News in Review: Bizerta (1961)

The News in Review column from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bizerta
Patriotic Frenchmen like to regard themselves as a civilised race, who know all about the finer points of living like making love and drinking the right wine with their food.

They have also showed, in the long Algerian conflict, that they know all about making war and using the right weapons in battle. And if there was any doubt about this, it must have been removed by the short, gory struggle over Bizerta.

Basically, the dispute was simple enough. The French ruling class wanted to keep the base, to help them look after the commercial interests which they are hanging onto in North Africa, not forgetting the oil in the Sahara.

The Tunisian ruling class wanted the French to leave because they did not want to get involved in any trouble which might follow the breakdown of the negotiations between the French government and the Algerian rebel leaders.

Perhaps the Tunisians did not play their hand as well as they might. Perhaps the French were overhasty. These are the common excuses for the sort of dreadful slaughter which happened when the paras went in. They always ignore the real reason for capitalism's horrors. It must be revolting to smash human beings, some of them children, into destruction. But that is what the French soldiers, with their mortars and their guns, did at Bizerta—and all in the interests of their masters.

Which goes to show just how much civilised instincts are worth to the barbaric capitalist social system.


Little Budget
Many big-time financial editors applauded Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's second attempt at producing a Budget for 1961/2. Here, they said, was the strong medicine which was needed to sort out our troubles once and for all.

This was the sort of comment which greeted Mr. Butler's autumn Budget in 1957, when Bank Rate last went up to seven per cent It is what is always being said about the so-called remedies for the economic and financial crises of capitalism.

The trouble this time, said Fleet Street, is that we are all living too well. Agricultural workers, who are getting by on an average wage of £10 11s. a week and local government employees who are somehow making do on an average of £10 16s a week, must have been very surprised to hear that nowadays their life is one long spree of opulence.

Whatever measures successive Chancellors may impose, the economy keeps on staggering from boom to recession, from expansion to retrenchment. One budget (often at election time) knocks a couple of pennies off beer, a couple of shillings off income tax. Another puts them back on, or onto something else.

The workers end up where they started, with a personal budget which is very finely balanced, often on a tightrope supplied by the hire purchase companies. Yet they keep their faith with capitalism—if they blame anything, it is the planners, or their plans. But capitalism—unplannable, chaotic, unbudgetable —is always doing its best to teach them better.


Common Market
The British capitalist class are gingerly easing themselves into the European Common Market. As they do so, they are full of doubts and hopes.

On one hand, firms in, for example, the car and electric domestic appliance industries, lick their lips at the prospect of easier access to Europe's nearly 300 million customers. Many of these firms have spent a lot of time in summing up their chances in Europe, and are convinced that they will be able to cut a fine dash against their foreign rivals in the Common Market.

On the other hand, industries like agriculture quake with fear at the thought of a flood of cheap Continental produce washing them out of their traditional markets and sweeping away the protection of government guaranteed prices.

Similarly, the Commonwealth countries which sell a lot of agricultural produce to this country are anxious about losing the advantages of Imperial Preference.

These doubts are reflected in the splits in British political parties. Not only the Tories have their doubts; on the Opposition benches, Lord Morrison speaks in favour of the Common Market while Mr. Shinwell and Earl Attlee oppose it. Officially, the Labour Party have no policy in the matter—they abstain from votes in the House.

Some industries may thrive, and others may suffer, because Britain joins the EEC. This often happens when capitalist industry is reaching for its markets. But nothing is certain. The Common Market could be a costly flop for Britain —it could turn out, on the whole, to be unprofitable. This is the core of the dispute over Britain's application to join.

For nobody has yet discovered a certain method of guaranteeing industries' prosperity under capitalism. That, in the end, is why the Government have dithered for so long and then gone almost unwillingly to Rome.

Finance and Industry: Supply and Demand (1961)

The Finance and Industry column from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Supply and Demand
According to the economists who explain and justify economic laws, supply and demand have to be accepted as a necessary mechanism of the free market. If supply increases without an increase of demand prices fall. If demand increases without an increase of supply, prices rise. And this, they say, is all to the good because falling prices of a commodity cause production in that industry to be curtailed and capital and labour move into new industries where they are needed. This argument was used by the Government recently to justify the rocketing prices of land for building: it would, they said, cause owners of land to come into the market and would also induce more economical use of the limited land available.

But when it comes to wages they find it necessary, in their own interests as employers and property owners, to take a different line. They no longer preach the beneficial effect of a “true market price” when it is wages, the price of labour-power, they are considering.

Politically, for vote-catching purposes, the parties which seek to win elections have to pay lip-service to “full employment” and high wages. But full employment and high wages mean reduced profits, and capitalism, whether under a Tory or a Labour government, can only function when commodities can be sold at a profit. So we have the government at the present time trying to threaten or persuade the workers not to take advantage of the labour-shortage by pressing for wage increases.

One form this takes is that the expanding firms, which need to recruit more workers, offer extra inducements to entice workers away from rival firms. The British Employers’ Confederation recently made an analysis of the total wages of industrial and commercial wage-earners. It was summarised in the Times and Financial Times on July 29. It showed that out of a total annual wage bill of £8,600 millions, only £6,500 million represents the agreed trade union wage for a normal week’s work (now generally 42 hours for most workers). A further £1,500 million represents excess payments above agreed rates, paid by employers to attract scarce labour, and another £600 million represents payment for overtime.

Naturally the employers would prefer to get the labour they need without having to compete with each other for it, and the Government shares their view.

But it was just the same under the Labour government. On August 6, 1947 (Hansard, fol. 1514) the Prime Minister, now Lord Attlee, made the following appeal:

  I appeal to workers in all industries and employments not to press at this time for increases of wages or changes in conditions which would have a similar effect, especially when these increases are put forward on the basis of maintaining differentials between various categories of workers on the basis of former practice.
  Equally. I would appeal to employers not to seek to tempt workers away from essential work by offering higher inducements to work in less essential industries thus creating a vicious spiral.

Thus does capitalism impose its own necessities on those who administer it. In opposition the Labour Party is in favour of high wages; in office high wages become a “vicious spiral.”


A Telephone
When the Postmaster-General recently announced some higher telephone and postal charges figures were given out by the Post Office to the Press about the numbers of houses with and without a telephone. According to the Daily Mail (25/7/61) there are over 13,000,000 homes without a telephone. To install one telephone to each home would involve a capital expenditure of £1,500 million and a post office official is quoted as saying that the idea of a phone in every home is “dreadful nonsense.” The number of people with a residential telephone is less than 3½ million, of whom one million have a shared telephone.


The Price of Land 
The high prices of land in Britain resulting from the pressure of demand on limited available areas have their counterpart in Germany and Japan. A letter in the Times (26/7/61) contains the following about Germany:

 At Hofheim the price of farm land has gone up from DM.3 to DM.30 per square metre (equal to, say, £1.075 to £10,750 per acre). At Bad Soden the ratio is the same, from DM.5 to DM.50 (£1,790 to £17,900) and even to DM.70 (£25,070). Even near towns like Giessen, where there is not yet much industry, the price is around DM15 (£5.370).
  Near Cologne, beyond the green belt, the price in 1950 was DM8 (£2,865) and is now some five times more, while in Kiel it is as high as DM.90 (£32,230) for residential sites.

