At Random. (1908)

From the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Keel is an organ devoted to the exposition of “Tyneside Socialism.”

* * *

As thus : “Social Reform is inoperative. We want to change the basis of society.” (Oct. ’08.)

* * *

As a means to the end which the Keel vainly imagines it is working for, it warmly supported the candidature of Hartley at Newcastle.

* * *

Hartley, in his election address, declares himself “first, last, and all the time, a Socialist.” As evidence in support of this assertion he trots out six “questions,” every one singly, or all in their entirety, of which are exploited by Liberal or Radical politicians. These he considers to be of primary importance.

* * *

Every one of the six “questions” is concerned with a policy of more or less—chiefly less—effective patching of the vile garment which is doing duty to hide the obscenity of the Body Politic.

* * *

Clearly the Keel has lost its compass “Social Reform is inoperative.” Hartley’s “programme” is Reform, Reform, and yet again, Reform. Therefore we support Hartley. Shades of Q. E. D. !

* * *

A member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain recently expressed the opinion that a few millstones, the deep blue sea, and labour “leaders”—the ingredients duly and well approximated—were among the first essentials of the Social Revolution.

* * *

Recent utterances of the labour “leader” surely justify the opinion. Place for Philip Snowden ! Room for Gentle Jesusism and the Brotherhood of Capital and Labour !! Make way for Cant; strew the dead hopes of the deluded worker in the path of oily Sham and baleful Ignorance.

* * *

“He did not propose to rob the millowners of their property. No ; they would compensate them for their mills as they would compensate the landowners and railway companies. That was sound political doctrine.”

* * *

Instead of which a Manchester comrade writes “Seeing that the workers only receive one-third of their product (and have to spend this third in buying the necessaries of life) how can they buy out the capitalist class ? If the workers acquired political power—thereby robbing that power of the sting it has hitherto possessed, the power, namely, of the oppression of a class, they would not need to “compensate.”

* * *

While that power is not possessed the capitalist class would refuse to be “bought out,” even it the miracle of producing the purchase money were to be performed, since, if every avenue of investment were closed to them the said purchase money would be useless.

* * *

Compensate ? Listen !

* * *

“I once heard a manufacturer ask an overlooker ‘Is so-and-so not back yet’ ‘No.’ How long since she was confined ?’ ‘A week.’ ‘She might easily have been back long ago. That one over there only stays three days.’ ”

(Official Report on Mills, 1844.)

* * *

Again: “I have seen a girl of eleven years who was not only a fully developed woman, but pregnant, and it is by no means rare in Manchester for women (!) to be confined at fifteen years of age.”—(Dr. Robertson, 1844.)

* * *

Once more—this is YOUR SHOW, brothers of the working class, ye whose sisters were at the mercy of every millowner, ye who NOW provide the prostitute for the class to be “compensated”—”In stench, in heated rooms, amid the constant whirling of a thousand wheels, little fingers and little feet were kept in ceaseless action. They slept by turns and in relays, in filthy beds that were never cool. Many died and were buried secretly at night in some desolate spot, and many committed suicide.”

(“Industrial History of England,” p. 180.)

* * *

Compensate ? In the name of the oppressed of all time, in the name of the maimed and the scrapped, the outraged woman and the joyless child, by the suffering and agony and the bloody sweat of OUR CLASS, who prates of compensation ?

* * *

THEY SLEPT BY TURNS IN BEDS THAT WERE NEVER COOL.

* * *

Compensate !

SNOGGY.

Editorial: Labourism Proposes – Capitalism Disposes (1946)

Editorial from the November 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are not among those short-sighted electors who, having helped to elect a Labour Government to power, are now turning in astonished resentment to rend their idol of a year ago. We never had any illusions about Labour government.

Socialism cannot be achieved until there is a majority of socialists and they gain control of the machinery of government for the purpose of abolishing capitalism. Until then, notwithstanding all the efforts of reformers to improve the existing system and administer it differently, the evils of class society, based on the exploitation of the workers, will remain to throttle the progress of the human race. The Labour Party rejected this conception and holds that a Labour government, backed by non-Socialist voters, can administer capitalism on non-capitalist principles and mould it gradually so that in the ultimate a different system will emerge. Outlining his Party’s point of view, Mr. Attlee wrote in "The Labour Party in Perspective" (Gollancz, 1937, p. 138) : “Some future historian will not be able to point to a particular date as that on which the Socialist State was established . . .” That is the Labour Party’s view, but it is wrong. Socialist society is not being gradually introduced by Labour government; it will start when, and only when, a socialist working class comes to power. That will be the end of an epoch and the beginning of a new one and later historians will not be in any doubt when it happened.

Sharing Mr. Attlee’s belief, millions of workers, who last year gloried in the Labour electoral triumph, thought that at last they would have a government able to control, improve and gradually to eliminate the capitalist system of society. Never did anyone cherish a more baseless illusion. Having no mandate to introduce Socialism, Mr. Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues have no alternative, even if they desired one, but to administer capitalism. They are riding the tiger and have to go where it takes them.

In the book quoted above Mr. Attlee said “The Labour Party is, of course, opposed to imperialism  . . .” (p.230); but opposed or not, the Labour Government is committed to the maintenance of the British Colonial Empire, to the policy of protecting British “spheres of influence,” to the policy of using military force to keep control over strategic bases, trade routes and foreign territories where vital raw materials are found. British Forces prop up the Greek Monarchy, stand in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere, and British capitalist interests clash in all quarters of the world with the like-minded imperialisms of Russia, U.S.A. and other powers. The Labour Party in opposition dreamed dreams of world brotherhood, but the Labour Government in power must willy-nilly pursue a policy suited to the needs of British capitalism. Thrusting a vastly increased flood of British exports into the markets of the world may look like a friendly act to the British exporter, but it has a more sinister aspect to the rival powers trying to keep or to conquer the same markets for their own exports.

Linked up with the export drive is the Labour Government’s pledge to provide “full employment.” Those who have eyes to see can already glimpse the shape of things to come. More and more workers are being employed on producing goods for export, and we are told there is an unlimited demand for these goods. But what will happen when capitalism lurches into its next inevitable crisis of “over-production ‘? Already we have seen the writing on the wall in the shape of the stock exchange depression in U.S.A. in September. The City editors of the London and New York papers were all at sixes and sevens about the immediate cause and likely duration of the depression but on one thing they nearly all agreed – that the crisis of “over-production ” is bound to come. A typical comment was that of the New York Correspondent of the Observer (8/9/46) —

“Americans generally . . . take it for granted that there will eventually be a crash of some kind to offset the present boom. Their hope is that the crash will be brief …”

Another appeared in the Daily Express (23/9/46) : 

“The Wall Street slump marks the end of the first post-war boom just as the similar break of November, 1919, signalled the world trade depression of 1920-21. That is the view of some of the best brains in the City.”

A world trade crisis is bound to come, and the more the Labour Government succeeds in increasing the dependence of British industry on selling goods abroad, the more certain it will be that the full effect of the crisis will be felt here immediately.

Another example of the way Labour Party policy has swerved away from its early preachings is in the forms taken by nationalisation. A book that was once very popular in Labour circles was "The Case for Socialism", by Mr. Fred Henderson. In it he frankly, faced up to the fact that Socialism involves dispossessing the capitalist class and that it is mere self-deception to suppose that you can both make over their property in the means of production to the community and at the same time give them full compensation for it. “If the nation gave them compensation, in the sense of giving them an equivalent for what it is proposed to take from them, we should fail in our purpose” (p. 20-21). A later, modified view, Mr. Attlee’s, for example, in his "Labour Party in Perspective", was that it would be unfair to expropriate the capitalists gradually, industry by industry, because the first to fall would have a legitimate grievance; also it would be better tactics to give them all “reasonable and just compensation” and then rely on taxation to eliminate the gulf between the capitalist class and the working class.

