933)

From the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Origin of Unemployment Insurance.

In an article in the September issue. "Do Social Reforms Kill Socialism?" it was implied that Unemployment Insurance was directly borrowed from Germany. This appears not to have been the case. Health Insurance was directly borrowed from Germany, and the working of the Health Insurance system there was known to those who introduced Unemployment Insurance in England, but although the practice of Governments making payments to the unemployed was, of course, known, the principle of insurance had not been applied to it. In a Liberal Party publication, “A Nation Insured," written by Leo Chiozza Money, and published in 1911, it was stated that "in unemployment insurance Britain is leading the way."

This correction does not affect the argument contained in the article.

Ed. Comm.

Facts for Propagandists (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks a number of questions on matters of general interest to propagandists. Questions and answers are given below.

(1) The Working Class.

Question: "What percentage of the total population are really members of the working class?”

Answer: The working class consists of all those people who, not owning sufficient property to be able to live without working are compelled to sell their labour power, their mental and physical energies, to an employer in order to live. These and their dependents form the working class. As the definition covers not only the industrial workers, but also technical, professional, supervisory and managerial workers it will readily be seen that in an advanced capitalist country like Great Britain the working class and their dependents constitute the great majority of the population.

How large is the proportion of working class to the rest of the population can be seen from the estimate made by Dr. Bowley and Sir Josiah Stamp in “The National Income, 1924" (Published by Clarendon Press, 1927).

On page 12 they estimate that in 1924, out of 20,300,000 “occupied persons," 76 per cent. were wage earners, and 14 per cent. salary earners, total 90 per cent.; leaving 10 per cent, for the rest of the occupied persons. This 10 per cent. was made up of 6 per cent. “Independent Workers" and 4 per cent. “Employers, Farmers, and Professional." ("Independent Worker" means one-man businesses, etc.)

Carr-Saunders and Caradog Jones, in the “Social Structure of England and Wales" (Oxford University Press, 1927) reproduce the above figures (p. 63) and add the illustration that, on an average, there are about 24 employees to every employer.

Some qualifications need to be made. The above estimates refer to “occupied persons" only, and do not include children, wives, and other dependents who are not “occupied." If we assume that the average number of dependents of a wage-earner or salary-earner is roughly the same as the average number of dependents of an employer or of an “independent worker," we can say that the total population of all ages is divided in the same proportion as the occupied persons.

In other words, taking every man, woman and child in the country, 90 per cent. can be described as “working class," 6 per cent. “Independent," and 4 per cent. “farmers, employers, or professional/’ (“Professional" means doctors, barristers, free-lance journalists, etc.)

It is not known how many property owners who need not work actually do so and are reckoned among the above 90 per cent.

(2) Who Owns the Means of Production and Distribution?

The position is that the great bulk of the accumulated property of all kinds (including money) is held by a very small part of the population, either direct, or through their ownership of the shares of companies. A small proportion of shares in companies is owned by workers. There are also independent persons (owners of one-man businesses) who own a small part of the total property.

Carr-Saunders and Caradog Jones, in their “Social Structure of England and Wales," reproduce and comment on various estimates of the ownership of accumulated wealth. They use Sir Josiah Stamp’s estimates to show that in 1919—

about two-thirds of the wealth is held by just under 400.000 people (or less than 1 per cent. of the total population) and one-third of the wealth by 36,000 people (or less than 1 in 1,000 of the total population). (P. 114.)

Taking “occupied persons" instead of the total population, Sir Josiah Stamp’s calculations show that—

about 2½ per cent. of occupied persons over 20 hold about two-thirds of the wealth, and about 2½ in 1,000 hold one-third of the wealth, (p. 114.)

They quote Professor Henry Clay that—

64 per cent., or rather less than two-thirds of the wealth is in the hands of 1.7 per cent. of persons holding property.

These people (“1.7 per cent. of the persons holding property") represent only 0.85 of the whole population (p. 116).

