Russia—1952 (1952)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In response to an invitation from the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions in Moscow a “British Workers” delegation visited the Soviet Union in May of this year. They have now published a report. The delegation consisted of five engineers, three railwaymen, one electrician, one cine-technician, one taxi-cab driver, and Pat Sloan, secretary of the British-Soviet Friendship Society, who was the only member of the party who speaks Russian. According to the report all twelve were active trade unionists; two were also active in the Labour Party and two, excluding Pat Sloan, were members of the Communist Party.

In the introduction to the report (“Russia, 1952,” 6d.) the writer emphasises conditions in the old Russian Empire prior to the revolution in 1917, and stresses that the country has only “had fifteen years of peaceful new construction since 1917.” He says that up to 1917 Russia was one of the world’s most backward countries, and quotes E. J. Dillon as saying that famine was “as periodical as the snows.” After admitting the backwardness of the Russian economy under the Czars—a fact that the Socialist Party has hammered home for years—he then makes the statement that “only from 1928 did Soviet Russia begin to progress rapidly with a Socialist planned economy.” How Russia jumped from being one of the world’s most backward countries in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power, to a socialist economy in 1952 the report does not say. However, let us return to our “workers” delegation. They arrived at Moscow by air, and entering the city by road from Moscow airport, saw on their left the new Moscow University—with its 6,000 bed-sitting rooms for the students; on their right were the one-storeyed dilapidated wooden houses of the workers! Soon after arriving the delegation visited the Permanent Building Exhibition, and saw the plans for the Ten Year Reconstruction Plan for Moscow. To British visitors, continues the report, a backward feature of the Soviet Union to-day is public sanitation; there is a great deal to do in this respect. During the war both public and private sanitation was much worse than it is to-day. In “Workers in Stalin’s Russia” M. L. Berneri quotes a letter from a friend in the R.A.F. which he wrote on his return from the Soviet Union. In his letter he says that the sanitary arrangements on the trains (which incidentally have three and sometimes four classes) are grim; and he quotes Ethel Mannin as saying: “The Russians might aim to fulfil various five-year plans, but when they get near a lavatory they don’t aim at all.” So much for Russian sanitation.

Housing, sanitation and road-building are all priority problems, and will, according to the report, provide the Soviet people with plenty to do for very many years. All asphalt roads date from the First Five Year Plan; most cities have their main roads and thoroughfares asphalted, but once you get off the main roads, either in the towns and cities or between them, you find rough tracks.

Although housing is one of the main problems of the Muscovite worker, numerous blocks are being built, mainly in the suburbs. New thoroughfares are being built and many of the old buildings are being pulled down. Although now the capital of the U.S.S.R. (St. Petersburg was the capital of the old Russian Empire), Moscow is no better than other cities such as Rostov-on-Don or Leningrad. Moscow was at one time referred to as “an overgrown village.” But it is now changing. Numerous impressive buildings are appearing such as the new University; and there are some new semi-skyscraper type flats such as the 27-storey railwaymen’s block.

Like all visitors to Moscow the delegation was much impressed by the underground super-palaces of the Metro. Each station has superb decorations in marble, bas-reliefs, coloured tiles, porcelain plaques, mosaics, stained glass, etc. But there are only 35 stations in all.

Two other aspects of life in Moscow are worth mentioning.

The shops usually open at 11 a.m., and long queues form outside before opening time. This statement seems to belie the assertion that Moscow shops are well stocked; or if they are, then it seems—as others have reported—that there are too few of them to cope with the demands of population. The shop assistants work on an eight-hour shift system, and the shops stay open until late in the evening. Comparative food prices are higher in the Soviet Union than in Britain, in the case of all of our subsidised rationed goods. Unsubsidised foodstuffs are comparable in price. Champagne is about 17s. a bottle, red wine 6s. 6d., and vodka 11s. According to the delegation’s report the Soviet Government, by advertising, is trying to discourage the consumption of vodka in favour of beer and wine. This is not surprising as some vodka is nearly 95 per cent. pure alcohol, and having sampled it this writer can assure his readers that after one party—and Russian parties always last well into the night, and much vodka is drunk—the average worker would not be very fit for work the next day.

The cost of television sets is much less than in Britain, but radios at £25 are a little dearer. Cars were selling at £225 to £450. Although these prices seem to compare favourably with British prices it must be remembered that the average wage in the U.S.S.R. is about 1,000 roubles a month (paid monthly) and some workers such as cleaners get less than 500 roubles, which is about £3 per week. As the average wage is not more than £6 per week it can be seen that most wage workers in the Soviet Union are more poverty stricken than their British counterparts—health service, in both countries, notwithstanding. Some members of the delegation considered that a Soviet worker receiving 500 roubles per month would eat worse than his opposite number (£3 per week) here in Britain. He would also find the cost of clothing very high, and would not be so well clothed. As to highly skilled workers, such as miners, engine drivers, foundry men, etc., the report claims that their wages enable them to eat much better than the corresponding workers in Britain. Before returning to the second aspect of life in Moscow—the churches—let us look at the important aspects of the Soviet wages system.

All wages are carefully graded for every job. There is equal pay for equal work. The skilled workers' wages rise very steeply, and wages are graded as a deliberate policy, as an incentive to increase skill.

The report does not mention the stakhanovite movement, which is almost universal in the Soviet Union. The aim of this movement, which is referred to as “socialist emulation” by the Communists, is, by great effort, improved techniques and better organisation, to increase production—and profits, for the various State trusts and “combinars.”

The second interesting point made by the delegation is their description of the three churches they visited in Moscow; a Russian Orthodox, a Baptist and a Roman Catholic. At the first, a cathedral, they found a congregation of several thousand. In the second there were several thousand “souls,” including the delegation (not forgetting the two Communists), who participated in Communion! (Who was it that said “Religion is the opium of the people”?). In the last church, the Roman Catholic, there was not a full congregation. According to the officiating priest the present total Catholic congregation is some 800 souls. Most of the people in the churches were elderly, but the delegation noticed a number of children. Religious instruction is not, however, given in the schools.

Although the delegates stress the fact that the Soviet people desire peace—as do all sane and rational people—they draw attention to the one-hour military parade in Moscow which preceded the May Day demonstration, which they think might be taken in certain quarters to be a disproof of the Soviet Government’s desire for peace. Marshal Govorov took the salute at the May Day parade, and after mentioning the “new and great victories in industry and agriculture, in the development of science and culture,” he reminded his audience of the revival of German and Japanese militarism. He said that the war in Korea was the result of the policies of the “Anglo-American imperialists” and “therefore the Soviet armed forces must stand on guard ” in order to defend the “peaceful” Soviet Union against attack. As with the Western block, the Soviet Government claims to be re-arming for defence. They all always arm for defence—of course! .

Following the military parade, the civilian parade entered the Red Square—with slogans for peace! Commenting on Marshal Govorov’s speech and the demonstration, the report says:—

“Having seen this magnificent display by the Moscow workers and heard Marshal Govorov’s speech, as well as having travelled widely and made our own investigations wherever we went, we are absolutely convinced that the words of Marshal Govorov put the matter of Soviet defence in its correct perspective, and that while it would be utter madness for the U.S.S.R., in the State of the world to-day, not to be vigilant about its defences, at the same time it would prefer to devote even greater resources to peaceful development.”

This statement is quite logical—from the capitalist point of view. All countries, Britain, America and the Soviet Union included, “would prefer to devote even greater resources to peaceful development,” but unfortunately war, and preparations for war, are inseparable from the production-for-profit world of to-day.

After leaving Moscow, the delegation visited Gorky, Rostov-on-Don, Novocherkassk and a summer resort on the Azov Sea. They travelled 3,500 miles, mostly by air. In most places there was still evidence of destruction caused by the war. But large areas of some towns such as Rostov had been rebuilt. At one State Farm the delegation saw a number of excellent race-horses. One of the delegates “commented that it is worth knowing that the Soviet worker can still lose his 2s. 6d. each way in a State totalisator if he wishes, even if the bookies are a form of private enterprise now extinct.” No comment!