In practice the capitalists in the nationalised industries are being given what even Cabinet Ministers call “generous” compensation and at the same time Mr. Dalton’s first budget did not increase, but decreased taxation on companies in the form of the Excess Profits Tax. Taxing the rich out of existence may look all right in an election programme, but capitalism will only function if the capitalist has confidence in his ability to make a profit, so the Labour Government has had to safeguard profits and warn the workers against pressing too much for higher wages The rich are still with us in full force and nothing the Labour Government will do will alter it. Mr. Attlee may say “The abolition of classes is fundamental to the Socialist conception of society ” (p. 145) just as the Conservative Party can now give lip service to the same idea – “Mr. Churchill was telling them that England was moving towards a classless society and that the Conservative Party should not just accept the fact but actively promote this historic change” (Mr. D. Eccles, Conservative M.P., Times, 14/10/46) – but capitalism and classes are here to stay until Socialism ends them.

Also on nationalisation of industries, it used to be a Labour Party demand that the workers should be in control. Mr. Attlee ("Socialism for Trade Unionists", 1922) declared that “the general direction . . . will be in the hands of representatives of the workers in the industry in consultation with representatives of the users of the service.” Another Labour writer, Mr. E. E. Hunter, particularly warned against “the danger of national ownership being given over to committees of business experts.” “Democratic control,” he said, was an “essential part of any ideal scheme of nationalisation” ("Socialism at Work", I.L.P., 1921)

Nowhere in the nationalisation schemes now being put into operation will any vestige of these allegedly essential principles be found — they are incompatible with the functioning of capitalism and have had to go.

So one by one the Labour Party’s well-intentioned but ill-conceived schemes for bettering the capitalist system are sacrificed by the Labour Government in office. It could not be otherwise. The idea was that on taking office a Labour Government goes forward with the work of undermining capitalism and encroaching on the powers and wealth of the capitalists. The reality is that on the day a Labour Government takes office to administer capitalism it is forced to turn about arid begin the retreat from its beliefs so that capitalism may be kept running. The Labour voters believe that the Labour Government is in command of the situation. In truth — and doubtless by now even the most obtuse Labour minister begins to realise it — capitalism has the Labour Government in an iron grip. The Labour Government hoped to serve two masters, what they call the policy of serving the interests of all sections of the community. As time goes on and the working class become restive about the non-appearing fruits of labourism the Government will find itself more and more divorced from the workers and from its own pre-election promises.

Letter: The compensation of Bank of England stockholders (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received from a correspondent the following letter, which we consider will be of interest to our readers.— Ed. Comm.)

Sir,—A few facts regarding the compensation terms given to Bank of England stockholders might be of interest to your readers. The unit of Bank of England stock is £100. It was quoted on the Stock Exchange recently at £382. Stockholders have been receiving 12 per cent during the past 20 years. The Labour Government proposes to give stockholders, in exchange for their Bank stock, four £100 units of Government stock, equal to £400 for each unit of Bank stock. This new stock will have the guarantee of the State behind it. At 3 per cent. the Government stock will give the same return as Bank of England stock, namely, 12 per cent. The new stock is redeemable in 1966 at the option of the Government. I have found; Mr. Editor, that many Labour Party supporters conclude that at the end of 20 years the stock will be cancelled without the stockholders receiving anything in return. This, of course, is not the case. It is not surprising that such a misconception should have arisen. Several Labour journals did not appear over anxious to explain the details of the compensation terms. Journals devoted to the interests of investors appear to have been more liberal in giving details of the compensation terms. For example, the following appeared in the "Investors' Chronicle," 13th October, 1945, page 444: "So far as holders of Bank stock are concerned, in the circumstances of the case the provisions are satisfactory. They will receive £400 of 3 per cent. Government stock for each £100 of Bank stock. They will have the same gross income as they had before. . . . But the new Government security is not redeemable till 1966, and then the redemption is optional. . . . In other words, present Bank stock looks as though it is worth little short of £400 on the compensation terms. On news of the terms. Bank stock rose to a record level of 390-395."

It seems clear that the redemption terms mean that in 20 years' time, if the stock is redeemed, the stockholders receive roughly £400 for each unit of Bank stock formerly held. Should redemption not take place in 1966, then the stockholders continue to draw their usual 12 per cent, until the stock is redeemed.

Hoping the above facts will be given wide publicity, and thereby help to remove a misconception from the minds of many well-meaning supporters of the Labour Party.

Yours, etc.,

D. A. (Glasgow).

The nationalisation of mining royalties (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another Great Labour Party Victory

"Six property owners have been paid more than £1,000,000 each by the State for the coal which lies beneath their estates The long campaign to nationalise these coal royalties ended yesterday with the report of the Coal Commissioners. . . . . At the time of the Sankey Commission . . . the most extensive royalty owners . . . were the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Bate, Lord Tredegar, the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Ellesmere." "In addition to the four unnamed owners who got more than a million, six received from £500,000 to £1,000,000 each and twenty-eight between £250,000 and £499,000. More than 11,000 claimants had less than £1,000 each. More than 2,400 got nothing."—(Daily Express, October 31st, 1945.)

Which shows that nationalisation with compensation does not even change the personnel—the individual relationships of the capitalist class.

Nationalisation without compensation would still not be in the "public service"; it would merely transfer ownership from its previous owners to the investors in Government (State) Bonds.

Socialism is a change in social relationships; the abolition of the rich, and therefore, its counterpart, the poor—the workers. It transforms relationships by changing ownership. Private ownership becomes common ownership.

Socialism does not haggle about compensation or confiscation; both terms imply some injury is done the capitalists.

Socialism stands for restoration of the wealth produced to the producers—the workers; about nine-tenths of the people.

Horatio.

Buy ’em out. (1910)

From the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The text for this article is the following abstract from a speech delivered by Mr. P. Snowden in the House of Commons, July 4th, 1910.

“Mr. P. Snowden (Lab. Blackburn), speaking as a representative of Socialism, said he was not appalled by the figures of the Budget ; on the contrary, he hoped to see the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring in a Budget for 3 or 4 hundred millions . . . The Labour Party supported last year’s Budget because it was a good beginning. He would not tax landlords out of existence, but would buy them out.

A Unionist Member: Where would you get the money ?

Mr. Snowden : That is a question often put by ignorant men at open meetings. (Laughter.) If they tried to float all the public-houses of the country as a trust with assurance that they would be free from increased taxation there would be no difficulty in obtaining the money. (Labour cheers.)” Daily Chronicle, 5.7.10.

Mr. Snowden’s claim to be a Socialist representative is soon disposed of. His election address and speeches at the last General Election, to say nothing of an analysis of the votes cast for him, amply disprove that claim. Goaded, possibly, by the disaffection in the ranks of the I.L.P., he blossoms out, on occasion, as a ‘”Socialist representative.” This is part and parcel of the political game he and his colleagues are playing.

But I wish to deal with his piffle about buying up the land.

How Mr. Snowden and his like can rave to an I.L.P. audience about the robber landlords whose ancestors filched the land from the people, etc., etc. Of course he knows his audience. He has to tickle their political palates in order to earn his lecturing fee, with one eye on a return engagement. But to a more “respectable” audience, such as the House of Commons, he adopts another tone. He appears to be quite unconcerned as to the lack of consistency (I had almost said lack of honesty) in raving at one time against the robbers and parasites on the body politic, and at another time admitting the claim and title to their monopoly by talking about “buying them out.” If this is not confusion, what is it ? To the Socialist, with regard to the land and ALL other means of capitalist exploitation, there is no question either of “compensation” or “confiscation,” but simply RESTITUTION.

Again, taking Mr. Snowden’s remarks on the level of his own verbosity, which is not the Socialist level by any means, we observe his smart wangle in reply to an interjector who asked “Where would he get the money from ?” Possibly the writer is equally ignorant; anyway, I repeat “Where would he get the money from” to buy out the landlords ? Obviously such a transaction could not be concluded in the coin of the realm, as there is not sufficient coinage minted in this country with which to do it, and moneymanias will doubtless tell us that if such an enormous sum was specially minted for the purpose, when put into circulation it would swamp the money market, etc., so as to make it just about valueless. Therefore it would have to be done with scrip, treasury bonds, and the like, and to be of any value these bonds would have to be interest-bearing.

So, here you will see the drift. Here, with very little imagination to fill in the gaps, we can foresee the birth and result of a new side-tracking agitation for another “drastic reform.” Shout it from the housetops; sing it in the music halls. “Land Purchase.” “The Land for the People.”

