50 Years Ago: A call to bolster capitalism (1995)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the election Sir Stafford Cripps stated, for the Labour Party, "the comfort of the people is the A.1 priority." Now he intends to set up a triple alliance — Trade Unions Employers and Government. — who will plan to bring "British competitive industries to the highest pitch of efficiency."—Daily Herald, September 10th, 1945. For "comfort”? No, the priority is the export trade. In his speech outlining the plan Cripps suggested that it will be difficult for people to realise that by going short now "they are in fact making sure of better and far more stable standards for the future.” What a stale feeble doctrine.' We will paraphrase it, "Put up with your poverty a little longer and shortly. —The Kingdom of Heaven." Really, Sir Stafford ought to be ashamed of himself. Isn’t he able to do better than this? Of course, this ruse has been used very successfully for decades. In 1931 the National Government used it and they obtained 14,000,000 votes. A slight variation in Germany was known as “guns before butter.' How amazing that a famous Labour leader should formulate "markets before butter,” or, what amounts to the same thing.

[From the front page article, 'A call to bolster capitalism: Cripps appeals to the workers ', Socialist Standard, November 1945.]

Sold Again — As Usual (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whatever party you have voted for in the election you have voted for the continuation of the present system of production for profit, with all the evils that spring from it. Now you can sit back and take what is coming to you. For the third time in less than ten years you have been called upon to vote in a General Election. What have you gained by voting? Nothing but what you always get—hard work, insufficient wages, insecurity and war. As far as you are concerned the world is in an even worse mess than when the Labour Government took office in 1945. Then you were promised better times, peace and security, but all of these have proved to be an illusion. Even the boasted "full employment" is only due to the destruction of the last war and the preparation for a greater war in the future.

In 1945 you hailed the end of hostilities with sighs of relief and the vain hope that, after the dark days, your wounds would heal and you would soon resume your old ways with some measure of security. The hope was short-lived. The smoke of battle had hardly drifted away before the world was embarked upon another feverish armaments race and rising prices and shortages hit you hard. The German ogre had disappeared only to be replaced by the Russian one, and others are waiting round the corner to take its place. The war clouds have gathered fast again and the two main political parties were united in asking your support for the means and the privations associated with another gigantic holocaust. The bereaved, the wounded and the dead have made their sacrifices in vain.

Surely it is time you faced the stark realities of the world you live in? Surely it is time you faced the problem of reshaping the world so fundamentally that insecurity, the hard drab struggle for existence and the horrors of war will no longer darken your horizon and blast your lives and those of your families?

What is the real source of all your troubles—the source which all the candidates in the election ignored?

The means to produce and distribute the things you need to-day are owned by one class, a property-owning class, the capitalist class. This class lives out of incomes derived from the investment of money in shares and bonds. Whether the means of production are State-owned, company-owned or privately owned, they are operated for the purpose of providing incomes for the class that lives on your backs. You, the working class, operate the means of production and distribution, and you do so in return for wages and salaries because you are compelled to sell your power to work in order to obtain the means to live. You must find employment in order to live, but the owners of the means of production can live, and live luxuriously, without working. Their incomes come out of what you produce above what it costs to enable you to live and bring up a family. It is therefore to the interest of the capitalist to make you work as hard as possible for as low a wage as they can force you to accept. Hence the industrial strife, the class struggle, that breaks out between you and your employers; they try to depress your conditions, you try to raise them. Hence the united Tory and Labour exhortations to you, in their manifestoes, for increased production at a time when industrial profits are higher than they have ever been.

After nearly seven years of Labour Government they tell you in their manifesto, that "Half of Britain’s wealth is still owned by 1 per cent, of the population.” The Tories promise no more than to “do our best. . . . to make things better all round, but we do not blind ourselves to the difficulties that have to be overcome, or the time that will be required to bring us back to our rightful position in the world, and to revive the vigour of our national life and impulse.” In other words to revive the hungry twenties and thirties, when they were in power, and the conditions that led to the second world war. .

Production of goods for profit is the mainspring of the world to-day. Tory, Labour, Communist alike accept this as inevitable. And yet while the profit motive lasts there is no hope of amelioration for you. It defeats all good intentions and drives the world headlong to disaster after disaster.

The goods you produce must be sold by the capitalist, or the organisation working for him, before be can reap his surplus. Out of this comes the struggle for markets, for raw materials, for trade routes, and the periodical crises and wars. Since the cessation of hostilities on a grand scale these struggles for markets and raw materials have brought about new international alignments, the flourishing of secret diplomacy, many lesser wars and, lately, the war in Korea and the threat of war in Persia and Egypt. So long as production for profit lasts the trade rivalries and the wars associated with them cannot be avoided, no matter what government holds the reigns of power nor what promises they make.

Capitalism has unwittingly made a considerable contribution towards paving the way to Socialism. It has made the world one vast whole in which each section is dependent upon the others. The spread of modern conditions to all parts of the world is rapidly bringing the people of the world up to one general level of development; everywhere reproducing the conditions in which there is on one side a relatively small group of privileged property owners and on the other side, confronting them, the large mass of unprivileged and propertyless. Capitalist class ownership of the means of production has moved parallel with the spread of modern machines, modern methods and modem ideas. In face of this development the barriers between Eastern and Western culture have broken down; primitive customs and primitive ways are fast dissolving, bringing into line fresh groups of wage-workers with eyes opening to the evils of the present and the possibilities of the future.

Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. Its establishment will mean the abolition of all the antagonisms and miseries rooted in the class ownership of the means of living, and the dissolving of the disharmonies that hinder the enjoyment by all of the people of the world of the full fruitfulness of world unity and cooperative labour. Socialism is a system of society in which all that is in and on the earth will be the common heritage, and at the free disposal of all mankind. There will be no privileged classes and there will be no industrial antagonisms. Each will give according to his capacities and take according to his needs. The interest of each will be the interest of all because all will be working in harmony, and under the best conditions human ingenuity can devise, for the purpose of providing as full and comfortable a life as humanity can secure.

Surely you can see that this is directly in your interests and that, therefore, the case put forward by the socialist is worthy of serious examination. You are the people who can bring about this social change, but you cannot bring it about unless you understand it, realise what it involves and how it can be accomplished. Socialism cannot be brought into bring by a few people on behalf of the many. Any attempts, in that direction can only lead to confusion and disaster. Those who establish it must have cleared from their minds the prejudices that to-day set people at loggerheads; the prejudices of race, colour and class that set groups against each other. They must recognise the fundamental unity of all as members of one world-wide human family. Having arrived at this outlook they must then organise together to remove the privileged class from the seat of power—the control of the governmental machinery.

Parliament is the centre of government. It makes and enforces the law, and it does so on the basis of a society organised to serve the interests of a privileged group of capitalist property owners. In order to establish Socialism it is necessary to take away from the capitalist class their control of governmental power. This can only be accomplished by sending socialist delegates to parliament for this purpose alone. Parliamentary elections offer you this opportunity providing there are a sufficient number of you, who understand and want Socialism, to secure the return of your delegates. Up to the present this support has been sadly lacking.

We put forward a socialist candidate in the 1945 General Election and two in the last General Election. On the present occasion we have not been able to put forward any candidates. While this does not in any way affect our outlook or our determination to contest elections, it does mean, unfortunately, that the socialist position was not expressed by any candidate in the election, regardless of what name-tag he or his opponents fixed upon him. The result of the election simply decided which party will run Capitalism, with its accompanying miseries, for the next term. It may even be that they will decide to pool their resources and form a coalition government. In any event it is of no consequence to you which of them was victorious because their programmes are fundamentally identical; they are all committed to the continuance of the present social order, with its privileged class, its production for profit and its promise of greater and more devastating wars in future.

You have voted the Liberal Party into power and it brought you insecurity, misery and war; you have voted the Tory Party into power and you got the same thing; you have voted the Labour Party into power and fared no better; the Communist Party cannot offer you any fundamental change—their alternative is direction of the same system from the Kremlin instead of Westminster. If you voted for any candidate in the election you only voted for the continuance of the system that enslaves you, deprives you of the full fruits of your labour and prepares the means to send you to the shambles.