From Rostov the delegation went to the capital of the Georgian Soviet Republic Tbilisi, where they visited a restaurant, the Park of Culture, the Textile Combinat, and the Palace of Pioneers.

In sections 4 and 5 the report mentions Child Welfare and clinics for expectant mothers. (“Every working mother is given five weeks off work on full pay, and seven weeks after, the birth of a child,” p. 8.)

According to part 5 of the report, “Conditions in Soviet Industry,” the atmosphere in Soviet factories is absolutely different from that in Britain: it is much more free-and-easy. This is. however, a rather sweeping statement to make considering that the party were being taken on a conducted tour. This statement does not seem feasible, because, as we have mentioned above, stakhanovism and piece-work are universal throughout the Soviet Union.

In sections 7, 8 and 9 the report discusses the Health Service, sport and cultural activities, most of which has been commented on thousands of times before by previous “workers” delegations, and in the columns of the Soviet Weekly.

Although there is quite a lot of useful information in this small pamphlet (23 pages), it is, in the main, sympathetic towards the Soviet regime. Of course, it is not so much what it says, but what it leaves out. Unfortunately, they did not visit the more distant regions of Siberia such as Irkutsk or Yakutsk, or Lubianka jail in Moscow, or a “ Corrective Labour Camp.” Neither do they inform us of the functions of the “frontier units of the Ministry of State Security,” nor the most important fact of all—the existence of all the paraphernalia of capitalism.

Peter E. Newell.

The Russian Embassy attacks the Socialist Standard (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader sent a copy of the July Socialist Standard containing the article "USSR, Land of Privilege” to the Russian Embassy. The letter he received from them is is reproduced below, in shortened form, with our comments.

Dear Mr. Brinton,

I am certainly glad to answer your letter in which you say that you were disturbed, and understandably so, by the enclosed article in the Socialist Standard.

As regards the subject matter in question, the following should be said. Material wealth is distributed in the socialist society according to the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work”. Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR. As a worker gains skill and experience his wages grow accordingly. An experienced teacher gets more than his younger colleague, fresh from a teacher’s training college. A captain of a ship gets more than the crew. Eminent scientists, writers and other creative workers are better paid than ordinary working people.

The principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” will be applied under communism, which is the highest stage of the development of socialism. But to achieve this an abundance of resources must first be secured, and this is what the Soviet people and their government are working at.

Objective laws governing the development of the society in the USSR prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil. First, there is no exploitation of man by man in our society which means that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them. Second, all citizens have access to public consumption funds: free education, free health service, pensions, etc. These funds grow from year to year alongside the development of the national economy. Third, the policy of reducing gaps in the wage levels of various groups of working people is being carried out consistently. The minimum wage has been steadily rising, pensions have also been increased.

As to shortcomings, their criticism is regarded in our society as an indispensable means of progress and is in fact, encouraged in every way. There is a difference, of course, between constructive criticism and slanderous distortion. Articles like the one in question only misinform the British public about the Soviet reality and thus stand in the way of better understanding and stronger confidence between the people of the Soviet Union and Great Britain.

(signed) Secretary

Our answer:

The thinness of the above reply is somewhat surprising. Our article maintained “that there is no essential difference in the class system in the Soviet Union from that elsewhere.” We went on to say: “The common features of western capitalism, exploitation of wage labour and production for profit are present — with the resulting social inequality.” These statements formed the basis of our article and it is these points which our opponent must answer. We note the glossy phrases such as “slanderous fabrications”, “gross distortion” and, to round off the vocabulary roundabout, “slanderous distortion”, but the attempt to refute our statements in fact does the opposite. We are told that in Russia there are laws to prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil; that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them; citizens have access to free education, health services and pensions; there is a policy to reduce gaps in wage levels and that the minimum wage is rising together with pensions. It hardly needs pointing out that this could be Mr. Callaghan or the President of the United States talking about their avowedly capitalist systems. The description certainly has nothing to do with Socialism where there will be no gaps in wage levels, minimum wages or pensions for the fundamental reason that the wage-labour and capital relation will not exist.

It is significant to note that the Russian Communist Party has moved away from its original position when Socialism was described as a society “in which there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.” [1] The secretary chooses to call Russian capitalism “socialism” — he is not the first, but mere repetition of a contradiction does not allow it to make any more sense.

To give, as our article gave (with sources), further instances of inequality in Russia would be superfluous as our opponent is prepared to dismiss them airily on the one hand as “slanderous fabrications”, while prepared to argue on the other that “Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR.” He makes our point for us. This piece of timid justification is advanced in all capitalist countries in defence of inequality. If our opponent did not mean to be evasive, no doubt he would be prepared to produce official statistics outlining the extent of inequality of income and wealth in Russia, as do all other industrialized capitalist countries. Then we may go into the matter in detail. We are, however, not unduly optimistic that such information will be forthcoming — our opponent does not appear to have much time for details.

On the question of "reducing gaps in wage levels” it is again worth noting the move in policy. Almost 60 years ago Lenin had declared that the introduction of “equal wages” was “a concrete task immediately practicable” although he had to retreat from this position in 1918 and acknowledge that the Russians had “to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed to a very high remuneration for the service of the bourgeois specialists.” To Lenin this was a temporary measure however. He considered it “a step backward.” [2] Now, we learn from our opponent that this state of affairs is considered “just.”

He refers to “public consumption funds”. These appear to finance education, the health service and “pensions etc.” It is the “etc” which attracted our attention. For instance, is spending on armaments considered “public consumption”? If it is not, clearly the government must finance it from some other fund. The point being that any funds which the Russian government may control can only be the monetary expression of the surplus-value (unpaid labour) of the Russian workers. No amount of twisting and turning can remove that fact. This then puts a true light on his statement that “there is no exploitation of man by man”, which we take to refer to private capitalists exploiting workers in a private concern. Although this statement in itself can be refuted, its purpose is calculated to evade the crucial point that the Russian system is predominantly one of exploitation by the State.

In short, a system of state capitalism. It will be remembered that it was Lenin who said “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us”. That step has been taken, but the Russian workers are no nearer Socialism, or Communism — the terms mean the same — than are the workers in the Post Office and other state-capitalist institutions in Britain or elsewhere. The ruling class, in this case the State, retains control and ownership of the means of production and distribution. To claim that the State is the people completely flies in the face of all the facts. Our opponent does not make this claim directly but refers to “what the Soviet people and their government are aiming at.” The distinction between the two is appropriate, they are opposing classes, but the statement also belies a fundamental misconception over the nature of Socialism. The implication is made that, given the right internal conditions, the Russians could establish a Socialist (or Communist) society within their national borders. To anyone who understands the concept of a system of society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution, it is evident that such a society can only be established on a world-wide basis. The writer clearly has no- such concept in mind.

In conclusion we draw attention to- one point made in our original article. We said: “At other times when there are differences of policy with western powers, anti-Russian propaganda will expose and exaggerate these shortcomings”. In short, we are aware that the Press in Britain (as elsewhere) has an axe to grind more or less severely, according to circumstances. This, of course, is not limited exclusively to Russian affairs, it is true of their dealings in all aspects of international capitalism. Our purpose is not to grind axes, or to single out the Russian system of capitalism for special treatment: indeed the point we have made is that from the view of the working class, the form of society in Russia is little different from that of other countries. Our opponent has ably confirmed this conclusion. Our purpose is to work for the democratic removal of private property society. In doing so we must necessarily reject the arguments, or more accurately the assertions, of those who claim that Socialism exists in certain countries today. The interests of the Russian people, and the interests of the working class outside Russia, are the same. The abolition of capitalism, state or private, and the establishment of Socialism.

[1] Bogdanov: Short Course of Economic Science.

[2] Lenin: The Soviets at Work.