Miles of fulminations and perorations on the platform and in the Press over a course of years, perhaps generations, would induce the landowning section of the capitalist class to “reluctantly” give way (with their tongues in their blasted cheeks), and accept in exchange for their rent rolls, treasury bonds bearing perpetual interest of certainly not less amount than their present incomes—the dominant political power, the capitalist class, will see to that. And the result to the gullible members of the working class who had been bluffed by the afore-mentioned perorations ? Simply, as you were. They would still have to provide the luxuries for the parasites, the only difference being that they would be called “interest” now.

Let us suppose that “hand” John Smith’s wildest dream is realised and in consequence of this very revolutionary change he lives “rent free,” what happens ?

“Times are bad,” says the employer to John, “Business is rotten, and I really cannot keep this place going in face of the foreign competition unless you accept less wages. You can easily do this: you have NO RENT TO PAY now; therefore I must dock your wages 10s. per week.”

“But,” protests John, “my rent was only 5s. per week.”

“Indeed,” retorts the boss. “Then let us compromise and call it 7s. 6d.”

Of course John will fight, but after tightening his belt daily for a few weeks and watching his wife and kiddies starve while he is on strike, he will return to work at 5s. per week less than formerly ; meanwhile his boss has got rid of his surplus stock at enhanced prices and treats himself to a new aeroplane. John soon forgets, in his anxiety to get a living, all the balderdash he swallowed during the “drastic reform” agitation (unless the wicked Socialist is there to jog his memory). He has got the reform all right, but he has yet to learn that he and his class will never, while capitalism lasts, receive more on the average, than a bare subsistence.

Poor John ! Is it any wonder that some people think that he only get his deserts ? Well, he must thank, amongst others, Messrs. Snowden & Co. for the condition in which he finds himself, and in which he will remain until he learns the one grand lesson—that Socialism is the only remedy.

W. E.

On Buying Out the Capitalist. (1907)

From the July 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

[From “The Concentration of Wealth” by Henry Laurence Call, a paper read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Columbia College, New York, Dec. 1906.]

The purchase of public utilities from the corporations is, indeed, now generally advocated ; and we presume the same alternative will be proposed with regard to the trusts, when the people shall have become thoroughly aroused as to what they mean, as also to the futility, as well as the inadequacy, of all attempts to curb or smash them. But this acknowledges the right in these corporations to insist upon such terms as they please, or even absolutely to refuse to sell until their franchises and privileges shall have expired ; thus postponing indefinitely, and rendering practically null, any attempt at a real remedy. The proposition is, moreover, in any just estimate, deliciously ludicrous. The simplicity of the countryman who “locked the stable door after the horse was stolen,” was sage wisdom by comparison. It is as though that countryman, with the thief parading his stolen horse in his plain sight, should have hypnotised himself into the belief that the possession of that thief was evidence of property, and sacred ; and while still in that hypnotic state, should have proposed to mortgage his farm and future labour in order to purchase back his stolen property.

If, through the misconduct of their public servants, the people have been defrauded of the possession of their public highways, as also of industry itself, then their right to repossess themselves of these properties and franchises is the same as that of the individual to repossess himself of his property, whether lost or stolen. The deprivations and wrongs of the past can never be remedied ; and all the wealth that has thus far gone to supply the lavish and sinful waste of these arch plunderers of the industrial world may not be restored to the people ; but all the plundered wealth that yet remains, including the franchises and properties, is theirs to recover and possess.

To attempt such purchase would, indeed, entail upon industrial society an impossible burden.

It is stated that the income of John D. Rockefeller is 72,000,000 dollars per year. If this is true, then the wealth of that individual alone, judged by its earning power, is to-day not far from 2,500,000,000 dollars; and before any reform can be effected will undoubtedly be 3,000,000,000 dollars. Now, inasmuch as the net earnings of the whole (American) people are only 3,000,000,000 dollars per annum, it would require all the earnings of all the people of the nation for a whole year, to satisfy the demands of this one individual alone, in the event of such purchase. But he is only one of thousands of the enormously rich ; and the class, of which he is representative, possess practically ninety per cent. of the 106,000,000,000 dollars given as our national wealth. Not all the labour of all the people would, then, suffice ; . . . as well might a slave, all whose toil belongs to an absolute master, hope to purchase its freedom, as industrial society to undertake such purchase, and then hope even to lighten its debt burden.

Aside from the contradiction it implies, and the hardship it must entail, the purchase by society of these possessions would perpetuate an aristocracy of wealth, having no occupation but the search for pleasure and power, and quite as formidable then as now. It would take all the profits from production and industry, leaving the whole of industrial society in the future, as at present, but “hewers of wood and drawers of water” for these lords of the industrial world. It would convert this into an immense corruption fund, in the hands of an idle class trained to ambition and power. Many might be content with this perpetual mortgage upon the labour of the whole nation, and spend their incomes upon pleasure ; but who can doubt that the great lords of finance who now dominate the industrial world, would still thirst for power, and, conversant with all the corrupt methods of our politics, would use the same criminal methods to build up a newer power, as those employed to build up their present possessions and power ?

Besides, such half-way action, or compromise, would be as wrong and unjust as it would be impolitic. All these possessions have been created alone by the labour of industrial society ; and to it, and it alone, they justly belong.

If, therefore, these possessions have found their way into the hands of the present possessors through unjust laws, through bribery, corruption, fraud, and other criminal misconduct, which the people could not see or prevent, then the people cannot do less than demand a full return both of the properties and all the accumulated wealth therefrom. Their right to this wealth is exactly commensurate with their right to take possession of the properties themselves. The return of the goods of which they have been despoiled is quite as important and altogether as just, as the prevention of further spoliation. It is enough that they have been so long defrauded of their just possessions, and compelled to toil in the service, and at the dictation, of the wrongful appropriators ; without assuming this voluntary and dangerous additional burden of perpetual toil, in order to come into possession of their own again, or rather into what would be but a hollow mockery of that possession. This wealth, thus plundered from a nation’s toil, either belongs to these plunderers or to the society from which they have plundered it; and to one or the other it must go in the end. Industrial society must make its choice between the two horns of the dilemma ; it must be the judge of its own rights, as also the enforcer of its own decrees ; and from its decision there is no appeal, as no recourse from its action.

The corporation, then, in all its ramifications, industrial, financial, and public service, should be taken from under the control of private interests, and made co-operative in the workers, by them to be administered for the common good; it should be, in fact, a social, not a selfish institution.

The Labour Party Programme: 'Let Us Face The Future' (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party was returned to Power on a Declaration of Labour Policy under the above title.

Very briefly its salient points may be summarized as “public ownership” of the “fuel and power industries"; “transport”; “iron and steel”; “public supervision of monopolies and cartels” and “public ownership of the Bank of England.” (Pages 5 and 6).

Right at the outset, the Labour Party says in this document.

“The nation wants food, work and homes. . . . These are the aims, in themselves they are no more than words. All parties may declare that in principle they agree with them. (pp. 3). . . . The nation needs a tremendous overhaul—all parties say so—the Labour Party means it.” (pp. 4.)

It is thus clearly stated that all parties proclaim the same programme; “food, work, homes,’ the difference being that the Labour Party means it. This genuine workman like plan is the proposal for Public Control.

Despite the fact that on page four of “Let us face the Future” all parties say they stand for the same objects—on page 6 a rather startling change takes place.

“The Labour Party is a Socialist Party—and proud of it.”

“Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain. "

But Socialism cannot come overnight, as the product of a week-end resolution .... There are basic industries—ripe and over-ripe for public ownership and management in the direct service of the nation.”

The question therefore arises! Will “Public Ownership" as propounded by the Labour Party “ultimately” establish Socialism?

There can be little doubt that the astounding success of the Labour Party at the polls was largely due to the association, in the minds of the workers, of Government Control with Employment.

The bitter memory of the Depression years after the last war still rankled; and many jumped to the false conclusion that what had found them regular Work, was not War, but Government Control.

When this is coupled with the specious, though spurious, notion that Government Control and State direction lead to Socialism—a perfect vote-catching programme results.

Let us see what the Labour Party is actually doing to “implement its election serenade.”

