Is There a “Managerial” Revolution? (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist class are able to maintain their ownership and control of society’s means of life because they have control of the machinery of government through which laws acceptable to the owning class are made and enforced. That is why Socialists point to the necessity of a Socialist working class democratically obtaining control of the machinery of Government in order to introduce Socialism. Various opponents of Socialism give other interpretations of the facts and one of the theories now achieving some acceptance is that effective control has passed, or is passing, out of the hands of the capitalist class, not into the hands of the working class, but into the hands of the managerial section of industry. A recent book (The Managerial Revolution, by J. Burnham; Putnam; 7/6)) states the case for this view. It was reviewed by the City Editor of the News-Chronicle, the argument in the book being summarised as follows : —

  His (Mr. Burnham’s) thesis briefly is this. The dominant political power was once in the hands of the great landowners, the feudal lords; then it passed to the big merchants and manufacturers—the capitalists. But capitalism is now moribund, because the people who own the instruments of production no longer manage them. The next phase is not socialism . . . but—if I may coin the word, “managism.” Power is now passing to the “social group or class of the managers,” who, in the course of a generation or so, will have achieved social dominance, will be the ruling class in society all over the world.— (News-Chronicle, August 10, 1942.)

It is interesting to observe that the City Editor of the News-Chronicle, Mr. Oscar Hobson. whose views on this matter are certainly entitled to be given some weight, can see no signs that such a development is taking place. He writes : —

  The works managers I know are not of the stuff of which revolutions are made. In this country they are singularly unvocal. They are not a class apart, differentiated from finance executives and all the rest of the capitalist hierarchy. And when Mr. Burnham sees the rise of Nazidom in Germany as part and parcel of the managerial revolution I almost scoff! Where among the Nazi leaders will he find a “manager”?

Who Controls Whom ?
Actual incidents in contemporary capitalism support Hobson’s view as against Burnham’s. All the evidence is that in Germany and Italy it has not been the case that managers have become the political ruling class, but that the Nazi and Fascist leaders, once they have achieved control of the machinery of Government, have set about acquiring or extending their ownership of industrial, commercial and financial concerns. Their actions prove that they at least do not believe that management is the thing that matters, they have gone all out to become owners. A writer in the Times recently described how the Fascist leaders in Italy have used their hold on political power to acquire ownership or shareholdings in businesses; their political control has been used to make them rich. The Times writer summed it up by saying that whereas the Fascists jibe at Britain and America as countries of “plutocrats,” i.e., countries where the wealthy have acquired political power, Italy under Fascism may be described as a country of “cratoplutes,” a country in which the Party bosses have used political power in order to acquire wealth.

In this country recently we have had some examples of how capitalist industry is controlled and the way that control is exercised. On November 17 the case of Sir Roy Fedden was discussed in the House of Lords. According to Lord Brabazon (reported in the Times, November 18) Sir Roy Fedden was chief engineer of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, and was reputed to have outstanding technical achievements to his credit, among them “the most successful radial air-cooled engines in the world,” and Lord Sempill claimed that Fedden is “one of the greatest geniuses in aircraft design in the world.” But the Company, which was originally founded by Sir George White, is controlled by the family—”Never had anyone but the family and relations of it been allowed on the board. Of the present board, none was an engineer ” (Lord Brabazon). But trouble arose and when Sir Roy Fedden refused to agree to the board’s order that part of his  organisation was to be controlled by the Production Manager he was dismissed. Sir Roy Fedden’s own statement was:—

  On February 6 the Chairman gave me six months’ notice, on the grounds they wanted to make a new agreement. … I have never wished to leave the company. While negotiations were going forward I was dismissed on October 1.” (Evening News, October 31, 1942.)

Lord Sempill also stated in the House of Lords (Times, November 18, 1942) : —

  The trouble was a symptom of other troubles in the aircraft industry. Something should be done to prevent a repercussion of the same kind of difficulties in which people on the financial side made war against those on the technical side, and, as in the case of Sir Roy Fedden, threw them out of a job. The other companies specifically concerned with such trouble were the De Havilland Company,, the Fairey Aviation Company, Napiers and Sons, and Short Brothers. There was another, but the matter was sub judice and he would not mention the name.

It will be seen from this that the man with the technical knowledge was entirely at the disposal of the family who owned and controlled.

