Letter: The Wages of Agricultural Workers (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shrewsbury.

April 22nd, 1939.

To The Editor,

The Socialist Standard

Dear Comrade,

As one who has been a District Organising Secretary for the National Union of Agricultural Workers for twenty-one years, and have served as a Workers’ representative (officially) on Agricultural Wages Committees covering thirteen counties, I can assure your contributor, T. R. V. Andrews, that your statement that, as many as twenty-five per cent. of all the 580,000 who work for wages are paid less than the minimum wage legally applicable to them, is more than correct. If your statement errs at all, it more of an understatement of the real actual position than an overstatement. My experience, and I have since 1924, when the present Agricultural Wages Board Act operated, recovered 1,000 pounds of underpayment per year myself on behalf of members of our Union. And if one takes into account the number of hours actually worked by the agricultural wage-workers, there are quite fifty per cent. of all the wage-workers who do not get ALL that is legally payable under the Board’s orders. And for every farmer prosecuted by the Ministry of Agriculture there are five more cases which the Ministry do not get hold of. And the Ministry, even in those cases where a prosecution takes place, do not recover more than one-half of the underpayments due in those particular cases. Remembering that the local courts are packed with landowner and farmer magistrates, the Ministry only prosecute in straightforward cases, and will not press underpayments of overtime at all.

It is quite true that wage-workers who are not members of their Union will not report underpayments because, in addition to losing their jobs, and being turned out of the tied cottages, they are boycotted by all farmers for fifty miles around. The farmers, as far as their wages-slaves are concerned, are 100 per cent. class-conscious.

All this proves that legislation is of no use unless it is applied. And no matter what legislation may be placed upon the Statute book, it is not worth the paper it is printed on unless those whom it should benefit have the power, through a Trade Union, to enforce its application. And whenever a “Socialist Government,” with a majority, establishes Socialism by legislation, it will require the most perfect Industrial Organisation of the wage-workers in the big key industries in order to give practical effect to that Socialist legislation. So that the wage-workers must not only organise themselves politically for Socialism but must consciously build up class-conscious Industrial Organisation also, that has as its object the taking over, in practice, of the Land, and all other means of Production and Distribution. That means Daniel De Leon’s “Organisation by Industry,” or Industrial Unionism.

Yours fraternally,

W. T. Fielding.

Reply:

[We are obliged to Mr. Fielding for his further information about the wages of agricultural workers, but we differ from the conclusion he draws in his last paragraph. The value of trade union organisation under capitalism as a weapon of defence against the employers is agreed, but after the workers have conquered the powers of Government it will be through their control of the machinery of Government, including the armed forces, that the workers will be enabled to bring to an end the capitalist ownership and control of the means of production and distribution.—Ed. Comm.]

[We have also received a letter from Mr. J. Gill, Editor of The Record, organ of the Transport & General Workers’ Union. Mr. Gill writes : “While it is difficult to say what percentage of farm workers are not being paid the legal minimum rate (it may be more than twenty-five per cent.) there is no doubt that some thousands are being underpaid.” Mr. Gill draws attention to the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture, in the House of Commons on February 13th, 1939, to appoint more inspectors. The Government has persistently taken up this attitude, though the existing number of inspectors “is totally inadequate to cover all the farms in England and Wales.”]

Illusion (1939)

Book Review from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The immediate object of “The Great Illusion—Now,” by Sir Norman Angell (a Penguin Special, 6d.), is stated thus: “To question the all but universally accepted axiom that a nation’s military power can be used to promote its economic welfare;” the general aim of the book is in the cause of Perpetual Peace. Any aspiration towards the final extinction of the unspeakable bestiality which attaches to war must command respect. The S.P.G.B. warmly sympathises with the humane outlook and implied determination to make personal sacrifice, if necessary, of members of such bodies as the Peace Pledge Union; at the same time it deeply regrets that talent, sincerity, and enthusiasm should be practically wasted because the factors which make for war are not fully grasped.