Immediately it was returned, two authoritative spokesmen were put up; one from inside the Government and one from outside, to reassure the American capitalists.

Sir Stafford Cripps, on August 1st, outlined the Five Year Plan of the Labour Government in an important broadcast to America.

“The Labour Party, Sir Stafford said, did not believe in Confiscation, but rather in fair compensation for any person whose interests were taken over by the State, whether in Industry, Land or Finance.”— (News-Chronicle, August 1st, 1945).

“Professor Laski, chairman of the Labour Party National Executive, in a broadcast to America last night said he had been asked what would be given priority in Labour's programme of Nationalisation.

The Bank of England was going to be socialised and the direction of investments planned as part of the progress of industrial re-organisation.

This would follow nationalisation of mines and electrical power and the iron and steel industry.

The programme would follow the broad outline of the Tennessee Valley authority scheme—planned production by the State. . . . ”—(Evening Standard, August 1st, 1945).

In response to urgent requests from the Conservatives. Mr. Hugh Dalton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intervened in the Debate on the King’s Speech to make perfectly plain exactly what the Labour Party means by “Socialisation” of the Bank of England.

“To a large extent the changes we propose will have the effect of bringing the law into accord with the facts ... as they have developed. . . . Private stockholders will disappear from the scene, carrying with them fair compensation. They will be fairly treated. They will lose the powers which legally they still possess, though they may have fallen into disuse, it is proposed to eliminate the stockholders with appropriate compensation from the State.”—(Manchester' Guardian, August 22nd, 1945).

This was quite clear to all the financial Editors beforehand, who said the same sort of thing as the News of the World, for example

“The ‘socialisation' of the Bank of England will do no more than give formal recognition to what is already an established fact.

Ever since we came off the Gold Standard in 1931, responsibility for the general direction of our financial and monetary policy has been assumed by the Treasury. And since .the outbreak of war in 1939 control over the Bank by the Government has been absolute. It is not expected that there will be any change in the Governorship, which is at present held by Lord Catto.”— August 20th, 1945).

In any case, Dalton had already made the position obvious to the Bankers by shouting at them in the Lobby.

“Tell your friends there is no need to sell their Bank shares. Now is the time to bay.”—(Daily Mail, August 6th).

Articles are now appearing in the public press, like that of Mr. Laurence Wilkinson, in the Evening Standard for August 28th which discuss How stockholders of the Bank of England (17,000 of them) are going to be compensated! He points out that the Bank has paid a dividend of 12 per cent for the past 29 years but claims, on all sorts of grounds, that more should be paid in compensation, because the Bank stock is actually worth more. Another Argument is that; if Bank stockholders are to be given a fixed interest Government security in exchange for stock (say 12 per cent.) they lose all hope of the small gradual increase which the stock showed! And well-meaning members of the Labour Party are solemnly debating these points!

The same largely applies to the Mining Industry—except that it consists of tangible assets, i.e., the actual material and plant involved.

On August 16th the National Mining Association passed the following resolution :—

“In view of the fact that legislation for the transfer of the industry from private enterprise to public ownership is to be proceeded with, and having regard to the statement made on behalf of the Government that the industry would be fairly treated as far as compensation is concerned, the colliery owners, through the Mining Association place themselves at the disposal of the Government.”—(Manchester Guardian, August 31st).

At the same time, Mr. Shinwell, the Labour Minister of Fuel, has demanded more production (exactly like Beaverbrook and Churchill), and appointed the Communist Miners’ Official, Arthur Horner, to get going. Horner has already called on Miners to be “ Stakanovites.”

The net result of the Labour Party's “Socialist” Public ownership, so far, therefore; is that the value of the Bank of England stock has gone up—Coal Mine shares are at a premium—and the miners are expected to work harder this winter.

On the same day that the Mine-owners “placed themselves at the disposal of the Labour Government”—the Daily Herald declared in an editorial, that “the foundations of the Socialist Britain,” will be “laid in the coal pits”? Which makes one wonder what the Labour Government have got to do with it—the coal pits are the last place to find them. “Socialism” has been proclaimed from some very funny places—Karl Kautsky twitted Bernstein with discovering it in every municipal public lavatory fifty years ago—but never before down the coal pits.

The foundations of Labour Party “Socialism” may be in the coal pits—the first floor is already in the British, owned lead and zinc mines of Yugo-Slavia.

“The British Government intend to make an urgent protest to Marshal Tito's Yugo Slav Government against the nationalisation of British lead and sine mines without compensation.

The French Government are to make similar protests. . . .

The protests are considered not important in themselves, bat they are being watched as test cases concerning other Allied properties and concessions in the Danubian and Balkan States, including oil in Rumania, gold, copper, zinc and lead in Bulgaria, lead zinc tin and steel in Yugo-Slavia and other interests in Poland and Hungary. (Evening Standard, August 28th).

Poor Tito—he believed those election speeches too! Socialism is the Common Ownership of the means of wealth production. The means of wealth production under capitalism are the private property of the capitalists. The only way to transform Capital (private property) into Social Wealth is to take it away by expropriating its present capitalist private owners. Socialism cannot be inaugurated by compensating capitalists—which leaves wealth in its Money form (Capital) in the same hands. Nothing whatever is changed by the Labour Government's “Socialisation” of the Bank of England, except the name on the documents entitling the owners to their pound of flesh. Same owners—same flesh—“the 12 per cent." comes out of the hides of the workers.

Banks are institutions of the Money system—Capitalism. They only function for, and in that system: They can only operate when the great mass of production is carried on to exchange products—for profit. They are the clearing houses of that commodity—(or its paper tokens) gold; which serves as the universal medium of exchange—which stems from private ownership.

Banks borrow—and lend other peoples money, i.e., they take deposits, and make advances on security (property). Banks make profits (without which they close their doors) from the difference between the cost of attracting deposits; and what they make by lending or investing a large part of these deposits for short periods. Banks are Profit making concerns of Capitalism. They are nothing whatever to do with Socialism; which will abolish Money and Banks, along with parsons, prostitutes, pawnbrokers and politicians.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood told the Conservatives that the Labour majority in the House to-day is “quite different,” from the Conservatives, but went on to say of his own Labour Party colleagues:—

“I look around among my colleagues and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a cross- section of the national life.”—(Hansard, August 17th, Column 261.)

And not one voice was there to interject, “Double-cross section”!

The Labour Government's object is not the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain—which can only be done by “dispossessing”—“taking away,” (Oxford Dictionary) expropriating—not compensating Capitalists. Marx's slogan was:—

“Expropriation of the Expropriators.”

“Public Ownership” simply means wealth in the form of “public corporation” stocks, quoted on the Money Market to the highest bidder, in place of private stockholders. Mr. Dalton has already expressed the hope that British Government securities will increase in value, as a result of his legislation. Under the Labour Government's convenient “Socialism," the profits and wealth of the capitalists increase.

For a great many years the Socialist Party has declared that:—

“It is impossible to exaggerate the harm done to the Socialist movement, by those who, calling themselves Socialists, have taught the workers to believe that State Capitalism and Social Reform are Socialism.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always been careful to define what Socialism means. Nobody who grasped that definition ever made the error of supposing that State Enterprise like the Post Office or Public Utility Corporations like the London Passenger Transport Board had anything to do with Socialism. Nor did they imagine, even for a moment, that Hitler and Mussolini were Socialists, or that Socialism could result from the Bolshevist dictatorship in Russia or from a Labour Government in Britain or Australia. But our critics who ridiculed what they called the “doctrinaire” Socialist Party of Great Britain, all fell into these errors—with disastrous results."

The greatest disaster of all will befall the National Labour Party—as the workers discover, by bitter experience, that it does not stand for Socialism. We shall proclaim louder than ever what Socialism means—the workers will learn—and the Labour Leader take his place in the museum of antiquities, with Money—Banks, “ the spinning wheel, and the Bronze axe."

Horatio.

Colonel Lancaster (1978)

From the July 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Outdoor speakers of the Socialist Party are frequently requested to name capitalists and are deemed to have failed to prove their case on declining to do so. The validity of our case does not depend on the ability to compile a directory of the parasites of this society however. Capitalists are the products of social conditions where the means of living are privately owned and production is for profit; they are not the makers of these conditions. So it is essential to understand how capitalism works. Socialists only quote names to illustrate this.