According to Clay, at the other end of the scale—

96.2 per cent. of persons have only 17.22 per cent, of the national capital, (p. 116.)

Sir Leo Chiozza Money showed before the War, in his “Riches and Poverty" (Third edition, p. 72), that—

about one-seventieth of the population owns far more than one-half of the entire accumulated wealth, public or private, of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson, of “The Economist," in his “The Small Investor" (Blackie aqd Son, Ltd., 1930), shows that the total accumulated resources of “small investors" amount to only about 10 per cent. to 14 per cent. of the total wealth of the country. Under “small investors" he includes the owners of all kinds of savings, including Post Office savings deposits, Trade Union Thrift Funds, Co-operative Society Funds, etc. These “small investors," he says, represent at least 75 per cent. of the total population (p. 110).

In other words, according to Mr. Parkinson, more than three-quarters of the population own only about one-eighth of the wealth. The other seven-eighths is owned by less than one quarter of the population.

(3) What Percentage of all Wealth is Owned by Banks and Insurance Companies ?

We have no means of ascertaining easily what is the total value of all the property owned by Banks and Insurance Companies.

It must, of course, be remembered that the property of the Banks and Insurance Companies is actually the property of the shareholders, depositors and insured persons, and is, therefore, already reckoned in the estimates given in reply to question (2).

(4) The Workers' Wages.

“ What is the average wage of the workers in Great Britain?"

Colin Clark, M.A., in “The National Income (1924-1931)," states that Bowley and Stamp estimated the average earnings of 12 million wage-earners in 1924 at £122, while Clark himself estimated £116 ("The National Income," published by McMillan, 1932, p. 61).

These amounts are equivalent to about 46s. and 45s. a week. They do not allow for deductions for sickness and holidays.

Since 1924 wages have fallen appreciably; according to Dr. Bowley by 3 per cent. up to 1931. This would make the average wage now about 44s.

(5) Unemployment and the Poor Law.

“ What percentage of the population is unemployed and in receipt of public assistance?"

On May 22nd, 1933, the total number of unemployed on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 2,653,852. (See “Labour Gazette," June, p. 207.)

This represented 20.5 per cent. (one in five) of the insured workers.

It represented nearly 6 per cent. of the total population. (There are, of course, an unknown number of unemployed who are not insured and not registered. )

The number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (both outdoor relief and relief in institutions) was 1,340,638 at the end of December, 1932.

This represented about 3.3 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales. (See “Labour Gazette," March, 1933, p. 84.)

It includes, of course, a large number of persons registered at the Employment Exchanges as unemployed. With their dependents these number nearly 400,000.

(6) Who are the Buyers of Shares ?

“ Who are the institutions of people who buy or oversubscribe the usual large issues of shares ?"

Except by having inside knowledge of the subscriptions to particular issues of shares it is not possible to have direct information which would answer this question.

A general indication of the position, however, is given by Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson in “The Small Investor." He estimates' that small investors (who, with their dependents, represent over three-quarters of the population) own shares totalling between £500 millions and £750 millions, and that they buy shares in normal times at the rate of between £20 millions and £40 millions a year.

Divided over the whole number of persons these amounts are trifling.

How small they are can be seen by comparing them with the total holdings of shares, and with the total amount of new shares bought each year by the big investors.

"The Bankers' Magazine" keeps an index of the average price of 365 representative securities. These 365, which represent only part of the total number of securities quoted on the Stock Exchange, had a total market price in June of £6,249 millions, i.e., about ten times as much as the total shareholdings of the “small investors.”

The “Stock Exchange Official Intelligence (1931)" states that at the end of 1929 there were 108,698 companies having share capital totalling £5,200 millions (p. 2023).

Whereas the “small investors," according to Mr. Parkinson, buy shares worth only £20 to £40 millions a year, the total amount of capital of new companies registered in 1928 and 1929 was £237 millions and £240 millions (“Intelligence,” p. 2023).