Another illustration of the vital importance of ownership was given by the case of Sir Edward Baron and Carreras, Ltd., the £5,000,000 tobacco concern. Here the position was that the Baron family hold 150,000 out of 240,000 £1 ordinary shares and it is only the ordinary shareholders who, under the articles of the company, have voting rights on the Board. The case taken to Court revolved around the question whether Sir Edward Baron, the Managing Director, should persist in his refusal to let the majority of directors make their own choice of a director to be re-elected to the Board, it being alleged that Sir Edward Baron had given a verbal contract not to use his voting rights. The Court held that no such contract had been entered into (Times, December 19, 1942), so the family group of shareholders will continue to control the management of the Company. Where, it may be asked, do Mr. Burnham’s managerial group come into this picture? It was solely a dispute between two groups of owners and their nominees, the Baron group and the minority group—nobody ever thought of mentioning the non-owning managers.

It is quite true that with the growth of mammoth amalgamated concerns the direct control of family groups declines, and that in the public utility corporations the State itself takes a hand in the appointment of the boards of directors. This is, so to speak, an interference by the capitalist State, representing the capitalist class as a whole, in the affairs of individual capitalist undertakings, but two points of paramount importance should be observed. One is that the main interest of the owners, the safeguarding of their income from their investments, is not interfered with. The second is that the creation of public utility corporations under some kind of Governmental control is not in the slightest degree the work of the managerial group but is carried out by those who control the machinery of government.

Russia also has been instanced as a country where the so-called managerial revolution, is in progress, but according to a writer in the Economist who refers to Schwarz’s ”Heads of Russian Factories” (Economist, January 9, 1943), Russia has now gone over to one-man control, the controller being the industrial manager appointed by the State. The Economist writer claims that as a result of recent changes the new type of industrial manager in Russia has as his aims : "Fulfilment of the monthly plan, a rising graph of production, absolute obedience and discipline in the workshop, and one-man direction of the plant.” He has “almost unlimited powers to establish his authority and to deal with slackness and infringements of labour discipline.” True he has to deal with the Bolshevik Party “cell” but ”the once familiar conflict between party cell and factory director has long been forgotten. The fullest unity between party and management has in fact been achieved. The manager is now only very rarely a non-party man. The Party on the other hand has evolved into an almost non-political body. All its interests and activities have been centred on the problems of production.”

Here again we see that the State and those who have its backing are supreme against other groups.

In spite of Mr. Burnham the managers will not become a new ruling class unless they do so through political control. The task of the workers still remains that of gaining political control for Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Post-War World (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

What will be the character of the world after this war? Few will want to return to the pre-war world. Most people will have experienced many changes in their normal life even in the present generation. Have a conversation with anyone yon like, ask them if they remember the horse-drawn trams; would they like to return to those days? They would answer No. Yet although many recognise that changes occur, they are rather perplexed as to the future, and what will happen next. At the moment there seem to be two schools of thought, one embodied in the Beveridge plan to unify social insurance and the plan of the Federation of British Industries on Reconstruction, and the other to unify the world or to federate. One is to reconstruct conditions inside the country, the other outside.

In a pamphlet by R. H. Tawney, "Why Britain Fights," he pertinently says, "Nothing does more than insecurity to embitter life for large numbers of our fellow citizens. We have acquiesced with astonishing callousness in the destruction of others by unemployment. When they have saved the nation in the field and the factory, to what are they to return? More of the same kind of thing?"

There is, however, no indication that our rulers can cure unemployment. The capitalist employs a man for the purpose of producing a profit. If he can make no profit, he will not hire the worker, but will fire him, and so the unemployed army is created and will number millions, as our experience has shown us prior to the war.

The Socialist way is to cure unemployment by socialising the machines and factories so that no man can be hired or fired by a capitalist owner, who now is solely concerned with a profit. Under Socialism, there would be no private owner to dictate to labour, and as a corollary there would he no profit. A man would have the right to work and the right to live. There would be no inequality of income, no money required to buy goods, and the wealth produced would be freely consumed by its creators, that is, the entire population.

Our rulers have many conflicting plans to deal with this country after the war, but in the main they visualise a capitalist world, and look to the State to help them financially in their hour of need.

They are keenly concerned to recapture the export markets as may be seen in the Reconstruction report of the Federation of British Industries.

Our masters will reconstruct this country, but will most certainly not introduce Socialism. One cannot expect them to do so, to liquidate their source of privilege and power. Only the workers, conscious of their class, Socialist conscious, could do this. So the question at the moment still remains: To what are they to return? The answer of our rulers is a return to capitalism.

Professor Tawney visualised a super-national authority after the war. He says: "If it has force, i.e., a superior force, war, as we know it to-day, can be stopped. If it has not, war will continue. There is no middle course." This force will be wielded presumably by the victorious allies, U.S.A., Great Britain, the U.S.S.R. and China.