It is the same in Japan, as reported from Tokio in the Guardian (19/5/61):

  A modest middle-class part-Western house in Tokio is rented at from £60 to £90 a month to which must be added about £30 to £40 monthly for utilities and service. Land prices in downtown Tokio are higher than in London’s West End or New York’s Madison Avenue. In good class residential areas of the city, the pressure of population has increased land values by 4,000 per cent in 10 years—and land continues to increase in value in most parts of Japan on average by 20 per cent annually.

Enforcing the Law
There are many well-intentioned reformers who work on the assumption that when you pass a law declaring something to be illegal the thing ceases. They forget that economic pressures go on operating and if strong enough will find ways of evading the law. In times of depression minimum wage laws cease to have any particular effect because workers would rather give up their legal rights to the declared minimum wage than lose their jobs.

The Times (17/7/61) in a survey of the present position of housing, argues that the Tory legislation of 1957 has failed to achieve the declared objects of the legislators. In particular the Times writer estimates that there were at least half a million controlled houses in 1959 that were being let at rents higher than the levels permitted by the Acts. The tenants would rather pay those rents than face the worse alternatives.


Goodbye Siesta
It has been observed in many countries that among the “advantages” of industrialisation the workers have been forced to forego many of the numerous religious holidays that belonged to earlier and less strenuous times. Now in Spain the government is making war on the siesta and on keeping late hours. A new law requires shops, cinemas and theatres to close earlier, and it is expected that the midday siesta will be shortened.

The Guardian correspondent in Madrid (.9/7/61) explains this move:

  The motive for these reforms is mainly economic. It is hoped thereby to induce more Spaniards in the cities to turn in earlier so that they will be in better shape the following morning to put in a good day’s work, which would be in the national interest. The new hours also are intended to bring Spain closer, as it were, to the rest of Europe.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Spectre Haunting Kruschev (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ar the end of July the London Press carried reports from Russia about grandiose schemes the government there has announced for a higher standard of living, shorter working hours, free bread, free housing, free transport, free gas and electricity, etc., all by 1980 or thereabouts. According to the Daily Worker (31/7/61) this “giant plan for Peace and Plenty” staggered the world! It may not have had that effect on governments and political commentators, but it certainly set them wondering what is the purpose of the manoeuvre and the pressure behind it. Many commentators followed the same line as did Edward Crankshaw in the Observer (30/7/61). He sees Kruschev’s new manifesto as a move in the struggle between Russia and China :

  With the publication of its long-awaited new Party programme, the Soviet Communist Party has made its supreme bid to recover the undisputed leadership of the world Communist movement in face of the Chinese challenge.
  It seeks not only to demonstrate that the Soviet Union is in the lead and intends to stay there, but also to create a hew ideological dynamic, thus confounding fellow Communists all over the world who have lately come to the conclusion that they must look to China for aggressive and bold leadership.

One of the issues said to divide the two governments is that the government of China is disposed to achieve its aims by war: Crankshaw continues:

  Having asserted its power and the vigour of its intentions, the Soviet Party makes the great reservation which divides it from the Chinese. There must be no war. A war would not prevent the triumph of Communism; but the cost would be so great in misery that it cannot even be considered. Thus, Communists everywhere must continue with the efforts within the framework of “peaceful co-existence.” This includes even trying to come to terms for the time being with the United States.
  Here is the great issue between Peking, which seeks short cuts, and Moscow, which fears them, having so much to lose.

Here, of course, the interpretation of the hidden meaning of the Manifesto itself has to be interpreted for the Russian and Chinese governments are not really entering into rivalry about ways of achieving Communism—a matter in which they have only a pretended interest. But just as the Western capitalist interest in such things as oil and markets and air routes and strategic frontiers is presented to the workers in terms of democracy, religion and the “Western way of life,” so the real aims of the Russia-China group of expanding capitalist Powers are proclaimed in terms of a supposed desire to help the workers; oppose colonialism and promote world Communism.

The Manifesto can then be seen to be both a counter-blast to Western propaganda and an endeavour to strengthen Russia against its threateningly powerful Eastern ally.

We must also remember that when governments draw up programmes and make promises of blessings to come they have their anxious eyes on their own working class. And Kruschev has one of Russia-s own “ colonies " much on his mind, Eastern Germany. There the workers, instead of looking East to the Russian paradise flock westwards in their thousands. This kind of political “pie in the sky" is not new in Russia: it is as common there as elsewhere in the capitalist world, Only a year ago Kruschev was announcing the abolition of income tax, due to be completed by 1965, and in 1952 the Daily Worker (4/10/52) had splash headlines like those with which it greeted the latest version. At that time it was “Double Pay and Five-Hour Day” and “Stalin maps the road to Communism.” Cyril Ray, who was writing from Moscow to the Sunday Times early in 1951 reported that the date then being suggested for the great transformation to Communism to begin was "1960 or thereabouts” (Sunday Times, 11/2/51). It would seem therefore that one aim of the new document is to cover up the non- fulfilment of old promises: and more non-fulfilment is provided for in the Russian statement that international complications resulting in increased military expenditure may again hold up realization of the plans. Workers in Britain ought to be well-versed in the methods used by a privileged class to safeguard its privilege by promises of better times for the workers. Lloyd George's “9d. for 4d." which heralded National Health Insurance; his first world war promise of “a land fit for heroes to live in”; the Beveridge, plan for the Welfare State, launched during the second world war to keep the soldiers hoping;. Butler's promise of doubling the standard of living in 25 years; Lord Hailsham's forecast (Daily Express, 29/4/61) that “ the average man will be earning £2,000 a year in a classless Britain by 1984.”

The latest venture in this field is the kite flown by the Times (13/7/61) about the need for “a new society” to be built in this country: the old new society, “the Welfare State,” has already lost its appeal. It should not be necessary to say that there is always a snag about these promises. An economic blizzard blows up, or a war; or re-armament has to have priority; or the multiplication of money wages only means were pounds to buy the same goods at higher prices.

There is no mystery about this once it is realised what is the intention of the promises: that they are designed to take the edge off the workers' present discontent by holding out the hope of. future betterment.

The great deception
In the area of theoretical discussion the new Kruschev programme is offered as a stage in the transition to Communism. Russia is supposed to have first got rid of capitalism, then built up Socialism, and is now wavering towards Communism. This is a piece of myth-making comparable with the way in which the Labour Party in Britain praised Socialism but delivered nationalisation and the so-called Welfare State.

They both evolved the practice of giving the name Socialism to State Capitalism. At the beginning, Lenin, who led the Russian Communists before Stalin, was preaching the need for Russia to have “State capitalism” before they could hope for Socialism; and “Socialism” was being defined by Communists (as by the S.P.G.B.) as “ the highest stage of society.” Later on, the State Capitalism that Russia had (and has) was falsely labelled “Socialism,” an afterthought with an obvious political propaganda purpose.

There is an acid test that can be applied to this and to the other promises; and can indeed be applied to the British Labour Party. However fast or slow they might suppose progress to Socialism would be the Russian Communists and the British Labour Party, both proclaimed as an immediate objective, introducing greater equality of income. For Attlee before he became Prime Minister of a Labour Government the conduct of affairs by that government was to be on the principle that “Socialists believe in the abolition of classes and in in equalitarian society” (“The Will and the Way to Socialism," C. R. Attlee, 1935, p. 40). Lenin was equally specific. Russian government officials, industrial managers and technicians and all others were to have the same wage as industrial workers: this was to be the immediate programme. Within a year of promising equality Lenin announced that, because of the shortage of specialists for industry, the government had to pay them high salaries, so the “equal wage" principle was suspended. But it was, in Lenin's words, not to be a change of principle but a regretted temporary suspension. He did not at [the] time time try to cover it up but candidly admitted that it was a “retrograde step," forced upon them. Later on the temporary suspension became a permanent and approved Russian government policy and inequality has gone on increasing: a course of events which found its parallel in Britain under Labour government. If now Kruschev promises that some time in the future inequality is to be reduced it must be weighed against the forty year old pledge made and broken by Lenin.