A good example is provided for us by the item in the Daily Telegraph of 5 June titled “Tory MP leaves £2.8m fortune”. The point of interest for us, was not in the fact that a Tory MP died rich, there is nothing unusual about that. It was in the first paragraph which stated “Reinvestment of Government compensation from his substantial interest in coal mines in Nottinghamshire, as a result of nationalisation in 1947, has helped to provide the largest probate value so far this year — £3,145,452 gross, £2,807,920 net — for the estate of Col. Claude Lancaster, a Conservative MP for more than 30 years”. To put it crudely, the Colonel, a former mine owner, was the victim of Labour’s nationalisation policies and came out of the ordeal with his wealth intact.

The mining industry between the wars faced shrinking markets. The measures to combat this included wage cuts, deterioration in working conditions, and pit closures and the resulting resistance of the miners to these cuts put the industry at the centre of political controversy in those days. The Labour Party, with the support of the miners, claimed the fault lay with private ownership of the mines and the owners’ greed for profit. Nationalisation was to be the remedy by eliminating the owners. It was understood that the chaos of competition would be replaced by a sane and humane planning of production. The Socialist Party at the time argued that nationalisation was not the answer, as the result would be state capitalism with no important changes in the lot of the workers.

The nationalisation that the Labour Party and many mine workers wanted so badly has been implemented for over thirty years now. Mining has changed much over that period of time, yet the essentials remain the same. The profit motive determines the decisions of executives of the National Coal Board every bit as much as it did that of the managers of the old companies. Closures have continued and the industry has shrunk much since 1947. Mechanisation, which could have been a boon in lightening the toil of the miners, when allied to the profit motive brought stress and danger instead. Nationalisation did for a time bring a change that Colonel Lancaster and the former owners would have appreciated, the miners believed in nationalisation and went along with the streamlining of the industry they had resisted before.

Thirty years after the event that was claimed to be such a momentous change, workers still produce wealth for the benefit of the owning minority and the announcement of Colonel Lancaster’s will is a timely reminder of this.

Joe Carter

Editorial: Socialism v. The Labour Party. (1926)

Editorial from the November 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is equally inexplicable that Mr. Keynes should suppose that the British Labour Party …. includes (or has in its quarter of a century of existence, ever included) anything, either in politics or in economics, that can honestly be called Marxian Socialism. (Sidney Webb, “Economic Journal,” September, 1926.)

If a Parliamentary Labour Party is not to be trusted to handle Parliament and to advance Socialism, for goodness’ sake do not elect it to begin with. (J. R. MacDonald, “Daily Herald,” October 9.)

The second of the two quotations at the head of this column was addressed by Mr. MacDonald to certain sections of the Labour Party which sought to induce the Party Conference to pass resolutions which would have had the effect of tying the hands of the party’s parliamentary leaders. Mr. MacDonald candidly denounced some of these resolutions as “political jerry-building of a high order” (for instance, the minimum wage and family allowance proposals of the I.L.P.), but whereas we accept the logic of Mr. MacDonald’s challenge, his various critics inside the Labour Party fear to do so. We frankly do not believe that the Labour Party can be trusted to advance Socialism, and honesty to ourselves and to the view we hold, compels us to oppose the policy of helping to “elect it to begin with.”

This is not because of personal antipathy towards Mr. MacDonald or a belief that he and his colleagues are less trustworthy than other people. For certain purposes the Labour Party may be an efficient instrument, but such a party with such a programme does not and cannot advance Socialism. In order that our position may be made plain, let us apply a test which was applied by Mr. H. N. Brailsford (originator of the proposals described by Mr. MacDonald as jerry-building) in the “New Leader,” of which he has just ceased to be the Editor. That test is the recognition of the class struggle. Is the Labour Party based on a recognition of the existence of such a struggle in the capitalist system? Mr. Brailsford says that it is, and consequently that it is a Socialist Party. (“New Leader,” October 15th.)

The class struggle is defined by Mr. Brailsford in these words :—

“The broad distinction is between those who live upon rent, profit or interest, and those who live by rendering service useful to the community.”

The aim of the Socialist is to replace a society divided into property-owners and non-property-owners, by a system of society in which the only claim to the enjoyment of wealth produced, will be the rendering of service by all who are fit to do so. This involves the suppression of all incomes derived from the ownership of property; but does the Labour Party propose that suppression? If not, then Mr. Brailsford is wrong. If not, the Labour Party is not a Socialist Party, and cannot be trusted to advance Socialism.

At its annual conference, the Labour Party made many decisions which plainly disgusted its so-called left wing (or wings). It is, however, not necessary to criticise these decisions separately. They all arise because of the deliberate omission from the Labour Party’s programme of a recognition of the class struggle. The capitalist class does, at present, own and control the means of producing wealth, and will not, without compulsion, yield its legal right to live by the ownership of property. Rather than face this fact, rather than admit that the class struggle exists and can be abolished from society only by the victory of the working-class majority, the Labour Party proclaims its belief in the possibility of achieving Socialism without destroying the property rights of the capitalist class. It believes that it has found a solution to the ancient problem of making omelettes without breaking eggs. It will have “Socialism” without “confiscation.”

Mr. MacDonald, discussing the question of land-ownership (reported in “Daily Herald,” October 14th) defined his position thus :—

“If he could not get a thing done without compensation, and could get it done with compensation … he would do it. No moral issue was involved; it was simply a business proposition.”

This was greeted with applause, and no one troubled to ask whether the “thing done” would be Socialism. All of the Labour Party’s nationalisation proposals involve the payment of compensation in the shape of interest-bearing bonds to the former owners. Now, apart from the futility of trying to introduce Socialism piecemeal, industry by industry, what will be the position when the Labour Party has finished nationalising all the essential services? The capitalist class will still be property-owners —their property being Government Bonds instead of company shares, etc. They will still live by owning, and without rendering service. To return to Mr. Brailsford’s words, instead of extinguishing “Rent, profit and interest,” the Labour Party will at immense trouble have completed the great transformation of turning “Rent and profit” into “Interest.”

The working-class will still be engaged in producing wealth for the benefit of the capitalist class. Socialism will not be in existence, and no important working-class problem will have been solved.

The alternative advocated by us, is to propagate Socialism and organise the working-class in a Socialist Party on a clear-cut Socialist programme. This does not mean, as Mr. Bowen suggested, “Bloody revolution.” (“Herald,” October 14th). The working-class are the great majority. When they become Socialist they will endeavour to obtain possession of the machinery of Government in the usual “constitutional” way. The Socialist Party not having been guilty, as was the Labour Party, of helping to carry on the recent “bloody war,” is less likely than that Party to adopt irresponsible courses leading to bloodshed and disorder.

The Capitalist Principles of the I.L.P. Confessed. (1925)

From the February 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our criticism of the I.L.P. in the January issue has brought from a correspondent copies of a letter written by him to the I.L.P. Head Office on this subject, and their reply. The letter of enquiry was passed over to the I.L.P. Information Committee, and the reply, signed by Ernest Hunter, contains the following illuminating passages :—

  “The I.L.P. does state that production should be for use and not for profit, but this is not the be all and end all of Socialism. This statement does not exclude any possibility of the State making a profit. What it does mean is that service should be considered of more importance than profits​.

  “There is nothing in Socialism that prevents a man owning property. Socialism is chiefly an expression against the power which this possession of property involves. Hence some Socialists believe that interest—(not, as to-day, dividends)— should be paid to the wealth lent to the State; this interest to be equitable and fair. The chief feeling against the National Debt is not that it exists, but that it is owned by a comparatively few people who draw a huge tribute from their fellow countrymen.”

The really startling admission is this :—

   “It is a little difficult at the present moment to give a statement of what accurately represents the I.L.P. point of view on these financial points.”

One cannot but be amused at the spectacle of a political party which, after thirty years of propaganda, finds it a little difficult to say exactly what it believes on a fundamental Socialist principle.

In reply to another definite question, the I.L.P. Head Office wrote :—

   “I do not think there is any official I.L.P. view regarding the limited use of interest in a Socialist State​It is a matter for future decision whether it will be absolutely abolished under Socialism.”