He points out that there were some 16 sovereign states, exclusive of Russia, in 1875, and some 22 in 1914. By 1920, 29 such states were packed into an area smaller than that of the American Union. He asks: Shall we add yet one more suicidal nationalism to those already rampant? He says that the national state was a constructive economic force in the past; when, as to-day, the productive energies have outgrown the limits set by national frontiers, it has become an obstructive force.

It will be interesting to see how this will work out. The world would still be based upon competition, and the struggle for markets must inevitably result in a struggle with armed force among the leading capitalist rival powers. It took only a few years for Germany to re-arm and become a formidable military power. Is it possible to retain capitalism and avoid its consequences in wars, or unemployment for the surplus unemployed army of labour? These are the problems which will confront our rulers after the war.

They are seriously perturbed about the future. In the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "International Conciliation." for April, 1942, one writer frankly says that "Free enterprise could hardly survive a post-war economic collapse, nor could free political institutions either."

So that the world after the war will have grave economic problems for our rulers and the workers are by no means sure of having a better world than the pre-war one.

The contradictions of capitalism which have produced two wars in one generation and mass unemployment, can be remedied, but not by our rulers. The workers alone have the power to change the world, provided they understand and apply the Socialist remedy, i.e., of expropriating the machines and factories from their masters and making them into social property.

I. F.

An Irish Problem in English Agriculture (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The need for food in war time is one of the State's greatest problems.

To feed a great hungering populace is vital to the war effort, and every conceivable method is put forth to produce the necessities of life at home. Since the advent of the war agriculture has come into its own, so to speak. Farmers have stepped from lean years to fat ones; with guaranteed prices and markets and modern machinery thrust into the industry, the British farmer now finds himself sitting pretty.

Changes have also been effected with our agricultural labourer. From his wage of about 35/- per week before the war, he now finds himself receiving a £3 minimum rate in all counties. Indeed, many labourers now come under income tax schedules for the first time in their lives, and most of them think themselves well off. Actually, of course, our farm hand is still living on a meagre subsistence level. True, his rent has remained at the same figure. Some time back a move was put forward by many big farmers to increase labourers' rents to coincide with increased wages, but the motion was shelved for the time being, and it was agreed to leave rents at the fixed rate, usually of 3/- per week.

Many of these cottages the average townsfolk would hardly accept rent free. Small hovels built in out of the way fens, several miles from shopping centres, no modern conveniences, bad sanitation, some of them not even built near a hard road, and often in need of repairs.

Of course, the farmer has his excuse just now, what with war-time restrictions, labour shortage, lack of materials, repairs are out of the question.

All these things, we are told, will be righted in that rosy period to come after the bullets have ceased to whistle.

Some of the labourers live rent free on these farms. For this little privilege a few head of cattle are kept around the place, which need to be taken care of and fed in return. This is called garthing, and, of course, entails Sunday work, so incidentally these farm hands are tied to the farm seven days a week.

But somehow our agricultural labourer is not entirely satisfied. Just now he is concerned in a little trouble known as the Irish problem. Owing to the increased production and cultivation of wide tracts To-day, what worries the land worker is the Irish problem. With the labour shortage the Government has allowed an influx of Irish labour into the country. It is a joint agreement of the two Governments concerned, and any Irishman who desires agricultural work can obtain a permit to come to England for six months. Work is guaranteed, and comparatively attractive piece rates are offered; often the English farmer will give a small gang of Irishmen one of those cottages rent free; incidentally no garthing is required. These Irishmen, for working long hours at piece rates, can earn much more than the English land worker's £3 a week, and some of the latter resent the employment of the Irish labourers. It also sets them wondering. Often at one end of a field two Irishmen are earthing a clamp of potatoes at 7/- a chain, while at the other end two English hands are doing similar work for 10/- a day.


Incidents like this have caused a growing antagonism between our English farm hand and his Irish brethren. When Saturday night comes our landworker wends his way to the village “pub,"and there he sees an Irish lad laying down his £1 note on the bar counter. That is when the canker grows. Quite heedless of the fact that well known brewers, Messrs. Ind, Coope & Allsop, recently paid a dividend of 33 per cent., the average farm hand likes his pint or two, even if it does cost 1/- or more a pint; and he finds it hard to the pocket to keep pace with his Irish colleague.


Because his wage-packet is small he blames the Irishman. He says, “The Paddies get all the piece work, they pick and choose what work they want; I get all the dirty jobs for a weekly wage. If he's not satisfied he cashes in; I'm tied till Michaelmass; besides, the guv'nor might stop me leaving or get me put in the army." And so the talk goes on.