Blogger's Note:

"Mr. Brinton" wasn't Maurice Brinton. Of course not. There was a Colin Brinton from Harwich who was writing to the Socialist Standard at this time. Maybe it was him.

Finance and Industry: How many millionaires (1962)

The Finance and Industry column from the March 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

How many millionaires

When the Inland Revenue Report for the year 1960-61 was published in January it showed that while in the previous year there had been 66 individuals with incomes above £100,000 a year, the number has now dropped to 60. The Evening News called it “Britain’s Vanishing Millionaires.”

It is not the Inland Revenue officials who are responsible for calling these people millionaires, but the newspapers nave long worked on the assumption that when a man’s income, before payment of tax, gets above the £100,000 mark (roughly £2,000 a week) his property of all kinds is probably above £1,000,000.

The number has varied a great deal. In 1938 it was 99. Then it dropped more or less steadily till it touched 38 in 1949 and 37 in 1952. Then it started rising again and reached 67 in 1958 before declining to 66 and now to 60.

In this century the peak seems to have been reached in 1921 when they numbered 208. As taxation is much higher and the purchasing power of each pound is much less than it was then, the very rich must find that things aren’t what they used to be. Even so, taking the official figures for 1958-9, the 2,700 people who had incomes over £20,000 had an average income of about £34,400 before paying tax and were left with an average of about £5,550 after paying tax —about £100 a week.

But Mr. Bernard Harris, city editor of the Sunday Express (5/11/62) gave it as his view that the number of people in the millionaire class as regards ownership of property far exceeds the number with incomes above £100,000 a year. His explanation is that in order avoid high death duties most of the very rich take steps in time to hand over the bulk of their property to their heirs.

“. . . for every one who died a millionaire there were probably 10 who divested themselves of part of their wealth in order to lose that distinction and qualify for smaller death duties. So it is a pretty safe conjecture that the number of millionaires and tax-conscious ex-millionaires ill Britain today is well over a thousand.”

As an example of this business of transferring property to escape heavy death duties the Daily Express (8/2/62) had the following:

“The Earl of St. Germans, 48, who has had a remarkable success with a London bookmaking firm called Nicholas Eliot, is to make over all his family estates, worth around £1,000,000, to his 21 year old son and heir Lord Eliot.”

The estates to be transferred include 6,000 acres in Cornwall, but not the turf accounting business.

A nice job

In the House of Commons on January 30 the Assistant Postmaster General, Miss Mervin Pike, was asked what is the weekly wage of Post Office men, Cleaners, Doorkeepers and Liftmen. She replied: “£8 16s. a week. The rates in outer and inner London are greater by 10s. to £1 respectively. This is the same as is paid to non-industrial male cleaners in the Civil Service generally.”

“. . . Asked if this wage is not ridiculously low” Miss Pike,, who clearly lacked the inclination to attempt lo justify it, took refuge in the argument that inquiry had shown Post Office cleaners to be getting more than is paid in industry generally.

These cleaners and others are among the Post Office workers whose claim for higher pay the Government rejected last year.

Accidents

This century has witnessed a great increase in the number of industrial accidents, that is to say, in the number of accidents that have to be reported and become recorded in official publications. But what of those that do not have to be reported?

The reportable accidents are those which are fatal or which disable the worker for more than three days from earning full wages for the work at which he is employed.

Within this definition the Ministry of Labour reported 217 deaths and 16,934 accidents in the building trades in the year 1960 (Labour Gazette, April, 1961).

But, according to a building trade employer, Mr. Peter Trench, the total number of accidents is enormously greater.

Writing in the Financial Times Building and Contracting Supplement recently, Mr. Trench, who is Director of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, estimates that for every reported accident there are 30 or 40 that do not have to be reported. And he puts the total number of accidents in the building trades at 500,000 a year or nearly 10,000 a week.

He records that accidents have been increasing in spite of propaganda designed to lessen the number. He gave his opinion as to the reason:

“Despite all the publicity and propaganda there are still far too many building firms in which little or no direct responsibility is accepted for seeing that accidents are prevented from happening; and there are still two many operatives adopting the metaphorically fatal attitude of ‘couldn’t care less’ which all too often becomes fatal in reality.”

He records the opinion of others that one of the causes is the greater size and complexity of modern buildings.

The New Men in Russian Industry

The emergence of a new social group is not necessarily dramatic or even at first obvious, but there are clear signs that new men are entering on to the political stage in Russia. In an article “New Pressures are growing up in Russia,” the Soviet Correspondent of the Financial Times recently noted that among the people who backed and to some extent forced Kruschev’s denunciation of Stalinist Terror at last year’s Party Congress in Moscow are “the younger professional managers.”

“These Party Professionals have as their principal job, the supervision of the running of the economy in their respective areas of the country. Like other young educated people in the Soviet Union, they enjoy a good standard of living, and are in a position to know that the country’s economic position can be improved much further still if sensible policies are assured. An obvious prerequisite of stable life for everyone is that there should be no repetition of the police rule, with arbitrary arrests and executions of Stalin’s time.”

David Floyd, in the Sunday Telegraph (26/11/61), expressing a similar view, quoted from a recent book on the history of the Russian Security Services, by Boris Lewytzkyj:

“The worker or technician responsible with the aid of the most up-to-date machinery for the whole industrial process, cannot carry out his duties properly unless he has considerable freedom of decision. No scientist can make progress with his terribly difficult intellectual work if he is constantly aware that the failure of an experiment may be labelled as an act of sabotage by some primitive policeman.

The ‘historical role’ of the terror in the Soviet Union is finished. At the present time the Soviet leaders could achieve nothing by terror, at the best they could destroy the foundations of their own power.”

The Manager’s Life

On the same subject, interesting details about the life of a factory manager were given some time ago in articles written by a Russian factory manager and his English-born wife who recently left Russia.

He and his wife had no complaint about their financial position in Russia, though the husband, Ignat Ovsyannikov, did remark that sometimes a skilled worker in the factory might take home more pay than he did as manager.

As a manager he had

“the very comfortable living of 6,000 roubles per month, six times a Soviet working man’s wage, and as much as the salary paid to a Minister of a Soviet Republic.”

One of the features of the life of the factory manager and other people “in authority” is the way they are cut off from contact with the ordinary workers outside the factory:

“Anyone who has any authority at all in the Soviet Union is cut off from the ordinary people. it is, for example, impossible for a factory manager or party secretary to use the ordinary restaurants in his town. He would be likely to meet his employees on equal terms and that would not do. The managerial class is isolated from the rest of society. If a man is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party he will ever have a personal bodyguard to accompany him everywhere.”

Arrangements are made for the manager’s family to buy food at special stores, and to eat in closed restaurants They also have special medical services “for the upper class of Soviet society. They have their own clinics and sanatoria where they get the best of treatment. Members of the Central Committee and the Government have luxurious rest homes on the Black Sea coast.” (Sunday Telegraph, 13/7/61).

It is all remarkably like life as it is lived by the favoured few here or anywhere else in the world.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: The Progress of Russia (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (W. T. Fielding, Shrewsbury) asks us to comment on an issue of the News Bulletin of the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee. The issue in question (September 10th, 1938) is devoted largely to information and statistics about the progress of Russian industry and services, given in the speeches of the Commissar for Finance, A. G. Zverev, and others. Much of the speeches consisted of figures of State expenditure. The more interesting statements include the following : —

“He stated further that over 80 per cent. of the output of the industry in the U.S.S.R. is being manufactured in enterprises newly built or completely reconstructed during the last ten years. By 1937, the total output of Socialist industry exceeded the pre-War level eightfold. Tsarist Russia occupied fifth place in the world and fourth place in Europe in industrial output; the Soviet Union now holds first place in Europe and second in the world for industrial output.

The continuous progress of the national economy, together with price reductions on consumers’ goods, had resulted in a further considerable rise in the well-being of the people in the Soviet Union; this is shown, for instance, by the projected rise in the total wages of workers and offices employees from 82,000,000,000 roubles in 1937 to 94,000,000,000 roubles in 1938.”