It is therefore not surprising that we should have Mr. Fred Longden, a member of the N.A.C. of the I.L.P., writing of that Party’s unemployment programme, that it

  ”Is the very antithesis of Socialism, and lends itself to the entrenchment of a system that is naturally dying and is out of date.”—(Labour Monthly, January, 1925.)

A similar enquiry addressed to the Labour Party brought a quite definite statement of their intention to allow the capitalists to go on “living by owning,” their property to take the form of Government Stock :—

   “. . . I think I am right in saying that there is a considerable concensus of opinion in the Movement against the usual principles of compensation being applied with regard to unknown minerals.

 

   “Generally speaking, however, the Party accepts the principle of compensation, and, although close details have not been worked out in many instances, the problem will be met by the issue of redemption bonds.”

(This letter is signed by Mr. J. S. Middleton, the Assistant Secretary.)

Edgar Hardcastle

"And Found Wanting." (1921)

Book Review from the August 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Coming Revolution," by Gerald Gould.

For the Socialist this book has little value, if one excludes certain statistics and information given in the appendix, which may be useful for reference, it is a jumble of sentiment and false economic conclusions, a book written to quiet the heated and affrighted imaginations of the "middle class," and to relieve the conscience of its author. He has no realisation of the existence of the class war, although, in his search for moral justification for a revolution, he seems to have seen it "disappearing round a corner "; he lacks comprehension of the materialistic conception of history, and does not hesitate to contradict himself.

Let me go further into details:

Mr. Gould is convinced that there is going to be a working-class revolution. Here he seeks to show:

1. Why it is inevitable.
2. Why it is justified.
3. How it will, or can be, accomplished.

For those who wish to know "it is to be about the simplest and most homely of all subjects— the cost of living," and again, "the cause of any upheaval that happens will be the cost of living."

In view of the fact that prices are now falling the prospects of revolution must be fading slowly and silently away !

But justification of and excuses for the Revolution are our author's chief worry. Writing as he does for timid ''middle-class" sentimentalists he has to show that "Labour's demands and requirements are natural" and "the issue a moral one." This is an untenable position to take up, and, of course, Mr. Gould fails to maintain it. For one thing, the excuse that these demands are natural can cut both ways, as it is as natural for the capitalist to welcome unemployment and pay low wages as it is for the workers to seek to force wages up.

Now with regard to its accomplishing.

Our author thinks it possible that the high cost of living may force the workers into a bloody revolution. In case it does he has found a scapegoat, though why one should be needed, and who will demand excuses from the victorious workers after the Revolution he does not say and I do not know. It may be his friends of "the impoverished middle classes" will want justification for the slaughter of the innocents. Anyway, all demands of that sort have been anticipated and need not disturb the rest of any Direct Actionist, for "if ever a bloody revolution breaks out in this country a large share of the responsibility will have to be borne by Bonar Law and other Tory leaders, who made incendiary speeches on the Ulster Theme."

But Mr. Gould does not think a bloody revolution at all likely, because "nobody is less revolutionary by temperament than the British Working Man," than whom "nobody is saner and kinder." (I think we have all met phrases like these before in such papers as the ''Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express.") And, of course, we always have "the courage and statesmanship of Trade Unionists" which will save the country again if need be as they did at the time of the railway strike of 1919, and the Triple Alliance swindle of the present year. The settlement of the strikes in question would suggest that the statesmanship of Trade Union officials consists of a willingness to be bluffed by Lloyd George and an anxiety not to incur the latter's displeasure by any hesitation in retailing the same bluff to their members.

The anticipated revolution, however, is to be peaceful. It will start with a general strike. Guild Socialists will prepare a new system in "intellectual readiness to take over on the collapse of the old." Private capitalists will buy one another out, and incidentally reduce the National Debt. Nationalisation will be installed and a redistribution of national wealth will take place.

Now, in the first place can a general strike meet with success? Our author admits that, in the event of one taking place, "the poor would be the first to suffer, since, unlike the rich, they would not have reserves of material commodities," but thinks that this could "be averted if no element of violence entered in at any stage of the struggle." Poor, ingenuous Mr. Gould ! Does he really think that the Government would abstain from violence if that alone could save capitalism ?

But probably he does not recognise that the Government is but the tool of the capitalists, for he seems hurt and surprised to realise that "as with the employers so with the Government itself."

Again, he does not show how sitting still with folded arms can provide loaves of bread.

But then, even if a general strike were successful and the workers followed the plans set forth in this book, they would still be wage slaves. Nationalisation is but intensified capitalism and holds out no remedy to the worker. Mr. Gould's method of attaining it is, however, rather amusing. He first makes it clear that you must "not simply expropriate the owners of an industry without compensation." You must make a grant to the shareholders "to prevent actual hardship," else what becomes of the "philoprogenitive vicar in his poverty-stricken country vicarage" if you rob him of his shares in the Great Eastern Railway ? Here you have a frank admission of failure, for even after Nationalisation there will be it seems, "actual hardship" and "poverty-stricken country vicarages." This by the way. The method of obtaining the money for this grant is novel indeed. Assume you nationalise the railways first, and the cost of buying out the shareholders is 500 millions, you make a levy on capital sufficient to yield this amount. By this means the rich railowners provide part of the money necessary for their own expropriation, and as the Government, whilst paying out 500 millions only, receives 500 millions rail stock and 500 millions from the levy, the National Debt is reduced by 500 millions. Repeat this with every industry in turn, and then "Hail the Revolution!" It reminds one of the problem of the two snakes who started eating each other from the tail !

Having seen that wages, at present, are the workers' chief concern, and not wishing that his Utopia should offend by their non-existence, Mr. Gould makes it clear that payment for labour power will not cease. That is what he means when he talks of a redistribution of wealth. Having persuaded the capitalists to buy one another out, the statesmen of the trade unions, under the tutorship of Guild Socialists, would run industry for the nation, "treat the workers like men and brothers," and pay a family, on the basis of present production, about £400 per annum.

The examples Mr. Gould gives to show the increase in production that will result from the kindly treatment of the workers is instructive:

A Mr. S. J. L. Vincent, A.M.I.C.E., borough surveyor at Newbury, builds houses. He guarantees a 48 hour week, and treats his workmen like brothers, so that they, "feeling that they are not working to build up profits but to build houses," respond in the same spirit. Of course, Mr. S. J. L. Vincent, A.M.I.C.E.'s object is to sow the seeds of love among his workmen, and so it must be quite an unforeseen accident that he can build houses at £650 each while contractors, at a period of dearer materials, asked £875. As the cost of bricks, etc., to Mr. Vincent was more than to the contractors, and as his income was probably not much lees, the difference in price must be in his wages expenditure. Yet Mr. Gould quotes this and says to the workers "see what benefits will result from nationalisation, under which you will be treated like brothers." All I can see is increased unemployment, and nowhere in this book are we told, what provision is to be made for those who, owing to increased production, have nothing to do. Also we are not told who is going to condescend to treat their workers like brothers.

Will their exploiters do so then any more than now, or is this an invitation to the ''middle class" to reap the reward of their imagined intellectual superiority on the backs of the workers ?

But our chief quarrel with Mr. Gould is over his citation of Marx as an authority for his conclusions. He does not understand Marxian economics and philosophy, and should confine himself to Sidney Webb and Fabianism. Marxism and Fabianism are quite incompatible, and it is therefore ignorance of one or both which makes him support his tottering ideas with selections from the two of them.

See how he misinterprets Marx. He summarises Marx's description of the transformation from capitalism to Socialism as the taking over by the workers "in one solid lump, of the capital which private capitalism itself has in accordance with the laws of its own development, coagulated into that lump." Marx taught that capital, i.e., wealth used to exploit labour, will cease to exist with the passing of capitalism, since the workers cannot exploit themselves. To talk about "taking over capital," therefore, is nonsense ; anyway, it isn't Marx.

In passing, one should notice the phrase "private capitalism" here. Its insertion shows that when our author speaks of Nationalisation he has State capitalism in mind.