In actual truth, the Irishman is being blamed for the Englishman's own shortcomings. It is not the Irishman's fault that English farmers pay less to English labourers. It is not the Irishman's fault that English labourers have always been miserably paid, nor is it his fault that it is only in war-time that English capitalism discovers that it greatly needs farm workers. In peace time English farmers took advantage of unemployment and the lack of organisation of farm workers to depress wages to the lowest possible level. He opposed every effort of the landworker and his union to improve wages. If, then, in war time Irish labourers are able to exact a higher wage why blame them? The English workers (and their Irish brothers) should recognise that at all times they are sufferers from the same evil, the capitalist system which divides society into a class of capitalists and a class of workers. Only then will English and Irish cease to curse each other.

G. D. Bailey.

The March From Rome - Part 1 (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Italian capitalism achieved its local unity by the year 1870, which was fairly late for a European State, and was therefore late in the scramble for expansion. The motive force, in material, for easy expansion in the latter half of the nineteenth century, was coal and railways. Italy's almost total lack of coal made her capitalist growth and expansion semi-dependent upon coal from abroad, mainly Britain. Labour reformists who misled the workers by calling State subsidies and grants "Socialist" may note that in the seventies the Italian Government passed many tariff laws and made regular subsidies to newly growing industries in order to help on her growing capitalism. In spite of the various handicaps, Italian capitalism made good progress. From the nineties to the outbreak of the world war (1914), her imports and exports had risen from £90 millions to £240 millions. The export of silk grew until Milan ousted the French exporters of Lyons and became the foremost silk market in the world. This “prosperity” manifested itself internally in the establishment of military conscription and an ambitious policy externally. Like her French neighbour, she had to be careful where she trod, for powerful Imperialist rivals already existed with older and more stabilised capitalisms. In 1880 she completed her first small arms factory and a naval programme was arranged, French capitalists obtaining the contracts. In 1884 Italy laid down an eight years' plan or military programme to cost round £10 million. Ignorant Communists refer to planning as being a "Socialist" discovery and boost Russia's five years' plan as though it was original. By now Italy was swept into the general current of aggressive Imperialism and began to look round for "safe" conquests. Her geographical position gave her two ways of expansion: (1) Northwards in an Alpine direction; (2) Southwards, in the Mediterranean and North African coast. Both directions, however, were difficult. Northward, the Austro-German bloc barred her way; southward, the French in Algeria and Tunis, and the British Navy dominated the African coast route to Egypt.

The French invasion of Tunis aroused antagonisms among the ruling class in Italy (not through any noble motives) because they were just too late. Diplomacy under capitalism is more than "the art of lying." It is the art of "duplicity." For some years Italian jingoes had been clamouring for the return to Italy of the Italian provinces still in Austrian hands—Trieste, Istria, Trentino. As a reply to the French occupation of Tunis, she joined Germany and Austria in the Triple Alliance, surrendering her claim to the Italian provinces, in return for help in her Mediterranean-Africa ambitions. A military alliance was signed for five years. The Alliance, however, did not guarantee any assistance if Italy was attacked by a fourth Power.

Dead sea fruit. 
Towards the time when the treaty would end France and Russia asked Italy to leave the Alliance with a view to a new one aimed at Britain in return for which they both offered help to regain the Austrian held provinces Italy had previously bawled about and then relinquished. Yon can't teach old dogs new tricks. British capitalism, well versed in all the moves of the game of diplomacy, adroitly gave Italy an assurance of help if she was threatened in the Mediterranean (by someone else). Thus by playing on other capitalists' interests, Crispi secured for Italian capitalism n free period for an aggressive expansionist policy. All that was necessary was to avoid poaching on other capitalist, preserves. Beaten by the French in Tunis, she went a bit further afield, and in 1885 got Massawa, etc., on the Red Sea (Eritrea). These places were of very little use in themselves, but good jumping-off grounds for an assault on the fertile rich land of Abyssinia. Italy made war on this country but was smashed in 1887. She was able to expand here, as her rivals, French and British, were at logger- heads in the area of Egypt. Italy's defeat in a frontal attack did not,. however, deter her from her aims; it was merely a question of learning the tricks of the trade. By playing off one native leader against another (fifth column work long ago) she succeeded in establishing a “protectorate" over a part of Somaliland. With the death of the Emperor of Abyssinia came Italy's chance. They successfully championed Menelik, one of the claimants to the throne. For this Italy was granted part of the territory and the "privilege" of supplying such arms and loans as Abyssinia (or its slave owners) might need. Italy also established by bribes a number of “Quisling" groups among the native chiefs in Tripoli (for use later on). At this time German capitalism was becoming dangerously strong and France becoming increasingly apprehensive. Germany's policy aimed at keeping Italy “outside" the French orbit. This fear increased when in 1893, at the German Grand Army manoeuvres, there appeared the Italian Crown Prince. French finance quickly replied by liquidating her Italian securities (£40 millions). This created a financial panic in Italy. These European relations, internal disorders and economic depression, forced the Italian Government to turn the people's minds elsewhere, and capitalist hopes too, so attention was again given to East Africa.