What we face then is not the image of the future Russia presented by Kruschev but the present reality. A great, expanding capitalist Power facing its world rivals. Not a ''Socialist" economy moving towards Moneyless Communism, but the government which has just re-introduced the death penalty for currency offences. Not the "peace and plenty" of page one of the Daily Worker but the capitalist Power boasting on page three of the destructive might of its modern navy. (Daily Worker, 31/7/61). Not the supposedly disinterested scientific flight into space by Yuri Gagarin but Kruschev’s "From the point of view of the defence of our country this gives us very great, colossal superiority." (Daily Mail report of speech in Moscow, 15/4/61).

Forecasts of free housing, free transport, etc., may look attractive, but in the real world of the ceaseless struggle over wages in their relation to prices they have a very different look. Already in Russia rents are kept at a very low level, so that most workers spend on rent between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the family income. But along with very low rents it is government policy to have very high prices for clothes and so-called "luxury" goods. And when the Daily Worker (31/7/61) reports that by 1980 Russian workers wifi have “free education at all educational establishments; free medical reviews . . .  including the supply of medicines" it is only a development that capitalism can carry without difficulty and, indeed with advantage to the employers. "Free" is an ambiguous concept and free travel for railwaymen in this country has meant a correspondingly low wage, as did low-priced cottages and food for agricultural workers.

One forgotten prelude to the Kruschev promises for 1980 is the suspension in 1957 of repayment of interest and capital on the Russian Government bonds. The period of "freezing" is for 25 years, which carries us up to the early 1980's. David Floyd (Daily Telegraph, 11/4/57) stated that the total accumulated amount of these government loans was £23.500 million, and the annual interest payment to the bondholders £640 million. Like everything else that the Russian government does the Russian workers were alleged to have welcomed the suspension, though it was their own savings that were involved through the year-long practice of calling on them to make a "voluntary’’ investment of one or two weeks' pay whenever a new loan was raised.

Spectre haunting Europe

The Communist Manifesto, published well over a century ago, opened with the resounding words:

  A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

It was a spectre right enough; both in being a danger for the ruling class and in being exaggerated and distorted in their eyes almost out of recognition. They warded off the threat and capitalism has grown from a European to a world-wide system. Can it now be said that the spectre of communism haunts the rulers of all the world? In the sense that the workers of the world arc rapidly approaching common action to get rid of world capitalism, the answer is no; for, to the great harm of the Socialist movement, millions of workers have been persuaded to support Russian State capitalism in the mistaken belief that it is Socialism or Communism and in their interest; and parallel with this it suits the other governments to represent their economic conflicts with Russia as a struggle against Communism—despite the candid admission of Eisenhower and the late John Foster Dulles that Russia is a “State capitalist" economy.

But it can be said that the rulers of capitalism everywhere are increasingly worried about their inability to keep the workers humble and contented with the lot capitalism provides for them. How else can we explain the spate of promises by all governments everywhere to make life better for the workers?

But we still have to wait on the future to see Russia, America. Europe and the other Powers (and the Pope!) forced into mutual protective alliance by the growth of a Socialist working class in all countries bent on ending capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Passing Show: From the top (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the top

Who is for democracy?

Not Lord Citrine, if we are to judge by his recent speech in the House of Lords. The Daily Herald (15/6/61) reported him as saying:

  The TUC leadership has been weakened at almost successive annual conferences in recent years.
  I have sat and writhed in the balconies time after time when I have seen a wise, constructive policy put from the platform and defeated by the delegates on the floor.
  This is lamentable, because 1 do not think that really broad-minded policy can ever come from the bottom.
  I believe it must come from the top, from people who are capable of viewing the whole field.

This is a strong argument for dictatorship, from the man who was for twenty years general secretary of the TUC. If his views are held by many others in the head offices of trade unions, it would partly account for the yawning gap which exists in many unions between the officials and the rank-and-file.

Lord Citrine had more to say. He delivered a swingeing attack on the workers for their ignorance of economics. He said:

  The average worker has not the least realisation of the dangers of inflation. He does not understand that the economy can get out of hand and that savings can disappear overnight.

Perhaps the workers would show more concern about the fate of savings if the system we live under allowed him to accumulate any savings worth mentioning. But since one of the basic laws of capitalism is that the workers are paid only enough to keep them able to do the work required of them and to bring up the next generation of wage-earners, the protection of savings is a purely academic point for them. Those who have savings, i.e., the capitalists, will do their level best to see that nothing happens to them even if sometimes, since capitalism is essentially an anarchic system, they are not altogether successful. This is a problem for the capitalists, and we can leave it to them.

Lord Citrine, however, had better be more careful about upbraiding the workers for their ignorance. If they take him at his word, and find out the real nature of the present system of society, their next step will be to end it and to introduce Socialism. And what would happen then to Citrine’s noble title, and to the House of Lords where he airs his views, and to the cult of leadership which he supports?


Nothing defensive

Socialists have pointed out many, many times the absurd misuse of words when a ruling class arms itself with weapon-like bombs and then claims that is simply taking “defensive” precautions. The odd thing is that any ruling class, and its tame propagandists, can see this perfectly well—when the actions of any other ruling class are being discussed.

One example was seen recently in the Times. The Times leader-writers have very often discussed Britain’s "defence" preparations, the “defence" estimates, the country’s “defence” forces, and so on. But all this was forgotten when the executive of the Indonesian ruling class. President Sukarno, got Russia to agree to supply him with modern military aircraft. The Indonesian claim that these were merely for “defensive” purposes was seen at once as a hollow pretence. What was obscure to the leader-writers when it happened under their noses in Britain became crystal clear in the distant lands of southeast Asia. The first leader (5/7/61) said smugly:

  Jet bombers that are as advanced as any in the world have nothing defensive about them and it is obvious enough that West New Guinea provides the motive.

This is quite right, of course: one of the main aims of the Indonesian ruling class is to extend its rule over West New Guinea, which is at present still ruled by the Dutch. Obviously, as the leader says, modern jet bombers have nothing defensive about them. But what a curious case of selective blindness that the writer could not see that this applies to British jet bombers as much as to jet bombers in Russia or Indonesia!


Over-salted

In a world where many millions go hungry, one would have thought that the rich would try to conceal their more extravagant excesses of over-eating. But not so. One American gourmet is on a round-the-world “tasting trip,” and the Observer (6/8/61) tells us that he arrived in Tokio bringing with him:

   . . .  an alarm wrist-watch to time the grilling of steaks, a golden ball which will not sink immediately into caviar if it is over-salted, a miniature pair of scales for weighing meat and a microscope for checking its grain. He also carries a fourteen-point grading chart for statistical purposes.

Perhaps the very insensitiveness the members of the upper class, their willingness to display publicly the great gulf between the rich and the poor, will contribute not a little to their eventual downfall.