You will be called upon to vote again in the future, perhaps before long. Make up your mind now to give the position we have outlined your serious consideration. Are you content to remain beasts of burden, doomed to labour obediently for the enrichment of those who live like leeches on your backs, or will you rise from your knees and order your own lives in harmony with your fellows for your mutual benefit? Upon your understanding and action depends the possibility of a world free from the evils that afflict the world of to-day. The responsibility is yours, you cannot pass it on; you shirk it at your peril!

Gilmac.

Confusion at the T.U.C. (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we were very young the gramophone was in its early stages. It was called the phonograph, it had tubular records instead of discs and each record, when played, ended with the spoken words, “Edison Bell Record.” We were reminded of this when we read the reports of the speeches at this year’s Trade Union Congress. For a number of years, since the end of the last war, in fact, the speeches of the “ big shots” at the T.U.C. have followed the same theme. So marked is the repetition that, as we concluded the report of each speech we felt like saying, “ Edison Bell Record.” Again, this year, as in previous years, unofficial strikes were denounced, support for the Government’s armament programme was urged, the Communists were castigated, increased production was demanded, continued austerity was forecast, and workers were warned to be moderate with their demands for wage increases.

The 83rd Trade Union Congress was held in Blackpool early in September this year and was attended by 917 delegates. The president, Mr. Alfred Roberts, in his opening speech, said nothing original. One has the impression that he read the speeches of his recent predecessors in the presidency and rehashed them with a slight variation of emphasis.

There was a minor revolt on the first day of the Congress when delegates voted for a reduction in the time allowed for speeches from members of the General Council and from fraternal delegates, thus allowing more time for general discussion. But, on the second day, following a bombardment from the General Secretary, Sir Vincent Tewson, the delegates rescinded the decision and gave back to the General Council the privilege of longer speeches. Sir Vincent said that the Council members needed the time to acquaint the delegates with all the facts before they made decisions. He did not give many facts in his speech on that occasion but hinted mysteriously of “certain people who cause the trouble” and “arrangements that took place outside the conference.”

The debate on foreign affairs developed into a battle between groups of delegates and the General Council,—”the floor against the platform,” as Sir Vincent had previously expressed it There were a number of resolutions, including one of over 250 words, but the General Council ruled the roost and its critics were defeated. The resolutions were a series of protests and appeals. A protest against the resumption of diplomatic relations with Spain, an appeal to abolish the atom bomb, a protest against the re-arming of Germany and Japan, an appeal for trade with Russia, and so on.

Of course, Sir Arthur Deakin—sorry, Mr. Arthur Deakin was there. We apologise for that slip of the pen. We are so used to having our Trade Union chiefs “honoured” by the representatives of the capitalist class that we were a little premature and lumped Mr. Deakin with his peers, Lord Citrine, Sir William Lawther and Sir Vincent Tewson. As Mr. Deakin has been elected president of the T.U.C. for the ensuing year he becomes an odds-on favourite for the next honours list. He treated Congress to his usual tirade against “reds” and Communists to the delight of some of the delegates who baited him. His anti-red mania has become a joke amongst Trade Unionists.

A new gang of critics of the General Council were present at the T.U.C. this year—the supporters of Mr. Bevan. These Bevan-ites were greatly discomforted by the support they received from Communists and by the insistence of some of the speakers on confusing them with the Communists. The confusion is easily understandable. The criticisms of both groups were so trivial 'and so far removed from the fundamental problems of the working class that neither of them is deserving of even the doubtful compliment of being termed rebellious.

The visiting high-light to this years Congress was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell. Prior to Mr. Gaitskell’s visit, some members of the General Council had reluctantly admitted the need for wage increases. But the Chancellor gave a warning. He said:—

“The cost of living here will go on rising in 1952, even with stable world prices, if we go on pushing up our costs through further substantial rises in wages and salaries. That is what we must avoid." (Manchester Guardian, 5.9.1951.)

He was full of warnings. He warned of the need to cut home production in favour of exports, he warned of the impact of rising prices on “our” balance of payments and he warned that fear and inertia was making our lives “thinner, poorer, harder and more burdensome than need be.” There you are, fellow workers, do not be frightened, work harder, cast off inertia and life will be fatter, richer, softer and oh, so cosy. Or will it?

The Chancellor talked of profits and dividends. He said that the total profit income of companies and public corporations had risen just over two and a half times between 1938 and 1950. He continued by claiming that the profits were taxed so that dividends had not risen so much and he concluded that part of his address by saying that he could not state that high profits had been an important cause of the rise in the cost of living. Naturally, Mr. Gaitskell, naturally! Such a statement would destroy the time-worn argument. that it is wage increases that cause rises in the cost of living.

The real plum in Mr. Gaitskell’s address, the real juicy tit-bit, came when he referred to the need for a more even distribution of property. To achieve this even distribution he suggested, ,

“. . .  some form of partnership by the workers in individual firms or industry through the distribution of bonus shares reflecting the rise in undistributed profits." (The Times. 6.9.1951.)

This is magnificent. It is novel. It is unique. Such acumen, such wisdom. A Daniel come to judgment. Yea, a Daniel. The Conservative Party has been talking about a “property owning democracy” for years; the Liberal Party has made co-partnership in industry its main plank for the past three years. Now comes Mr. Gaitskell to join hands with them in proclaiming this panacea for working class ills.

Co-partnership in industry has been tried in a number of fields at various times. The most noteworthy were the schemes of the gas companies and Lever Brothers at Port Sunlight. The object of such schemes is not to re-distribute property, but to encourage the workers to take a keener interest in the firm or undertaking whch employs them. They are expected to work harder to produce greater profits so that their share is larger. They are expected to do away with all restrictive practices, not to strike, to accept a minimum wage, in fact to tolerate all sorts of things in the interest of the undertaking in which they are co-partners. The share that the worker gets is so infinitesimal that it does not, or has not up to now, had the desired effect. The gas companies were probably the most generous in their co-partnership scheme. It is claimed that they devoted half the invested capital to profit sharing. When one considers the number of employees amongst whom this part of the profit had to be shared, and the much smaller number of investors who shared the other part, it gives a picture of the worth of such schemes to the workers. The benefit is to the employer who can use the idea of the co-partner to discipline his employees.

The Trade Unions in this country have never shown an interest in co-partnership schemes and Mr. Gaitskell had a cheek to make such a suggestion at the T.U.C. But there, fools step in where angels fear to tread. Trade Unionists who can swallow die rubbish that is handed out them by the Labour Party supporters may also fall for this idea. All it amounts to is an incentive bonus for greater production and a means to check wage increase demands.

Another screwy batch of proposals came from the General Secretary when he put forward a six point plan for peace.

His plan was that Russia should adopt the following six points,

1. Put the last touches to the Austrian treaty.
2. Let up on the people of Berlin.
3. Return the prisoners of war still held six years after the end of hostilities.
4. Wind up the Cominform.
5. Co-operate actively within the United Nations and cease making a fetish of the veto.
6. Co-operate in many specialised agencies of the United Nations—on economic, health and education issues and the I.L.O. (Daily Herald, 6.9.1951.)

All of which the Russian Government could agree to do and still declare war the following day, or have war declared against it the same day. Such tickling of the war problem is pitiful. There are numbers of workers who have not achieved Sir Vincent’s exalted position, who could tell him that the cause of war is deeper than these trimmings, that the conditions that his six points seek to remedy are the result of war, not the cause, and that to eradicate war from society the cause must be dug out by the roots.

The Congress went through its week arguing about industrial illnesses, children employed on the stage, bulk purchasing by the Government, National Health Insurance spectacles, the film industry, education of trade unionists, equal pay for women, and concluded its business with the usual votes of thanks and the singing of “Auld Lang Syne.” No. Not “The International” nor “The Red Flag,” just “Auld Lang Syne.”