The bulk of the shares are bought and held by Banks, Insurance Companies, trading and industrial concerns, investment trusts, etc., and by wealthy individuals.

(7) Wages and Wealth Production.

“ What percentage of the wealth produced by the workers is returned to them as wages?"

Colin Clark, M.A., in his "The National Income, 1924-1931," estimated that in 1929 the wage-earners received 39.9 per cent, of the total national income (excluding income from abroad, i.e., from foreign investments, etc.).

Salary earners received 22.5 per cent. Rent of land and buildings accounted for 7.8 per cent., and profit and interest accounted for 29.7 per cent. (p. 72).

In other words, the wage and salary earners, who represent nine-tenths of the population, received just over three-fifths of the total national income.

The wage-earners, who represent three-quarters of the population, received only two-fifths.

These figures relate to the whole number of wage earners, irrespective of whether they are engaged in wealth production or whether they are engaged in financial, trading, and other activities.

Taking Manufacturing and Mining Industries only, the Committee on Finance Industry (MacMillan Committee) in its Report (1931) published tables showing that earnings represent just over one-half of the wealth produced in those industries. (52 per cent. in 1906-7 and 55 per cent. in 1924.) (See p. 313.)

In 1924 the average net product per person employed was £220, while average earnings was £120. This means that each person employed was producing a surplus of £100 a year, over and above his own pay and after meeting all the raw material and other costs.

(8) Wealth and Waste.

“ What percentage of workers are engaged in luxury or useless or redundant occupations?"

An attempt to estimate this percentage is made in our pamphlet, “Socialism," to which our correspondent is referred.

(9) The Churches and Property.

“What percentage of all wealth is owned by religious organisations?"

We have no information on this subject.

(10) The Cost of the Armed Forces, etc.

“What percentage of the total income is devoted to the upkeep of army, navy and police?"

The cost of Police pay in 1931 was about £15,600,000. (See Report of Committee of National Expenditure, 1931, p. 42.)

The Army, Navy and Air Estimates for  1932-33 amounted to about £104 millions.

Taking the two figures together, we have a grand total of £120 millions.

Colin Clark estimated the total national income in 1931 at £3,322 millions. Therefore, the cost of the army, navy, air force and police represents about 4 per cent. of the total national income. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Answer to a Correspondent: Hardships under Socialism (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hardships under Socialism

A correspondent asks us to explain our statement to another correspondent that hardships may be inevitable under any social system. He asks us to give some idea of the kind of hardship possible under Socialism. We had in mind the kind of hardship which is not due to defective social organisation, but to other uncontrollable or unforeseen causes; for example, earthquakes, storms, floods, and large-scale changes of climate. Such happenings may so disorganise production and transport that temporary hardship cannot be prevented, or may result in the depopulation of whole areas. What must, however, be remembered is that society as a whole would bear the brunt of these hardships so far as would be physically possible by coming to the aid of those immediately affected. Under capitalism these things are left to chance assistance by charitable organisations, subsidised to some degree by governments. The amount of such assistance is invariably inadequate and if the event does not happen to arouse widespread interest, the victims may be left to fend for themselves.

The chief hardships under capitalism are not due to such causes, but are the result of the private ownership of the means of living. They will disappear under Socialism.

Ed. Comm.

SPGB Meetings (1933)

Party News from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Blogger's Notes:

'R. Lord' was Robert Lord, who joined Central Branch of the SPGB in October 1925. His membership lapsed in January 1935.

'A. Goldberg' is not listed in the membership records but there was a David Goldberg, who was a member of Hackney Branch from March until 1925 until he was killed in action during World War Two. Barltrop mentions him in The Monument.

'S. Stewart' was the party name used by Stella Jackson.

There is no listing in the (incomplete) party membership records for a 'D. Russell'.

'G. Cameron' possibly William Cameron.

Donations to Party Funds (1933)

Pary News from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard