Here and There: A Labour Party Trumpeter (1936)

The Here and There column from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labour Party Trumpeter

Mr. Herbert Morrison has been on a lecture tour in the United States of America. His object was to interest American audiences in the League of Nations and the policy of the British Labour Party. According to a report in the Chicago Daily News for April 24th, he said: —

I think there is misunderstanding about the British Labour Party, because you haven’t had many visitors who represent average official opinion of this Party; more of your visitors have represented the extreme Left Wing of the Party or else the Independent Labour Party, which fights us. A British Labour Government would be well fitted to co-operate with your country whether it has a Republican or Democratic Government.

In effect, Mr. Morrison is saying that the Labour Party is “well fitted" to administer the capitalist system. As Socialists we do not need to be assured of this. We have said so for thirty years and more. Members and supporters of the Labour Party who have denied it, might, however, ponder the point again.

 

I.L.P Confusion and Hysteria

The above quotation from the Chicago Daily News was reproduced and unfavourably commented upon in the New Leader for May 29th, in a column headed "This is Capitalism." The I.L.P. boasted for many years that the Labour Party was its child. And a proud parent it was, too. But after thirty years of telling the workers that the Labour Party was “Socialist," the I.L.P. discovered that it was not. After taking so long to discover that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, it could reasonably be assumed that it would not easily be forgotten. Let us see. The New Leader for May 22nd discusses the various proposals for a "United Front." It dismissed the idea of a "People's Front," such as exists in France and Spain, and which includes Liberals, as unsupportable because of its capital character. The I.L.P. argues for a "Workers' Front."

It is a united Working Class Front without any alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists.

It is a united Working Class Front between the Labour Party, the Co-operative Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party on a maximum agreed programme, with liberty of criticism and action beyond this programme.

It is common action between them on a Federal basis—an alliance of partners, not a rigid and unreal unity such as affiliation to the Labour Party would involve—in order to join forces against our common enemy the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims.

It will be noticed that the I.L.P. refuses to enter an “alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists," but will enter a “United Front" with the Labour Party (which it denounces as a capitalist party) "in order to join forces against our common enemy, the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims." Join with capitalist parties to fight the capitalist class “to realise our common aims." Phew!

Again, in the New Leader, May 29th, Mr. John McGovern, M.P., in a letter to the Editor, complains that the Editor of the I.L.P. inter-party journal, Controversy, deleted a statement from an article by him (McGovern) that C. A. Smith, Fenner Brockway and C. L. R. James had stated that they “would bear arms and join the army if they were in Abyssinia . . .  on behalf of the Emperor."

In his reply, C. A. Smith rises to noble heights: ". . .  I now repeat that had I been in Abyssinia only conflicting duties or sheer cowardice would have prevented my fighting against the Fascist invaders." Twenty years ago the capitalist class persuaded millions of workers to fight in war for capitalist interests with the cry of “Defend poor little Belgium." To-day, Mr. C. A. Smith, a leader in the self-styled revolutionary I.L.P., has let himself into a similar trap. Poor Abyssinia! Drive out the Fascist invaders! For whom and for what end?

Communists and the Labour Party

The Communist Party has applied to the Labour Party for affiliation. The correspondence relating to the application has been published in a penny pamphlet by the Communist Party. In one letter to the Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Pollitt says: “The Communist Party, if affiliated to the Labour Party, would certainly work, as many of your most energetic and sincere members are now working, to strengthen the policy and principles of the Labour Party for the achievement of Socialism, in accordance with the democratic principles provided in the Labour Party constitution, and would at the same time in the daily struggle loyally carry out all agreed upon decisions and mobilise all upon whom it has influence to take part."

Mr. Pollitt goes on to speak approvingly of the “People's Front" as it exists in France. He asks of the Secretary of the Labour Party: “Is it not a fact that the United Front has saved France from Fascism ? Is it not a fact that so profound has this experience been that the United Front has broadened out into the People's Front, embracing large sections of the middle class and all who fear Fascism and war."

Notice "embracing large sections of the middle classes." Even Mr. Pollitt, accustomed as he is to right-about-face changes in Communist Party policy, hesitates to point out that a People's Front on the French model means an alliance with the Liberals. Workers whose memories are not so conveniently short as Mr. Pollitt's will remember that not so long ago the Labour Party was referred to in communist journals as "traitorous," “Social-Fascist" and "war-mongering." The Labour Party has not forgotten, and there seems no prospect of a " United Front " just yet! It is an amusing thought, though, that we may yet see the erstwhile advocates of the violent overthrow of capitalism reproaching the Labour Party for being “too extreme." It is really very confusing.

Poverty, Health and Housing

In a review of a book called Poverty and Public Health, by G. C. M'Gonigle and J. Kirby (Gollancz, 6s.), the News Chronicle (June 8th, 1936) gives some interesting figures on malnutrition and housing.

The close connection between wages and health can be seen from the following table: —

Wages 25s. to 35s., death rate 25.96 per 1,000.

"          35s   "  45s.      "      "    19.34  "       "

"          45s   "  55s.      "      "    19.23  "       "

"          55s   "  65s.      "      "    15.13  "       "

"          65s   "  75s.      "      "    13.51  "       "

"          75s   and up,.    "      "    11.52  "       "

The death rate among workers whose wages are less than two pounds a week is therefore nearly twice as high as among workers whose wages are between three and four pounds a week.

Other interesting facts are mentioned. Far example, an investigation carried out in Stockton revealed that a slum population, after being moved to a new housing estate, was showing a death rate of 33.55 per thousand instead of the expected rate of 8.12 per thousand. That is to say, four times as many deaths as should have occurred were occurring among these ex-slum dwellers now living under “ ideal ** conditions. The plight of unemployed workers on new housing estates is particularly appalling. On one such estate it was found that the amount of money available for four was 2s. 10½d. a week per man. Contrast this with the cost of the British Medical Association's minimum diet, which in 1932 was 4s. 10½d., and which to-day. Dr. M'Gonigle says, is 7s. Our reformers, if they face these awkward facts at all, will doubtless advocate more reforms; reforms catch votes anyway.

Wage-Slaves and Health

Labour Management for February has an interesting article called “ One-Day Absenteeism,*' by Dr. Garland, the medical officer at a large factory which employs thousands of women workers. The doctor argues for greater tolerance for the worker who takes an occasional day off from work. The occasional day off would have a “tonic" and “stimulating" effect on return to work. Workers at the factory where Dr. Garland is employed are shut out for the day, and lose the day's wages, if they are not within the factory gates when the hooter blows. On the other hand, if the worker is away on account of sickness for one day or more, she (or he) does not lose her wages. The result is, according to Dr. Garland, that many workers who are absent because of being shut out in the morning, produce medical certificates to explain their absence for the day. Some of these certificates are for complaints that would lay the average person low for several weeks. The panel doctor in working-class districts apparently cannot afford to risk unpopularity by refusing certificates. His income from medical certificates, at one shilling each, even on a small panel of only 1,000 patients, means an addition to his income, according to Dr. Garland, of probably one hundred pounds a year. On the other hand, says the doctor, “The average worker is rarely feeling so fit and sound that he or she hasn’t an odd pain or ache somewhere that can be magnified into gastritis, enteritis, tonsilitis, or some other ‘ itis ' . . . ."

A curious mix-up which reveals how dependent is the position of the medical practitioner and how near many workers are to working no longer in this life.

Changes in Russia

The U.S.S.R. is introducing a parliamentary regime, or at least some of it. The much-vaunted Soviet system of “pure proletarian democracy" is to be replaced by a parliamentary form of government, which, until recently, was looked upon with withering and pitying contempt by the fervent communist. There are to be two chambers, direct voting, the abolition of plural votes (the town workers, under the Soviet constitution, had proportionately more votes than the peasants), the secret ballot, and much of the paraphernalia of western parliamentary government. Any organised group of citizens, we are told, will be able to include names in the list of candidates for parliamentary seats. Louis Fischer tells us in Reynolds News (May 31st, 1936), “The new Constitution contains numerous provisions sensational in their significance. For instance, an interesting declaration will be made about private property."