Regarding educational progress, it was stated that there are now 33,000,000 pupils at elementary and secondary schools, and that the number of pupils in higher educational establishments considerably exceeds the number in the higher schools of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan taken together.

Much information was given about agricultural developments, mechanisation, etc. : —

“According to the 1910 census, the peasant farms of Russia had 7,800,000 primitive wooden ploughs, 2,200,000 improved wooden ploughs, 4,200,000 iron ploughs and 17,700,000 wooden harrows.

Now we have 6,158 machine tractor stations, in vehicles, and 104,323 modern threshing-machines, including the latest types. Some 500,000 tractors are working on our Soviet fields.

We now have in our villages our own Soviet skilled workers. We have in the villages of the U.S.S.R. 734,000 tractor drivers, 165,000 combine operators, 124,000 truck drivers, etc.

The peasant from time immemorial dreamed about the land, but he could receive that land only after the victory of the Socialist Revolution. Prior to the Revolution the greatest part of the land belonged to the landlords, monasteries, kulaks, and other exploiters. . . . About two-thirds of the peasants had less than three dessiatines each.

Of the total peasant farms in Tsarist Russia, 30 per cent. had no horses, 34 per cent. had practically no agricultural implements, 15 per cent. cultivated no land.

Now we have in the Soviet Union 243,000 collective farms, uniting over 18,000,000 peasant households (93 per cent. of the total) and embracing 99 per cent. of the total area cultivated by peasant farms.

Prior to the Revolution the landlords and kulaks had 72 per cent. of all the marketable grain. To-day 97 per cent. of the marketable grain is produced by the State and collective farms.

Tsarist Russia harvested annually, on an average, between 4,000 and 5,000 million poods of grain. Our Socialist agriculture already in 1937 produced 7,000 million poods of grain. The number of cattle is increasing year by year in our country. The well-being and culture of the collective farmers are steadily rising.”

The various figures of output, etc., must be considered in relation to Russia’s huge population, of about 170 million people, and in relation to the quality of the products.

Russia claims to occupy second place in world industrial output, U.S.A. holding first place, but the population of the U.S.A. is about 30 million less than that of Russia and it is not seriously disputed that the average quality of American industrial products is higher than that of Russia’s industries, many of which are relatively in their infancy.

The claim regarding the number of students in higher educational establishments is much more impressive because Russia’s population is about 130 million less than the total population of the countries with which comparison is made.

The final test of production is, of course, the standard of living of the mass of the population, and in spite of the rising level, no responsible authority in Russia, as far as we know, claims that it is high by comparison with, say, the standard of living in England or U.S.A. An example is the production of boots and shoes. The U.S.S.R. Handbook (1936) states that in 1934 Russia produced 69 million pairs of leather boots and shoes, and 65 million pairs of rubber boots and shoes. This means that it takes Russia about 2½ years to produce enough leather boots and shoes to provide one pair per head of the population. Production and sales of boots and shoes in Great Britain are about double the 1934 production in Russia, yet the population is only about one-quarter as large. Russian production will have increased considerably since 1934, though it may be mentioned that the production of leather boots and shoes in that year represented a big decline on 1933.

The statements about the progress of Russian agriculture must also be set against the admitted enormous decline in the number of horses, cattle and sheep that took place after 1929, due to deliberate slaughter by rich peasants who were opposed to the collective farms policy. This loss has not been made good.

Avowed opponents of the Russian Government, such as The Times, various oppositionists living in Russia, some visitors to Russia and former Communists who have become disillusioned, allege that the increased quantity of industrial products has been obtained at the cost of quality, for example, by using lower-grade coal and iron ore, poorer quality textiles, etc. Such allegations must be viewed in the light of the source from which they come, but so must the claims of the Russian dictatorship. Until such time as it is made possible for Russian workers freely to organise and to publish their own criticisms of the acts of the Government, the claims of that Government will be open to the charge that they are coloured to suit the interests of the governing clique. Indeed the authorities themselves have publicly admitted that their statistics have been faked by those responsible for compiling them, this being one of the charges against persons tried for alleged “Trotskyism.” A census of the population has just had to be taken again because the first lot of figures were found to be totally unreliable.

On the other hand, reliable testimony about the quality of some Russian factory products is provided by Mr. J. C. Little, President of the A.E.U., and a delegation of working engineers who visited Russia early in 1937. They say that in works they visited the work “equalled in skill and excellence the engineering products of heavy engineering in this country.” (The Times, November 10th, 1938.) It is probable that visitors are shown the more up-to-date works rather than an average selection, a practice not confined to Russia.

One last point is that no defender of the Russian system has been able to explain away the enormous and growing disparity of income between the mass of workers and the favoured group of specialists, officials, writers, bondholders, etc.

Ed. Comm.

Editorial: Russia also juggles with finance (1948)

Editorial from the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The more the Communists proclaim how different everything is in Russia the more events disclose how much that country resembles the other Capitalist States. The latest example is the decision of the Russian Government to issue a new currency in place of the old, thus doing what Belgium did in 1944 and what rumour says the British Government has been contemplating for some time past.

The Russian Government’s scheme, though rather complicated in detail, is simple enough in its broad intention. Wherever there is rationing and the sale of rationed goods at controlled prices a “black market” is bound to arise as those with enough money try to supplement their rations and get scarce high-priced luxuries. Russia was no exception though the “free” market in that country was officially recognised and anyone rich enough could buy what was offered at the enormous prices ruling there. The government’s scheme is to abolish rationing, reduce the prices of a few foodstuffs while raising the prices of other goods so that the new price level as a whole is raised to a point somewhere between the present low “rationed” prices and the present very high “free”market prices. At the same time they aim at a drastic reduction of the amount of money available to be spent, by the simple device of giving fewer new rouble notes in exchange for the old ones. If you have 100 roubles in cash in your pocket or at home you get only 10 in exchange. If you have 10,000 roubles deposited in a savings bank you get the full rate for the first 3,000 and two-thirds for the remaining 7,000 roubles. We can illustrate the effect by putting 10,000 roubles into pounds at the rate of exchange (32 to the pound) allowed to foreign diplomats in Russia. It means that a. man with £312 in a savings bank will find it reduced to £240. If his £312 was invested in a State Loan (except the most recent loan in 1947) he will have it cut to one-third of its value, £104. Wages are not being reduced but the workers, in addition to losing some of their cash and savings will be hit by the higher prices.

Of course the Daily Worker had to rush in and say what a fine thing it all is—”a step forward,” “a triumph for the Socialist economic system,” but the article (published on December 16th) indicated a certain amount of uneasiness. The writer, Mr. Andrew Rothstein, had to admit that “everyone will inevitably be affected to some extent because the new prices must lie somewhere between the ‘rationed’ and ‘off-rationed’ prices.”

Some other interesting points are thrown up by the new policy and by the Daily Worker comment on it. Just as Sir Stafford Cripps, at a time when prices are rising, tells the workers it will soon be all right because harder work will increase supplies and bring down prices, so the Daily Worker says “the existence of ample supplies . . . will soon more than compensate for the temporary difficulties.” This is printed in the “Worker” alongside the reproduction of a Russian “plenty to eat” poster which tells how much meat, fats, sugar, etc., etc. will be produced “in the five-year plan to be completed in 1950.”

During the war when news came out of Russia about the rouble-millionaires the Communists hastened to explain that this was a good thing and natural to a “socialist” country, and that we should note that it was all earned money and there were no speculators able to accumulate fortunes by speculation and black market operations as in Britain and U.S.A. Now we learn that the new policy is designed to hit “speculators, who amassed considerable sums ” and were, able to “buy up stocks, create artificial shortages and lower the purchasing power of the rouble.” (Daily Worker, 16/12/47).