Menelik now double-crossed his Italian ally, rallied the native chiefs, and at Adawo, March, 1896, smashed the Italians and pushed Italian capitalism out of it. Italy now had to seek help in Europe.

In 1895 German financiers established in Italy the Commercial Bank with £200,000 capital; by 1914 its capital had reached £6 millions. The economic crisis resulting from the Abyssinian failure, plus the falling price of government bonds, compelled Italian capitalism to end her tariff war and become “Liberal" and pursue a policy of peace, retrenchment and reform. "Liberal" capitalism, however, is only a phase, and as Italy did not live in a vacuum, she was subject to the laws of capitalism and its inherent contradictions. Capitalist Imperialism cannot leave any part of the world outside its orbit for ever. Each capitalist as an individual and each section of capitalism fishes in troubled waters for gain at each other’s expense. It is against the workers that capitalists unite as a class. Hence, in 1900, during a German financial crisis, France became the financial pool for Italy. Paris bought up some £5 million worth of Italy's national debt, giving France a lever against Germany and making her Italy's banker. Agreements were now reached for "spheres of influence," and thus dealt a smashing blow at the Triple Alliance. The culminating stroke was delivered when at this time was formed their Entente-Cordiale, bringing Britain and France together. Italy, dependent for coal on Britain and for money on France, moved further away from her alliance with Germany. In return for a free hand in Tripoli, Italy agreed not to obstruct French policy in Morocco, The treaty of November, 1911, securing to France the “protectorate" over Morocco, was the signal for Italy's bid for Tripoli. She entered this war with Turkey full of confidence.

Lew Jones

(To be concluded.)

Link to Part 2

Who Pays For Wars? (1943)

Editorial from the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Everybody knows that war is destructive, but not everybody has a clear idea who pays for it. War involves the destruction of existing wealth, and still more the concentration of effort on the production of war materials destined only for destruction. Sometimes the victor can make the vanquished pay, but the last war showed how difficult it is to collect the huge bill that arises from a world war.

Who pays for the war? Who bears the financial burden? There are answers in plenty. "We do," say the landlords, who see many of their rents stabilised at pre-war level, while prices rise and expenses mount. ” We do,” say the industrial and commercial shareholders, who see Excess Profits Tax draining away £400 million of their profits, while more hundreds of millions go in Income Tax. “We do,” say the workers, who have been brought within the reach of Income Tax for the first time, and who see all goods they buy dearer in greater or less degree. “ We do,” say the pensioners and investors on fixed incomes, who have the same income as before the war (less after deduction of income tax) while cost of living has risen. Even the soldiers who sacrifice life and limb may add that they also bear a financial burden in loss of earnings.

The Socialist answer to the question, surprising though it is to many workers, is that the financial burden of war, like the financial burden of taxation in peace-time, falls in the long run on the propertied class, not on the working class. Why this is so can be understood only when the working of the capitalist system of society is understood. The foundation of the capitalist system is the ownership by a comparatively small class of people of the land, the buildings on the land, the mines under the land, the factories and their machinery, the railways, road transport vehicles, aeroplanes, ships, hotels, dwelling houses, and so on. These things and the mass of raw materials and finished products in existence at any given moment are the property of the capitalist class, landed, industrial and financial. While the means of production and distribution are owned by the few, they are worked by the many, the working class. It is the labour of the workers applied to the raw material, that produces all the goods and maintains all the services on which the whole of the population depends.

At this point it is sometimes argued that, since the workers produce everything, do they not pay for everything? But the answer is, No. What the workers produce is wholly the property of their employers, and it is the propertied class as a whole that does the paying. The industrial capitalist, having sold the goods produced by the workers, uses the proceeds to pay for the cost of raw materials, for the workers' wages, for repairs and replacements of machinery, for rent, advertising, etc., etc. The industrial capitalist, after paying all his expenses, including his workers' wages, is the owner of the “surplus-value” produced for him by the workers, though he has to surrender part of this surplus value to the landed, financial and commercial capitalist. What the working class receive is the amount paid to them by their employers in the form of wages and salaries. The working class are sellers of the only commodity they possess, their labour-power, and the price at which they sell, though it varies from country to country, and from one class of work to another, is determined by the cost of maintenance of those workers and their dependents. If that cost— the workers' cost of living—rises, then, other things remaining unchanged, the level of wages rises, though more slowly, and if the cost of living falls, wages fall. These adjustments are a resultant of opposing forces, including the workers' resistance through their trade unions.