That declaration should be interesting.

Something else is interesting too. The Russian Government is seeking pacts and alliances with the western parliamentary countries. Shall we yet see another "War to Save Democracy" ?

The Passing of the Crisis

The Ministry of Labour returns issued at the end of May make interesting reading. The number of people at work reached the figure of 10,831,000, which is the highest in the history of unemployed insurance, and excludes the recent inclusion of agricultural workers in unemployment insurance. The number of unemployed was 1,703,941, as against nearly three million, three or four years ago. The facts are significant. Capitalism, once having reached the lowest pitch in the slump, recovered, and is now, once again, going through a period of expansion. There is nothing new in this; it has been the course in every industrial crisis for the past one hundred and fifty years. The pendulum in capitalist production having swung back must, by its very nature, swing forward again. But where are the shoddy economists, capitalist and self-styled Socialist alike, who only yesterday were telling the world that the end of the capitalist system was at hand? Have they relegated the end to an uncertain future date, as the Christians have the second coming of Christ ? The chances are that if the workers allow capitalism to continue long enough to have another crisis they will be prophesying as wrongly, dismally and noisily as ever.

It is curious how events can upset flimsy minds. The New Leader published articles about eight years ago eulogising American mass production methods. Henry Ford, we were told, had shown Marx to be wrong. The New Leader has since discovered many new “lines.” Others talked glibly of the crisis which had lasted since the last war—the mere fact of there being unemployment continuously since then was evidence enough, for them, of a continuous crisis. A little knowledge would show how capitalism really works. The recurring periods of depression and expansion, with the consequent increase and decrease in unemployment, are the very essence of capitalism. These in themselves will not bring it to an end. This will only be done when the.workers understand that the appalling poverty and insecurity which exist side by side with immense wealth in periods of depression and expansion alike, can be abolished by the social ownership of the means of life.

 

The Passing of a Labour Leader

Bruce Clavering has an article in the Sunday Referee (May 24th, 1936), about the life of J. H. Thomas. Certain facts stand out and emphasise how useful he has been to the capitalist class. In 1911, the article says, "the railwaymen wanted to strike. Thomas saw Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He launched an impassioned appeal, but Lloyd George was unmoved.  "I, too, am a Welshman/ said L.G.”

“Then the Chancellor made his own appeal. He pointed out that the Kaiser had issued a virtual ultimatum over Morocco, banking on the trouble in England keeping Britain’s hands tied. Thomas responded to the appeal and called off the strike.” 

"During the war he swelled the army with more recruits than almost any other single man. As an Englishman he was a patriot . . . . he achieved the best for his country and for himself.” 

Trotsky’s verdict on Thomas was, “This incredible lackey.”

Whether J. H. Thomas was sincere, insincere, rogue or fool does not interest us. He served the master-class faithfully and well, and in doing so was supported enthusiastically by the railway workers. His usefulness to the master-class and, to some extent, his popularity with them, was because he could command an enormous working-class following.

His life aptly illustrates the perils for the working-class in “leadership” and the need for the working-class to have knowledge of Socialist principles.

Harry Waite

The Jamaica Plan for World Peace (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Standard has received a circular from the United Nations Association of Jamaica containing details of yet another plan for world peace, which the Association thinks we must strive to attain by means of a world peace referendum, in which the peoples of the world could declare that they want peaceful settlement of differences by negotiation, reduction of armaments, and a ban on the use of the atom-bomb, hydrogen-bomb, germ-warfare and other weapons of mass destruction.

This kind of plan is not new. There were a number of them before the second world war. Two that spring to mind are the Peace Ballot of the Peace Pledge Union and Canon W. H. Elliott's League of Prayer, to which belonged five and a half million people all praying that the nations might be guided "as one family into the ways of peace.” Since the last war we have had Communist-sponsored Peace Conferences; a rival non-Stalinist peace conference is reported as planned in Yugoslavia; the publisher Victor Gollancz has been trying to get people together with the object of "halting the drift" to a third world war; and now the Jamaica plan has appeared.

These attempts failed to stop the second world war.

And our experience teaches us that they will also fail to prevent yet other wars. No one questions the sincerity of the people who sponsor them and take part in them. And it is undoubted that people will support them in large numbers. This is not surprising. For if a hundred people are asked if they prefer peace or war, at least ninety-nine of them will say that they prefer peace; and therefore they are willing to sign petitions for peace, or vote for it in referendums. This general desire for peace among the peoples of all countries is well known; so much so as to render almost ludicrous the solemn statement made by a Russian in the new English language paper published in Moscow: she said, referring to a recent visit to England, that "there is no doubt that the average man is very much concerned about peace.” (News, July, 1951.) Why is it that this general desire for peace has such little effect on world affairs?

The reason is that the simple question, "Are you for war or for peace? ” never in fact arises outside the pages of the latest peace pamphlet. For what the organisers of these petitions and referendums ignore is that the world to-day is divided into a number of separate states, which all have capitalist economic systems, whether the private-enterprise brand or the State-owner- ship brand is more in favour in any particular country. And these states, by virtue of the fact that they are capitalist, have interests at variance with those of other states. They must all safeguard their sources of raw materials; they must safeguard their markets; and they must safeguard and improve their strategic position in the world so that they may be able to defend themselves successfully when the next war comes. Now there are not enough raw materials in the world to satisfy all the states at the same time; more important still, there are not enough markets (other than government buying of armaments) to be able to take up continually all the products of capitalist industry when it is going at full blast; and in the all-pervading atmosphere of insecurity^ and mistrust which arises from these continual conflicts' in the economic sphere, two or more states often find themselves contending with each other over the control of some small country or island which both sides consider is vital to its safety in a future war. Each state, then, filled with suspicion at the activities of other states, tries to defend itself by building up more and more armaments. Finally there comes a time when a state sees its interests so clearly threatened by another state that it has to resort to arms to defend them, and history has to record the outbreak of yet another war.

This is half the answer to the question, “Why is the general desire for peace ineffectual in preserving it?" The other half is to be found in the fact that in each state the organs of propaganda—press, cinema, radio—are in the hands either of private capitalists, who naturally support the interests of their own state, or (in the more recently organised capitalist systems) in the hands of the state itself. And when war becomes imminent, the press and the radio do not pose the simple question, “ Peace or war? ” to the populations whose opinions they influence; they put the question in the form, “Are we tamely to submit to the enemy aggressors and imperialists, and allow our friends and ourselves to be attacked, or are we to defend ourselves and our interests in other countries?” And the effectiveness of the organs of propaganda is seen in the fact that at any rate at the beginning of a war, the great majority of the population of any country is wholeheartedly behind its government.

In peace time, no one is more vociferously peace- loving than are the heads of states. “ Our main purpose,” said Mr. Morrison in the article which Pravda printed on August 1st, “is to avoid war, to preserve peace.” Pravda replied that the real champions of peace are the Russians. But in reality there is no state, on either side of the Iron Curtain, whose main purpose is to avoid war and preserve peace. All states believe that there are some things more important than peace. For example, in the “Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks),” the author (Stalin) distinguishes between two kinds of war:

“ (a) Just wars, wars that are not wars of conquest, but wars of liberation, waged to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempts to enslave them, or to liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and

“ (b) Unjust wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave foreign countries and foreign nations.”

The definition of "just wars”—wars of defence against attack or to liberate dependent countries— could be stretched to cover any and every war any country was engaged in. And” just wars” are preferable to peace, if the choice has to be made, according to them.

President Truman, though going into less dialectical detail, comes into the same conclusion. “President Truman said tonight that ‘freedom and justice are more precious* to the American people than peace.” (Daily Express, 11/1/1951.)