Having appealed, urged and protested for a week the delegates went their several ways. The General Council? We hope they will not be bothered by ghosts from the 1926 or other bygone General Councils. What a set-up in the Trade Union world. If the workers continue to support Labour Government, the sting is taken out of their trade union struggles; if they use their unions as fighting machines they have to fight Labour Government. The solution to this queer contradiction is not to be found in Mr. Gaitskell’s proposal to re-distribute property but in the Socialist proposition to abolish private ownership in the means of production, and to make land, mines, factories, workshops, ships, road transport, air transport, warehouses, docks, garages—all the means of production—free of ownership, either by individuals, companies, public undertakings or the state.

W. Waters

Sob story (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Or “Swings and Roundabouts"

In the harbour of Monaco, millionaire Sir Bernard Docker came ashore from his magnificent yacht “Shemara” to talk to Sunday Express representative Bernard Harris (2.9.51) on the subject of rich men's taxes. The millionaire is an irate and indignant man, sobbing into his champagne; the sour milk of human unkindness is curdling his digestive juices. The reason in a nutshell is the Labour Party’s latest manifesto which declares “Further taxation must be levied on the small minority who draw large unearned incomes from private fortunes.” Sir Bernard says, “No one in Britain has got any real income now,” which boils down to the fact that under the present system of taxation no man is left with more than £6,000 per annum, To achieve this amount he must have a gross income of £100,000. To a millionaire this is mere chickenfeed, and you cannot possibly run a large yacht (crew of 32) and afford a town and country house, so what are you to do? The answer is, painful though it may be, you must draw on your capital. Thus the latest threat of further taxation hits where it hurts. “It is ludicrous” (wails Sir Bernard) “to think that you will get happiness and prosperity by forcing everybody down to a dead level of uniformity. Every man in Britain should have the opportunity to make all the money in the world. For in the creation of wealth for themselves men create work and good living standards for others.” His wrath is then directed against “this socialist talk of the rich living on the labour of others.” (For socialists read Labour). “It is complete ballyhoo. What have they ever created? Everything they have touched, including their nationalisation projects, has been a complete flop.” We would hesitate to class nationalisation as “creative ” but would like to put on record that all the vast wealth which Sir Bernard owns (including what was left by his Dad) has been and still is, created by the workers. There are only three ways of getting a living in this sorry world, by working, begging or stealing. We are not suggesting that Sir Bernard goes out and robs a bank when he wants some spending money. The fact is that capital invested in industry derives huge profits in the form of dividends from the unpaid labour of the workers. Capitalists the world over acquired and are acquiring their enormous wealth from the surplus labour put in by the workers over and above their weekly wage. That is where the robbery takes place.

The Sunday Express tells us that the “philosophy of this forthright millionaire is summed up as follows by a big American company:—

“America became great by letting Americans become great, giving every man, woman and child a chance to go as far as his energy, productivity and ambition let him. Destroy opportunity for profit and you destroy ambition; destroy ambition and you destroy America.” 

Sir Bernard maintains that the above portentous pronouncement “goes” for Britain as well as America. He should not lose sight of the fact though that Docker Senior gave him a pretty good start, building up investments in a powerful industrial group of companies in the Midlands. However, to quote his own words, “It is ludicrous to force everybody down to a dead level of uniformity.” Sir Bernard may sigh about the Labour Government “soaking” the rich, but he should bear in mind that among other things there is an outsized rearmament bill to be paid, not to mention Korea and Malaya, and as all wars are waged on behalf of the class he represents he must expect to pay the piper when the system he supports calls the tune.

We cannot close, however, without giving him one crumb of comfort.

Perchance when the rearmament programme gets cracking Sir Bernard will gain on the “roundabouts” of the Birmingham Small Arms Company a little of what he loses on the “swings” of taxation. Here's hoping, anyway. It's putrid being down to your last yacht.

F. M. Robins

Editorial: Slimmer shop assistants (1949)

Editorial from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the war, when the Labour Party was in opposition, socialists were saying that a Labour Government would have to behave very much like any other government trying to make Capitalism work. Members of the Labour Party did not believe this, and said so. They told us that the idea was absurd and a wicked slander on the Labour Party. They simply could not imagine that a government of their own admired leaders would one day declare itself against wage increases, knowingly create unemployment, introduce peace-time conscription and use troops in strikes. But now all these things have happened.

On July 28th of this year, Mr. Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, announced that the prices that shops are permitted to charge for utility clothes, boots, sheets, curtains, etc., would be reduced by 5 per cent. It doubtless pleased the majority of workers and displeased the shopkeepers, but in the uproar that it caused among the latter, one of its consequences received little attention. Mr. Wilson explained that it was expected to lead to “smaller staffs,” and added: —

“If the effect of this measure is some slight reduction of staff in distribution, I think it will be useful. (“Hansard,” 28/7/49, Col. 2694.)

The same day, in an interview with the Press, he used a different phrase which the Daily Herald (29/7/49) reported as: —

“This reduction in prices may lead to some slimming of staffs.”

We may guess why he did not want to call it creating unemployment, but elderly shop assistants pushed out of work may not see the point of Mr. Wilson’s remark that the loss of their jobs is useful.

We are not accusing Mr. Wilson of wanting to create unemployment for its own sake, and no doubt he dismisses any twinge of conscience with the thought that these unemployed can get some sort of work in some other trade. What we are doing, however, is to remind Labour Party supporters that this is one of the things that goes with the attempt to run capitalism and they are just as much responsible as Mr. Wilson. At the same time that the President of the Board of Trade is cutting prices and “slimming” the shop assistants his colleague, the Minister of Labour, has refused to ratify Wages Council decisions in favour of increased wages for shop assistants.

Increases of about 5 per cent, had been recommended by Wages Councils for the distributive trades and sent to the Minister for ratification. Instead, according to reports in the Press (Daily Mail, 8th and 23rd July and Daily Worker, 23rd July) he has sent them back and asked that the proposed increases be modified before he will again consider them.

Notes by the Way: More Millionaires (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

More Millionaires

The Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for the year ended 31st March, 1948, gives the usual figures showing ranges of income. As reported in the Press (Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, 29/7/49) there were in 1947-8, 70 people who, after paying income tax and surtax, were left with over £6,000 a year, 3,430 between £4,000 and £6,000, 58,500 between £2,000 and £4,000, and 320,000 between £1,000 and £2,000.

The Daily Mail (29/7/49) makes an estimate of the number of millionaires based on the assumption that those people whose income during the year was £50,000 or more (before paying tax) are in the millionaire group. The Mail's comment is that “millionaires . . . have increased since the war." It will, however, be seen from the figures that they arc fewer than before the war: —

1938-9 374

1944-5 251

1945-6 242

1946-7 282

The Mail also brings out that during 1947-8 there were 15,597 estates passing at death whose net value was between £10,000 and £100,000 and that this was an increase of more than 6,000 since 1938-9.

Cotton Workers Stood Off

The News Chronicle (13/8/49)-published the following : —

“Two Lancashire cotton mills in the Bolton area closed down yesterday and a third partially closed because of a shortage of orders.

“Managements said this was due to foreign buyers holding back their orders until after the Washington conference in September to see if the £ was going to be devalued.

“The mills are Wallwork and Sussum (1918), Ltd., of Famworth, employing 70 workers, and Ashworth, Hadwen and Co., Ltd., Grecian Mills, Farnworth, employing 25. Forty workers in the reeling department of Elliott and Pyatt, Ltd., Horwich, have also been stopped.

“It is expected that the closings will be only temporary, but it is feared that other mills in the district might lay off operations during the next few weeks. A Cotton Board statement points out that the sellers’ market under which the industry has been working for so long is being modified in various parts of the world.”

The Daily Worker (13/8/49) reported Mr. R. Gregson, secretary of the Bolton Operative Cotton Spinners' Association, as saying that efforts were to be made to appeal to the Cotton Board in the matter. He added: —

“Their appeals for production are likely to lose weight if firms are going to close down, leaving workers to walk the streets.”

What Capitalism does to Planning

Under the heading “Bob Cole Starts Big Oil Hustle,” the City Editor of the Daily Express (15/8/49) reports that Mr. Cole is busy on the big Anglo-American Oil Co.’s refining plant at Fawley on Southampton Water. It is to cost £37 million and should be finished by 1952, and Mr. Cole says he means “ to be on time.”

In the same column is another news item about oil.

“Another 250,000 tons of U.S. oil tankers were laid up last month, making 1½ million tons now idle there. Reasons are the dollar shortage and a 40 per cent. drop in freights since January."

At the end of the war we were told that the world was short of oil, short of oil tankers and short of refineries (a film on the subject is still going the rounds). Recently American oil production has been cut because demand had been overtaken and prices were falling. Now the busy shipyard workers have produced too many tankers for present traffic. Mr. Cole may know all about building refineries, but neither he nor his employers can be certain that 1952 will not find the world too well supplied with refineries if that happens to coincide with a major slump.

Nicer Wars

All through the history of civilisation there have been well-meaning people trying to limit the horrors of war by securing the agreement of both sides to outlaw certain new weapons or practices regarded as particularly inhuman. They did not have much success. While the badly armed Powers would agree, the Powers which thought themselves strongest in the possession of the latest weapons naturally would not give up their advantage. Russia at the Geneva Red Cross Conference has been following the historically familiar tactic. Their delegation moved a resolution to ban atom bombs and chemical warfare on the ground that they are “incompatible with the elementary principles of international law and contrary to the honour and conscience of peoples.” (Manchester Guardian, 10/8/49.)

In the meantime Russia, like the rest of the capitalist Powers, is busy perfecting atom bombs and methods of chemical warfare, and if they succeed in getting ahead of their rivals it will be the latter which will be moving similar resolutions.

The whole idea of humanising war is ludicrous. It means in effect—“Wc don’t mind being killed or maimed or starved, but for heaven’s sake let it be done decently according to the rules.”

The aim of the working class should be the abolition of war, but that requires the abolition of Capitalism, in Russia no less than in Britain and U.S.A.

The Dockers’ Defence Committee

According to the Press the unofficial committee that handled recent strikes of dockers has renamed itself “The London Port Workers’ Defence Committee,” with the aim among others of getting rid of Lord Ammon from the Dock Labour Board. It is certain that some, probably most, of those who support the Committee voted to put the Labour Government in power, believe in nationalisation, and cherished the notion that Capitalism with Labour Government nominees replacing capitalist boards of directors, would bring about a fundamental change in the position of the workers. There is therefore something instructive in the name “Defence Committee.” Against whom are the dockers seeking to defend themselves? Answer: against the monster of State Capitalism. Who helped to create the monster? Answer: the dockers. And what should they now do about it? The first step is to recognise that Socialism is the only hope of the working class and nationalisation has nothing in common with Socialism.

And to make the Socialist position perfectly clear let us add for the benefit of any Communists who may also be interested in the Defence Committee that if they were in Russia and tried to form such a Committee to defend themselves against the Russian version of State Capitalism, they would get short shrift. 

What the “ Daily Worker ” Suppresses

Following the publication by the British Government of documents on the forced labour camps in Russia, the Daily Worker (25/7/49) published an evasive denial under the heading “The ‘Forced Labour' Myth,” mainly based on the argument that “corrective labour” is the punishment in the Soviet Union “which corresponds to imprisonment in this country.”

To start with, this line of defence tells us a lot about the mentality of the British Communists. Their lying claim is that there is Socialism in Russia, but as soon as they are met with charges about the Russian Paradise that they cannot entirely ignore, their defence is to assure us that Russia is no worse than capitalist Britain or capitalist U.S.A.!

Secondly when they quote the regulation that forbids the infliction of physical suffering on the inmates of the prison camps they should look up the Webb’s “Soviet Communism” for a description of some of the brutalities perpetrated in these camps in the years before the war. The book is one they sell themselves.

Thirdly the Communists avoid the very important aspect of what constitutes a “law breaker” in Russia. Under Russian law anyone who tried to form a party corresponding to the S.P.G.B. or the Labour Party or the Liberal Party or any other Party opposed to the Communist Party is a law breaker, and according to the Russian criminal code can find himself despatched to such a camp, with or without trial.

The Holidays of Ministers and Miners

The Sunday Express (31/7/49) put over a piece of typical opposition propaganda by publishing a list of Ministers going abroad for their holidays and suggesting that they should not do this at a time when “the most serious economic crisis in our history will be developing steadily in gravity.” It is only necessary to note the heading “Ministers go where the going is good” and to see how the list was compiled to guess that the Sunday Express also hoped to stir up some resentment in the minds of those less fortunate. Here is the list: —

• The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, is resting in the best suite in a luxury hotel at Evian, in France, where, by the courtesy of the management on request from London, he has been granted a cut rate on the usual terms.
• The Health Minister, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, is enjoying the sunshine and good food of Italy, with his wife, as a guest of the Italian Government.
• The Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, is leaving on a yachting cruise down the French coast. The Lord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison, is reported to be planning a three weeks’ holiday in the South of France.
• The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Harold Wilson, is beginning a motor-car tour of France.
• The Secretary for Overseas Trade, Mr. A. G. Bottom- ley, is off in a few days to Switzerland.
• The Minister of Pensions, Mr. H. A. Marquand, is bound for France via the Channel Islands.
• The Minister of Civil Aviation, Lord Pakenham, goes to Eire as guest of Eire’s Air Lines.

Ministers have shown on occasion that they resent attacks on them of the kind here used by the Sunday Express and it is indeed a piece of cheek for one defender of capitalist inequality to attack others. But Socialists certainly are entitled to ask the Labour Ministers how, at a time when they urge austerity on the workers on the ground of the serious condition of the country, they defend their own relatively privileged position. What has happened to their ancient propaganda in favour of equality and fair shares for all?

Many workers now have a week’s paid holiday a year, some have two weeks, and a smaller number more than two weeks. But in 1946 the T.U.C. put in a plea for three weeks for everybody, and Mr. Bevin in 1943 said he “ could foresee a time when industry will benefit by giving workers four weeks’ holiday with pay each year.” (Daily Herald, 22/7/43.)

But at the present time the miners who have a week want more, and their claim has so far been refused. And the Industrial Coal Consumers’ Council has just reported to the Minister of Fuel: “We should view with dismay any decision in regard to hours of work or holidays which would have the effect of restricting further the barely sufficient supply of coal available.” (Daily Express, 29/7/49.)

As we hear so often from Labour Ministers the argument that the undermanned industries must be made more attractive in order to get more workers, and as there is a shortage of miners, but certainly no shortage of people wanting to be Ministers, why doesn’t the Cabinet set a really persuasive example by cutting its own pay and holidays in order to spare a bit more for the miners?

An Admission by Mr. Shinwell

Mr. Shinwell, Minister for War, has been forecasting the result of the next election.

“I am convinced that Labour will be returned to power at the next election, with a smaller majority perhaps, but with a working majority. Then we shall be all right for another five years, and the country will never be governed by the Tories.” (Daily Herald, 1/8/49.)

Mr. Shinwell has involved himself here in something of a tangle. If the Labour Government is returned, he says, “we shall be all right for another five years.” Whom does he mean by that “we”? Is it the Ministers who will be all right? Obviously Mr. Shinwell did not mean to say that. Is it then the workers who will be all right for another five years? Are we then asked to believe that the workers are all right now? If so why the unofficial strikes? And above all, if the workers are all right now, why does Mr. Shinwell expect the Labour Party to get fewer votes at the next election? And if one five years makes some voters turn against the Labour Government surely another five years would make more turn against Labour Government? Why then does he think that the Labour Government will go on for ever?

Before we leave Mr. Shinwell’s speech, a Herald summary of another part of it deserves notice. The Herald reports:

“Tories do not want power, but would like a coalition so that Labour could handle the trade unions and do the job they cannot manage themselves.”