Did he understand the primary theory in Marx, that of value, which states that the value of a commodity is measured by the amount of labour socially necessary for its reproduction, he would not be puzzled by the fact that fertile ground on which little labour is spent produces greater value than less productive ground on which a greater amount of labour is expended. Also he would never be so foolish as to write : "The workers insist on higher wages so that they may cope with the higher prices. The capitalist often has no objection. He simply raises his prices again, so as to get back the extra amount he has to pay in the cost of labour."

The capitalist, like the worker, is bound by the laws of the system and cannot raise prices at will. But then, Mr. Gould does not realise that the system controls man, he thinks man controls the system, and has but to will a new world in order to produce it, ignoring social development.

Yet we can agree with the last sentence in the book, "there is no third way" (i.e., to attain Socialism). There is not even a second. The only way is for the workers to study and understand their position, and the laws governing the society of which they are a part, for then they can and will become possessed of the machinery of government, and under the protecion of the power then at their disposal, work with the economic forces to mould the new classless society, the Socialist Republic.

W. J. R.

A Tilt at a Travesty. (1921)

Book Review from the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Illusion, A Critical Review of the Principles of State Socialism. By Reginald Tayler. Allen & Unwin. Paper, 1s. 3d. 

It will be noted that Mr. Tayler entities his book "The Socialist Illusion" and immediately qualifies his title by describing the work as "a critical review of the principles of State Socialism." It is difficult to tell from the reading whether the author is aware of the wide difference between Socialism and the purely capitalist notion of nationalising industries under the control of the capitalist State. In places it would almost appear that he does realise this difference, though nowhere does he attempt to prove his "Socialist illusion." Instead, he shows the fallacies of State Socialism and nationalisation, though this has been done long ago by the Socialist, and far more effectively.

In a long chapter entitled "Economic Factors" Mr. Tayler labours pitifully to persuade his readers that the capitalist only gets a very small share of the total wealth produced and that he is really necessary to production. In another chapter, on "State Confiscation," he says that the Labour leaders, while denying that Socialism means confiscation, mean that and nothing else. Holding this view he should have tried to show the fallacy of trying to establish a new order of society after the capitalists had been expropriated. Instead, he devotes his space to the much easier task of showing what a financial mess the State would be in if it took over certain industries, either paying for them or guaranteeing a dividend or interest, while at the same time fixing a higher standard of living for the workers, maintenance while unemployed, etc.

"The State as Captain of Industry" heads another chapter, in which it is declared that trade, under salaried managers, would languish and die, forgetting meanwhile that the big and thriving concerns under capitalism are run in this way, and are rapidly ousting the small concerns managed by their owners. In chapter 6, where our author pretends to deal with the question of production under Socialism, it would almost appear that he is entirely ignorant of the meaning of the word Socialism, or even of many of the phrases he uses, such as "production for use," "under Socialism there would be no trade in the sense in which we understand it," etc. Under Socialism, he says, every undertaking would have to pay its way, consequently useful services, like railways, etc., will cease to be run because the extra costs of running would swallow up the small dividend now paid.

Instead of levelling his criticism at Socialism Mr. Tayler merely tilts at nationalisation, the red herring that the Labour Party drags across the path of the workers. This is the more remarkable seeing that he deliberately accuses the Labour Party of being out for confiscation, which by depriving the capitalist class of ownership in the means of wealth production, would naturally leave them in the workers' possession. His chief mistakes are due to the fact that he has failed to conceive the possibility of the working class attaining sufficient knowledge to establish a system where the means of life, being owned in common, could be operated according to a settled plan without the intervention of trade.

Under capitalism exchange, or trade, must take place because the product of labour is privately owned. But under Socialism it becomes merely a question of producing and distributing, or making available the goods and services required. Each member of the community would take part in the necessary labour and enjoy the fullest life possible under the existing conditions and development of the means of production.

Mr. Tayler sees in capitalist society the distribution of goods taking place on a basis of exchange and imagines that it is this exchange that effects the distribution. But the exchange is merely a social arrangement ; the actual distribution is a result of working-class activities. The workers first produce and then move the goods to where they are wanted. The social arrangement that imposes exchange on top of these quite adequate operations are those historically developed institutions, private, or class, ownership of the means of wealth-production—and therefore of the wealth produced— and the commodity character of human labour-power. On these trade and commerce are built up, and Mr. Tayler on page 21 exclaims, "A marvellous thing is commerce" and on page 23, "Socialists in destroying commerce would destroy the machinery for producing wealth."

True, commerce is a marvellous thing, not for the production of wealth, however, but for its appropriation by the ruling class. Commerce enables the capitalist class to realise the surplus-value contained in commodities, the difference between the wages paid for their production and their real value. Mr. Tayler has read all about surplus-value and his only comment is that "so far from there being a surplus, there is in a large proportion of cases a minus" (p. 53). And again on p. 132, "It was always nearer the truth, and is so still, that Labour received at least eleven pence in the shilling and often the entire shilling." He tries to prove these wild statements by imaginary cases of concerns that have gone on paying wages when no profits have been forthcoming, and by figures recording capitalist failures. But whether a firm fails or succeeds is not evidence that the worker's commodity is paid for above its value.

But "what a marvellous thing is commerce" from the worker's point, of view! The competitive struggle for markets between capitalists falls entirely on the workers. It is they that must produce ever more cheaply by working with greater intensity for wages that are continually being reduced with the slackening of demand. It is the workers, too, that starve when there is abundance, when the markets are choked with commodities they cannot buy because they are unemployed. Truly a marvellous thing is commerce, Mr. Tayler's machinery for producing wealth—those who work it cannot satisfy their own needs, while those who own it are powerless in the face of its staggering over-production, which is the root cause of the intense conflict for markets.

Sometimes our author exposes his own lack of understanding of ordinary terms and definitions. On page 49 he says : 

  "So also the labour power expended upon a commodity is not more than one factor in its production. Take for example the machines which are used. Probably the actual construction of the machines has been the result of mechanical labour, but who knows exactly what brain power has been expended in the invention and development of the machine, and not only of the machine as a whole but of the many individual parts which in their turn have demanded the application of the brain power of perhaps scores of persons not one of whom was a mere artisan."

Here we see that his conception of labour-power is "mechanical labour" or the labour of "artisans," whereas within the term labour power is included not only low-skilled labour, but the organising abilities of the foremen and managers, and even the intellectual qualities of professionals. The fact that the possessors of such forms of energy have to sell them in order to live, places them all in the same category, i.e., purveyors of labour power. All are combinations of nervous and muscular energy. In supposing that labour power means only that combination of nervous and muscular energy common to labourers and artisans, Mr. Tayler shows a lamentable ignorance of bourgeois economics, which long ago accepted the definition of labour power given above.

Again on p. 27 he shows that he is incapable of drawing a correct conclusion from his own facts. In a paragraph too long to quote in full he supposes a group of capitalists who pool  their money, build a factory, install machinery and provide raw materials. He then says: The workmen are got together, they do their first week's work and receive a large sum collectively in wages. The capitalists have meanwhile received nothing." We might ask Mr. Tayler to whom the product of the first week's work belongs, and if that product is nothing.

But on page 51, when our author finds it necessary to show that capitalists are business-like as well as philanthropic, he finds himself in agreement with the Socialist, for he says that "the manufacturer, being a business man, buys labour power just as he would any other commodity with the hope of making a profit therefrom." His group of capitalists, therefore, were possessed of the best intentions towards themselves, even if ultimately they failed to build up a thriving concern.

Mr. Tayler's chapter on "State Confiscation" is very amusing. On page 58 he says 

  "Marx sought to prove that the capitalist was a spoiler and a robber, and the present-day followers of Marx—that is to say practically all those persons who call themselves Socialists—believe that theory. Now to take from a robber his ill-gotten gains and hand them back to the rightful owners is not confiscation but restitution." 

As Mr. Tayler throughout his work has failed to disprove the charge of robbery he cannot logically object to restitution.

On page 59 he says

  "How can anyone suppose that the notion of compensation would ever enter the heads of such people. To compensate a robber and bespoiler would be the height of absurdity. Besides, who would compensate ? Not the workers themselves, because if they had it in their power to give value for value they would be in no different position than before. And in any case to pay for the good things of life would be quite a prosaic proceeding compared with obtaining them by political power, suddenly and in immense quantities, on that great day when the shackles of economic slavery fell from the limbs of the workers." 