Events would show us this even if the speeches and writings of the leaders of states did not. When war broke out between North and South Korea, the U.S.A. thought it more important that South Korea should be kept within what it calls “the free world” than that peace should be preserved. And when the North Koreans were retreating rapidly before their enemies, China thought it more important that North Korea should be kept within what it calls “the democratic world” than that peace should be preserved. Whatever Mr. Morrison may say, all states have ends which to them are more important than the preservation of peace.

The Jamaica Plan for World Peace, and all other plans of the same kind, ignore all these facts. The Jamaican circular calls on the peoples of the world “to deliver an irrevocable mandate for peaceful negotiation of differences between nations.” This rather reminds one of the people in a tropical village delivering “an irrevocable mandate” that the tigers in the nearby jungle shall settle their differences peacefully by negotiation. One can stop the danger of fights between tigers by shooting the tigers; and one can stop the danger of war by getting rid of the capitalist system. Until we do that we will have wars. If you support these schemes which leave out of account the great central fact of the existence of the capitalist system, you are wasting your time. The only way to put an end to war is to bring about the establishment of a socialist society.

Alwyn Edgar

Notes by the Way: Keir Hardie and the Liberals. (1932)

The Notes by the Way Column from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Keir Hardie and the Liberals.

For years we pointed out that the late Keir Hardie never had an understanding of Socialism and was merely a Liberal. It is amusing to read that at a Conference of the Union of University Liberal Societies at Cambridge, a Liberal proposed that Keir Hardie should be recognised as one of them. A resolution was passed welcoming the formation of a new Radical Party, and the mover, a Mr. E. G. Sollieu, said :

“The new Party should have a left-centre inclination, and should be founded on the teaching of Keir Hardie.” (“Daily Herald,” March 23rd, 1932.)

The I.L.P. and other “left-centre Liberals” will have to bestir themselves to prevent this body-snatching.

* * *

Mr. Herbert Morrison evades the issue. 

The “Clarion” makes entertaining reading for those who wish to study the Labour Party “intellectuals” at play. A quarrel has been going on as to whether state capitalism as it exists in the Post Office is more or less socialistic than State capitalism as it exists in public utility corporations. One group stands firmly by Nationalisation, while the other group denounces this as being a nineteenth century idea, now replaced by the “new Socialism” of public utility corporations. Belonging to the public utility group is Major Attlee, former P.M.G., and advocate of a public utility for the Post Office. He admits that the Post Office (so long praised by him and his Party as being an instance of Socialism) is “the outstanding example of collective capitalism” (“New Statesman,” November 7th, 1931). Mr. Herbert Morrison is also a public utility advocate. In the “Clarion” (February, 1932) he argues, with his.tongue in his cheek, that his London Passenger Transport Bill (which guaranteed their property rights to the shareholders), is Socialism, because the shareholders would no longer have the legal right of control that they now possess. Mr. Morrison knows quite well that Socialism involves social ownership of the means of life, and that the exchange of one kind of share for another kind does not deprive the capitalist of his ownership, and is not Socialism.

All the same he knows how to sling a pretty brick in controversy. Having been told by a defender of the Post Office that a man is a Socialist or not a Socialist and that nationalisation is Socialism, Mr. Morrison replies (“Clarion” March) by pointing out that the S.P.G.B. would laugh in the face of anyone who made such a statement, and would say that such a man “is not a Socialist at all, but a mere advocate of State capitalism.”

This is true enough. But Mr. Morrison did not add that the Socialist’s objections to public utilities are precisely the same as his objections to nationalisation.

What we would like to have from Mr. Morrison is his defence of public utility capitalism against the case for Socialism.

* * *

Labour Government in action. 

The theory on which the Labour Party and I.L.P. were built up is that the spectacle of a Labour Government at work so impresses and enthuses the workers that they go on to ask for more and more “Labour” reforms of capitalism. On February 27th the Labour Party M.P.’s and candidates held a meeting to inquire into the actions of the late Labour Government. Reynolds’s Illustrated News, the Co-operative-Labour paper, reporting the meeting, says:—

“One or two speakers made a feeble and timid attempt to justify the record of the late Labour Government.” (Reynolds’s, 28th Feb.)

In other words, instead of celebrating the successful application of their theory, nobody could be found to put up a plausible defence of it.

* * *

The shrinking I.L.P.

In the six years since February 1926 the I.L.P. has lost 422 branches, almost 40 per cent. of the total. The Reports to Annual Conferences give the following total number of branches in February of the years mentioned :—

1926 1,075

1929    746

1930    748

1931    712

1932    653

It was in this situation that the I.L.P. at its Easter Conference had to decide for or against continuing affiliation with the Labour Party. Would the happy days of Parliamentary seats and Governmental Office be brought back again by remaining inside, or had the time now come for the I.L.P. to exploit working-class discontent independently? The way of the reformist vote-catcher is sometimes hard.

* * *

What will Maxton do now? 

The I.L.P. Conference delegates had before them three proposals, one for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, one for disaffiliation and a third for “conditional affiliation.” Disaffiliation was rejected by 183 votes to 144, affiliation was rejected by 214 votes to 98, and the third proposal—typical of the I.L.P. in dodging the issue—was adopted by 250 votes to 53. The resolution calls for a revision of the Standing Orders of the Labour Party and it may be assumed that the I.L.P. will remain inside. The position now is that the I.L.P. repudiates the Standing Orders, but several of its members who stood as Labour candidates at the election have accepted them, including David Kirkwood, M.P., and Mr. E. F. Wise. And what now becomes of the recent assertions by Maxton, Buchanan, and others that for reasons other than the Standing Orders it is impossible for Socialists to remain inside the Labour Party ? Doubtless they will not find it difficult to swallow their words—they have had much practice at this.

One piece of information given by the Chairman of the I.L.P., Mr. Fenner Brockway, deserves to be placed on record. The I.L.P. used to be satisfied with the Labour Party reform programme. Then a few years ago it announced that the old programme had been proved inadequate and that a new reform programme, miscalled “Socialism in Our Time,” was the only adequate programme. Now Mr. Brockway in his address from the Chair (see Daily Herald, March 28th) admits that the I.L.P. is a reformist party and that its “Socialism in Our Time” is useless. He said that, in view of the present depression,

“the gradualism of the Labour Party became pathetically inadequate; even the method of Socialism in our time became inadequate. It means that our policy must become revolutionary instead of reformist.”

And then the Conference, as if to show the hollowness of the pretence that the reformist policy is going to be dropped, voted for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, although Brockway, Maxton and others know full well that there is no place for revolutionary Labour Party Socialism inside the Labour Party.

* * *

Mr. James Douglas trips up.

It is one of the pet arguments of the journalists who serve the master class by attacking Socialism, that only capitalism can give the rewards necessary to encourage literary geniuses to do their best work. Mr. James Douglas momentarily forgot himself in an article in the Daily Express (March 5th), in which he admitted that the money incentive has had an opposite effect.

“Another book I long to write is a philosophy of literary avarice. It is a base passion which has not been thoroughly explored, even by Balzac or Bennett. The influence of avarice on literature has never been analysed. 

Avarice has destroyed more men of genius than drink or indolence. Avarice corrupts the mind. Genius without avarice is as rare as beauty without vanity.”

* * *

Why the armed forces exist.

Early in February there were rumours in Eastern Europe of various Governments massing troops for war. One of the rumours said that Poland was mobilising troops on the German frontier in Upper Silesia. This, to the newspapers was a “disturbing” rumour. But re-assurance soon came. The troops were not for the purpose of threatening the German capitalists, but for the purpose of dealing with a strike which was likely to break out. (News-Chronicle, February (5th.)

Needless to say the Polish Government was not sending troops to intimidate the employers, but to keep the workers in subjection.

* * *

Trotsky's view of Russia's future.

In an interview given to the New York Times, and republished in The Militant (New York, March 12th), Trotsky stated his views on the Five-Year Plan and the future of the Socialist movement.