It should be observed incidentally that the new policy, while reducing the big fortunes, does not by any means wipe them out. The speculator or other wealthy person with 1,000,000 roubles in State loans will still possess 333,000 roubles of investments and will, of course, gain to the extent that he can now buy goods at much lower prices than he formerly had to pay in the “free” market, prices which ranged up to ten and fifteen times pre-war prices. (Manchester Guardian, 15/12/47).

One wonders, too, how the Communists are going to wriggle out of their claim that the Russian Government, unlike other governments, does not descend to slick tricks in its dealings with workers’ savings. It is going to be very difficult to square what has just been done, with the claim made in 1946 that “money put into the State loan is, of course, absolutely secure” and that holders of bonds “can redeem them at their nominal value at any time within the 20-year period.” (Article by S. Grigoryev in Soviet News, published by the Soviet Embassy in London, 16/5/46.)

Readers of the Daily Worker (15/12/47) who read that “the new rouble of full value will be much stronger that the old,” will perhaps recall how the Communists jeered at the late Lord Snowden when he defended the economy cuts of 1931 on the ground that they would enable the pound to be strengthened and “look the world in the face.”

Doubtless one of the reasons for the new policy in Russia is to back up the campaign to capture the support of the European workers by pointing out that the West European governments, notwithstanding loans from U.S.A., are behind Russia in abolishing rationing. If the British Communists try to push the same policy over here they will be in the same position as those Conservatives who press for the abolition of controls and who argue that it would be better for the workers in the long run even though it would mean higher prices immediately. The truth is that for the workers it would be merely a choice of evils and so far, judging by results of by-elections, the majority of workers prefer the evil of rationing that they have got used to and are not enamoured of the Conservative alternative.

Socialists, of course, are not in favour of Capitalism anyway, whether with or without controls.

Effect of the Russian Government's currency changes (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Economist (20/12/47) in an article on the Russian Government’s financial changes summarises the effect as follows :

“The main effect of the reform is a redistribution of purchasing power, primarily between towns and countryside, in favour of the town. In the towns, the highest stratum of the privileged bureaucracy and intelligentsia has been shorn of some of its power to snatch scarce goods and amenities of life from the mass of the employees and workers. It would, however, be an exaggeration to say that Soviet policy has now gone hack to the uravnilovka, the egalitarian principles of the early years of the Soviet regime. What is being redressed is a social balance that has been gravely upset by the war. The reform eliminates the gross inequalities that have spontaneously grown up until recently, and that, moreover, the rulers could not but tolerate or even encourage. Having now done away with these anomalies, the Government continues to base the plans for the economic development of the country on the accepted system of incentive wages and salaries.

“This conclusion emerges clearly from a brief analysis of the new wages and prices policy embodied in the reform. ‘While the currency reform is being effected,’ says the decree signed by Stalin and Zhdanov, ‘the wages of workers and employees, as well as the incomes of peasants from deliveries to the State, and other earned incomes of all sections of the population, will not be affected by the reform. They will be paid in the new currency at the previous rates.’ The purchasing power of workers and employees will thus be relatively strengthened by comparison with the purchasing power of the peasantry. But the differential scale of wages and salaries remain in force. The reform of wages adopted early this year (see the Economist, of March 22nd and 29th, 1947) provided for a drastic extension of incentive wages ; it raised the minimum rates of output per worker by 20 to 25 per cent., and it replaced time rates by piece rates in those branches of industry and in agriculture where time rates had still been prevalent. The Stakhanovite has forfeited cash and savings which would have given him an enormous start over his less fortunate or less industrious fellow-workers in the competition for scarce goods ; but he is still able to recoup himself and to maintain a relatively high standard of living if he goes on beating records in output. The present reform is likely to make the system of incentive wages more, and not less effective than it has been hitherto.”

Property Society — Russian Style (1977)

From the October 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 they were not making a revolution. The revolution had taken place some months earlier when the Tsarist regime was finally toppled together with the abandonment of feudalism, the build-up of capitalist production relations, and the recognition that this was to be the new form of society. All this had started before the Bolsheviks disbanded what democratic rights then existed in Russia and took control of the state machine. The Lenin coup speeded up this development.

However, Lenin and his conspiratorial clique claimed that they were about to do the impossible—establish Socialism without first having gone through the phase of capitalism. To this day, the Russian dictators claim that the present form of society is something to do with Socialism; is somehow the opposite of what happens in the West. The old joke is absolutely correct—“capitalist society is the exploitation of man by man, but in Russia it is the other way round”.

Almost as soon as Lenin had gained control of the state, the SPGB was able to point out that whatever else might be going on in Russia, it could not be the establishment of Socialism. Information about Russia was scarcer than it is today, but the SPGB had a sound understanding of the way society developed. We were able to point out that the two fundamental requirements for the establishment of the common ownership and control of, and free access to, all wealth and the means of producing it were missing. First, the potential of production in abundance, something which is only possible after capitalism has built up the productive forces; and second, mass Socialist consciousness, that is people ready to take over all wealth in society owned privately or by the state, with the knowledge of how to set up and run Socialist society. In 1977, sixty years later, it is clear to all that capitalism exists in Russia.

Capitalist constitution 

The hall-marks of capitalist society exist there; large amounts of property owned by certain sections of the community with the corollary that other sections do not own property in any meaningful sense, money, and buying and selling, a wages system, production for sale at a profit, a state machine backed up by armed force, and a system of law. This is capitalist society. The Russian Constitution (adopted by the 8th Congress of the Soviet of the USSR on December 5th, 1936, though slightly amended since) proudly and unashamedly boasts of all the major features of capitalism.

A few examples will make the point. To begin with, take the Russian legal system (of which the constitution is a part). Laws first developed when private property first appeared; they exist to maintain private property in the hands of the minority. All laws have this fundamental purpose. The more advanced the society, the more complicated and “mature” its legal system, and the Russian legal system is as complex and thorough as any. The need for a constitution and all that goes with it (judges, police, courts etc.) is only necessary for advanced property society. Their legal system is so similar to that which exists in Britain that W. Wilson MP, after a recent visit to Russia, could write:

The hard wooden seats and the long straight corridors of Leningrad City Court were no different from the wooden seats and long corridors often found in English Courts. The citizens of Leningrad who sat on those benches had the look of fearful expectancy that appears to be the never-changing mien of those who sit and wait outside English Courts. Inside the Leningrad City Court the occupants of the Bench could have been English provincial magistrates. The defendants — two waitresses charged with defalcation of the restaurant takings — appeared little different from two English waitresses in similar circumstances. (Law Society's Gazette, 10th Nov, 1976.)

The same misery and indignity that is imposed on the working class by the capitalist class the world over! Wilson concludes: “There are many aspects of Soviet criminal law that are on all fours with English criminal procedure.”

“Fundamental rights”

This conclusion is detailed in the Russian Constitution: capitalist relations are to exist, by law! The Constitution is divided into thirteen Chapters dealing with aspects of Russian property society. For example. Chapter 1 deals with “The Social Structure”, Chapter 2 “The State Structure”, Chapter 3 “The Highest Agencies of State Power”, Chapter 9 “The Court Structure” and the very revealing Chapter 10 is headed “Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens.” Each Chapter is divided into numbered subheadings (articles) covering the detailed matter of state power and administration. The Russian Constitution boldly protects individual liberties but this is meaningless. The Russian ruling clique has shown such scant regard for the “fundamental rights” enshrined in the Russian Constitution that it is right to say these “liberties” do not exist. Nevertheless, it is instructive to see what the Constitution says they are. In Article 125 of Chapter 10 It is provided as follows:

In conformity with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system, citizens of the USSR shall be guaranteed by law (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of the press; (c) freedom of assembly and meetings; (d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

Those people with any knowledge of western constitutions might think all this is suspiciously familiar. It is. Why is it necessary for the constitution to “declare” these “interests” of the “working people”? Does it mean that these so-called rights could be withdrawn, cut down, or totally ignored? In a Socialist society such meaningless declarations of good intent will be as unnecessary as they are absurd. In a free society there will be no possibility of forcing anyone to do anything, or taking away anything from anyone. If I want to speak, write, assemble with my friends, or march and demonstrate there will be no possibility of anyone preventing it. Socialism will be a voluntary society: the opposite of the coercive form of society that exists in Russia and the so- called “liberal” or “democratic” forms of society that exist in the west. There will be no need for constitutional claptrap.