Alwyn Edgar

In Name only: “Socialist” Party of Austria (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a sympathiser in Vienna, which gives a critical look at the 1961 Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Austria.

With an impressive show, as befits a government party, the annual conference of the S.P.A was held in Vienna from June 6 to 9, 1961. Among others, the British Labour Party had also sent a delegate. From the reports of the proceedings and speeches published in the Arbeiter Zeitung, the central organ of the S.P.A. one could gather how much Socialism there is left in the "Socialist" Party of Austria.

"Democracy's big chance," said the chairman and vice-chancellor Dr Bruno Pittermann. "Would be in the further progress on the road to securing for the workers a voice in the management of industry, and of participation in the government, corresponding to the election result. Because, for the working people of our times, the ownership of the means of production is no longer the only question which is decisive. To this must he added the right of a voice in the planning of industry and in the distribution of the proceeds! This right of participation, which raises man to a factor of equality, side by side with dead capital, is being refused by both reactionary capitalism, and by the communists."

Thus, Pittermann is satisfied if the workers become “a factor" with equal rights beside "dead capital." He is no longer concerned with the abolition of capital (private ownership). Pittermann seems to be quite oblivious of the fact that capital is not a thing, not some dead object, but a peculiar social relationship between man and man. Did not a certain Karl Marx once scientifically analyse and explain it all?

“Besides the factor capital, the factor labour must at last find recognition" a delegate urged. Thus, despite the S.P.A.’s boasted many decades of activity, the “factor labour" has so far not yet found recognition. This delegate was moreover of remarkable modesty. He demanded for labour no more than a place beside capital. The latter can safely keep its hitherto held position. It would seem that this representative of “Socialism" too had never heard of capitalist conditions and of the capitalist mode of production.

“I should like to once more emphasize," said another leading light, the Sozialminister Proksch, “that over the present questions of the day our social policy must not relegate to a back seat our big fundamental tasks, to which belongs the fresh formulation of the old obsolete labour charter." Proksch distinguishes between the present questions of the day and the fundamental issue, i.e., the essential aim of Socialism. No person of common sense will quarrel with this. Strange it is, however, that a Socialist—and Proksch claims to be one—sees in the new formulation of labour rights a fundamental task of Socialism. Is not the "right of labour" the “right" of those dependent on, and exploited by, capital? Is it not by its very nature committed to perpetuate the existing relationship between wage labour and capital? Even if it be admitted that reforms have brought to labour some alleviation of hardships, it stands in question whether the benefit to the workers outweighs the harm done to the working class movement by this day-to-day reform policy. After all, the “fundamental task" of a Socialist Party consists not in perpetuating, but in abolishing the exploitation of the workers by capital. The watchword must ever be revolution —not reform. But apparently such is no longer Pittermann, Proksch and consorts' concept, if ever it has been.

It will be understood that at a party conference questions of the day, and measures for dealing with them, are discussed. It may be argued that one cannot always and exclusively concentrate on the all-important supreme aim. But in dealing with pressing temporary problems, as well as with proposals and plans in cases of emergencies, the genuine great Socialist principle must ever he all-present and all-transcending. It must never be lost sight of. This, however, was sadly missing in the speeches and discussions at the said party conference. Rather had one the impression that any allusion to the real aim being the abolition of the exploitation of man by man through the wages and money system, was designedly shunned in order not to give offence in any quarter. This, however, means nothing less than abandoning the supreme principle, which cannot but please its adversaries.

All demands and decisions made at the S.P.A.'s conference will only serve to consolidate the present constitution of society and, if possible, perpetuate it. The “Socialist Party of Austria” is therefore not entitled to call itself Socialist, if the word is to keep its true meaning.

Dr. Johannes Kleinhappl

Letter: Trade Unions and Socialism (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the true position of the SPGB in regard to trade unions as they arc presently constituted in this country? Do you believe in the closed shop, and that members of your party should belong to a trade union and support it even though it may be anti-socialistic in character? Your writers often claim in the Socialist Standard that trade unions tend to help capitalism to run more smoothly; if this were so why not state in your journal that trade unionism is anti-socialistic and that no real socialist should belong to any trade union at all? This would be the only logical position that your party could take, hut as it is now you seem to be running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Trade Unions may he necessary under a certain phase of capitalism just as the National Assistance Board is at present, but nevertheless it does not necessarily follow that socialists should support them.

R. Smith,

Dundee

                                                                                                                                          

 

Reply:

Capitalism is a social system in which most people have to go to work for wages in order to live. This means that they are forced to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer. The interests of the seller of any article are in getting the highest possible price for what he is selling. Thus the workers are forced to struggle for the best conditions for the sale of their labour power. This means that they must struggle for shorter hours, less intense working pace, higher wages and so on.

It is obvious that the workers will be able to assert their interests more strongly if they do so together: this is the basic reason for the existence of trade unions. They are the only weapon which workers can use under capitalism to defend and to improve their working conditions. Because of this, all workers should join their trade union. Any trade union action which is in line with working class interests is worthy of wholehearted support from all workers —and receives the support of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

It is true, however, that trade unions do many things which are quite opposed to working class interests; some of them, as our correspondent points out, tend to help capitalism run more smoothly. Such actions are contrary to trade unionism and the Socialist Party opposes them. Thus we opposed trade union participation in the war effort and later their support of government productivity drives.

The closed shop is an arrangement which is operated sometimes with the aid and approval of the employers and sometimes by the workers themselves. While we hold that, on balance, compulsory trade union membership is not in the best interests of the Trade Union movement and the working class, we also recognise that trade union action, and strikes in particular, cannot operate without trying to compel would be blacklegs to conform to the decision of the majority.

It is hardly surprising that trade unions have their faults. They are, after all, a feature of capitalist society and they must recruit workers of all sorts of political and religious opinions, who are united only in the struggle against their masters. When Socialism is established, trade unions will exist no more—the need for them will have disappeared. Until that day, life under capitalism is a battle, and the workers must fight it with the best weapon available.

Editorial Committee

Russia again (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. S. P. Chambers, Chairman of the Imperial Chemical Industries, on a recent visit to Russia on behalf of his Company, reported on some very interesting observations he had made. He stated:

  "I had a measure of success and with one exception, all my questions were answered fully and frankly. The one exception was in the sphere of actual living conditions."

It appears Mr. Chambers wanted to see for himself how the people lived and asked for permission to visit their homes. This did not meet with the approval of the Soviet authorities. According to Mr. Chambers:

  The vast blocks of flats erected in and around Moscow represent by European standards a low level for new accommodation.
  In Industry, it seems to be the general rule for husband and wife to do a full day's work and the children are left at a nursery or creche, or in the care of some relation.

Mr. Chambers claimed that, although it is said hours of labour are reduced, if statistics were available they would show that many more hours are worked per thousand of the total population than in the United Kingdom or in Western Germany, Clothing and toilet articles, he said, are expensive, meat and poultry was of good quality and not unreasonable in price.

Like many other Directors of the I.C.I. who have previously visited the Soviet Union, Mr. Chambers has clearly shown that this country organises its industrial affairs just like any other capitalist country and has the same anomalies to contend with.

The claim that Socialism exists in the Soviet Union is disproved by the evidence from Mr. Chambers visit. Its workers, just like the working class elsewhere, have to sell their power to labour. There is commodity production, private properly and the same sort of social problems.