“Question: Do you believe that the development of the Five-Year Plan has strengthened or weakened the possibility of building socialism in Soviet Russia alone without co-operation along similar lines in the rest of Europe ?

Answer : This raises the question about socialism in a single country. The inevitability of socialism flows historically from the fact that the present productive forces of humanity have become incompatible not only with the private property in the means of production but also with present national boundaries, especially in Europe. Just as mediaeval particularism hindered the development of capitalism in its youth, so now at the peak of its development capitalism is strangling in the limits set by the national States. Socialism cannot confine productive forces in the Procrustean bed of national States. The Socialist economy will develop on the basis of an international division of labour, the mighty foundations of which have been laid down by capitalism. The Soviet industrial construction is, in my view, a part of a future European, Asiatic and worldwide Socialistic structure, and not an independent national whole.

Question : Will Soviet Russia be compelled to come to some sort of a compromise with Western capitalism, assuming that she may not be able to pursue a Socialist policy single-handed? What form would such a compromise assume?

Answer : The “compromise” between the Soviet and the capitalist systems is not a question of the future but of the present. It is already a fact to-day, although not a very stable one. How will the interrelations between the isolated Soviet Union and world capitalism develop? Here a concrete prophecy is not easy to make, but in general I should cast the following horoscope: European capitalism is far nearer to a Socialist revolution than the Soviet Union is to a national Socialist society.”

Trotsky’s recognition of the impossibility of Socialism in Russia in the near future is late but interesting. Mr. H. G. Wells has also discovered at last that the talk of Communism in Russia is “absurd,” and that the existing system there is “State Capitalism” (Daily Telegraph, February 24th).

Edgar Hardcastle

Notes by the Way: “No Reparations, No Indemnities” (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“No Reparations, No Indemnities”

At the time the Communists seized power in Russia their favourite slogan for winning the support of the war-weary workers of Europe was “No Reparations : No Indemnities.” They bitterly attacked the Allied victors for trying to collect vast reparations from the defeated Central Powers, opposed the Versailles Treaty and encouraged the rebuilding of Germany as a great power. As Foreign Commissar Molotov was still saying after the outbreak of war in 1939, but before Russia was attacked, “We have always held that a strong Germany is an indispensable condition for a durable peace in Europe.” (Speech to Supreme Soviet, 31/10/39.) In 1929 the British Communists put forward the same plea at the General Election. They demanded “repudiation of all imperialist treaties and pacts—the Versailles Treaty, the Locarno Pact, the Kellog Pact” and “annulment of the Dawes Plan ” (a plan for the collection of reparations from Germany).

Now the tune is altered. Russia’s demand is for the payment by Germany of 10,000 million dollars as reparations. (Manchester Guardian, 15/12-’47.) Curiously the Daily Worker during the meetings of the four Foreign Ministers in London in December, while this was being discussed, was very coy about reporting it and managed on more than one occasion to report the debates without mentioning the figure. Perhaps they have a fear that readers may remember what they used to say about the futility and iniquity of reparations.

* * *

Why Workers Read the “Daily Worker”

The following is a notice issued by the Daily Worker and published by them as an advertisement in the News and ‘Book Trade Review and Stationers’ Gazette (6/12/47). It needs no comment.

“IT GETS AROUND. 

News has a habit of spreading. People soon get to know what’s happening. For instance, there’s a lot of talk in the sporting world about the consistent success of Cayton, the Daily Worker’s racing tipster. After all, 752 winners in the flat racing season is worth talking about! So you will understand why more people are asking for the Daily Worker. If you have difficulty in getting copies get in touch with us, we might be able to help.”

* * *

Some “Austerity” Fortunes

Among the fortunes reported in the Press recently on the death of the holders are the following:

Mr. H. Mountain, £1,122,616;

Sir W. McLintoch, £410,203;

Mr. Hermann Marx, £1,262,492;

Marquess of Lansdowne, £1,023,792;

Mr. Frank Hodges, one-time Secretary of the Miners’ Federation, £132,959.

Mr. Frank Hodges after leaving the trade, union movement went into the more lucrative occupation of company director.

All of the amounts given above are before payment of death duties

Another interesting news item recently was a comment by the City Editor of the Evening Standard (9/12/47) on the Ellerman fortune. After stating that Lord Ellerman holds £519,000 Deferred Stock of the Ellerman Shipping Lines, his holding being estimated to have a present value of over £2,500,000, and also holdings in a group of investment and brewery companies worth another £1,050,000 the Editor goes on as follows about the total present value of all investments :

“No firm estimate can be made of the Ellerman fortune today, but many people in the City believe that he would not lose in the comparison with his father. The first Sir John left £40 million.” (Evening Standard, 9/12/47.)

* * *

Grain Shortage?

”BUENOS AIRES, Wednesday. — The Argentine has been forced to burn £125,000,000 worth of crops, chiefly maize, says a Government statement tonight.

“It blames an economic blockade which keeps out machinery, cars, and rolling stock.

“Ports and railway terminals are jammed with grain which cannot he loaded in ships.” (Daily Express, 30/10/47.)

* * *

Growing Imperial Importance of Equatorial Africa

The following is an extract from an article on Equatorial Africa in the Times (14/11/47).

“As the British Empire in its old significance tends to shrink, with the gradual advance of its peoples to self-government and with the transfer to United Nations trusteeship of responsibility for certain territories at present administered by Britain, attention must he increasingly directed to the remaining British Colonies. That several of these are to be found in Africa is a fortunate fact in view of the withdrawal of British power from Egypt, the uncertain future of Palestine, and the consequent insecurity of the Mediterranean and Suez Canal route to those parts of the Commonwealth and Empire lying in the East.

“The search for alternative routes more secure from attack and for areas more conveniently situated for the disposition of imperial military resources must focus attention on West and East Africa, where there are great territories which, on examination, may be found to provide in great measure alternatives capable of making up for losses elsewhere. It might on the face of it seem that from a general move southwards into Africa only military advantages would accrue, such as safer lines of communication, areas suitable for British troops, and even alternative resources of man-power to succeed those lost by the changing conditions in India.”

* * *

Echo from Bikini

“King Juda of Bikini and his 165 subjects are to be uprooted afresh and shipped to a new island. Eighteen months ago their ancient atoll home was sacrificed to the atom bomb tests. Now, in the words of an official American Navy report, they are ‘a destitute, defeated, frustrated, poverty-stricken and hungry people.’

“Before the bombs exploded they were persuaded to make their ‘contribution to the advancement of science.’ Lock, stock and barrel they were moved to Rongerik Island, 120 miles away.

“There they found: 416 acres, instead of the 1,500 they were used to ; fire, which devastated their coconut trees ; and a lagoon with poisoned fish.

“They were driven to cutting palms and eating the leaves.” (News-Chronicle, 4/10/47.)

* * *

“The Greatest Social Reform Parliament in History.”

The Labour Party likes to make the claim that it is a Socialist party committed to the introduction of a Socialist system of society, but whenever its leaders set out to defend themselves against the Tory Opposition their line is always the very different one that they are a better social reform party than any of their predecessors. In a speech at Bermondsey Mr. Herbert Morrison is reported by the Daily Mirror (16/12/47) as making the claim thai “the present Parliament is destined to be the greatest social reform Parliament in history.”

He may prove to he right but the workers will discover that after all the Labour Party reforms have been put into operation Capitalism will still be with us.

* * *

I.L.P. History

In the Socialist Leader (6/12/47) Mr. F. A. Ridley writes an article on the theme “Had Rosa Luxemburg lived, Stalin might never have come to power in Russia, nor Hitler in Germany.” He writes:

“For had that amazing woman survived, she, at the head of German Communism, might have been able to establish a ‘Balance of Power’ in the new International which would have offset the Russian domination that subsequently monopolised it, in other words the ‘Third International’ might have become really international.”