The Capitalists always, in peace as in war, strive to get as much surplus-value out of the working class as they can, which means as much as the circumstances permit. They take advantage of a fall in prices or a growth of unemployment to depress wages, but when the process is reversed they are normally unable to resist granting wage increases. They cannot, merely by wishing to do so, pass on the burden of taxation to the workers. Taxation is a burden that falls on them, though what each group tries to do is to pass on a larger share of the burden of taxation to their fellow property owners.

The burden of taxation, in peace or war, and in spite of superficial appearances to the contrary, falls in the long run on the propertied class. They can try various devices, such as mass propaganda and taxes on wages, and by permitting a rise in the cost of living, to escape the burden, but always in the last resort the problem is the simple one whether the workers can be forced or persuaded to accept a lower wage (or to work harder or longer for the same wage), or accept a wage increase that is less than the increase of the cost of living. The economic forces of the capitalist system always tend to operate more or less effectively in spite of efforts to dam them up.

The capitalist class may try to ease their burden of taxation by getting more work out of the workers or by forcing a lowering of the workers' standard of living, but even if the workers were willing or compelled, as they sometimes are, this process has its limits because the workers' efficiency suffers if excessive fatigue or under-nourishment are continued too long.

What has happened so far in this war? The cost of living has risen, weekly wage rates for a normal week have risen, and earnings have risen in most cases more than the rise of wage-rates owing to the working of longer hours and to the extended introduction of piece-work systems. At the same time the workers' increased earnings have been reduced by the increased effect of Income Tax, and savings have increased. Now according to the Oxford Institute of Statistics, the net effect of all these changes has been that the workers' earnings have increased by just about as much as the increase in the cost of living and the effect of the income tax. Without crediting such estimates with an undue amount of accuracy, since the subject is a difficult one to reduce to simple terms, sufficient is known of the general movement of wages, prices, etc., to see that the general tendency is unmistakeable. The capitalist class have not in the main been able to pass on to the working class their burden of taxation. What has been achieved at the workers' expense is that, in order to maintain something like a pre-war standard of living (so far as that can be done in face of the complete disappearance of many articles), the workers are working much longer hours and suffering the consequent additional wear and tear on health and vitality.

On the capitalist side war results in some redistribution among themselves. Some gain, others lose, and often it is the large concerns that gain at the expense of the small ones —but this is not peculiarly a feature of war but only a continuation of peace-time trends.

As it is of obvious importance that the workers should he guided, in their notions by an understating of capitalist finance and taxation, we propose to return to this subject and deal with various aspects of the problem in subsequent issues.

Progress and Reaction (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Already, before the war, there were numerous critics of the turn which human affairs had taken. The promise which early capitalism appeared to hold out to mankind had not been fulfilled. The industrialisation of the nineteenth century may have seemed then to open up new horizons of unlimited wealth for all. The social stagnation of a feudal agrarianism was swept away impetuously as machine upon machine fertilised man and nature into heights of productivity hitherto undreamt of. Economists and philosophers combined in lyrical praise of the new social order, and predicted that humanity had at long last entered the portals of a social system that could guarantee material well-being to all. "The greatest good of the greatest number” was the assured estimate of the new society's potentials.

But the new avalanche of wealth did not succeed in stifling the critical faculties of all thinking men. These could not help being aware of the fresh, profound social evils which the industrial revolution had brought into being. The newly begotten plenty brought no added comfort to the majority, but flowed mainly into the rapacious pockets of a favoured few. The masses of men and women, many of them forcibly ejected from their meagre but secure existence on the land, laboured unlimited hours amid the stench and filth of factories and mines. Their reward was hunger and disease. Even the children of this modern proletariat were not overlooked by the new class of economic masters in their hunt for profit-producers.

The grievous sufferings of the workers eventually led to opposition and revolt. The working class, “organised and disciplined by the very process of associated labour,” finally succeeded in securing some amelioration by the combined strength of their vast numbers. Trade unions and labour movements appeared all over the capitalist world. The new needs of scientific wealth-production demanded education on a mass scale. Comparative freedom of political expression was fought for and won. Labour organisations assumed increasing importance and influence in the affairs of state. The feeling was widespread that the way was now cleared for uninterrupted and substantial advances along the "road of progress.” As some of the early and most primitive anomalies of capitalism had partly been eliminated, so, it was felt, would, the more deep-rooted problems of poverty, bad housing, unemployment and war yield to the persistent efforts of “practical working-class politics.”