A curious fact mentioned by Mr. Chambers was that, at the Coke Chemical Works, a wall 8½ feet high and 3,000 feet long was built to ensure privacy against a rival factory—Agostral. Whoever heard of commercial rivalry in a Socialist economy? There are different classes for passengers in their liners — one of them plying to London has even five classes and that in a so called classless country!

Capitalism exists in the Soviet Union — and until such time that its Working Class understand and desire Socialism, poverty and insecurity will be the lot of the workers there.

Dick Jacobs

Who are the Mugs? (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The stake in "our" Country

One of the themes on which our newspapers love to turn a spare column is the alleged laziness of the British worker. How often do we read blood-chilling articles about workers over here loafing about all day, whilst industrious foreign workers are putting in an enormous working week? Germans, for example, are said to take only one week’s holiday a year, to refuse to strike and to turn out such cheap, efficient goods that they easily outsell the products of their British counterparts. Why, we have even heard the same sort of thing about Russian workers, who were reported to have smiled superior, mystified smiles when they saw English workers knocking off for tea during the preparation of the recent Soviet Exhibition at Earl’s Court. Nothing like that, they said, happened in Russia! This, of course, is common stuff. Nobody need feel upset that he does not work hard enough to satisfy his employer. The ideal worker, from the capitalist viewpoint, would be somebody who stuck at it twenty-four hours a day without needing those irksome breaks for sleep, food and the rest of it.

However lazy the British worker is supposed to be the fact is that, like other workers all over the world, he turns out some pretty substantial profits for his master. And with it all he is loyal. In the midst of the worries of working for his living, paying off the H.P., the mortgage and the rest, he also finds time to fret about the fortunes of his ruling class. He will always get upset to hear that foreign capital has moved into the country and has taken over a British company. Remember the fuss about Tube Investments? And later on about Ford? In the 'bus queue, at the bench, around the canteen table, many workers expressed the opinion that this was alien investment with a sinister motive. Some of them thought that behind it all was a scheme to undermine British industry, to buy up a prosperous rival and then let it go bankrupt.

This is a strange idea. The capitalist class find it difficult at times to assure themselves of a profit from their business, let alone deliberately investing a few million into a loss. And we should remember that there are plenty of firms in this country which are offshoots of foreign companies, and which are thriving concerns. Some of them, in fact, have become larger and more prosperous than their foreign parent. And what about British investment abroad? Do British workers object to that?

They do not—although there is plenty of it. Mr. Heathcoat Amory, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, when questioned in the House about the Tube Investments deal, stated that this country is a nett exporter of capital. A few months back, for example, Courtaulds bought a four per cent. interest in the Koppers Company Inc., one of the largest American chemical and plastic concerns. At the same time, they put two men onto the board of the American company. There were, of course, no complaints from Fleet Street about this. No heat was generated under any white collar at this new example of one country investing in another. No British newspaper carried stem warnings about threats to prosperity. Presumably because British workers, like their brothers abroad, are nothing if not patriotic. They think that American ownership of Ford Dagenham must be a baleful influence, but that British investment overseas is an example of enterprise and anyway is all done for the benefit of the natives.

In fact, it is quite unimportant to the British worker whether the firm which employs him is owned by foreign shareholders or not. He can live only by persuading some firm or other to buy his working ability and wherever he works he will receive, on a broad average, the same wage. Every capitalist concern, whatever the nationality of its shareholders, is in business to make profit. It is, indeed, to make more profit that they take the risk of investing abroad. Courtaulds went into Koppers for what they called “. . . the exploitation of areas of mutual interest.” They were, in other words, trying to rebuild some of the investments in the United States which the British government compulsorily sold for them during the war. Nobody has yet found a certain way of making capitalist industry, anywhere in the world, able to rely upon its profits. That is why we have booms and depressions, and why some firms go out of business. All over the world, the interests of the worker must clash with his master’s. These are the common problems of capitalism, which cannot be wiped out by the change of a company's nationality.

Why, then, do workers bother about whether their employer is British or not? Why are they loyal? Because they think that they have some stake in the country of their living, which gives them a common cause with the British capitalist class. And what does this stake amount to?

About the biggest and most valuable thing that most workers are ever likely to own is a house. And what agonies they must go through, to get it! First they must take on a lifetime's mortgage or loan which, although in fact it deprives them of real ownership of the house, saddles them with the full legal responsibilities of ownership. If a slate falls o(f the roof onto somebody's head they—not the building society—must pay compensation. If the house is struck by lightning or damaged by flood water, they must suffer the consequences. The money for the house is often lent at such an interest rate that in the end the borrower will repay about twice as much as he originally borrowed. While he is repaying the loan, his occupation of the house can be hedged about by all manner of legal restrictions, which are imposed to make sure that if he defaults in the repayments the house will have a good resale value. And if in the end the worker has kept up his payments and done everything else that the building society wants, what has he got? A working class house which has cost him nearly twice as much as it would have done if he could have originally afforded to pay for it outright. And the tail end of his life in which to enjoy it.

So much for house ownership. Do the working class own anything else in this country? Over the years, there have been many investigations into relative ownership and incomes. They have always pointed to the same conclusion— that most people own very little and a few people own a great deal. One of the latest of these investigations was carried out by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics. They published the results in their Bulletin of February this year. Here are some extracts from it.

There are twenty thousand people in this country with over £100,000 each in capital, averaging £250,000 each. Ten per cent. of the population over 20 owns ninety-eight per cent. of company stocks and shares, and seventy-four per cent. of land, building and trade assets. One per cent. of the over 20 population own eighty-one per cent. of stocks and shares, and twenty-eight per cent, of land, building and trade assets. This does not leave much for the rest of the population, for the working class—the loyal, struggling mortgagors. The Bulletin tells us something about them. There are, it says, sixteen million people with what it calls a net capital of less than £100, and an average holding of £50.

These are the facts behind the great myth of working class ownership, patriotism and employer-loyalty. Perhaps, at times, a glimmering of the facts gets through to the workers and sets them realising that Britain does not belong to them. That a very small minority in the world own almost anything that is worth owning, whilst the rest spend their waking lives in work to keep things that way. That the majority scrape along with the shabby and tawdry whilst the few can have—literally—the best. The best clothes, houses, food, holidays. The best chance of living a worthwhile life. And—final irony—they can have all this without needing to work for it. They can leave that part to the lazy, loyal working class.

Who do you think has the better side of the bargain? And who are the mugs?

Ivan

Latin America (1961)

Book Review from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Latin America—The Balance of Race Redressed, by Halcro Ferguson for the Institute of Race Relations. (Oxford University Press, 7s. 6d.)

With the exception of The Times and The Economist the only British newspaper that regularly covers Latin American affairs is The Observer, which has in Halcro Ferguson a highly informed student of what is going on "south of the border.” His first book is therefore a welcome addition to the limited literature available on the racial aspect of that part of the world.

It is regrettable that the author makes no attempt to define his meaning of the term race. It is far too “loaded” a word to leave to the reader's personal interpretation. Fortunately, there is nothing in present day Latin America to compare with the specific discrimination on grounds of colour to be found in the Southern States of America or the Republic of South Africa. It would be a mistake, however, to think this is due to some kind of moral superiority. Discrimination and indignity have many forms. From Mexico down to Paraguay the Spanish speaking descendants of the conquistadors have exerted a repressive social, religious and linguistic domination over their Indian subjects whose pre-Colombian culture was by no means inferior to that of their conquerors.