We suggest a disturbing thought for Mr. Shinwell to contemplate. Some day the workers will wake up and refuse to be “managed” by the Labour Party managers of Capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Daily Herald” Leaves Something Out

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Conservative, Bristol West): ” . . .  I do not know whether hon. Members noticed a very curious omission only the other day. They will remember, I expect, as it is not very long ago, a little incident which took place on 20th July, when Lord Ammon, who had had a little difference with the Government the day before, made a statement in which he said that the Government had gone crazy. That was on the morning of the 20th. I should have thought that was of considerable news value. It is unusual for a Chief Whip to say things like that, whatever he may think. I am sure the Patronage Secretary will agree with me. It was not unimportant. It was important enough to ensure Lord Ammon the sack within 24 hours. Yet, if we look at the issue of the Daily Herald for 21st July, we shall not find any reference whatsoever to the statement by Lord Ammon.” (Royal Commission on the Press, 28/7/49.)

A Labour Minister on Nationalisation

Mr. Gaitskell (Minister of Fuel and Power): “ . . . First of all, the principle is perfectly clear: nationalised boards must be non-party in character and behaviour. We are all agreed about that, on all sides of the House. They must not take sides for or against any political party, whether it is the Government or the Opposition or, indeed, any other party. That has always been recognised by the Government and by the National Coal Board.” (Debate on Fuel and Power, 26/7/49.)

And Another Labourite on Trade Unions

Mr. Awbery (Labour, Bristol Central): ” . . . The trade union movement and its machinery was established 50 or 60 years ago to deal with circumstances and conditions which existed at that time. I feel that it has outgrown these circumstances and conditions, and that it is necessary for the movement to re-design its organisation to provide for the rapid changes that have taken place during the past few years. There is need for the men in the trade union movement to exercise self-discipline; that is one of the things which must be learned. Discipline shown by men themselves is more powerful than when it is imposed from outside. I appeal to the dockers and other members of the trade unions to exercise this self-discipline. (London Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

A Capitalist’s Viewpoint

Sir A. Gridley (Conservative, Stockport): “ . . .  I and others like me, as I have said, are very much concerned with the amount of unrest which exists in so many industries of this country at the present time. Not only are Ministers gravely concerned, but I believe that leaders in the T.U.C. are as anxious about it, and I am quite sure that many representative employers are equally concerned. What we want in the grave crisis which confronts us is peace in our time, if I may use that old phrase. We do not want a kind of disturbance like that of the London dockers going on, which is such a disaster to the nation, to employees and to managements. Those of us who have had materials lying in ships in London docks in these last few weeks know full well the consequences of that, because we have not been able to send our products to dollar and other countries. It is in the national interest that we should get together if we can.” (London Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

London—Russian Version

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): ". . . First, I would quote this broadcast by Moscow Radio of an article which appeared in Pravda on 13th July by the well-known commentator, M. Zaslavsky. He commented upon a speech by the Prime Minister in which Fascist and Communist disturbances in London were mentioned. He said:

“In Britain, the Fascist cut-throats, hooligans and bandits, the adherents of Hitler, organised a demonstration against democracy. . . . They were well guarded by the police, but the honest workers who came out into the streets to protest against the instigators of a new war and the revival of Fascism were beaten up, thrown into police torture chambers, tried and imprisoned. Such all-powerful, arbitrary police action is impossible and unthinkable in a true democratic State. The workers were making preparations for the peaceful celebration of international May Day, but the Government said ‘ No ' and the police transformed the town ”

— that is, London— .

“into an armed camp. Armoured cars assembled in front of the workers’ districts. Lines of police waited in full military preparedness. Mothers hid their children so that they should not fall before the merciless bullets of the police of the enemies.” (Jamming of B.B.C. Broadcasts by Russians, 30/7/49.)

[Incidentally, not one word of reference to this Debate appeared in the columns of the Daily Worker.]

Worthy of Record

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): ”. . .  I think I ought first to express the thanks of the community, and those of the Government and the House also, to the troops for the way in which they undertook the duties imposed upon them, not only for their actual service but for the cheerfulness with which they undertook it.” (The Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

Taunt from a Tory

Earl Winterton (Conservative, Horsham): “In view of the difficulty of training the Army at the present time and of the frequency with which troops have been used in the last year or so in this and similar strikes, will the right hon. Gentleman consider in future adopting the alternative method of calling for civilian volunteers, after a clarion call by the Minister of Labour, singing, for example, ‘ The Red Flag ' ”? (Question Time, 26/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Something for the troops (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The overrunning of further large areas of China by so-called “Communists” has been causing increasing worry to the British capitalist class, particularly to those with economic interests in the Far East. The Labour Government, acting in precisely the same way as a Conservative Government would have done, has taken steps to deal with the situation, one of which has been to send troop reinforcements to Hong-Kong.

We do not know what oratory the troops were treated to before they embarked for the other side of the world, nor, apart from a natural reluctance to leave home, what they themselves thought of the business. However, whether they were regaled with high-sounding speeches or not, the Hong-Kong Government decided to give them a message all its own.

“Why are we here? ” asks the message (the “we” refers to the troops), and proceeds to give an answer taking up 4,000 words. It need not have lasted anything like so long—it says it all in one paragraph.

“There are two main reasons why you have been called upon to defend Hong-Kong in the present disturbed times. The first is that we have obligations which cannot honourably be overlooked or renounced. The second, and this is perhaps of immediate concern to the people of Britain, is because it is very much to our economic interest to do so. . . . The change which is beginning now in Asia is so immense that it is difficult to appreciate what it will mean to us commercially.” (Manchester Guardian, 16/8/49.)

This sort of talk, of course, does not appeal to the Manchester Guardian at all. “Soldiers,” it says with truth, “do not respond to the kind of appeal in the second part of this ‘message.' ” Warming to its theme of trying to undo the damage caused by the over-honesty of the Hong-Kong Government, though with not much success, it continues: —

“Actually our reason for defending it is not chiefly economic. We cannot abandon Hong-Kong because to do so would mean a great increase in the swelling Communist pressure on South-east Asia. The defence of Hong-Kong at this stage is part of the move to form a line behind which there can be built up a free world of national States in South Asia.”

Whether the Guardian prefers to argue that the importance of Hong-Kong is strategic as well as economic does not really matter. It is most probably right. What either statement shows conclusively is that British workers have been sent to Hong-Kong to defend the interests of British capitalism, whether expressed locally in Hong-Kong, or, more generally, throughout the whole of the Far East.

Stan Hampson

Twice-told tales (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the worker has “responded magnificently” to Government appeals for greater production. Since the start of the drive in 1945, production has increased so much that a few weeks ago Sir Stafford Cripps was pleased to tell us we are now creating more wealth than at any time in our history.

As always, under Capitalism, however, there is a “but” attached to the “good news.” It is this: In order to reach the “era of prosperity,” we must now produce at lower cost and compete successfully in a buyer’s market. We must “go easy” on wage claims, work harder and leave everything else to the wisdom of our “leaders.”

That story has an old familiar ring. After the 1914-18 war, the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Parties were spinning the same yarn—you needn’t “ask your Dad,” the information is in any history book.

The situation in 1945 differed slightly, of course, as at that time the Communist Party was also contributing to the clarion call for “More production, “ Export or Die,” etc., etc. Indeed, it continued to do so until the line-up of British with American Capitalism, instead of Russian Capitalism, necessitated one of those lightning reversals in policy that have made the Communist Party an example to every political turncoat.

Although the antics of political opportunists may change, the economics of Capitalism remain the same. Like “Old Father Thames,” Capitalism “keeps rolling along” from boom to slump and back again, with a few world wars thrown in for good measure.

Just as the sequel to the production drive after the first World War was mass unemployment, the dole queue, the means test and malnutrition, so, in a short while, when world markets are again filled, those conditions of squalor and misery will once more greet the working class.