The minority, the Socialists, uncompromising in their advocacy of a social system based upon the Common Ownership of the Means of Life, were dismissed as "Impossibilists.” The doctrines of Marx and Engels, formulated upon the most penetrating and exhaustive investigation into the anatomy of capitalist society, provided scientific foundations for the view of Socialists. They proved conclusively that the expropriation of the capitalists by a Socialist working class was necessary to assure humanity as a whole the advantages held out by the new technique of production. These doctrines were attacked as "fallacies” or ridiculed as "out-of-date” by critics many of whom did not trouble to analyse the theories of Marxism. It was easier and more comfortable to "lead” the workers and in the process share in the good things which capitalism offered to the privileged. The watchword of the times became "The inevitability of gradualness.”

Since then a world-wide economic depression and two world-wars have shocked the “practical politicians” and many of their supporters out of their complacency. The policies of economic and political lassez-faire have largely been abandoned. On the continent of Europe they have been eliminated by forces whose outlook and methods are reminiscent of the dark ages of a mediaeval world. The spectacle of a continent, which in the past contributed an imposing array of men and movements, who have helped to illuminate the knowledge of mankind, now held in the grip of political adventurers, must on all accounts be a source of depression.

However, this state of reaction cannot be confined to the borders of Germany or the German-occupied countries. Nor can its roots be isolated from recent economic and political events and tendencies throughout the world. On the contrary, they are symptoms of a particularly virulent character reflecting the prevailing impotence of a society unable to solve its problems.

The war has done nothing to bring a solution nearer. The main social issues still await a much-promised settlement. The problems of unemployment and poverty in general still inflict their cares upon the minds of most people. The hideous slums, relics of the barbarous greed of capitalism a century ago, remain a token of the unchanged character of social relationships. The machinery of the “ democratic ” capitalist state bristles with powers of coercion, and the workers find restrictions of every kind drawing an ever closer dragnet around their existence. It may be argued that they are a temporary measure only, dictated by the necessities of war. But against that we have the statements of leading politicians. Thus we hear Mr. Bevin, Minister of Labour, proclaiming:

  Don't Ask for Old Liberty Back Too Soon.
 Mr. Ernest Bevin to-day appealed to trade unionists not to ask for their old liberty back too quickly after the war.

The report quotes him as saying:

  I would appeal to my fellow-workmen to insist that the country carries on some control for a considerable period. We want to do it, because if there is a sudden let-up, if we lose this discipline and control, we may get back into the orgy of speculation and chaos that we had at the end of the last war. (Evening Standard, January 13, 1943.)

We know what is in ruling-class minds. They want to level the economic ups-and-downs of their system through "planning" on national and international lines. They hope that the economic and political arrangements that serve them in war can be modified to serve their purpose in peace. But these "plans" involve many doubtful factors. They demand the agreement of capitalists, nationally and internationally. They need a quiescent working class. So far, capitalism has never been able to achieve such a permanent "truce." The competitive nature of the capitalist order has in the past doomed any permanent arrangements of an international and even national character. And what of the workers? Will they submit to the “discipline” that is the inevitable counter-part of capitalist "planning"? When the victory for "freedom” has been won and tyrants overthrown, what will be the attitude of the class that has born the brunt of the fighting? What will be the feeling of the workers in the defeated and devastated countries, the victims of war and persecution?

Many more questions could be posed. They would show that the capitalists are confronted by a social riddle that becomes more complex as the war drags its destructive way to eventual conclusion. There are some who believe the present conflict to be one of a series of social convulsions marking a revolutionary transition in social affairs. As to the kind of world that will emerge after these bloody "transitions," we are not informed. It may well be asked: "What can be expected to result from years of bloodshed and destruction, from hunger and persecution?"

The answers given by capitalists and their "Labour" supporters are not convincing. They seek to persuade the working class that a modified capitalism will not repeat the catastrophies of the past They expect to dazzle the minds of wage-slaves with promises of permanent doles and better social reforms.

"Progress by Reform" is the only hope they can hold out to a shattered world.

Sid Rubin

1943—The War and the Workers (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September, 1939, the Government of this country proclaimed its intention of planning for a “three years war." Alas, for the planners—and the planned—for war like other evils of our times, is generated by a social order which, below its veneer of method and organisation, is rent by the most explosive contradiction in all history, social production versus class-ownership in the means of life. Therefore, the “orderly" and “efficient" minds of statesmen and leaders cannot prevent disorder; the magnitude of productive forces is mocked by hunger and want. The capitalist Social Order is exposed always as Social Anarchy.