“It can be shown quite indubitably,” says Angell, “that capitalism is not the cause of war.” Nowhere does he give an alternative comprehensive source, other than an echo of Bertrand Russell’s feeble bleat about “competition for preponderance of power” (p. 65); it is only too apparent that the individual egomaniac seeks “power” as more or less an end in itself, a fact interesting to the alienist, but political power is obviously directed to a specific end; Angell himself stumbles upon one such end: “In our industrial economy, markets are the main problem” (p. 154). But on p. 166, the astounding assertion is made that “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade”; “in reality” the Fathers of the American Revolution in 1776 obtained very distinct advantages in trade through the exercise of political and military power; the respectable smugglers of New England, the slave owners of Virginia, through many bloody campaigns, demonstrated to an unkind Motherland that rum and slaves were no longer to be exploited mainly in her interest; “in reality,” yea, verily, Cromwell taught the Dutch, through the cutting edge of Navigation Laws, implemented by a powerful navy, that military power, which had axed a Sacred Majesty, would not brook serious competition for trade on the high seas; “in reality,” modern historical research has revealed, behind the legend of the siege of Troy, not a “fair face which launched a thousand ships against the topmost towers of Ilium,” but a pretty grim struggle for a trade route—this when Capitalism was but a vague stirring in the womb of Time.

On p. 136 we read, “The assumption that military force, if great enough, can be used to transfer wealth, trade, property from the vanquished to the victor, and that the latent power to do so explains the need of each to arm,” is a Great Illusion.

Note carefully “victor” and “vanquished.” Misled by Labour leaders whooping the worker on to war in 1914, few of the working class were under the illusion that any transfer of wealth would meet them in the process of transference, not even to the pitiable extent which rewarded the bluff tar in the good old days of Prize Money. One of Angell’s “Great Illusions,” implicit throughout his book, is based upon the fusion of the two classes with opposite interests in one blessed Union, confounding, like the naughty Arians of old, two distinct persons and “vainly imagining” the substance (swag) can be equitably divided.

The instrument proposed to establish peace has an ancient and fish-like smell—a Federation of Nations. Kant, in a famous brochure in the eighteenth century, set out proposals based upon the idea; curiously enough, he foreshadowed Wilson’s “open covenants openly arrived at,” too. The mediaeval Catholic Church actually accomplished some mitigation with its “Truce of God ” and looked for peace in the direction of a League of Catholic Nations.

Somewhat irrelevantly, Angell quotes the U.S.A. as an example of peace attained by union; here history lands him a neat uppercut; the union of the thirteen states in 1776 already contained the germs of the clash of rival interests, which bore fruit in the awful struggle between the commercial North and agricultural South; here again, Angell can be quoted against himself; most significantly he writes (p. 185): “The British worker, as distinct from the possessor of capital, is more subject to restriction in entrance to Australia than he is in entrance to Argentina or Mexico.” Again (p. 190): “A year or so since, there was in London a deputation from the British Indians in the Transvaal pointing out that the regulations there deprive them of the ordinary rights of British citizens.” What hope for a “Federation” of united effort by capitalist groups hopelessly remote by tradition, by culture, by language even, and hopelessly divided by COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, when, in the British Empire, Rhodes was prepared in the interests of the British Africander, to “cut the painter,” and a Celtic fringe is prepared even now to drive the hardest of bargains with the harassed Sassenach.

Our author himself senses a Big Snag, which may be summarised in the Latin tag: “Who will arrest the drunken bobby?” In a wonderful League of “Peace-loving” nations, what shall be done about the truculent member of the gang, who, nourishing a convincing type of gun, slithers out of the Hall! of Peace with unpeaceful intent elsewhere?

The “International Police Force,” on a small scale, has proved a broken reed in China; Henry of Navarre, in the sixteenth century, played with the idea; that gay dog found that capitalism, now a lusty infant, kicked over the traces of his dream chariot, leaving him free to chase more congenial, if less worthy, objects.