Mr. Ferguson likens the break-away of the Spanish colonies under the leadership of Bolivar and San Martin to the current White-Settler and “Colon" quarrels with the home country, although as he himself shows the social gap between the élite and the masses was not a principle of racial superiority. What it does mean is that as the countries of Central and South America undergo their national bourgeois revolutions we are likely to witness the rise of the Indian majority as a key political factor with the subsidiary demand for literacy and equal rights of language. A situation not unlike India once the English no longer held sway.

We must register a point of disagreement. Despite the fact that numerically the peasants were preponderant in both Mexico of 1910 and Russia of 1917 it is an error to equate the respective struggles of that period. In the words of Rudolf Sprenger, “The Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution without the bourgeoisie. Leadership: the intellectuals. Weapon of attack: the proletariat. Mass-basis: the peasantry.” In Mexico's case it was not a question of a fundamental change in the social basis of society, which is what we understand by the word revolution. Rather was it one of the last of the great peasant revolts so tragically doomed to failure by the inexorable laws of social development.

Eddie Grant

YHWH* (1961)

Book Review from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Religion of Israel, by Yehezekel Kaufmann (translated by Moshe Greenberg.) Allen & Unwin, 42s.

This is an excellent book: not only the translation—which alone can make or mar any work, but also the abridgement of seven volumes.†  Despite this and the obvious drawbacks Dr. Greenberg has given us an eminently readable book. A must for biblical scholars and a mine of information for Socialists. Professor Kaufmann took the best part of thirty years to produce these seven volumes and in so doing has amassed a wealth of facts regarding the origins and the nature of Israelite religion—Judaism. Many of these facts are incorporated in this abridgement, which makes fascinating reading and one wonders at what was left out. This is the first time that any part of Professor Kaufmann’s major work on Judaism has been published in any other language but Hebrew.

For those concerned with Judaism as the first monotheistic religion from which sprang Christianity and Islam and the connecting links between Paganism, Pantheism, Polytheism, and Primitive Magic, there is a good argument in this book and much to cogitate over.

Socialists will value this book in much the same way as they do Fraser's Golden Bough, and Darwin's Origin of Species, as an explanation of mankind's activities and of his earlier inability to understand natural phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the Sun, the waxing and waning of the Moon, storms, floods, and so on. Primitive Magic was early man's way of endeavouring to deal with the things he did not understand, and as he became more sophisticated his superstitions hardened into religion. Pantheistic and polytheistic to start with and then Monotheistic, today we have variants all along the line, enough of them in fact to make the soup firms' varieties look sick. In the bargain, organised religion in the early days of propertied society— somewhere in the Middle East—gave rise to science, which is today busy burying religion beneath a mountain of facts.

All of this has been brought about by man endeavouring to come to grips with the problems that confronted him. Homo Sapiens has solved most of his problems, and we are confident that he will continue to do so. This volume is good ammunition for debunking the God idea. Not that Professor Kaufmann wrote his volumes with that intention—he is a devout Jew—but then neither did Darwin!

Jon Keys

* GOD.

† An eighth volume has been written, but is not dealt with in this book.

Buddha's tooth (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Chinese are a people without what we would call a religion; in its place they have the philosophy of Confucianism. This regulates the behaviour between older and younger brother and other members of the family and subjugates them all to the head of the household. The system of responsibilities goes all the way through society to the head of the State, who is compared to the father of a family.

The Chinese Communist Party who now manage capitalism have substituted a somewhat similar authoritarian ideology of their own, with Mao Tse-tung at the top of the social pyramid in the place formerly occupied by the Emperor.

This lack of religious belief, however, does not help them from pandering to even the most stupid of superstitious practices when it suits their interests. Witness the recent episode of Buddha's tooth.

For the first time in 2,500 years the right and the left tooth of the Lord Buddha have been brought together; at Kandy, the ancient capital of Ceylon, where hundreds of thousands of pilgrims saw the right tooth, in its 3 cwt. gilded casket studded with green and red gems, loaded on a specially built chariot for a four month's tour of the island's holy places. The relic itself has been provided by courtesy of Communist China. Its usual resting place is in a newly reconstructed 150 ft. high Pagoda in Peking's western hills whence it was brought to Colombo aboard an Ilyushin jet. Mrs. Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister, and members of her Cabinet took a prominent part in greeting it.

Ceylon has its own tooth — the left one — enshrined at Kandy’s Dalada Maligawa temple. It is about half the size of the Chinese relic but equally venerated in the Buddhist world.

The Chinese Government can very well understand the excitement and keenness of the Ceylonese ruling-class at the possession of this relic, for it is a help in the very important task of doping their workers’ minds. The Ceylonese ruling-class, no doubt. consider this acquisition very fortunate indeed. Buddha’s tooth helps to whip up religious fervour, and this is channelled into support of the Buddhist church, which, in Ceylon, is a pillar of the State.

What an auspicious atmosphere for the Chinese to start their negotiations to barter rice for rubber and what an edge on their Russian rivals too! How the sophisticated rulers of China, who so make use of a religious relic (useless to them for hoodwinking their agnostic workers) must be laughing up their sleeves at the Ceylonese workers who fall for such hocus pocus!

Frank Offord

50 Years Ago: The Limitations of Industrial Action (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

In August 1911 their was a strike of railwaymen. The Liberal Government, with the support of the Tories called out the troops and there were many casualties when police were used to break up strikers meetings.

Among those hardest hit by the great events of August are the Industrial Unionists. They have witnessed a strike in the industry most able to paralyse society. That it could paralyse society has been amply demonstrated—but then, we have never denied that they could accomplish this. However, events have gone on to prove our claim that, considered as an instrument for ’taking and holding’ the means of life Industrial Unionism, with its most perfect weapon, the General Strike, can accomplish nothing more than general paralysis.

The ’riotous mob ’ of August 1911 were an appalling power for destruction—everybody knew that. Had they been sufficiently desperate, had they felt sufficiently inclined to suicide, they would have been irresistible for ruin. They could have laid London in ashes in a night: they could have made the country an inferno of blood and fire; they could have performed prodigies of destruction in spite of police and military. But when it comes to taking and holding and operating one shillings-worth of the productive wealth of the capitalist class, they are powerless. They can destroy and die, but to hold and operate they must live—and in the difference between these two, Industrialism finds its grave.

The final lesson, and the greatest of all, is to be found in the crushed hopes of the Industrialists, the Syndicalists, the Anarchists. These claim that the means of production must be seized in the teeth of the armed forces; the Socialists hold that the preliminary must be to get control of the armed forces by capturing the machinery of government.

[From the
 Socialist Standard, September 1911]

MRA's Absolutes (1961)

Film Review from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Film: The Crowning Experience.

Verdict: A "must” for all those wishing to know just how not to solve the problems of society.

Very good colour and camera work. Music and lyrics fair to middling. Acting and presentation good in some parts, but in others, oh so awkward and stultified as to draw embarrassed titters even from a sympathetic audience.

And the plot? Well, when we tell you that The Crowning Experience is a Moral Re-Armament Production, maybe you can guess the rest. A lavishly produced book of the film assures us that it was inspired by the real life story of Mary McLeod Bethune, a Southern Negress of very humble beginnings who, it is said, founded a University in Mayesville, South Carolina, and became a special adviser to Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt.