The system of wage-labour is an essential feature of capitalist society. It is one of the fundamental characteristics that separate capitalism and its form of private property exploitation from every previous form. Right in the centre of the Russian Constitution (Chapter 10, article 118) the wages system is solemnly set forth in these words: “Citizens of the USSR shall have the right to labour, that is, the right to a guaranteed job with payment for their labour in accordance with its quantity and quality.” Article 12 of Chapter 1 makes sure the Russian worker does not miss the point: “Labour in the USSR shall be an obligation and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen in accordance with the principle ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat.’ ” Thus the Russian proletariat is told that it is an honour to produce wealth for the rulers!

Wages and profits

The Council of Ministers of the USSR publishes each year a booklet called USSR in Figures. Their tables for 1975 give average wage and salary levels (“the average wages and salary plus allowances and benefits per worker”) and states that a minimum monthly wage of 70 roubles has now been agreed. Income tax has been abolished for those earning less than 70 roubles (so much for the minimum wage?); also taxes have been reduced for those workers earning less than 90 roubles per month (p. 182/3). The converse of wages is profits. Profits are produced for the capitalist class throughout capitalism by paying the worker less in wages than the value he has produced. The balance left over is appropriated by the capitalist class, and spent as revenue, or accumulated in order to reinvest to produce more profits and so on. The booklet actually prints tables of profits (p. 45) and proclaims that these have increased by 9.6 per cent, against 1974 figures! The Russian workers have made it possible for their exploitation to continue and increase. What capitalist government would not be proud of such efforts?

For a country that claims to have established Socialism many years ago, it is notable that the Russian rulers constantly have to remind their wage slaves that Socialism has been established. The first page of the rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (adopted in 1961 and amended in 1966) states: “Under the direction of the Communist Party exploiting classes in the Soviet Union have been liquidated, and the moral and political unity of Soviet society has been formed and strengthened. Socialism has triumphed fully and finally.” Chapter 1 of the Constitution, concludes that in the USSR “the principle of socialism shall be carried out; from each according to his ability, to each according to his labour.”

Socialism has not been established in Russia—it could not have been. When it is established, the world over, the principle will be from each according to his ability right enough, but to each according to his need. Need will be determined by each individual according to his own requirements, not according to his pay-packet. The wages system, money, buying and selling, constitutions, law courts, police and jailers will be unnecessary. The conditions for establishing socialism are now the same in Russia as the rest of the world. It needs a working class politically educated to take the necessary steps for their own emancipation.

Ronnie Warrington

Notes by the Way: South Africa the Golden (1946)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

South Africa the Golden

Gold mining is by far the largest industry in South Africa. It employs 40,000 Europeans and 360,000 natives. It pays more than £17,000,000 a year dividends to the shareholders. What it pays to the natives and how they are treated has been described in an article by E. S. Sachs, South African Workers’ Delegate to the I.L.O. (Manchester Guardian, 19/8/46).

“They receive an average cash wage of 2s. 2d. per shift . . . Part of this meagre wage is deducted to repay advances made to the worker on recruitment for boots and other purposes. The African worker must also buy a cheap mattress or sacking for use on the concrete bunk on which he sleeps in the compound where he is forced to live. He must also buy some clothing . . . There is no extra pay for overtime or Sunday work. He is provided with food and medical attention free, but receives no sick pay. The Chamber of Mines estimates the cost of food to be 5.28d. and medical services 1.15d. per shift per man. The only paid leave the worker gets is on Good Friday and Christmas Day.”

In 1943 a Government Commission recommended an increase of 3d. a shift, but the owners refused to pay it, and “the Government did nothing except introduce an emergency regulation prohibiting meetings of Africans on land proclaimed as a mining area.”

They are not forbidden by law to form trade unions, and many are organised, but they “may not leave their compounds without a special pass from their employer and are subject to severe penalties, including imprisonment with hard labour, for absenting themselves from work or for any breach of their contract.”

The natives have had no increase of pay since 1914 and their union has pointed out that their wages were actually much higher 60 years ago than to-day.

We wonder if the native workers derive much comfort from the United Nations Charter, of which South Africa is a signatory, proclaiming the determination of the upholders “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom!”

An appropriate footnote is the following news item in The Star (July 24th, 1946) announcing the arrival by ‘plane of a cargo of very important persons from South Africa, on official and private business in London.

“In the silver Skymasler “Drakensburg,” belonging to South African Airways, were 34 millionaires, multi-millionaires, or near millionaires, including Van der Byl, Field-Marshal Smuts’ right-hand man and a leading figure in South African industry. The party, most of them from Johannesburg, were met by Sir Eric Crankshaw, Secretary of the Government’s Hospitality Fund."

Russia, Turkey and the Dardanelles

While British Imperialism seeks to safeguard capitalist interests in the Middle East by keeping troops in Transjordan and Palestine and by military agreements with Egypt and Iraq, Russian Imperialism counters with a demand that Turkey shall permit the setting up of Russian military forces on Turkish territory in the Dardanelles area and by promoting its own puppet movement in Persian Azerbaijan. Russia has also been carrying on propaganda to secure the support of Arabs in the Middle East countries as a means of reducing British influence there. In short, the two old firms carry on as all through the 19th century notwithstanding that Russia is now labelled “Communist” and Britain “Labour.”

Twenty-four years ago, when Russia was weak, it was Russian and British Communist Party policy to pose as the friends of the Turks because Turkey was then in conflict with Britain, and British troops were in occupation of Constantinople and the Dardanelles. The Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain accordingly produced a declaration demanding that Turkey be freed from the Imperialist occupation forces.

“The E.C. of the C.P.G.B. sends its greeting to the British Muslim Association and desires to join with it in the demand . . . that Constantinople and Adrianople shall be restored unconditionally to the custody of the Turkish people.” 

(The Communist, September 23rd, 1922.)

Now Russia is stronger so the old policy goes on the scrap heap and the demand is made that Russia have forces on Turkish soil.

The same resolution went on to demand that North Africa, including Tripoli, be given complete independence. It also opposed the “insidious regime” of the League of Nations mandatory system.

In view of this it is entertaining to observe that at the Paris meeting of the Big Four Powers in May of this year Russia put in a claim for a United Nations Trusteeship or Mandate for herself over Tripoli, a claim that was later abandoned in face of opposition and watered down to a claim for the appointment of a Russian Administrator with an Italian deputy and an international advisory committee. (Daily Telegraph, 11/5/46).

Longer Life—and Shorter

While one body of the scientist hirelings ot capitalism are busy improving atom bombs, germ warfare and other means of destruction, we read the following (Evening Standard, 16/8/46): —

“First details are disclosed to-day of the existence in Britain of research on making people live longer and becoming more useful . . . the possibility of increasing life to as much as 200 year has been freely discussed.”

3 Per Cent. by Another Name

“New York, Friday.—A U.S. agreement to lend £2,500,000 to Saudi Arabia, announced to-day, contains no mention of interest payments. 

The word ‘interest’ was omitted because Moslems oppose on religious grounds the charging or paying of interest. Under the heading ‘Thanksgiving,’ however. Saudi Arabia will pay the usual 3 per cent.”

(Daily Mail, 10/8/46.)