In the enchanted island of Shakespeare’s imagination, Gonzalo discoursed eloquently of a serenely beautiful Utopia; the coarse bounder Antonio discovered at the tail-end only “whores and knaves. . . . The latter end of his Commonwealth forgets the beginning”; Angell sets out to the tune of Perpetual Peace, alack! Under capitalism the finale is inevitably a hideous jazz of bombs and poison gas. Note well, “We must be as ready to FIGHT for code or rule of the road as hitherto we have been willing to fight for OUR territory”—needless to say, “OUR” not emphasised by the author.

Easily procured, it is plainly the duty of Socialists to make themselves acquainted with the kind of stuff which can be translated, into twenty different languages … to the bemuddlement and bemusing of the working class over a huge range. Verb. sap.

Augustus Snellgrove

Mr. Beverley Baxter’s Error (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Beverley Baxter is M.P. for Wood Green and was formerly Editor-in-Chief and Director of the Daily Express. He writes articles for “MacLean’s Magazine,” Toronto. A Canadian reader of the Socialist Standard draws our attention to the fact that in his articles, Mr. Baxter refers to the Labour Party as the “Socialist Party of Great Britain.” Our correspondent adds that as Mr. Baxter “doesn’t on the surface seem especially malicious perhaps he would make a suitable correction in a future article if his attention were called to the matter.”

The probability is that Mr. Baxter, when connected with the Daily Express publications, picked up their habit of calling the Labour Party the Socialist Party and just doesn’t know any better. When his attention is called to it, he will at least no longer have the excuse of ignorance.

Ed. Comm.

Blogger's Note:

Fast forward to 1956 and the SPGB is still complaining in the pages of the Socialist Standard about Beverley Baxter mislabelling the Labour Party as 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain'. Looks like Mr. Baxter was playing the long game, and had a political sideline in trolling both the SPGB and the Labour Party. Fair play.

Communists and the Pope (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Canadian Labour Herald in its April issue, quotes the following two news items, both from the New York Times of February 13th, 1939: —

NEW YORK—”The New York State Young Communist League Convention was brought to a close yesterday afternoon with a resolution expressing sympathy to young Catholics on the death of Pope Pius XI.”

MOSCOW—”The Soviet press to-day criticised Pope Pius XI, as a defender of capitalism. The newspaper ‘Bezboznik’ also condemned him for his crusade against Soviet Russia beginning in 1930 and for maintaining good relations with the Spanish insurgents, and the Japanese government.”

A Reminder (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Next time you have that animated conversation with a stranger, get his address, send it, together with a sixpenny postal order, to the Publicity Committee, and we will send him the Socialist Standard for three consecutive months.

Fascism and Democracy (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

"A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism.” Thus Marx and Engels in the opening sentence of the world-famous “Communist Manifesto.” Ninety years later, however, it is another ; spectre that is haunting the minds of our anti-fascists: the spectre of Fascism.

In an article of this scope it is impossible to go into the social origin and content of Fascism. In the main, it is the concrete, practical differences; between the fascist and democratic forms of political administration that interest the working class. Under Fascism, the traditional forms of working class political and economic organisations are denied the right of legal existence. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the Press, is severely curtailed and made to conform to the needs of a single political party that has, for the time being, secured a monopoly in the administration of the state machine. Under Democracy, the workers are allowed to form their own political and economic organisations and within limits, freedom of speech, of assembly, and of the press is permitted as well as the possibility of the electorate choosing between contending political parties.

Now, unlike many people intoxicated with a newly-found love for democracy, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has always insisted on the democratic nature of Socialism, and on the value that the widest possible discussion of conflicting political views has for the working class. When we refuse to unite with non-socialist organisations for the purpose of defending democracy, it is most certainly not because we in any way minimise or underestimate the importance of democracy for the working class or the socialist movement. It is simply because we are convinced that democracy cannot be defended in such a manner.