Broadway singer Muriel Smith portrays the leading part of the good lady, here called Emma Tremaine. After starting the "Tremaine College," she has trouble with a young graduate, Charlie, who becomes a "Professional Revolutionary" in the pay of the Communist Party, trying to work an outsized chip off his shoulder, acquired during childhood when his mother died of starvation. This leads to a first class row with Emma when he tries to form a "Cell" in Emma's own college, and gets thrown off the campus for his trouble.

But everything comes right in the end. of course, because they all somehow find their way to an MRA conference on Mackinac Island and become “changed.” Even the stubborn Charlie (who has really gone along there to get his wife back) melts before the powerful appeal of the four absolute standards of honesty, purity, unselfishness and love. In a matter of minutes he has switched his worship from the God in the Kremlin to the one at Mackinac. Finally, there is a truly tear-jerking session with politicians and leading figures from various parts of the world confessing their past dishonesties and swearing to uphold and apply the principles of MRA in the future.

The political simpleton will find much in this film to encourage him in his ignorance, Apart from the scientifically quite untenable “God” idea there is the fatuous and futile notion that the MRA “Absolutes" will give us the peaceful and happy world which we all so desperately want.

Of course, it is desirable to be honest, to harbour no hatred or ill-feeling, and to be free from fear. No doubt we have all felt the strain imposed by having to cheat and lie at some time or other, and no one but a madman really approves of it. Again, how nice it would be if the statesmen were to be absolutely honest with each other—a sort of “cards on the table" policy. Then why aren’t they? What is it that makes them hold secrets, even from those whom they proclaim as allies? In fact, why do statesmen exist at all? Just whose interests do they represent?

It is only in posing and answering such questions as these that we can hope to achieve a satisfactory explanation of the bloodshed, suspicion and misery in which modern society abounds.

The Crowning Experience tells us merely that such problems exist. For the most part, it is a study in religious emotionalism, and relies on tautology and the usual sweeping claims in support of its "case.”

Eddie Critchfield

Branch News (1961)

Party News from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two items of news regarding the Party’s activity during July must reassure members of the increasing results of the work done by Comrades in our effort to propagate Socialism.

On July 19th the second mid-week Demonstration for Socialism meetings was held at Conway Hall. London. To an audience of nearly 400, Comrades Grant and Hardy (Comrade Fahy in the Chair) held an inspiring meeting. The audience put some excellent questions and took part in discussion—all dealt with by the speakers in full. So much so that many people who were slightly interested in the Party's case, remarked that much had been learned by the discussion and they were anxious to hear and learn more. Good literature sales were made and a collection of £25 odd was taken up. The Propaganda Committee arranged this meeting and plans are being made for a further Demonstration for Socialism on October 18th, in the Caxton Hall, London.

The other item of moment was the result of the small band of literature sellers organised by the new Literature Sales Committee, who sold literature at Earls Court during the Russian Exhibition. Over 1,100 pamphlets were sold, 700 odd were the pamphlet “Russia Since 1917" and the amount handed in to Head Office was nearly £65. This is a remarkable effort and demonstrates so well that if Comrades organise together on such projects, much can be done to get the Party's case over to the workers who must know and understand it in order to achieve the aim of every Socialist—Socialism.

The Autumn Delegate Meeting is being held at Head Office, on Saturday (afternoon 2.30 to 5.30) and Sunday (11.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.) on October 7th and 8th. The Standing Orders Committee are making special efforts to re-arrange the seating arrangements and it is hoped that a good attendance will be there to hear about the successful half-year's work of Party Comrades in London and the Provinces. Scotland and Wales. It is hoped that a report will be available from America where Comrade Gilmac is attending as our representative to the Annual Conference of the W.S.P.

Wembley Branch members returned from holiday at the end of July and ready for the fray once more. Plans in hand at the time of going to Press, included a combined canvassing and propaganda trip to Southsea on August 27th and an indoor public meeting in the Autumn at Wembley. This will be the Branch’s first attempt at indoor propaganda and careful arrangements will be necessary. All branch members will be informed and are urged to give their utmost support.

The Branch has held a series of very successful meetings at Gloucester Road with attentive audiences and literature sales showing a marked improvement on previous seasons. Is this part of a general awakening of interest in our case? We hope so and anyway Branch members will do their best to exploit it to the full. Canvassing efforts continue and the practice is to send a team to selected areas month by month, with one comrade following up the contacts made. Some good contacts have been made, but the Branch is restricted by manpower shortage. Absent Comrades please note.

The following is an extract from a letter received from Comrade Everson of New Zealand.

  “In New Zealand at present there is much concern about the possibility of Great Britain joining the European Common Market. A very gloomy future is predicted by the politicians. Mr. Holyoake and company have taken the opportunity to use it as an excuse to postpone their tax reducing election promise for ‘at least another year!’ Many young married workers I contact are very worried about the future, not simply at being unemployed, but at losing overtime work. In spite of the child allowance of 15s. per week for each child, the lower paid workers, reduced to the much boasted 40 hour week, would suffer hardships, unemployment would be disastrous. What a system! After all the years of so-called prosperity, referred to by the Labour politicians as the ‘Honeymoon’, a short spell of unemployment would put most workers on the bread line".

Bright Note. It is noticeable, after some long while of static membership numbers, that applications for membership to the Party are becoming a much more frequent item of E.C. business.

Phyllis Howard

Is it all a mistake? (1961)

Editorial from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are some modern historians who take the point of view that the period between the first and the second world wars was one which saw a succession of diplomatic and military blunders. These blunders, they say, were the cause of the outbreak in 1939 — if the statesmen and the soldiers had somehow been more sensible, it could ail have been avoided. Germany could have been contained, there would have been no need for the Western powers to allow the Soviet Union to make the great inroads which she has now made into Europe and the post-1945 tensions would never have happened.

This is a convenient attitude to adopt, for it solves all our problems in retrospect. But it leaves several factors out of account. There may have been mistakes made, by both sides, in the 'thirties. Equally, the statesmen's decisions, in their context, may have been perfectly correct. Whatever the truth of it, there is something which stands above all others as the reason for the declaration of war. German capitalism was trying to elbow its way back into a position of strength and influence and was therefore a challenge to the other capitalist nations of Europe which none of them could ignore.

However clever, or inept, the governments may have been, it would have had no effect upon the threat from Germany. For that threat was the logical continuance of the competitive nature of capitalist society. No statesman—and no historian, for that matter —has ever been able to find a way around the problems which arise from that nature.

And what of the events since 1945? If, as our historians tell us, there were mistakes before 1939, did they teach anything to capitalism's leaders? The many wars and international crises which we have passed through since then might suggest that they did not. For if 1939 was a blunder, how much greater would be those which have followed and which have nearly landed us into a nuclear war? Was it a mistake to divide Korea? To allow the Russians to take the small Baltic States? Did the politicians err when they divided Germany and Berlin? Now, both sides are declaring that they would go to war again over the division of Germany. Is that another mistake they are making?

No, the “ great blunder" theory does not fill the bill. Whatever the incidentals which aggravate a tense international dispute, they do not explain the dispute itself. To do that we must explain the basis of capitalist society, its commercial rivalries, its anomalies, its inhumanities. That is the task of workers throughout the world. So long as they blame their leaders' mistakes for the problems of capitalism, they will be content to try to put things right merely by changing the headers, or by something else equally futile.

Which means that they will not consider Socialism as the only way out of their nightmare. And that is the biggest mistake of all.