In America, already there are over four millions unemployed, with an estimated eight millions within twelve months (see Sunday Express, 26/6/49). That situation symbolises the “Era of prosperity’ and the “Century of the common man” Capitalism has to offer. “Planned” or otherwise Capitalism cannot operate in the interests of us—the working class.

The solution to our problems lies in the abolition of class society, and the establishment of a form of social organisation in which things are produced solely in order to satisfy human needs—not to be exchanged or offered for sale.

In short what we need is Socialism. A system of society in which poverty and insecurity will be remembered only as a feature of Capitalism. Socialism cannot be produced, by the wizardry of politicians, out of a hat (even an Anthony Eden). Knowledge forms the basis of revolutionary action! We must understand what we want, and organise politically as a class in order to bring Socialism about. The promises of would-be “leaders” notwithstanding, that is the only solution to working-class problems.

J. McGregor 

The T.U.C. 1950 (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

The 82nd Trade Union Congress met this year in September at Brighton; 917 delegates from 186 Trade Unions represented just over 7,883,000 in combined membership, i.e. 53,000 less than in 1949.

For some years past, especially since the election of the Labour Party to run British Capitalism, the main debates at Congress have been centred on Government Policy with the 33 elected members of the General Council of the T.U.C. and the majority of the Union delegates defending and excusing the Government. In order to add weight to the defence, prominent Labour Party members are invited to address the delegates and, as in 1949, the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, again called upon the delegates to support the Labour government. The cultivation of the T.U.C. by the Labour Party is, of course, no mere polite gesture for, of the over 5,700,000 members of the Labour Party more than 4,900,000 are provided by trade union affiliation.

The Chairman, Mr. Deakin, Sir William Lawther and Mr. Attlee all went out of their way to warn delegates that, owing to the attitude of Russia, progress and recovery were in danger. Mr. Attlee warned of the new sacrifices the Labour Party expected from the unions consequent on large-scale re-armament programmes, called for a continued support for “wage restraint” and finally urged trade unionists to encourage the young to join the Regular and Auxiliary Armed Forces. Adding the fatuous suggestion that such regulars should be allowed to retain their Trade Union membership.

The following day the statement by the General Council supporting the Government’s policy on Korea was endorsed.

Having supported the Labour Government’s intentions regarding War, the delegates then proceeded to two items more directly concerned with Trade Union activity, i.e. “Wage Restraint” and the implementation by the Government of its policy of “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” rejecting the former and supporting the latter and thus overturning their previous policies on these matters.

Equilibrium was somewhat restored by the defeat of a resolution urging the Government to discontinue the “Conditions of Employment Arbitration Order No. 1305.” This order not only makes almost all strikes illegal, but prevents the payment from Union Funds of “strike-pay” to strikers and also leaves strikers open to claims for damages by the employers. (Eleven miners at St. Helens, Lancs., were recently arrested for failing to pay £10 each for damages awarded to the National Coal Board because the men took part in an "unofficial” strike. They were only released after the money for the fines had been found by their Branch of the National Union of Mineworkers. Manchester Guardian, 18-9-50).

Useless Nationalisation

Congress dealt with the question of Nationalisation. The General Council presented its Report on “The Public Control of Industry” which admitted that Nationalisation of coal and transport had, as yet, increased the cost of coal, but pleaded that it was early days yet to see the full effect. It ended by stating that public ownership need not "always take the form of the nationalisation of whole industries and there is important scope for selective or competitive public enterprise and for the encouragement of Co-operation.” In other words, the administration of capitalism is showing these reformers that, despite their early claims that Nationalisation would resolve all of our difficulties, it simply does not work. Mr. Lincoln Evans (General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation) who presented this report on behalf of the General Council, confessed "that experience of public ownership in the first five years had revealed problems that were not anticipated ” and that "anyone naive enough to believe that change of ownership in itself was an answer was finding out that that was not so.” (Daily Telegraph 6-9-50). Of course, it is Mr. Evans himself who is appearing to be naive in believing that nationalisation is the ending of capitalist ownership. Evidently he was warning the supporters of Nationalisation that the problem was more prickly than he and his friends anticipated. We can assure Mr. Evans that no socialist would be naive enough to swallow the Nationalisation myth.

Lord Citrine, addressed the Congress in his personal capacity. (He was the Secretary of the T.U.C. before the present secretary. Sir Vincent Tewson). He gave his opinions based on his personal experiences as a member of the National Coal Board and as the present Chairman of the British Electricity Authority. He too was very cautious about Nationalisation and referred to the " ‘gigantic' problems facing the Nationalised Industries, the time that would be needed to overcome them, and the importance of full co-operation on both sides to ensure success." In referring to the change over to government direction of the Coal and Electricity Industries, "he several times returned to the theme of the responsibility of trade unionists for the form of nationalisation legislation and therefore their responsibility for taking a full share in making it work.” (Manchester Guardian, 8-9-50).

When it is all boiled down these people are only trying to show that the present needs of capitalism are tending towards more central government direction and. as this occurs, they require the working-class through the unions to assist in the successful running of industry, i.e. to send up production figures; further, that such adjustments in the administration are of advantage to members of the working-class.

Our suggestion is that those who are interested m the views of Mr. Evans and Lord Citrine should take a close look at the activities of those Trade Unions whose members already work in Nationalised Industries, i.e. the Civil Service, which has seven Unions affiliated to the T.U.C. Their history is one of a continued struggle for improved wages and conditions carried on with every Government in power since the existence of those unions. Joint consultative machinery is of very long standing, yet these Unions are constantly in opposition to Government representatives over questions of pay and conditions. If we are to believe what the advocates of Nationalisation say, such activities should have never arisen, and the Trade Unions in the Civil Service would merely be assistants in the task of increasing output and improving efficiency.

On the last day of Congress, Mr. Jack Tanner (President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union) introduced the General Council’s Report on "Productivity” and “laid the responsibility for increased efficiency on every member of the trade union movement.” (Manchester Guardian, 9-9-50). Mr. Tanner has been harping on this theme for several years on behalf of the General Council. The assertions connected with it are that foreign trade will consequently improve and that goods will be obtainable at a cheaper price and thus benefit the working class. Mr. Tanner seems to have forgotten the lessons of the last twenty- five years.

In April, 1948, The T.U.C. issued a leaflet entitled, "Ten Questions about that Extra Ten Per Cent.” and urged the workers to fall into line with the appeal of Mr. Attlee that, “An all-out effort will increase our total production by the ten per cent, we need to turn the tide.” In November, 1948, a Special Conference of Trade Union Executives was called in London to discuss the General Council’s Report on "Productivity.” The Report, which was accepted, called for increased production, closer consultation between the unions and the employers, the re-examining of "restrictive practices” and support for Training within Industry. At the end of 1948 still another leaflet was issued by the Government’s Central Office of Information entitled, "Productivity Pays . . . And How ” it was circulated among the Trade Union members. It purported to show how productivity could be increased during 1949 and was signed by the President of the F.B.I., Will Lawther (now Sir William Lawther), the then President of the T.U.C. and by the President of the British Employer’s Confederation. These gentlemen said, "We warmly endorse this move to make widely known the efforts now being made in industry to improve Productivity, and the profound importance to management, workers and the whole community of a steady and rapid increase in our rate of output.” (Perhaps it was sheer shyness on the part of the shareholders that reference to them was omitted from this endorsement?).

It is possible now to see what has been the result of the campaign for increased production. In 1948 Mr. Attlee wanted just an extra 10 per cent. Since then according to official figures industrial production has increased by 18 per cent. (“Monthly Digest of Statistics,” August 1950). Is Mr. Attlee satisfied and can the workers now begin to take their reward in higher wages or lower prices? By no means! In line with the normal progress of capitalism still more increases of production are demanded, partly to reduce export prices to undersell rivals abroad but particularly to provide for larger armed forces and war preparations.

Wage increases since 1948 have been insufficient even to keep pace with the rise of the cost of living, the official wage index having risen by only 5 points while the cost of living index has risen by 7 points, from 106 to 113. Wage restraint is still the order of the day.