And as proof of this contention, the working class has a rich experience from which to draw. The policy of the “lesser evil,” that is, a policy of concessions to, and compromise with, non-fascist parties and elements of capitalism which was pursued and justified by the Social Democratic Party of Germany on the grounds that such a policy was dictated by the necessity of defeating Hitler Fascism : the more recent experience of the same policy operated under a different name, that is, the “popular front” in France, both point to the same lesson. Namely, provided the “Fascist Menace” is real, and not the invention of hysterical and panic-stricken “intellectuals,” the formation of a bloc of non-socialist anti-fascists does not impede the advance of Fascism, but if anything, serves to expedite its progress. In order to make this point quite clear, it is necessary that we should understand the nature of democracy, and its usefulness to the working class. Democracy, in itself, cannot solve a single problem of the working class. Unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and other evil effects of capitalism remain, no matter whether the form of its political administration be democratic or dictatorial. Freedom to cry working class misery from the house-tops will not, in itself, abolish that misery. Democracy is a weapon, potentially invaluable, it is true; but like every other weapon, it can be used either for self-preservation or for self-destruction. And the painful fact is that in Germany—and the same process is going on in France to-day, and may be going on here tomorrow—the working class, lacking in an understanding of how to use the democratic weapon in its own interests, chose to commit political suicide with it instead.

The constitution of the German “Weimar” Republic—already doomed before Hitler took power—was formally one of the most democratic in the world. Nevertheless, so miserable had the existence of wide masses of the German people become, that in the last free election held in Germany a majority of the electorate voted for the abolition of democracy. For in spite of the concern for democracy which is expressed by the Communists nowadays, at the time of that election both National Socialists and German Communists were united in their hatred of what they called “bourgeois democracy.” For the Communists to assert at this time of the day that the downfall of German democracy was due to the refusal of the German Social Democrats to form a united front is nothing less than sheer effrontery; they wouldn’t have touched the then “social fascists” (as they described the Social-Democrats) with a barge pole. The chief difference between the followers of the Communists and Nazis was that they chose different vehicles through which to express their hatred of democracy. Lacking an understanding of their social position, disgusted by the antics and ineptitudes of self-styled socialists, the mass of the German people found the source of the grievances not in the capitalist nature of the social system, but in the democratic form in which it was administered. Hence, in their uninformed despair, they fell an easy prey to astute and unscrupulous demagogues, who never failed to reinforce the belief that democracy was the cause of social distress.

Fascism does not exist in the blue of the heavens like every other social phenomenon, it is related to, and has its origin in, a social background. And that background is the very democratic capitalism that “popular-fronters” and other exponents of working class compromise with capitalism, would have us defend. That capitalism inevitably gives rise to working class problems has already been mentioned; but with equal inevitability it also gives rise to problems of a specifically capitalist nature, such as maintaining the profitability of production; securing new, and retaining old markets; the necessity of forging “national unity” when faced with war with rival capitalist groups, etc. And it is precisely in an attempt to solve these problems that the ruling class has recourse to Fascism. That these problems can be permanently solved is precluded by the nature of the capitalist system itself; but that will not prevent the capitalists from making the attempt. Fascism, then, is a political form best adapted to meet the needs of certain contemporary capitalist states.

As long as the working class supports capitalism and capitalist policies, it will, in the long run, ultimately give its support to that policy best calculated to meet the political and economic needs of capitalism—even though that policy may be fascist.

Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended, means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy. It cannot be emphasised too much, that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism, and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy.

Arthur Mertons

Death of Comrade Bremner (1939)

Obituary from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are exceedingly sorry to have to announce the death of Comrade Herbert (Jock) Bremner, of Leyton Branch, who died at Woodford Sanatorium on May 6th, 1939.

Our late comrade was for many years a strenuous worker for the cause and only ceased his activities when illness made it impossible for him to continue.

His death in his early thirties came about as a result of having contracted T.B. following an attack of asthma.

He had a lively disposition and was a cheerful and agreeable comrade; he will be greatly missed.

His interest in the Party was maintained to the day of his death.

Members of the Leyton Branch attended his interment at Chingford Cemetery.

We desire to extend our sympathy to his family in their sad bereavement.

Advertising (1939)

Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

During 1937 the Publicity Committee spent £5 on Press advertising; during 1938 the amount spent was £19. These sums are mere drops in the bucket compared with the vast sums spent on Press advertising by Capitalist firms. The advertising appropriation of a large firm may in fact be anything from £5,000 to £50,000. Space is expensive, and a single inch in the column of a national paper costs from £3 10s. to £5 in only one issue.