Without going into elaborate arguments to answer this too-easy re-writing of history it should surely be obvious that as Socialism was impossible in 1918 because there were too few Socialists inside and outside of Russia, the Russian Government, if it had failed to control its instrument, the Third International, would have scrapped it and created other instruments for carrying out its foreign policy. We might just as well say that if Ramsay MacDonald had not been born or had succeeded in his first ambition, that of becoming a Liberal M.P., the Labour Party might have been Socialist.

Or perhaps now that Mr. Ridley has shown Stalin where he is wrong Stalin will mend his ways and do what Ridley thinks Luxemburg would have done.

* * *

A.R.P. Again

The following is from an Editorial, “Atom Age A.R.P.,” in the Daily Mail (12/12/47).

“To most people the revival of the A.R.P. service on a national scale is like a blow between the eyes. 

” ‘It is little more than two years since the end of the last war,’ they say, ‘ and now we seem to be getting ready for the next one. Has the world gone mad?’

“No, it has not gone mad, because it always was in that condition. But there are degrees of lunacy, and the wild state of this age is shown by the extent of the new Civil Defence plans.

“The aim in future is that everyone shall be trained in these warlike duties. The professional element will be provided by a full-time force of A.R.P. ‘commandos’ ready to move anywhere at a moment’s notice. An ‘incident’ in a future war may be the blotting-out of an entire town.”

In the meantime the war-time allies have finally ended the London meeting of the four Foreign Ministers quite unable to agree about the future of Germany. More or less open hostility now replaces the protestations of everlasting friendship. And the remedy is not more A.R.P. but the abolition of Capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Notes by the Way: For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Shoot! (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Shoot!

In a speech in London on 24th September, Mr. Herbert Morrison elaborated a familiar Labour Party theme, which is that the workers have now got what they wanted and must be very careful not to do anything to endanger their triumph:—

“Mr. Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council, declaring that the ball was now at the feet of the worker, said in London to-night that if he exploited his advantage against the needs of the community as selfishly as the old employer did when he was on top, the great victories of trade unionism would melt away, and would deserve to melt.” (Manchester Guardian, 25/9/48.)

Which prompts the natural question, if the workers really have got the ball at their feet and just when they are about to score a goal, their captain bawls out, “For heaven’s sake don’t shoot,” what was the use of starting the game at all?

* * *

Mr. Horner’s Bluff

In the row between Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist and secretary of the Miners’ Union, and the other officials of the union who are Labour Government supporters, his opponents argued that it was his duty to keep to the declared policy of the Union which is in favour of the Marshall Plan. Instead he supported the strike of the French coal miners which his Labour opponents maintain was a Russian inspired move to prevent European recovery, though ostensibly a strike for higher wages.

Mr. Horner defended his action on the ground of international working-class solidarity. He said that the French miners’ wages are lower than the wages of British miners, and that “if French miners are allowed to stay at their present level it will threaten the standards of existence of British miners.” (Observer, 17/10/48.) He told a Daily Express correspondent (16/10/48) that he would have supported the strike on its merits even if it had not been backed by the Communists—”I would on principle support the workers if they thought they were justified in refusing their wages.”

So far so good, but let us test the claim by Mr. Horner’s actions in other directions. Only 12 months ago members of Mr. Horner’s union were on strike at Grimethorpe colliery. Did Mr. Horner support them? Not at all. He opposed the strike, told them they were wrong, and accused them of wrecking union policy. This, of course, was before the Communists had switched over to their campaign against the Labour Government.

And what about the miners and other workers in Czechoslovakia who were honoured by a visit from Mr. Horner just before he went to France? On his return he admitted that “wage standards were lower than in Britain and the tempo of work harder ” (Daily Worker, 4/10/48), and that the Czechs work “six eight-hour days a week. (Manchester Guardian, 4/10/48.)

Since the Czech workers work longer hours than British miners and are lower paid, why doesn’t Mr. Horner offer his support to a strike of Czech miners and other workers to improve their position?

The reason is obvious. In Czechoslovakia the Government that enforces these low wages and long hours is a Communist Government, so Mr. Horner is against the workers and for the Government. In France the Communists are not in power, so it suits Russia to back the strike.

During the row Mr. Horner confirmed that he had been offered, and refused, a job on the Coal Board at £5,000 a year (five times his present salary). He also told the Sunday Express (17/10/48), “I would sooner go back to the pit than have another year of this torture.”

The tragedy of the whole business is that the trade union movement is being divided over the issue whether to line up with American private capitalism or Russian State capitalism. Mr. Thurtle, Labour M.P., forecasting Mr. Horner’s defeat, actually put it in the terms, “British patriotism will triumph over alien ideology.” (Sunday Express, 17/10/48.) Is it too much to hope that the miners themselves will remind all their officials that the union is supposed to exist to look after the interests of the members, and that at one time there was at least some conception of international solidarity, not with governments but with the workers everywhere against all their exploiters?

* * *

The United Nations—Promise and Reality

In his speech on world affairs at the Tory Conference at Llandudno, Mr. Winston Churchill opened up with a description of the purpose served by the United Nations Organisation.

“The Assembly of the United Nations, which we fondly hoped would be the majestic centre of world security and, later on, of world co-operation, and, finally, of world government, has been reduced to a mere cockpit in which the representatives of mighty nations and ancient States hurl reproaches, taunts and insults at one another to marshal public opinion and inflame the passions of their peoples, in order to arouse and prepare them for what seems to be a remorselessly approaching third world war.” (Evening Standard, 9th October, 1948.)

* * *

The Juicy Orange

The following is from the News Chronicle (4/10/48) :

“Millions of oranges are being buried every week in the Murrumbidgee area of New South Wales.

“Bulldozers turn them into trenches 100ft. long, 20ft. wide and 7ft. deep.

“Growers say the oranges are second grade and are dumped because only the best are saleable, yet they would be labelled ‘choice in fruit shops here and sell at 3d. and 4d. each.

“The growers blame the local marketing system and say they would like to give the oranges to schools, but packing and railway costs are too high.”

* * *

“Daily Worker” Reporting

The Communists complain, with good reason, that reports in the capitalist press are often biassed and distorted. The careful reader of the Daily Worker will find that the Communists do pretty well themselves. One of the things the Worker is reluctant to let its readers know is the enormous amount spent by Russia in the armaments race, though it keeps them well posted about the expenditure of the other Imperialist powers.

On 8th October the Worker published what purported to be a report of speeches made on that subject by Mr. Vyshinsky and Mr. Hector McNeil at the Paris meeting of the United Nations Committee on disarmament.

According to The Times (8/10/48) Mr. McNeil made the following statement: —

“Could anyone say—even, perhaps, countries in the closest relationship with Soviet Russia—that they knew the forces the Soviets deployed to-day, or what was spent on them last year?

“Soviet military estimates to-day amounted to 66.1 milliard roubles, against 17.5 milliard roubles in 1937, to say nothing of an estimated surplus of 41 milliards, the destination of which was unknown.”

Mr. McNeil’s statement may be right or wrong (the critically minded would ask for much more information before accepting the apparent conclusion that the Russian Government is spending four times as much as in 1937; and probably the value of the rouble is less), but his intended point is clear enough, that the admitted expenditure of 66.1 milliards might have been added to out of the 41 milliard budget surplus.

Now observe how the Worker suppressed the figures entirely and reduced these passages in the speech to the following mangled version: —

“After quoting figures of Soviet military expenditure, which he admitted he was not himself sure of, Mr. McNeil declared…..”

What have Professor Haldane and Mr. L. C. White and the other members of the Editorial Board to say about this?

* * *

‘Twill be a Glorious Victory

Some time not far off, the political Olympic teams will run their general election race. They are at present training and preparing, inspecting the track in the constituencies, and watching the political weather reports from the by-elections, all in anticipation of the great day. It will be a glorious victory for Labour over Tory or for Tory over Labour, unless, of course, the international situation produces another coalition. In that event it will prove to be what Lewis Carroll’s Dodo defined as a “Caucus-race,” one in which all parties win and all get prizes.