German Social Democrats and the Russian Zone Election

Elections are being held in the Russian Zone of Germany, and as, under what the Communists call democracy, they are prevented by the Russians from putting up candidates, the S.D.P. has advised its members to spoil their voting papers. The following appeal was published in their journal, the “Social Democrat” :–

“The election in your zone is not a democratic election. Should you, therefore, stay away from the poll altogether? That would really be best. but for many of you it might have heavy consequences. Our advice is, therefore, that you should take part in the poll but demonstrate against constraint of conscience by making your voting papers clearly invalid. Make this action a united and powerful demonstration for freedom. Do not divide yourselves by voting here or there for some other party that appears to you as a lesser evil.”

The Manchester Guardian correspondent (20/8/46) who quotes this, describes it as “political folly,” on the ground that it would be better to vote for the Christian Democratic Union or some other group in order to strengthen the opposition to the Communists (now calling themselves “United Socialist Party”).

While we are opposed to the reformism of the German Social-Democrats, this refusal any longer to vote for the “lesser evil” indicates a marked improvement on their past behaviour.

Plenty—For Those Who Have the Money

The following quotations, one from the Daily Worker on British capitalism and the other by Mr. Hugh Chevins on Russian State Capitalism, need no comment: —

“Luxury Feeders. Why should there be, to all intents and purposes, no limitation at all on the amount and variety of food which luxury purchasers can acquire, while the bulk of the families in the country have to prepare for still further sacrifices on the food front?” (Daily Worker, 8/7/46.)

“It was once said that anyone may dine at the Ritz in London—if he can pay the price. The same remark applies with equal truth and more irony to eating at the smart hotels and restaurants in Communist Moscow. . . . The average money wage is reliably estimated to be about 350 roubles a month. That amount can be spent in a single meal with the utmost ease at the Metropole, National, Moscow or Savoy Hotels, and at the Astoria, Caucasus or Europa restaurants, but only by the privileged class.” (Mr. Hugh Chevins, Industrial Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 9/8/46, after a recent visit to Moscow.)

Shades of the Versailles Treaty

It was common talk early in the recent war that at least the politicians would remember the errors, the cynicism and the idiocies of the Versailles Treaty after last war and avoid them this time. Here is the lament of the Manchester Guardian on the outcome of the labours of the foreign ministers of the Allied

Powers to date : —

“That it is a bad job few will deny. As they stand the draft treaties are deplorable. They follow no accepted political or economic principles. They are both unjust and inconsistent. No attempt has been made to discover the facts or consult the will of the inhabitants by commissions of inquiry or plebiscites. Each one is a compromise between rival Powers who openly fear and distrust each other. Even so they represent the best that can be done by patient and enduring diplomacy, and as such they will be welcomed by a weary Europe. Blessed are the peacemakers—even if the peace in this case is one which passeth all understanding.” 

(Manchester Guardian, 10/7/46.)

Edgar Hardcastle

Prices in the news (1962)

From the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the principle that only the rare and unexpected happening is “news”, and as prices have been going up for about twenty years it is at first sight surprising that newspapers still give so much space to reports of higher prices. Maybe the editors and reporters constantly hear politicians promises that there will be no more rising prices, and each time a promise is broken they are so shocked that they feel impelled to tell their readers about it. But this, if true, would only show how unobservant newspaper men are, because broken promises are even more common and less noteworthy than jumps of prices. But the latter are common enough.

The International Labour Office publishes each month in the International Labour Review a record of price movements in about ninety places in different part of the world and the.overwhelming majority of them show prices moving upwards.

In this country the average retail price level is nearly a fifth higher than it was six years ago and in the group covering rent, rates, house repairs, etc. the increase is over 40 per cent.

Among the recent price increases have been the jump in the prices of meat and potatoes, both attributed to temporary shortages. Meat prices were reported to have gone up by 10% to 20%, while potatoes now cost more than twice as much as a year ago.

Naturally the indignation reached Westminster and came into the fight at by-elections. At West Lothian the Communist candidate Mr. G. McLennan spoke about it.

If the boss cuts your wages by several shillings a week you would immediately reach for your jackets, but the Tories have brought about a real cut in wages through price increases. (D. Worker 7.6.62.)

According to the Daily Worker reporter who listened to this speech, “Gordon McLennan had a good reception when he criticised the steep raise in the prices of potatoes, other vegetables, meat and butter No-one can object to the logic of the statement that when prices go up, and until the workers can win a compensating wage increase, their wage will buy less, just as it would if the wage itself were reduced.

But the same logic seems to have escaped the Daily Worker in its editorial comment on the 30 per cent increase of meat prices in Russia and 25 per cent increase for butter. Instead of sympathising with the Russian workers and denouncing the Russian Government for copying the Tories the editor (2 June. 1962) found himself sympathising with the Russian Government for having to make the “difficult” decision to put up prices rather than spend less on armaments. The editor called it a “temporary" sacrifice on the part of the town workers and described it as being “a redistribution of income among the working people, by which those in the countryside will benefit while those in the towns will temporarily make sacrifices".

This would sound reasonable if Russia were a country in which equality of income prevailed with everyone on approximately the same standard; but that is not a fact, only the promise made and broken by Lenin, and conveniently forgotten by his successors.

On the contrary, Russia is a country of extreme inequality and, unless the situation has changed in recent years, among the comparatively rich are collective farmers and traders, who stand to benefit from the higher prices.

In any event the increase of meat anJ butter prices in the towns means a very different thing for the Moscow men and women street sweepers on a wage of about £12 a month, and the Russian “space and atomic scientists . . . bringing home wage packets of more than £20,000 a year” (John Mossman, D. Mail Moscow corespondent, 5 June, 1962.)

If you want to know whether there is any hope that prices, after climbing up for 20 years will climb down again, the answer is that it could happen, but for the workers it will not produce any benefit. Prices were falling for about 15 years from 1920 to 1935 and the workers were just as badly off as now and curiously the economists and businessmen and politicians were then hoping and praying that world prices would rise again particularly for foodstuffs, so that the world’s farming populations would be able to buy more British factory products and make industry busy again.

The world is still full of economists and politicians who say that a price system is a necessity as well as a convenience of twentieth century society, but who in practice are always complaining about the way the price system works; demanding that it be interfered with, either by government action to hold prices down or by government subsidies to increase the price paid to the manufacturer or farmer.

Unlike the non-socialist parties, all of which have their particular proposals for interfering with the way the price system works, we as socialists have no proposals to make except that the price system should be abolished along with capitalism for which it is a necessity.

The theory behind movements of prices is that if left to find their own level in the market a shortage of supply will send up the price and encourage the production of additional supplies to make good the shortage. Conversely an over-supply by depressing the price, will drive some suppliers out of business and make the price a profitable one again.

Socialism, with production carried on solely for use, without sale or price or wage or profit, will have no need for mechanism to adjust production to consumption in a reasonable fashion through the market. Meeting need will be the measure to which the volume of production will be directed, not with the idea of constantly adjusting supplies up and down to market demands (as happens under capitalism) but aiming always to have a sufficient margin of surplus and capacity to meet changes of consumption.

Edgar Hardcastle

Russia and Democracy (1946)

From the June 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

On March 23rd, under the title “True Democracy,” the Manchester Guardian opened a discussion on democracy when reviewing a recently published lecture by Professor E. H. Carr. This review was followed by contributors from Lord Lindsay, Mr. Laski and Mr. Bertrand Russell on April 20th and May 4th respectively.

The striking thing about all the contributions was that they distinguished an entirely different outlook on democracy between Russia and the Western Countries, but, to all of them, the Russian outlook is accepted as a sincere one, tied up with the view that the Russian rulers are acting on behalf of one section of society alone, the workers, and that their dictatorship signifies the rule of the workers. This, the writers agree, explains the difference between “Proletarian Democracy” and “Bourgeois Democracy.” This, for instance, is the reviewer puts it:-

“It is important, as Professor Carr points out, to realize that the Russians are just as sincere in their use of the word democracy as we and the Americans are in ours.”

We have not the space to examine the many misleading ideas that are foisted upon the Marxian point of view by these writers, but must confine ourselves to the alleged basic difference between the Russian and the Western definition of democracy.