Press advertising is, however, one of the most efficient means of making contact with people who will become energetic and enthusiastic propagandists of the Socialist case. It is like a fine-tooth comb which can be drawn through the whole of the population, collecting those who are interested in fundamentals—those who are likely, therefore, to be supremely useful in Socialist propaganda.

To illustrate the results achieved with our present infinitesimal expenditure, let us give a short resume of our activities. Small advertisements have appeared in the national dailies, in Sunday Papers read by the politically interested, in reviews like Plebs and Controversy, while articles in the Socialist Standard on certain subjects have been advertised in periodicals which are read by people who are interested in those subjects. Such advertisements cost anything from 6s. to £3 10s. each.

The results have more than justified this advertising policy.

Enquiries have been received from all parts of the world, e.g., from France, Hungary, Norway, Roumania, Palestine, India, Japan, the East Indies and the West Indies, Canada, the United States, Mexico and South America. At home there is hardly a county in Great Britain from which we have not received an enquiry—from the Orkneys in the north to Cornwall in the south—from Carnarvon in the west to Norfolk in the east.

As a result of the correspondence which has ensued, many COMPLETE SETS of our pamphlets have been sent out, the regular readership of the Socialist Standard has been increased, much correspondence has been passed to the Editorial Committee to be dealt with in the columns of the Socialist Standard, and back volumes of the Socialist Standard have been sent out. New members of the Party have been made, including potential writers and speakers for the Party.

Comrades, this work must go on. Due to the exigencies of the forthcoming Parliamentary election, the General Party Fund is low, and so far a sum of only £15 has been allocated for 1939 advertising. But this amount can be supplemented by donations. Hence we make this pressing appeal to you.

Donations, which will be acknowledged in the Socialist Standard, should be addressed to the Publicity Committee. Postal orders and cheques should be crossed and made payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Remember, with £40 we can cover the world once a year. With £80 we could cover the world twice a year!

Blogger's Note:

Via the excellent Splits & Fusion website, I was actually able to find one of the aforementioned SPGB adverts. It appeared in the November 1937 issue of the ILP theoretical magazine, Controversy. Interesting to note that the advert appeared alongside an advert for the magazine, International Review. It's a shame that there's been little or no research about that particular magazine. Based out of New York, I believe it was largely written by European exiles, and if it's known at all today, it's because it first published the pamphlet, The State and the Socialist Revolution by Julius Martov. 

May Day Demonstration (1939)

Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

We thank comrades for their co-operation in making the May Day Demonstration such a magnificent success, and are pleased to announce that literature was sold to the value of £15 0s. 3d., while donations amounted to £2 13s. 1d.

Central Circulating Committee.

SPGB Meetings (1939)

Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

I don't know if I've noted this on the blog before, but by 1939 Clifford Groves had replaced Frank Grainger as the SPGB's parliamentary candidate in East Ham North. But for the outbreak of the war, there would have been a General Election in 1940 and the first SPGB parliamentary fight would have been in the East End of London. 

Fast forward five years, Groves was still the first SPGB parliamentary candidate but it was now contesting a seat in the west side of London. Groves contested Paddington North at the 1945 General Election. With regards to Frank Grainger - also known as Frank Ginger - according to Ken Weller in Don't Be A Soldier, he ended up as a lecturer for the Economic League. I'd be curious to know the time lag between him stepping down as the SPGB's parliamentary candidate, and when he joined the Economic League. There is no record of when he left the SPGB. I do know that he 'rejoined' the SPGB in 1932 via West Ham branch, and had previously been a member of the CPGB and the IWW. 

Other things of note from the meetings and lectures list:

• 'Robertus' was the party name of Robert Reynolds. By 1940 he had resigned from the party because of its position on the war.
• 'Reginald' was the party name of Augustus Snellgrove, a retired headmaster who had originally been an early party member - not a founder member -  and who had resigned over the WB of Upton Park affair. He rejoined the SPGB in 1933, and was an incredibly active speaker and writer. He is mentioned with affection in Barltrop's The Monument, and it's a crying shame that there was no obituary for him in the pages of the Socialist Standard.