In the meantime profits have kept up quite comfortably during the past two years and the future looks more rosy still. “It would seem from the latest quarterly figures that industrial profits are again rising ” (“Economist ” 5 August 1950).

The results of the T.U.C. show clearly that the working class is still wedded to the idea that they have a stake in capitalism. They have still to learn that the quicker they cease to bother their heads about the way to run capitalism the more quickly will they begin to appreciate the advantages of Socialism; of a system where there will be no classes; without struggles of trade rivalry and without the threat of war; a society in which men and women will be free and in peace, to use their abilities for the benefit of a classless community.

PEDCA.

Korea: An Imperialist Cockpit (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 12th September Mr. Attlee addressed the House of Commons on new “defence” measures. On the same day the Evening Standard published a report of his address. From this report we learn that:

“The steps we are asking the House to endorse are taken solely with the intention of preventing another war and resisting in its early stages the onward march of aggression.”

What a familiar ring this statement has! The “steps” in question covered increased man-power and equipment for the fighting forces. Larger and more efficient fighting machines mean larger and more efficient killing and destroying machines. More and more of the world’s productive power is being concentrated upon purely destructive purposes as time goes on. During each war we are promised peace and plenty when that particular awkward squad has been removed. But no sooner has one awkward squad been liquidated than another pops up in its place. From the East we are told that the “Western Imperialists” are the niggers in the woodpile, and from the West we are told it is the “Eastern Imperialists.” The fact that it is both is only appreciated by the socialist. In 1914 similar “steps” were taken to stop the Junkers and prevent further wars; they were stopped but it made no difference; wars went on. In the 30*s the “steps” were to stop the Fascists and the Nazis. They were stopped, but not further wars. Now it is the Kremlin and so the comedy is played on. Steps are always allegedly being taken to stop wars but these “steps” consist of building up bigger and better means to wage war.

For nearly forty years we have been living in the midst of a catastrophe or on the brink of one. The Labour Government has learnt nothing more from its predecessors' failures than to follow the same well worn road to the battlefield. It has not a single policy that is directed at the root of the trouble—the property basis of society. The same thing is true of the governments of America, France, Russia and the rest.

Conditions make nonsense of all the “statesmanlike” forecasts of what will be done after hostilities cease. Those who make these forecasts forget that we are not living in a vacuum but in a real world consisting of sections of people with conflicting interests arising out of property relationships. During the last Great War, just as during the previous one, we were assured that Germany would never be allowed to arm again and become a potential threat to world “peace.” Conditions have again knocked the stuffing out of this assurance. Now we are being prepared to accept a re-armed Germany—in the interests of peace! Major-General Sir Francis de Guingard (Sunday Times, Sept. 17th) puts the question in the following way:

“This all leads to the problem of German participation in Western defence. Without it, any question of trying to hold up an aggressor on the Elbe is ruled out.  . . . We must, therefore, accept a major German participation in defence: otherwise we are likely to lose the ‘soul of Germany,’ the good will of the German people, and maybe Europe. Without it there is grave risk that Western Union defence will be unable to marshal sufficient strength, even to hold the Rhine, by 'Danger Day’—say in perhaps one or two years’ time.”

To return to Mr. Attlee’s address. He repeats the kind of phrase that was used in relation to the Nazis by members of the Tory Government.

“I have every confidence that aggression will be halted and a salutary lesson given to would-be aggressors.”

How often have we heard this banal phrase! Later on he makes nonsense of this “confidence” by stating:

“We must face the fact that what happened in Korea may in one form or another be repeated elsewhere.”

It does not require much insight to realise that this is the obvious policy for the Russian Government to follow. Imperialist Russia is in a position to use other groups as tools by playing craftily upon the cupidity of propertied sections that wish to be rid of Western influences and, at the same time, its fake anti-capitalist protestations mislead sections of the working class. The Western “Democracies” on the other hand have to convince those who must bear the burden of the fighting that their existence is jeopardised and that, on this account, sacrifices are “necessary.”

Major-General de Guingard commenced the article, to which we have already referred, with the following words;

“The Western world should be truly thankful for the Korean aggression; for it has set ablaze an alertness and determination that may prove our salvation.”

We wonder what the homeless, battered and suffering Koreans would reply to this expression of high sentiment? How do they feel about being the subject of warfare between conflicting imperialisms? Both in the North and the South homes and industries are being reduced to ruins; Koreans are dying by the thousand and by the thousand they are leaving ruined homes to trek wearily they know not where. When it is all over and some survivors return to the battered ruins that remain what will their feelings be towards their respective backers and “liberators ”? Some forms of liberation they have already experienced; the liberation from life, homes, home-ties and the means of living. An indication of the attitude of the South Koreans, as well as the soldiers of the United Nations, was given in an article by a war correspondent, Richard Hughes, which appeared in the Sunday Times on the 10th Sept. Here are some illuminating extracts from the article.

“Nor is there any real soul to this war. No profound sympathy or even warm liking exists between the Americans and the South Koreans. The soldiers of the United States and Britain notoriously have little abstract opinion or articulate comment on why they are fighting, but they usually detect in any war a menace to their country or to their home. As they profanely insist, they can perceive nothing of that sort in this war.

“However they have now developed a hatred for the enemy, largely because of his atrocities. And their earlier natural resentment at the spectacle of able-bodied Korean youths squatting impassively by the road and watching the white man move forward to ‘defend’ them has disappeared as President Syngman Rhee’s conscription orders become effective and 5,000 Koreans in American battledress are added to each American division to take over hill fighting."

The fact that masses of the South Koreans had to be conscripted before they would bother to take up arms does not suggest that they were very much worried about the threat from the North. If Information were available probably the same kind of thing could be said about the Northerners when they realised the price they were called upon to pay for what they thought would be a minor internal struggle. However both groups of pawns will have plenty more to worry about when hostilities have ceased and they have to set about rebuilding what they have lost

In fact none of the Governments involved were fundamentally concerned about liberating or defending the Koreans as a body. Korea is simply a cockpit, one of the bloodier strategic moves in the greater struggle between rival imperialisms.

In the course of his address Mr. Attlee said: “But it does mean that in our view we must take every practicable step that is possible to prevent war.” There is only one practicable step that can prevent war and that is to abolish the cause of war. This step Mr. Attlee and his colleagues are unable to take, even if they wished to do so, because they sought votes for. and became the government on, a programme that ensures the continuance of capitalism. The continuance of Capitalism necessitates the production of goods for the purpose of ensuring dividends and interest to those who invest. In order to accomplish this object goods have to be sold. Production and sale requires sources of supply of raw materials, markets in which to buy and sell products and unmolested trade routes to the markets and to the places from which the raw materials come. Out of these requirements wars arise, and as long as production is organised for the purpose of selling goods at a profit there will always be wars. When buying and selling have disappeared along with property incomes the objects of wars will no longer exist. Until then "small nations” will be the pawns of the more powerful groups and working men and women will lose their lives in quarrels that do not concern them.

Gilmac.

Passing Comments: Re-armament (1950)

The Passing Comments Column from the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Re-armament

The Investor’s Chronicle runs a service for its readers which answers their questions about buying and selling shares; each week it prints four or five of those which are of most general interest. In the issue of 12-8-50 this question was one of those thought to be of widest interest: “Can you name a sound engineering share which offers a good yield and which might benefit from re-armament?” The questioner was recommended to buy an engineering share which, though nominally five shillings, now stands at twenty shillings; the dividend is 26¼  per cent, and the yield 6½ per cent. And in the issue of 26-8-50 this question was one of those printed: “I think that the Far Eastern set-up, coupled with re-armament, augurs well for the wool-producing companies and should be glad if you will please give me a recommendation if you agree with my views.” The person who replied to this enquirer did agree with his views, for he draws his attention to a New Zealand company whose shares, now at par, pay 8 per cent. Wool hasn’t disappointed those shareholders who followed this advice, since the prices quoted at the Sydney wool-sales on August 28th went up 50 per cent.; a little later. South African wool showed even bigger increases in price.