Holiday Home (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

As he trod amongst them with his trolley of coffee, the orderly knew that this was one of their bad days. Sometimes they were cheerful—gratingly, hysterically so. Sometimes apathetic. Today, they were sombre, only wanting lo talk about their afflictions, to tell each other what it was that had laid them paralysed and incapable in the forecourt of the Holiday Home.

"Experiments with atom bombs, messing about with nature," , said Wilkie, ’'That’s what I reckon gave me my stroke.”

"What’s the good of war," gloomed the man alongside, “Cost me my arm and paralysed my thigh. Now I’m just a burden to my family. Might as well be dead."

I should break this up, thought the orderly, this is the worst mood of all. Then Old Harris chimed in, bringing what he always imagined was sunshine and relief into the invalids' depression.

“I’m as helpless as any of you," he said, he eyes gleaming. " But I don’t blame it onto war or bomb tests. Our troubles are sent by the good god, to test us. We must suffer gladly. I may be laid up, with only a small Army pension. but thank God I get by."

"Good god." screamed Ethel from her chair. "If he’s so good, why does he allow all this badness in the world he's supposed to have made, eh? Answer me that:'

The orderly broke in with quick words, clashing the cups as he spoke.

"Now, now," he said, ’’You know you mustn't get so het up. Anyway, you’re all going down to the front for some sunshine and fresh air, That’s what you’re here for, sunshine and fresh air."

That calmed them. In their secret selves, they were appalled at the thought of another parade along the sea front. They fell into silence and suffered themselves to the attention' of the orderlies, who came from inside the Home to wheel them off.

They were a tragic lot. Here was a mail who had lost his limb because of an apparently trivial scratch at work. Here another whose back broke when he fell from a ladder on a high job. And there were the war wounded. These human wrecks were some of the unfortunates who had felt the concentration of capitalism’s bitterest effects.

For although we know that capitalism cannot be blamed for every illness and accident, the fact is that it is responsible for many of them.

Some of the most common, and persistent ailments which people nowadays suffer are traceable to the stress of modern living—to the working, travelling, eating pace which modem industry and its profit incentive sets for us.

High time for accidents is the time when everybody is going to work — they call it the rush hour and it is in the rush that so many accidents happen.

Capitalism’s wars maim hundreds of thousands, and undermine the health of countless others.

But you know all this.

What you may not realise is that, as long as capitalism lasts, there is little chance of society ever really tackling the problem of ill-health and accidents, and of reducing them to the very minimum possible.

We know, for example, that cancer research comes a long way behind arms production in the priorities of modern society. Why is this? Simple answer: arms are more immediately important to the capitalist class than finding a cure for cancer. Arms can be used to defend their commercial interests. Curing cancer would only save a few million lives a year. Who, other than cancer sufferers, would care?

The majority of people get a very measly sort of medical treatment. Who knows — or cares — what future damage is being stored up by the "Get-you-back-to-work palliatives" which the working class are handed by their doctors when they are ill? And who has not noticed that society’s medical resources are concentrated only when a member of the ruling class — someone who can afford the best — requires them?

Yes, capitalism stands in the way of many aspects of human advance. Socialism will set free our scientific ingenuity, so that we can really get down to dealing with medical problems.

We hope the invalids enjoyed their outing. And let us look forward to the day when a crippled world can throw away its crutches.

Dick Jacobs

Notes on Economic History (11) (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Theory of Population

As Adam Smith's doctrine spread, it was elaborated and modified. Attempts to develop his ideas led to endeavours to explain the poverty and misery of the working class and all the defects that had become apparent during the rapid development of Capitalism, from the time of publication of his Wealth of Nations.

Two contrasted attitudes appeared. One was a condemnation and a criticism of conditions—this led to ideas about Socialism. The other was a pessimistic resignation, accepting the conditions and declaring them to be the result of the working of natural laws. This was the views held by Malthus. Malthus was responsible for two important works; in 1820 his Principles of Political Economy was published preceding by some 22 years his Essay on the Principle of Population, first published in 1798, and for ever associated with his name.

Malthus begins his statement on population with an account of the "tendency of all life to increase beyond the amount of nourishment available to it." In illustration he quotes Benjamin Franklin—"It is observed by Dr. Franklin that there is no bounds to the prolific nature of plants or animals, but what is made by their crowding and interfering with each other's means of subsistence. Were the face of the earth, he says, vacant of other plants, it might be gradually sowed and overspread with one kind only, as, for instance, with fennel; and were it empty of other inhabitants, it might, in a few ages, be replenished from one nation only as, for instance, with Englishmen." It follows from this, he says, that population has a constant tendency to increase beyond the means of subsistence.

Studying the increase of population in America, where there was an ample supply of good fertile and virgin land, and where there were few natural checks to growth of numbers. Malthus arrived at the conclusion that during about one hundred and fifty years the population had doubled itself every 25 years. The natural increase of population therefore took place like the increase in a series of numbers—1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256. In short, population, when its growth is unhindered, tends to increase in geometrical progression.

On the other hand, says Malthus, it is impossible to increase the produce of the soil in such a ratio. Under favourable conditions we may suppose that by improving the land already under cultivation, and by utilising the comparatively poor and neglected land, it would be possible to increase yields considerably. But the increase in twenty-five year periods (those in which population can double) could not be expected to be more rapid than is represented by the series of numbers—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. "It may be fairly pronounced . . .  that, considering the present average state of the earth, the means of subsistence, under circumstances the most favourable to human industry, could not possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio." To sum up, whereas population can increase in geometrical progression, the means of subsistence can increase only in arithmetical progression.

Population for Malthus, therefore, is limited by the means of subsistence. As a result of the tension inherent in the contrast between these two rates of increase, there is a tendency for population to increase beyond the means of subsistence. The result is that population increases in any country when the means of subsistence increase, whether as a result of more intensive agriculture, the import of food, or changes in the distribution of national wealth. Insufficiency of the means of subsistence, on the other hand, makes itself felt in the form of checks. These checks are of two kind—positive and preventive.

The positive checks are those which set by destroying existing population: the most obvious are wars, diseases, and famines, but they include every cause, whether arising from ignorance, vice or misery, which in any way helps to shorten the natural span of life. Preventive checks are those which are deliberately undertaken, such as refusal to marry and what Malthus calls the postponement of marriage, moral restraint. "By moral restraint I  . . .  mean a restraint of marriage from prudential motives, with a conduct strictly moral during the period of restraint."

The fact that the produce of land is uncertain and irregular was embodied in the "Law of Diminishing Returns." In the cultivation of land, assuming that the technique remains unchanged, Malthus argued that each successive addition of capital and labour applied to it beyond a certain amount (the optimum expenditure upon a particular technique) produces a smaller increment of yield. Accordingly, beyond the optimum expenditure further increments of capital and labour no longer produce equal additions of yield, but progressively diminishing ones. To put the matter in more general terms—the conditions remaining unchanged, additions of expenditure prove less profitable. If, for instance, the expenditure of 1,000 of additional capital produces an additional product of 500, the expenditure of a second 1,000 will produce an additional product of only 300: that of a third 1,000 will produce no more than 200, and so on.

This "law" has in fact been shown to be fallacious. It assumes that the productive technique remains unchanged, an assumption which is contrary to all evidence. In fact, Malthus himself says that this "law" is valid only so long as agricultural techniques remain unchanged. It would be difficult to find a period since Malthus wrote the essay, during which advanced countries' techniques of production has not been continuously changing and must, as man's knowledge increases, continue to change.

Bob Ambridge