Sting in the Tail: Perm x from No. 11 (1989)

The Sting in the Tail column from the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Perm x from No. 11

It has recently been reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a keen football pools investor.

We can only hope that he is a little bit more gifted in his pools forecasting efforts than in his budget forecasts.

For example in his budget of 1988 he confidently forecast that the inflation rate over the coming year would be 4 per cent and that the balance of payments deficit would be £4 billion.

In fact the inflation rate has turned out to be double his forecast and the balance of payments was more than treble his forecast.

Mr. Lawson received a terrible drubbing from his critics so his latest forecast is a little less confident. According to The Independent (11 April):

But Mr. Lawson was less certain of his predictions that the current account deficit would remain at £14.5 billion. The forecast, he said was "a genuine best guess" but "we Just simply don't know" whether It would be achieved.

In Mr. Lawson's defence it can be argued that the vagaries of form of Fulham or Partick Thistle are models of consistency compared to the unpredictability of the capitalist market place.

Libertarian?

Here's an interesting little publication from the Libertarian Alliance: Brian Micklethwait on Why I Support The Contras.

When it comes to fighting Communism, the most important rule is: win . . . it may well, for example, be unwise for the Contras to get caught torturing people, on the grounds that this hurts their support In Congress. But the answer is not for the Contras to surrender: It is for them to fight smarter and not get caught torturing people. If they can fight successfully without torturing people at all, then they should do that as well.

In Sickness and Health

In an attempt to generate funds the Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority has come up with a nice little earner.

According to a report in The Independent 11 April:

After shopping mails and one-armed bandits, contraception machines and the sale of puzzles and games to placate patients during the long wait in casualty, the NHS Is about to add another wheeze to the ranks of Its schemes for generating extra income — the car salesman.

Health is just another commodity Inside capitalism. If you have the money you can afford the £1,000 per night London Clinic, If not you can take your chance In the queue at some under-funded public hospital.

Red Sales in the Smart Set

Andrei Fyodorov lives in Moscow and his ambition is to become an old fashioned capitalist. He is all for the freedom of market forces, and is a real Russian Thatcherite. 

At present he is merely the manager of Moscow's first co-operative restaurant but he is about to branch into sales of computers and imported liquor. He also has a joint venture with Spanish businessmen to open a Spanish restaurant in Moscow and a Russian one in Barcelona.

His answer to complaints that his prices are too high is that he is in a monopoly situation and, like a good free marketeer, will charge whatever he can get away with.

Yet he is not a happy man, for although his workers have some shares in the business they don't work any harder than the ones he knew when he managed a state-controlled hotel.

But Fyodorov is no fool. He recognises that Russia is a long way from becoming a western-style economy because the workers cannot throw off overnight the anti free market history of the last 70 years.

He explains in The Guardian:

Millions of people in this country are against the market. They're afraid of prices going up. They fear inflation. They're against private enterprise because it’s a violation of socialism. Yet we don’t know what socialism is. It certainly doesn't exist here.

As we said, Andrei Is no fool.

Fyodorov and his like are as yet an insignificant force in Russia, but unless the die-hard central planners within Russia's ruling class manage to topple the dominant Gorbachev faction then these would-be capitalists will surely grow in wealth and seek a share in political power.

Holiday Planning

Last year the package holiday operators drew up their brochures for 1989. Thomson's, the biggest operator with 40 per cent of the market, estimated that the market would grow by 10 per cent but now find that It has SHRUNK by 10 per cent.

So Thomson's and its subsidiaries have cancelled around one million of their advertised holidays and some trade estimates put the number of cancellations by all the operators at two million, about 16 per cent of the total market.

Why did this happen? Well, the mild winter means that people don't have the same determination to "get some sun” when the holidays come round, and the big increase in interest rates for mortgages and personal borrowing ensures that many people will simply be unable to afford a holiday.