At the 1945 election nationalisation was a big issue, but just now, though nearly all preparations for the elections are made, there is one thing missing—something substantial to fight about. Liberals, Labour and the Tories fall over each other in their anxiety to agree about foreign policy and Western Union, about opposition to Russia, about detestation of Communists and Fascists and love of democracy. At home they all claim to have fathered the National Insurance scheme and to be in favour of social reform, more houses, more production, more exports and more wages—but not now. It used long ago to be said of the Labour M.P.s that they were hardly distinguishable from Liberals. Now it seems that the epithet Lib-Lab has to be broadened to Con-Lib-Lab so that it covers all three parties. Early in October the Tories held their annual conference at Llandudno. This is the summing-up made by the Political Correspondent of the Observer (10/10/.18) : —

“No one can read this programme without being struck by one singular fact: the wide agreement that exists between the Tory and Labour Parties. The Iron and Steel Bill may change all that, but at the moment the Tories have no real quarrel with either Sir Stafford Cripps or Mr. Ernest Bevin. There would be few fundamental changes if they were returned to power. They have accepted the Nationalisation of coal, gas, electricity, transport and the Bank of England, either implicitly or explicitly. They may try to unscramble … air transport, but that is not very important. They would keep up the export targets and reluctantly continue austerity. There would be changes in emphasis, private enterprise would be encouraged and not bullied, and there would, of course, be a change in leadership. But the fundamentals would remain because the present economic situation puts any Government in a strait-jacket.”

So much for the Tory and Labour Parties. Within a week of that assessment the Liberal Party published its “Programme for Britain,” and this is what the Liberals say in it about Nationalisation: —

“The profit motive is not wrong. On the other hand, unrestricted private enterprise does not give the best results, from the community’s point of view, in every industry. Liberals believe that postal services, railways, gas, electricity, and coal should be publicly owned. Competitive private enterprise should, however, be encouraged in many fields, and Liberals are utterly opposed to the Nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” (Manchester Guardian, 15/10/48.)

In default of any other issue to bemuse the electors perhaps the three parties will agree to re-inflate the old bogey, the House of Lords, and stage a smashing exhibition of shadow-boxing about that.

* * *

Nationalisation and Wage-slavery

In a speech very briefly reported in the Evening News (24/8/48) Sir Geoffrey Vickers, V.C., who is Coal Board member for Manpower and Welfare, is said to have claimed that the Coal Board “were trying to abolish ‘wage slavery’ just as human slavery had been abolished.”

Sir Geoffrey is an optimist to say the least of it. Perhaps the kindest explanation is that he uses the term without knowing what it means. In the meantime the Coal Board (was it the Manpower and Welfare Department?) prosecuted 96 miners at Chorley, Lancashire, on 13th August for taking part in an unofficial strike. Fines of £10 were imposed on 87 of them. (Daily Mail, 14/8/48.)

We notice that the workers’ discovery that nationalisation or State Capitalism is much the same as private capitalism, has even reached Mr. Ernest Thurtle, Labour M.P., who writes every Sunday in the Sunday Express. “It is a plain fact that there is much disappointment among the workers in these industries at the way in which the changeover from private ownership has worked out.” (Sunday Express, 29/8/48.)

The former coal owners are being looked after. In its report on the three months April to June, 1948, the Coal Board states that it paid £3,900,000 to the Government as interest on loans and on “interim income” (pending settlement of compensation) to former coal owners.

* * *

Workers who worked too hard

The following was published in the Manchester Guardian (3/9/48) :

“Sixty workers at a Merthyr factory making agricultural machinery have had to be dismissed through ‘ redundancy’ although the works this year has produced more combine harvesters a day than ever before. This is due, said the manager (Mr. C. R. Light), yesterday, to a stiffening in the home market and currency regulations which prevent the delivery of foreign orders, some of which have been completed.

“More than 2,200 people are unemployed in the borough.”

* * *

Civilisation comes to Ethiopia

In an article on the Administration of the law in Abyssinia, published in the New Statesman (29/8/48), Mr. Elwyn Jones, M.P., has this:

“There are still public hangings in the capital for the more serious crimes. In the Addis Ababa jail an electric chair has been installed. I was assured that this was a gift from U.N.R.R.A.— which, if it is true, must surely be the grisliest manifestation of ‘relief and rehabilitation’ of all time.”

Edgar Hardcastle

A personal statement (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arising out of the reply to his letter published in the September Socialist Standard, Lord Amwell asks us to publish the following statement: —

September 16th, ’48.

The Editor, 

Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I must ask you to correct one misrepresentation in F.F.’s reply to me this month.

It is unwise to trust the capitalist press, even when it suits one in its facilitating a jibe. I did not say in the House of Lords that I went into trances or, as several newspapers put it, that I was a medium. Popular spiritualism is a thing I despise and I am not an obscurantist by any means.

What I did was to speak against a body of fellow citizens being persecuted under medieval statutes rather than common law. To illustrate my point I mentioned that many years ago I looked into certain phenomena and produced, as anyone can, some abnormal results. This without any assumption whatever about a future life or theory of spirit. As matters stood before Mr. Morrison’s order to police authorities, I could have been prosecuted for investigating psychic matters in my own home.

This had nothing to do with trances or spiritualistic claims. The press seeks sensation—don’t you follow suit. I am neither spiritualist nor medium.

I wish I had space to go into the other matters fully, especially F.F.’s complex about tripe and sheeps’ brains.

Yours sincerely,

Amwell.

Editorial: The Spectre at the Labour Party Conference (1946)

Editorial from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Labour Party is not the Government, Labour Party conferences can happily agree to denounce whatever government is in power. When the Labour Party is itself in power the tune changes; delegates are then brought face to face with the fact—surprising to them, though not to Socialists —that capitalism is just as much the enemy of the workers, even though the Prime Minister is a MacDonald or an Attlee instead of a Baldwin or a Churchill. Out of office the Labour leaders shout “forward.” In office they exhort their followers to rest on their oars or at least to refrain from rocking the boat. In this respect history repeats itself. Just as, in 1924, Labour's official organ hoped that the miners ‘‘will not embarrass the first Labour Government by pressing untimely demands ” (‘‘Labour Magazine,” January, 1924), so at the Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth in June, 1946, Mr. Shinwell and other Government spokesmen found themselves at variance with miners' delegates who were pressing for the five-day forty-hour week and other demands that have long been in the Labour programme. This time the Labour leaders had a new plea with which to fob off the workers, the plea that as nationalisation has been achieved, the miners are now working for themselves, not for the capitalists, and must subordinate their demands to the paramount need of making nationalisation a success. Mr. Shinwell laid down the principle, "Nationalisation must pay. Nationalisation schemes taken by and large must not be subsidised by the Exchequer” (Daily Express, 12/6/46). Mr. Morrison, speaking on the Government's general policy for wages, amplified with the trite remark, “We have to remember as a nation that we cannot spend what we do not earn” (Daily Telegraph, 14/6/46.). The thing is a transparent fraud. Making nationalisation pay means making it pay the millions that the Government is handing out to the former owners. The exploiters are still living on the backs of the workers, with the difference that the Labour Party, as the Government, undertakes official responsibility for maintaining the exploitation.