Lower Income Groups

Some people, then, stand to gain considerably if the war spreads. But war, as we are regularly reminded, entails sacrifice. Sacrifice on whose part? Here the Investor’s Chronicle again comes in useful. It is unblushingly frank on this matter, disdaining the usual talk about “equality of suffering.” First of all its commentator Candidus pours scorn on the idea of having a capital levy. Then he goes on: “There is no escape from the simple facts of the case. To the extent that re-armament is not provided from extra effort and by America, it can only come from reduced consumption in the directions where the great mass of consumption now resides—in the ranks of the lower income groups.”

Scroungers

At Birmingham on August 22nd a man was charged with persistently neglecting to maintain himself, and was sent to jail for two months. He refused to work for his living, and tried to get the National Assistance authorities to support him instead. This case is important, because it establishes a precedent, which always weighs heavily with the judge when he is reaching his decision. Professor Charles Oman refers to the "inveterate respect for precedent which sways the legal mind.” It seems that the rule now is to be that people who do not work for their own living, although they are capable of doing so, are to be sent to jail. This rule should be enforced thoroughly. Numbers of shareholders and landowners are to be found around Lombard Street and scattered up and down the country, who have never earned their own livings, and who have no intention of doing so: worse, they make other people work for them, people who themselves have to live on much lower incomes. These property owners are thus offending more than the man who got two months: but with immediate action by the police, and a few salutary sentences from the judges—say five years’ penal servitude for a first conviction—no doubt this kind of offence could be stamped out. The fact that these criminals have a lot more money than the man now serving his sentence will make no difference, for every secondary schoolboy is taught that England is famed for her enjoyment of that inestimable privilege, which our ancestors fought and indeed died for, the privilege of Equality before the Law. Is it not well-known that every British citizen, whatever the length of his purse, gets exactly the same treatment in the law-courts? The police should therefore act speedily on this question.

Leopold

The recent disturbances in Belgium over the return of King Leopold provide a good illustration of how the Communists and Social Democrats waste their time. The Daily Worker (4-8-50) praised the leaders of “this historic movement,” or at any rate the Communists among them. After Leopold returned, said the article, “it took the Belgian working class just five minutes to get angry and five days to get organised.” It applauds the “working class unity” that was attained; it describes the strikes, the riots and the processions, and talks about “ this great class battle.” And it leads up to the triumphant conclusion when Leopold agreed to hand over his powers to his son Baudouin—though it blames the Social Democrats for not having insisted on his complete abdication.

When all the shouting and the shooting was over, what had happened? Before the agitation against the king, the Belgian workers were being exploited by the Belgian owners under the nominal presidency of someone called Leopold; after the agitation, the Belgian workers were being exploited under the nominal presidency of someone called Baudouin. Which makes a lot of difference. And yet to obtain such an insignificant change, the “Left-wing” parties strained all their energies, and three men who were following the lead of these parties were shot by the police at Grace-Berleur. The three men were called “martyrs,” and the name is just; the men were martyrs to the ideas of those “leaders” of the working class who, instead of encouraging the workers to understand and bring about Socialism, spend all their time in noisy pursuit of aims which in the end bring no benefit at all to the workers.

Smile, Please

From the Daily Mirror (7-6-50): “A group of people want Britain to smile more, and the first stage of their plan is a Happiness Week for thousands of city folk. It goes into operation in Manchester in 10 days' time. Everybody in the Levenshulme Ward of the City will be asked to smile—at their work, at play, in the streets and at home. Albert Sidi, business man, first thought of it. Smiling James Bowes, councillor for the ward, took it up. Now the church is supporting it, and the Lord Mayor of Manchester, who will be president of the week of smiles. Mr. Sidi said yesterday: ‘ We intend to make people smile and be happy whether they like it or not.’ ” And the point of all this? Mr. Bowes told the Daily Mirror: “It’s a wonderful idea. If we can make people happy they’ll work better. . . .”

Whatever the long-suffering citizens of Levenshulme think about all this nonsense, this last part should make shareholders and profiteers grin like Cheshire Cats.

The Public

The dictionary defines “the public” as “the people in general; all the people.” But in the minds of our politicians and statesmen it has come to mean something quite different. Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations” gives us a hint of this new meaning when he says: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” The implied distinction here between worker and member of the public is repeated with more emphasis by Captain Gammans (“Everybody’s,” 25-3-50): “ Nationalisation has no appeal now to the British public, and, judging from the number of strikes in the Nationalised industries and the growing drift from the Nationalised coal mines, it is losing its magic for the worker as well.” Captain Gammans evidently considers that the same man cannot be both a worker and a member of the public. And if the public, in the sense in which the word is being used today, contains no workers, it must consist entirely of the owning class. This is borne out by the phraseology of the financial columns in the newspapers, which regularly refer to the public as being that body of people which owns shares and other capital. For example, when the City Editor of the Daily Herald suggested (9-8-50) that company law should be amended to rule out directors’ estimates from a company’s prospectus, he said: “Had that been done in the Crittall case and in other cases where the ’estimates’ have been optimistic, the prospectus could never have been issued, and the public’s money saved for more worthy objects.” Here the public covers those people who have money for “more worthy objects,” i.e. capitalist investment. And no worker has any money for investment worth mentioning; if he had, he would not be in the ranks of the working class. It seems then that the new meaning of the public is simply “the owning class.” So the next time you hear of some politician proposing that we reduce wages for the “public” good, or go to war in the “public” interest, you will be able to understand what he really means.

Priority

When Mr. Attlee is replying to Mr. Churchill’s criticisms his theme-song should be “Anything you can do I can do better.” For the Labour Government has brought the country through the “work harder to recover from the war” stage, and is now leading the workers into the “work harder to prepare for the next war” stage. With any luck, it might still be in power when the third part of the workers' eternal triangle is reached, the “work harder to win the war” stage. If it is, it will have proved that it can run the country just as well as any other capitalist government; though that, perhaps, is not saying much.

It was while the rallying-cry was still “work harder to recover from the war” that Mr. Aneurin Bevan made his pronouncement to the working class reported in Reynolds News (17-7-49): “‘Work first, independence second. Socialism third ’ was the order of priority for British workers, Mr. Aneurin Bevan told thousands of Northumberland miners at Morpeth yesterday.” Like his colleagues in the government, Mr. Bevan regards Socialism as a vague and undefined objective for the dim and distant future; but the word is nevertheless useful, since it performs the same function for the workers as the carrot on the end of the stick does for the donkey. The workers never get it, but they are continually being exhorted to produce more so that some day they might.

St. Leger

But Mr. Bevan put work as Priority No. 1 only for the working class; there are others to whom he was not addressing himself. After five years of Labour Government there are many who have undoubtedly attained the second of Mr. Bevan’s objectives, independence, but who regard the other two, work and Socialism, with strong aversion. They need have no fear. Under this government they are equally safe from both.

The Sunday Express gives details of the activities of some of them. Talking of the St. Leger race-meeting,' it says (3-9-50): “The new fashion is to rent a house in Doncaster for the meeting. The Earl and Countess of Derby have taken a modern villa near the course, and Lord Irwin has followed suit. . . . Mr J. V. Rank, the rich miller and race-horse owner, has rented two houses. But there are still some stately homes where the week is celebrated in the traditional manner. The Earl of Scarborough, Lord-Lieutenant of the West Riding, always has a gay party at Sandbeck Park. His neighbour. Lady Galway, is entertaining Jockey Club Steward Sir Humphrey de Trafford, Lady de Trafford, and Sir Rhys Llewellyn. And parties are being taken by the Marquis and Machioness of Hartington, by Baroness Beaumont and by Sir Richard Sykes.”

Marx and the Labour Party

From the Daily Herald (31-7-50): “The Labour Party’s rejection of much of Karl Marx’s teaching had not been a source of weakness, said Morgan Phillips, the Party’s secretary, last night.”

Well, certainly not to Karl Marx’s teaching.

Alwyn Edgar