What it adds up to is that the anarchy of the market has triumphed once again. When the brochures were drawn up interest rates were much lower and the consumer spending spree was in full swing. Also, no one could forecast with any certainty what kind of winter we would be getting. True, the operators have their "experts" who try to take these and other factors into account but really, all they can do is make a guess and then hope.

But now that they've cancelled all those bedrooms in Spain, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc., what if we get a cold wet June or people make a late decision to get away after all? They will be clamouring for a holiday in the sun but the operators will be unable to supply them.

What was that about the perfectability of the market?

About ourselves (1989)

From the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the Socialist Party?

An independent political party which stands opposed to all others in this country, including the Labour and Communist parties. Our only links are with similar socialist parties in some other parts of the world.

What is your aim?

The replacement of the existing capitalist system of society by a new and different system we call socialism.

What is capitalism?

A system based on the ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth (land, industry, railways, offices and the like) by a section only of society who thus form a privileged class. The others, who in return for a wage or salary produce wealth for sale with a view to profit, make up the producing or working class. In Britain less than five per cent of the population belong to the owning or capitalist class. Most people — those who work in offices as well as those who work in the factories — are in the working class.

What is socialism?

A democratic world community without frontiers based on the ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth by society as a whole. Socialism will abolish classes and free all humanity from exploitation and oppression. The basis of socialism is this ownership of all the means of production by the whole community; control over their use will rest in the hands of the community through democratic institutions. Wealth will be produced not for sale or profit, but solely to satisfy human needs. This means the end of buying and selling and all the other financial and commercial institutions like money, prices, wages and banks. People will co-operate to produce an abundance of wealth from which they can take freely according to their needs.

Will everything belong to the State?

No. The State does not represent the whole community; it serves the interests only of those who own the means of production. State ownership or nationalisation is one of the ways in which this class controls industry. When the State takes over industries (like the railways and coalmines in Britain) it does so in their interests. State ownership leaves unchanged the class basis of society, the profit motive and the wages system, all of which socialism will abolish. Nationalisation is just State capitalism.

What system exists in Russia?

Russian society is part of world capitalist society. It shows all the essential features of capitalism: a class who control the means of production through their control of political power: another class forced to work for wages: production of goods for sale with a view to profit and the accumulation of capital out of profits. The same goes for countries like China, Cuba and Yugoslavia. They like Russia have State capitalism.

Do you want something like the kibbutzim in Israel?

Socialism can only be a world community without frontiers. It cannot be established in one country let alone on one farm. The kibbutzim do show that human beings can live without money and can work without wages, but their small scale means that what they can offer is very restricted so that young people are tending to leave them. In practice they have paved the way for the development of capitalism in Israel and some have themselves become capitalist institutions employing outside wage labour and producing for the market with a view to profit.

How do you advocate socialism should be established?

By the class of wage and salary earners, once a majority of them want and understand socialism, taking democratic political action to change the basis of society from the class to the common ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Why must there be a majority in favour of the change to socialism before it can be made?

Socialism, by its nature as a system involving voluntary co-operation, could only be kept going by those who really wanted it and knew what it involved. Any attempt to establish socialism without a majority first being in favour is bound to fail.

Do you repudiate undemocratic minority action to achieve socialism?

Most definitely. No leaders, however sincere or able, can lead a non-socialist working class to socialism. Leaders who take power while a majority do not understand socialism have no choice but to develop and administer capitalism, as has been shown in Russia and by the various labour governments in Britain. When a majority do want and understand socialism they have no need of leaders, but only to organise themselves democratically.

Why do you advocate political action to achieve socialism?

It is their control of the machinery of government that now allows the capitalist class to protect their privileged position as the owners of the means of production. In Britain it is parliament that makes the laws granting them property rights and it is the police and the Courts, and if need be the army, that enforce these laws. The socialist majority must win political power in order to remove the protection the government machine now gives to class ownership and to carry through the establishment of the common ownership of the means of production.

How do you advocate the socialist majority should win political power?