Mr. Morrison spoke to the Conference about the Government’s policy for unemployment. Listening to his statement that ‘‘full employment has never yet been attempted as a policy in peacetime Britain. It has never been attempted by any country in the world with our form of democratic government .  . . ” (Telegraph, 14/6/46), delegates must have wondered what the two previous Labour Governments were attempting to do when they said they had a policy to cure unemployment. This Government will fail like other Labour Governments. Mr. Morrison, unlike some of his less cautious colleagues, does not pretend that world depression will not happen again and would only commit himself to the promise that, if it does, ‘‘the Government was preparing to do what was possible to avoid repercussions on the economic life of this country.” Delegates who cheered this were no doubt reading into "what was possible” much more than Mr. Morrison believes. In the meantime unemployment grows, and dole queues are back in Jarrow, the town that Labourites so often quote in their denunciation of the Tories. On the day of Mr. Morrison’s speech an event occurred that showed the gulf separating Labour Government planners from the workers who suffer from their plans. The Government are transferring Short Brothers' seaplane works from Rochester to Belfast. Even if the thousands of workers wanted to be uprooted, only a few hundred of them are to be allowed to transfer. Instead they are offered the project that other industries will eventually be set up in Rochester. Dissatisfied with this, the men walked out and held a protest demonstration, at which local Labour M.P.s came in for denunciation. "During a stormy meeting complaints were made that local Socialist M.P.s had acted as buffers between the Government and the workers’ representatives instead of putting the workers’ case forward : (Telegraph, 14/6/ 46). The men at Rochester have discovered what Labour Government administration of capitalism really is and what, of course, it must be. Some capitalist spokesmen are aware of the function of Labour Government to act as buffers and are duly grateful. On May 27th the Manchester Guardian, in an editorial, contrasted the bitter and widespread strikes in U.S.A., with Truman threatening to call up strikers for the Army, with the comparatively easy and smooth transition from war to peace in this country. Mr. Morrison, at the Labour Party Conference, made a similar point by comparing the few strikes in the past 12 months under Labour Government with what happened under Lloyd George in 1920. Because the workers do not realise that Labour Government cannot serve their interests, the Labour Ministers are able to persuade them to accept quietly hardships that would stir up violent protest and resistance if a Tory Government were in power.

Conference not only overwhelmingly rejected the Communist plea for affiliation, but altered the constitution to rule out the affiliation of any political party not already affiliated. This is a formal recognition of the change that has taken place in the make-up of the Labour Party since 1918. In the early days, affiliated bodies, notably the I.L.P. and Fabians, provided many of the Executive Committee members and officials of the Party. Now the place of the affiliated outside political bodies has been taken by the local labour parties. In 1910 affiliated trade unions constituted 1,394,000 out of the total membership of 1,431,000. Now, with a Party membership of over 3,000,000, trade unions account for 2½  million and individual membership through local labour parties amounts to nearly 500,000. Although the trade unions still provide all but a relatively small part of the funds, they have lost their former predominating position on the Executive. In 1910 there were 11 elected trade union representatives on an executive committee of 15. Now the constitution provides for 12 trade union E.C. members out of a total of 27, the remaining 15 being nominees of local labour parties, except one who represents the outside affiliated parties. In none of the three Labour Governments have trade union officials held more than a minority of Cabinet posts, and it will be observed that when the trade unionist, Sir Ben Smith, resigned from the Ministry of Food his place was taken by Mr. Strachey, one of the Labour Party’s so-called intellectuals.

What has happened since 1918 is that the Labour Party has fully established itself as the heir of the Liberal Party, but in so doing has moved away from the old conception that it was first and foremost the party of the trade unions. It is safe to predict that the gulf between the Labour Government and the workers will widen. To the extent that the discontent of their members makes itself felt the trade unions will become more and more critical of the Labour Ministers and will voice their criticisms at Labour Party conferences. The Ministers will be lucky if they receive in succeeding years anything like the amount of approval shown at the Bournemouth Conference. The Communists will exploit the discontent and try to gain control of the trade unions here as they have already done with greater success on the Continent. In France, the reformist party, corresponding to the Labour Party, has, like the British Party, inherited the place once occupied by the Radicals, but it has not thereby become the governing party, because, in the meantime, it has lost control of the trade unions to the Communists. Léon Blum made a revealing statement on the French situation to the Bournemouth Conference.

“He said that on the Continent the Socialist principles for which they had always stood were now opposed by scarcely anyone. The action of the true Socialist parties had become most difficult because of two other parties claiming to be both Socialist and democratic, the Communists and the Christian Democrats.”

(Times, 14/6/46). 

Oscar Wilde once remarked “nothing succeeds like excess.” It might he said of Blum that nothing succeeds like moderation—but just at the moment of success, when ‘‘scarcely anyone” opposes what Blum all his life has preached, the success turns out to be a tragic and pathetic failure. If the French Party really preached Socialism they would he glorying in the fact that almost everyone had been won over to it. Instead they preached reformism and State capitalism, and now find that it turns bitter in their mouths. They taught the workers to believe in a fraudulent “Socialism” and now find that Catholics and Communists can do the same with even greater success in the way of vote-catching at elections. If events had not taken quite the same course in this country, at least not yet, no-one need doubt that the workers who have put their trust in Labourism will some day rue their error.

Blum, a visitor, appears from the published reports to have been the only speaker at the Conference who correctly described the position occupied by Labour Governments and the dangerous path they are treading. Like a spectre at the feast, he warned the revellers who had come to toast their victory that they have not destroyed capitalism.

“For 25 years I have studied how you can exercise governmental power within the framework of a capitalist society. I know how much its action must be limited by the continuance of the capitalist framework. I know that is true even when a party holds power, as you do, with an absolute majority. It may lead to confusion of thought on the exercise of power as a prelude to and a condition of social transformation. That confusion leads by iron logic to disappointment, and, indeed so long as the capitalist structure remains any Socialist government is condemned to disappoint some hopes.”

(Manchester Guardian, 14/6/46).

It is to he hoped that the delegates will remember Blum’s words when, a few years ahead, they are meeting to discover why the Labour Government failed.

The wrangle over Egypt (1946)

From the June 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let it first of all be made quite clear that in all the deliberations that have taken place, and will take place, over the evacuation of British troops from Egypt, the welfare of the Egyptian worker and peasant has never been an issue. Whether under the domination of British or Egyptian masters, they will not see much difference in their lot. Whether their rulers are British or Egyptian, they will still have to eke out a miserable existence; they will still have to labour from sunrise to sunset in their master’s fields; they will still be riddled with disease; in short, they will still be a subject class, ruthlessly and viciously exploited for profit.

What is, in fact, at issue in Egypt, as is quite openly admitted and taken for granted by both parties, is the preservation of the safety of British capitalism’s lines of communication through the Eastern Mediterranean. Opinions differ, however, as to the best means.

Said Mr. Anthony Eden, for the Conservatives, in the debate in the House of Commons: —

“His first complaint about the Prime Minister’s announcement at this time was that it gave the impression, by the manner in which the withdrawal of troops was referred to, that their purpose in Egypt was something other than it was-- namely, the Defence of the Canal Zone.”

(Times, 8/5/46.)

And Mr. Attlee, for the Labour Party, in the same debate:—

“The Government were as much concerned as anybody else with the security of the communications of the Commonwealth and Empire, with the security of the Canal, and with maintaining the best possible relations with Egypt and her continued alliance with this country, and it was precisely for those reasons that they were making the approach they were making.''

(Our Italics.) (Times, 8/5/46.)

What, then, is behind this, at first sight, rather sudden decision to withdraw troops from Egypt? The reasons are political and also military.

For many years past, the whole of the Middle East, of which Egypt is hut one part, has been the focal point of steadily expanding nationalistic feeling. During the past war, and in the period since, this nationalistic fervour has become even more intense. The recent outbursts in Egypt against British troops are an illustration of the feeling against the foreigner. Although still doing their utmost to retain as much influence as possible in the area, the capitalist Powers concerned have had to take note of this desire for independence.

That Mr. Herbert Morrison fully appreciates this is shown by the following quotation from his speech in the House of Commons: —

“If the British Government had told the Egyptian Government that they would give no undertaking about the withdrawal from Egyptian soil, the negotiations would not have gone on and then the British Government would have had to face certain consequences. There would be sharp antagonism on the part of the Egyptian Government and Parliament; almost certain disturbance and riots, possibly even revolution, and it might have led to British forces being attacked and having to defend themselves.”

(Times, ibid.)