But Mr. Tayler is afraid to follow this line of reasoning which knocks the bottom out of Fabian and l.L.P. nationalisation schemes and at the same time renders all his subsequent remarks superfluous because they are directed against just such schemes of nationalisation based on the condition of compensation. It is significant that he does not attempt to deal with the correct Socialist position because he says emphatically, though without evidence to justify the statement, "When Labour agitators speak of nationalisation they mean confiscation, for nothing short of this would really satisfy their aspirations."

The foregoing do not exhaust the errors, misrepresentations, and contradictions contained in the book. These are to be found on every page. There is nothing new, and no argument that has not been tried against Socialism before and smashed to pieces against its invulnerable principles. All the old bogies are hashed up afresh in the struggle to frighten the workers away from Socialism. But those who understand the principles of Socialism will be quick to see how pitifully weak it all is.

F. Foan

The economics of coal (1985)

From the April 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the coal mines were nationalised in 1947 a notice was stuck up outside the 1000 or so pits proclaiming "This colliery is now managed by the National Coal Board on behalf of the people". This was widely interpreted, especially by many miners and their union leaders (some of whom took up top management posts in the NCB), to mean that from then on the mines would be run as a public service producing coal for industry and people on a non-profit-making basis.

Those who believed this had not read the small print in the Coal Nationalisation Act of 1946. For a start, this Act authorised the government to buy the coal mines from their owners; so the old owners were not expropriated for the benefit of the people but were bought out by the government, being paid the full value of their assets in the form of interest-bearing government bonds. Secondly, the Act established the NCB as a commercial enterprise with a statutory obligation, like all other nationalised industries, to arrange its finances in such a way that, taking one year with another, its income should be sufficient to at least meet what a 1961 government White Paper on The Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries described as "all items properly chargeable to revenue", defined as '"interest, depreciation, the redemption of capital and the provision of reserves" as well as operating costs.

There was no question, then, of the NCB producing cost-price coal to meet needs, as some naive Labour Party supporters imagined. On the contrary, it was charged with making sufficient profits to pay interest not only on capital advanced by the government for investment in coal production but also on the compensation bonds that the former owners had received. The NCB was in fact also required to make sufficient profits to pay the full value of these bonds ("redemption of capital"), which amounted to some £388 million at 1956 values. So, whatever else can be said about the nationalisation of the coal industry, it can’t be said that it was against the interests of the former mine- owners. They received a generous "compensation", which of course they immediately re-invested with a view to profit in some other line of productive activity.

By law, then, the NCB was obliged to try to make sufficient profits not only to cover costs but also to pay its debts to the government and the former owners. This is still the case today, though for various reasons the NCB has not always been able to meet its statutory obligation here.

The main reason for this was the production of cheap oil that began in the late 1950s and flourished during the 1960s. Oil and coal are in direct competition for heating and, above all, for burning in power stations to turn the turbines that generate electricity. Thus as the price of oil fell in real terms so did that of coal, to such an extent that a large number of pits became "uneconomic" in the sense that the cost of producing coal from them became higher than the receipts from selling that coal; in other words, they ceased to be profitable (what the term "economic" really means in the context of capitalism.).

Under such circumstances the logic of capitalism decrees a single result: the unprofitable productive units must be closed. The then government — Labour under Harold Wilson — did not hesitate to carry out this decree. A Fuel Policy White Paper, published in November 1967. planned for a massive reduction in coal production as power stations continued to switch to relatively cheaper oil. As a result a record number of pits were closed in record time, devastating mining villages in South Wales and the North East especially, but affecting all areas to a greater or lesser degree. What the present government is planning is nothing compared to the butchery of the coal industry that took place in application of the 1967 White Paper. This was when Lord Robens, a former Minister in the post-war Labour government and Chairman of the NCB since 1960, was prompted to declare, somewhat belatedly:

  I do not believe that in 1945 those of us who were nationalising these industries would have done it with so much enthusiasm if someone had told us then that they were going to turn into state capitalism (The Times, 1 April 1968).

Of course the NCB did not "turn into" state capitalism for it had been so since its creation in 1947 — and someone did tell them at the time, as our pamphlet Nationalisation or Socialism? which exposed nationalisation as state capitalism, had come out in 1945.

But changing market conditions make nonsense of all attempts to "plan" production under capitalism. After the Arab-Israel War of 1973 and the closing of the Suez Canal oil prices began to soar as the OPEC countries exploited their quasi-monopoly position to the full. This meant that coal began to become competitive again; indeed that a number of the pits closed in the late 60s and early 70s as uneconomic would have been profitable again. But once a pit has been closed it can't be re-opened. Responding again to the logic of capitalism as relayed by the forces of the market, the government — also a Labour government under Wilson — decided to change its energy policy and halt the decline of coal. This was the time — 1974 that the much-talked-of Plan for Coal was drawn up which promised a rosy future for the coal industry with job security for miners.

However, in another illustration of the planless nature of capitalism, 1974 also marked the beginning of the current depression. As the crisis deepened production fell: less industrial activity meant less demand for power and less demand for power meant less demand for oil. In addition, the measures taken to find substitutes for oil (such as nuclear power) began to bite over the years, helping to break the OPEC price ring. As a result of all these factors, towards the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s the price of oil began to fall, thus making it more competitive with coal.

The Plan for Coal was now seen to be too optimistic and an increasing number of pits became uneconomic. A first attempt was made to impose a new pit closure programme in 1981 but, in face of unofficial strike action in a number of coalfields, the government (by now Conservative under Thatcher) retreated. Subsequent events have shown this to be merely a tactical retreat to better prepare the next attempt. This came in the autumn of 1983 with the appointment of Ian McGregor, fresh from butchering the steel industry in the interests of profit, as Chairman of the NCB. One of his first acts was to provoke the miners' strike at a time (the end of winter) and under circumstances (over three million on the dole, a re-elected government in its first year of office) favourable to the government, with a view to imposing a new pit closure programme.

The NUM really had no alternative but to respond by taking some kind of action. To passively accept McGregor's diktat would have been a sign of weakness that would have been interpreted by the government and the NCB as an invitation to walk all over the miners, on other issues too. But the NUM's National Executive should have realised that the pit closure issue was one on which neither the government nor the NCB could give in, even if they wanted to, since to keep open the unprofitable pits would be to defy the economic logic of the very capitalist system it is their job to uphold and apply. The most that could have been obtained on this issue was a temporary stay of execution or the keeping open of a token number of uneconomic pits.

A more realistic approach by the NUM Executive might have been to broaden the issues of the strike to other matters such as redundancy pay, pensions, working hours, holidays or wages as this would have allowed them to win something on these fronts in exchange for the retreat they were going to have to make on the pit closure issue. As it was the NUM, and in particular its President Arthur Scargill, chose to fight on the single issue of pit closures, which was a loser for them from the start. After a heroic 12-month strike by over 100,000 of its members, the NUM lost on all counts: the miners have come out of it with less job security than before (and with a weakened, divided national organisation) while the NCB now has a freer hand to sack workers than it previously had.

As a matter of fact this is a more usual end for a long strike than the relative "victories" achieved by the NUM in 1972 and 1974, when they essentially restored their wage levels of a few years previously. But then even if a group of workers “win" a strike they still remain exploited wage- labourers forced to produce profits for their employers.

In any conflict between employers and workers it is always the employer who is in the stronger position, for two reasons. First, because the employing class own and control the means of production and second because they control political power. In short, the bosses are richer and stronger than the workers. This does not mean that a group of workers can never win a strike but it does mean that they enter every such battle at a disadvantage. It also means that an employer determined and ruthless enough can always win — as the miners' strike illustrates.

The miners involved in the strike will have learned that the police, the courts and the media represent the bosses, not working people. They should also have learnt the limitations of industrial action and that their real enemy is not so much their immediate employer, or the government of the day, as the whole capitalist system of which employers and governments are but cogs and which can only be overthrown by political action. As long as the employing class own the means of production and control political power the working class will always be on the receiving end.

Adam Buick