Cutting away all trimmings, democracy simply means a state of affairs in which the will of the majority of a group, a nation, or an international society, shall always prevail. The will of the majority cannot prevail unless circumstances exist which make it possible to know at any time what the will of the majority really is and whether, for any reason, it has changed. This cannot be known unless there is at least freedom of discussion and means existing for this purpose; freedom of equality of voting; freedom to select those who are to carry out the will of the majority; and equality of electoral conditions.

Although in theory these four fundamental conditions exist in the Western democratic states, in fact there are considerable limitations. One needs only to remember the private and business votes processed by some, the enormous influence of a press owned by a propertied minority, the economic penalties suffered by the workers who express their opinion too freely; and the governments who coalesce instead of dissolving. In spite of the limitations, however, there is sufficient democracy in most of the European states and in America to enable the majority of the people to change the basis of society if, and when, they wish to do so. The point is to get them to wish it. It is therefore to the interest of the workers, who form the great majority in the nations, to use these democratic avenues and not to ignore or destroy them.

The Russian Government was, and is, fundamentally undemocratic, and under its inspiration Communist parties of the other countries have worked to discredit democratic institutions. Sometimes the plea has been that these democratic institutions were barrier to the taking over of power by the working class. In fact, however, they were simply the barrier to the taking over of power by the tiny minority, the Communist Party. The workers did not want to take over power because they had not sufficient confidence in themselves and would not know what to do with power if they got it.

At the time of the Russian Revolution the Bolshevik or Communist Party was a small minority in a largely peasant country. By taking advantage of the favourable circumstances and by carefully planned manoeuvres they succeeded in getting control of government power; every action since that date has had behind it the aim of strengthening the hold on power of the leaders of the Communist Party. Some statements of Marx and Engels on the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” were misused to support the false claim that the workers were in control in Russia. In fact the Russian dictatorship is at present the rule of a small group, with Stalin at their head, who have so tightly organised their autocracy that it is difficult to dislodge them. In this, certain peculiar circumstances have played directly into their hands. From the beginning there was a bitter struggle between members of the ruling clique, and the successful ones imprisoned, deported or executed their rivals. The secret police, as in Germany and Italy, was, and still is, one of the principal of props of power. Lately the church is also taking a hand in the game.

With such background, to write of the Russian idea of democracy as being a sincere one is just nonsense. The rulers of Russia are solely interested in keeping their privileged position as rulers and, like the capitalist rulers here, are only concerned with democracy to the extent that it achieves this object. To write of the Russian dictatorship, as the contributors to the Manchester Guardian have done, as being a dictatorship exercised in the interests of the workers is contrary to the facts. On similar grounds they could as logically argue that Capitalists rule in the interests of the worker.

The business of the Communist parties of different countries has been to serve the interests of the Russian Government, and their “day-to-day” policies have twisted and turned and been reversed merrily in tune with the needs of Russia. On this question of democracy, so far as it concerns the parliament, their somersaults have been particularly spectacular. Starting twenty-five years ago with fierce denunciation of parliament as a sham and a snare, they have alternately denounced and applauded participation in parliamentary action. We will extricate two examples of this lunatic policy:-

In 1932 the Communist Party published a 20-page pamphlet entitled “Report on the Crisis Policy of the Labour Party, the T.U.C. General Council and I.L.P.” This report was submitted to the twelfth Congress of the Communist Party. It repudiates parliamentary democracy in the following manner:-

“Revolution for the Communists means the forceful overthrow of the capitalist and the establishment of the workers’ dictatorship, this to be achieved by the organisation of the daily struggle of the workers as the road to the seizure of power” (p. 17).

Any Party which accepts parliamentary democracy, however revolutionary its phrases is an instrument of the capitalists” (p. 20).

“We must expose the sham of parliamentary democracy, and show the positive results of the workers’ dictatorship based upon the workers’ councils. …” (p. 20).

The Daily Worker of March 6th, 1943, tells an opposite story. It opened its columns to a discussion of the oft-recurring enigma “Communist Affiliation to the Labour Party.” Mr. James Walker put the case of the Labour Party and Mr. William Gallacher replied for the Communist Party. In his reply Mr. Gallacher made the following bland statement:-

“Of course we believe in parliamentary democracy. That is why I am in Parliament. That is why I am such a regular attender, and why the Party is so anxious that I should a good account of myself.”

Could blatant impudence and political perfidy go further? It might, but not very much!

In the West the capitalists find that they can rule under democracy. In Russia the Bolsheviks found they could not do so. To veil their dictatorship and obtain support at home and abroad they rigorously applied the censorship and produced quantities of literature urging the claim that the workers are the real rulers who endow their leaders with supreme power and authority on the ground that the leaders know better than they do themselves what is best to be done. This autocracy was then labelled as a new form of democracy, proletarian democracy, though the proletarians have, at the most, only the influence of the dumb, obstinate cattle who may stray this way and that along the road but are always driven home in the end. In social systems based on chattel slavery the slave either acquiesced in his slavery or went under. In Russia the position of the worker is fundamentally similar. No one before has had the brass to suggest that the slaves participated in democracy. It has been left to the twentieth-century dictatorships, with the unbounded cheek of the confidence man, to foist his fantastic view upon an apprehensive and credulous world.

With an extraordinary tenderness towards Russia the contributors to the Manchester Guardian discussion find a basis for Russian views in an idea that has been revived again. Russia, they urge, has not political democracy, but it has economic democracy. This is how Mr. Laski puts the idea:-

“Soviet Russia is a more democratic society than Great Britain. No special privilege attaches either to birth or to wealth, to race or to creed. There is a wider and more profound attempt to satisfy maximum demand than in this country. … The maddening distinction which we make between the high social prestige attached to intellectual labour and the low social prestige attached to manual labour has no meaning. … Access to the courts is not dependent upon the wealth of the parties to an action.”

Democracy is a term that is used to signify the opposite of privilege. Whatever it is called, political or economic, it either means, in the circumstances that are being considered, that everyone has an equal standing or it is meaningless. Mr. Laski is out of touch with the practical world and, consequently, his description of the economic position in Russia is a travesty of the real position.

What economic equality is there between Soviet millionaires, who can command the best food and everything else, and the average poorly paid Russian worker; between the rich, who can take their holidays in pleasant surroundings, and the poor, who must stew or freeze in the cities; between the wealthy writers and the poor manual workers; between the trembling critic of the Government and the ruling group with its ruthless instruments of oppression; between the rich, to whom all the avenues of divorce are open, and the poor, who cannot afford to pay the court procedure, between Soviet ambassadors giving sumptuous feasts and Soviet workers who can barely get enough to live on; between the prisoners in the labour camps and the Secret Police? If there is economic equality in Russia, why, and for whom, do the black markets flourish? The economic democracy that critics and servile adherents alike admire in an illusion, as the ugly facts testify.

While conditions remain such that modern society is composed of capitalists and workers, two classes with antagonistic interest, then the modern democratic state is the capitalist state, the executive committee of the ruling class, no matter what name is applied to the party in power nor what theory it masquerades under.

But the democratic state has been forced, against its will, to bring into being methods, institutions, and procedure which have left open the road to power for workers to travel upon when they know what to do and how to do it. In this country the central institution through which power is exercised is Parliament. To merely send working-class nominees there to control it is not sufficient. The purpose must be to accomplish a revolutionary reorganisation of society, a revolution, in its basis, which will put everybody on an equal footing as participants in the production, distribution and consumption of social requirements as well as in the control of society itself. So that all may participate equally, democracy is an essential condition. Free discussion, full and free access to information, means to implement the wishes of the majority which have been arrived at after free discussion, and the means to alter decisions if the wishes of the majority change.

Conditions such as these have no room to grow in Russia at present. Those who rule there to-day are essentially anti-democratic. They rule by the secret police, the concentration camp, and the executioner. They hoodwink their subjects into believing that that is the best of all possible worlds.

Gilmac.