During the last months of the old year the war has extended its deadly grip along the northern shores of Africa; thousands of its native population will now experience the effect of total war. From these shores the Allies hope to bring to naught all of Hitler's schemes to secure himself from attack in the West. The dictator of Italy, for years preening himself and fooling his people with insane talk about the “glory and exhilaration" of war, now has his chance of convincing the duped victims whilst the full blast of war is turned upon them

In connection with this Allied expedition an incident has occurred which has given rise to much criticism and speculation. By a most remarkable coincidence the Allied Armada set out on its journey at the same time that Admiral Darlan (shortly to fall victim to the assassin's bullet) had chosen to visit the French possessions of Morocco and Algiers. The Admiral had until recently been second in command to Marshal Detain, and in this position vehemently proclaimed hostility to the Allies, especially Britain, and urged fuller collaboration with the Nazi regime. After press reports that Darlan had been taken prisoner, the news that he was in fact acting as host to the Allies was no doubt a shock. The enemy had become a friend—overnight. The Fascist had changed to a Democrat!

On the Russian Front the German armies are meeting the fate which overtook their predecessors in France during the last war. Stalingrad appears to have become another Verdun; the rubble and ruins of the city on the Volga must now be drenched by the blood of hundreds of thousands. Thus the “intuition" of the Fuhrer finds its fulfilment. The hold which Hitler seems to have on the youth of Germany is a riddle to many workers of other countries. But the solution is not difficult. The great depression which began in Germany in 1920 and put more than seven million workers on the dole gave Hitler his opportunity. “Work and Living Space" sound attractive slogans to workers, especially the young, when wedged in queues at the Labour Exchange.

However, the German people are not alone in being misled so easily. Their credulous behaviour can be paralleled by workers everywhere.

In this country, where the “economic blizzard" arrived a year later, in 1930, it brought to power a “National" Government, sponsored by Labour leaders, on the claim that it would “get the wheels of industry turning again." Both Hitler and the National Government kept their promise to the unemployed. Hitler's agents tout for labour in every nook and cranny of Europe, filling German factories with labour-power from the defeated countries, while the “pure- blooded Aryan" is given the privilege of dying on the snowy wastes at the Eastern Front. The British worker, in piping times of peace, often reduced to demanding “work or maintenance," earns himself a line or imprisonment now for being absent from his work. Thus the social status of the proletariat is clearly defined. It is capitalist society's beast of burden, to be coaxed or bullied as required.

One of the strangest features of the present conflict is a fact elicited recently m the House of Commons. The Bank of International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, is, as its name denotes, a clearing-house for international financial transactions, its motto for war-time appears to be: “Business as usual." Around its table, apparently oblivious to the conflict surrounding them, sat the representatives of Britain and Germany, discussing matters of pounds, shillings and pence with the sworn enemy, the “forces of evil," whilst their respective governments go about the task of organising mutual slaughter, it may be merely a sidelight on the war, but it shows to what extent capitalism has developed ties between the ruling factions. So strong, that even war cannot break them completely. What a lesson for nationalist-minded workers!

At the same time, the press of this country publishes reports of wholesale extermination of Jews in Poland. We are not able to say to what extent these reports are true. The atrocity story played its propaganda part in the last war, and it is no doubt doing a similar duty in this. But bearing the record of Nazism in mind lends substance to some of these reports. The persecution of Jews as well as other minorities is inevitable in lesser or greater degree under class society. The prejudices of race, nationality, or religion is the outcome of ignorance, exploited by rulers and fanned into flames of persecution to suit their ends. In registering protests against the persecution of minorities, no ruling class can do so with clean hands. It will be a worldwide Socialist movement that will finally put an end to all persecution, including the persecution of class by class. Least of all can we accept the claim of the Pope, who in a special message (reported in the Evening Standard of December 24, 1942) said:—

Those who aim at building a new world must fight for the right of free choice of government and free choice of religion.

This is merely another example of ruling class hypocrisy. The Pope and the organisation of which he is the head, the Roman Catholic Church, have made a deal, at one time or another, with the dictators in Spain, Italy and Germany. Besides, they have their own unenviable record of persecution. Now that His Holiness sees a possibility of the fall of these dictators, he changes his Christmas prayers, so that we find him pronouncing : -

The Church has condemned Marxist Socialism and still condemns it. On the other hand, the Church cannot ignore it or approve that workers should be deprived of all their rights.

But the problem remains: Where is the better world to come from? A world free from wars and poverty? The dignitaries of religion can no more provide the solution than could the politicians of capitalism with whom they are allied. It is precisely the doctrine of Marxist Socialism that alone points the way.

The workers of the world must organise to make the means of life the common property of all mankind. To provide for the needs of all and the profit of none. 

Sid Rubin