Then there are military aspects that indicate the conceptions on which the new policy is based. The following statement is from an article in the Observer, (12/5/46) : —

”The Canal . . . . can he bombed and made unusable by aerial mining operations. Any Power with the use of air bases in the Eastern Mediterranean and a modern air force can reasonably hope to achieve this. The 10,000 British troops that the 1936 Treaty permits to be quartered in the Canal Zone are no defence against such attack The defence of the Canal itself is largely irrelevant. The vital area is the whole Middle East, with Palestine as its natural centre . . . Now that it is proposed that Egypt . . . . is to be militarily evacuated, there is only one part of the Middle East where the British have retained the right to keep troops: Palestine and the neighbouring State of Transjordan. It is my contention that this limited area can provide an adequate base for a Middle Eastern defence or police force. It has air bases which enable present-day transport aircraft to reach the Canal Zone in an hour, Cairo in less than two hours, and Baghdad in less than three. It has a port at Haifa capable of great development, and it has oil supplies in its immediate vicinity . . . ”

In short, the Labour Government and its advisers are willing to take troops out of Egypt because they believe they will be better placed elsewhere for the defence of the Middle East. Imperial aims have not been dropped, but merely modified. 

The Labour Party is not a Socialist party and was not elected with a mandate for Socialism. It must therefore of necessity administer affairs, whether domestic or foreign, within the framework of capitalism. In its domestic affairs it has already amply demonstrated to the capitalist class that, fundamentally, they have nothing to fear from its administration. In foreign affairs its policy has sometimes even dismayed some of its own members and, on the other hand, has met with warm approval from the Conservative Party. On the Egyptian issue both Parties are concerned with one aim—how best to preserve the security of communications in the Middle East. The Labour Party, no less than the Conservatives, has sought to safeguard the interests of British Capitalism.

Stan Hampson

Editorial: The Labour Party Drops Nationalisation. (1931)

Editorial from the May 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New “Socialism”

It is not amazing that the Labour Party should alter its programme—that has happened often—but it is amazing that the chief item in the programme should be quietly replaced, and that the membership not only do not protest, but appear to be unaware of the substitution. The one thing the Labour Party and the I.L.P. have stood for since their earliest days has been nationalisation. No formal statement has been made about dropping it, and certainly no Conference, either of the Labour Party or the I.L.P. has ever endorsed a change of policy, but we now have Mr. Herbert Morrison, Minister of Transport, and Mr. W. Graham, President of the Board of Trade, calmly stating that nationalisation has been abandoned in favour of public corporations under “business” management.

Mr. Graham, President of the Board of Trade, speaking at a Labour demonstration at Stirling on January 30th, 1931, appealed for the support of the Liberal Party on the ground that “the industrial problem is now so grave that the old divisions of parties become meaningless” (Times, Jan. 31st).

He remarked on the tendency towards the formation of trusts and said that Liberals had opposed the Labour Party’s proposals for nationalisation,

“because they usually regarded it as management from Whitehall. No one now makes such a proposal. I am convinced that in the leading industries, and in due course in others, this trust concentration must shade into public corporation. In short, we must make a business proposition of this economic transition.”

The Liberal News-Chronicle wrote approvingly of Mr. Graham’s speech and accepted it as evidence that the Labour Party “is painfully and somewhat confusedly ‘Liberalising’ its policy” (quoted in New Leader, Feb. 6th).

Mr. Morrison’s London Passenger Transport Bill proposes the grouping of London ‘buses, trams and tubes under the control of a board of five members who are to be “persons who have had wide experience, and have shown capacity, in industry, commerce or finance, or in the conduct of public affairs” (Part I, Clause 1, par. 2). They are to be appointed by the Minister of Transport after consultation with the Treasury, but are not to be under any effective control by him. The kind of people Mr. Morrison has in mind is shown by a. speech he made at a staff dinner of the London General Omnibus Company on March 26th, in which he paid tribute to the “ability, courage and initiative” with which Lord Ashfield had controlled the transport companies which he directs (News Chronicle, March 27th). In fact, the trump card Morrison played in the debate in the House was to read a letter from Lord Ashfield, expressing his agreement with the main principle of the Bill.

Mr. Morrison said (Hansard, March 23rd, col. 63) :—

“With the exception of the independent omnibus proprietors, who have very much misunderstood the Bill, and possibly the London County Council . . . none of the existing transport undertakings have really challenged the fundamental economic and administrative basis upon which this Bill proceeds.”

He quoted a Tory leaflet as follows :—”Mr. Morrison has sounded the death-knell of municipal Socialism and nationalisation.”

In the course of his speech Mr. Morrison, said :—

“I then considered, but not for long, whether the new concern should be operated by a State Department. I have a great admiration for the civil service . . . but I have come to the conclusion that the old idea of Departmental nationalisation in the ordinary sense of the term is not the appropriate way for a great business undertaking of this kind. Therefore, I rejected the idea of State Departmental management, and in that sense this Bill is not nineteenth century nationalisation. . . Part of the new thought is my own, but part came from the right hon, gentleman, the late Minister of Transport, and part from members of the Liberal Party in their famous publication ‘Britain’s Industrial Future.'”

At this point a Member of Parliament very pertinently interjected : “Is there any of your own ?”

We would like to ask since when Mr. Morrison’s new views have been the policy of the Labour Party. His statement does not square with the Labour Party’s opposition to the handing over of the Government cable and wireless services io the “Imperial and International Communications Co.” Does it foreshadow the denationalisation of the telegraphs, telephones and postal services ?

Industrial News, published by the Trades Union Congress, contained the following (March 24th) :—

“Nationalisation, under a State Department, Mr. Herbert Morrison said, was a 19th century conception, and he did not think a vast business undertaking of the kind would be appropriate for politicians to manage. The solution of the problem is to set up a Business Board, which is not a political body or a State Department, and will not even be responsible to the Minister for its day-to-day actions, though he would be, of course, answerable to Parliament, on matters of policy. Salaries, fees and allowances for the Board will be fixed by the Minister; the Board itself will appoint the appropriate officers for the management of the undertaking ; ‘and, indeed (said Mr. Morrison) we shall take over the officers and staffs of the existing transport undertakings.'”

Mr. E. F. Wise, of the I.L.P., described the Bill as being as nearly as possible “pure Socialism,” and approved the abandonment of the nationalisation schemes that have been the stock-in-trade of the Labour Party and I.L.P, all these years (Hansard, March 23rd, col. 117).

Our position is clear. We have always opposed State capitalism or nationalisation on the ground that it alters the form but not the substance of capitalist ownership and control. The capitalists continue to receive their property incomes on their investments, with the added security which Government guaranteed bonds have as compared with company shares. But we were always told by Labour Party defenders that “nationalisation is Socialism,” or, alternatively, that “nationalisation is an inevitable step towards Socialism.” Now the “inevitable” has been quietly dropped in favour of a new “inevitable” which Mr. Morrison has culled from the Liberals and Tories. The new capitalism is just as objectionable as the old, from a working-class standpoint.

One amusing consequence of the Bill is that the Tory capitalists who control the Common Council of the City of London are supporting Mr. Morrison (their interest, no doubt, being in the financial provisions of the scheme), while the Tories who control the London County Council (their chief interest being in the rates) are opposing municipal ownership. The Labour members on the L.C.C., who for years have told the workers to be proud of “their” municipal trams, are backing Morrison against the Tories (Star, Feb. 5th, and Daily Telegraph, April 1st).

The change of policy has been carried through so discreetly that even some of the Labour Party “intellectuals” have been caught napping, although they are notoriously quick at trimming to any new wind that blows. Professor Laski, who has of late given less attention to misrepresenting Marx in order to write popular potted biographies for Odham’s Daily Herald, dealt on April 4th with President Hoover, of the U.S.A. Laski usually has his ear very close to the ground, but on this occasion he was several weeks behind the times. While Morrison and his I.L.P. supporters were proclaiming the new creed of salvation through control by business men, Laski was writing that Hoover’s outlook is “pathetic” “because the creed that business men are the salvation of mankind has so completely broken down.”