By using their votes to elect socialist delegates to Parliament and the local councils. A socialist victory in a democratically-run election would demonstrate to all that a majority were in favour of the change to socialism.

Why are you opposed to all other political parties?

All of them accept the capitalist system and believe that current social problems can be solved within its framework.

Why do you think that reforms of the capitalist system are not the solution?

These problems are caused by the class ownership of the means of production which all reforms leave unchanged. The policy of trying to deal with social problems one by one by reforms of capitalism is futile, as this is to deal with effects and not the cause. We call this policy "reformism" and are opposed to it.

But surely you are not against all reforms?

We are not opposed to reforms which may bring temporary relief to some workers, but we do not regard it as the task of a socialist party to propose reforms of capitalism. Were we to do this we could easily soon become just another reformist party. To avoid this danger we advocate socialism only.

Why have all the other parties failed?

Basically because capitalism cannot be reformed so as to work in the interests of the class of wage and salary earners. It is a class system that can only work for those who own the means of production. Any party, be it Labour or Conservative, which takes power under capitalism is forced to run that system in the only way it can be and so is inevitably brought into conflict with the mass of people who work for a wage or salary. This has been proved time and again.

So it is not because the politicians are not determined enough or are incompetent or dishonest that they fail?

No. No matter how determined or able or sincere the members of a government may be they still could not make capitalism work for the good of all. The politicians fail because they have to accept the class system which causes the problems they are always promising to solve.

If you agree with these views or have any questions, please write to us or come along to one of our meetings

Passing Show (1989)

From the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jockeying for position

Had he been a footballer, John Prescott would have been right under the moon about the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle last November. Perhaps as punishment for standing against Roy Hattersley for the deputy leadership, he lost his job as Energy spokesman and was instead put to shadowing the Ministry of Transport, which was not highly rated as fertile ground for a sprouting political ambition.

It did not help his case that Prescott, who looks and sounds like a bulldog about to savage an imprudent burglar, promised to be more aggressive in the conduct of the meaningless parliamentary sparring and larking which is called opposition to the government. The other hopefuls in Labour's seething ranks are more discreet than to make such criticisms of their leader. There is the eminently sober duo of John Smith and Gordon Brown, who would like to organise the financial affairs of British capitalism as Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is boyish, articulate Tony Blair, who has Prescott's old job as shadow Energy minister and who is a formidable TV performer — which means that he is precociously skilful at evading difficult questions while making the most of any similar evasion by an uncomfortable opponent. There is smooth Michael Meacher, who first made his name by discovering the amazing fact that however capitalism may be reformed there remain millions who suffer from the direr pressures of poverty. Meacher recently angered Labour's top brass by speaking out for the legalising of sympathetic strikes and secondary picketing, just as if the winter of discontent had never been and just as if his party is not now desperately trying to obscure its trade union connection.

These burgeoning ambitions are feeding off Labour's inability to seduce the voters away from what seems a chronic addiction to the Thatcher way of running British capitalism. Labour's policy review may be the beginning of Kinnock's last stand, a desperate attempt to make the Labour Party resemble the Tories so closely that the voting public won't know which one to vote for — or won't care — and so may end up. in their utter confusion, by electing another Labour government. According to another aspirant leader, Bryan Gould, the policy review ". . . will, we hope show that Labour is ready to take up the reins of government in the 1990's”. But if the review doesn't have that effect, if it fails to attract the votes so that Labour suffers yet another emphatic electoral defeat, Kinnock may be forced to disappear from the scene, to swap reminiscences with Michael Foot.

The reason is that the Labour Party is dedicated to winning political power over British capitalism. This is not so trite and obvious a statement as it may seem, for there are plenty of Labour supporters who are sustained by the delusion that their party is still based on the principles of socialism, that it aims to bring about a fundamental change in social relationships and will continue to advocate that change whether it is popular or not. The truth is that Labour will promise almost any reform, almost any policy, which will attract votes. It will try to exploit any issue when it thinks that this will gain it some support and it will shy away from any issue which is likely to lose it votes. If necessary it will perform the sort of policy U-turn to impress Ted Heath (for example Bryan Gould writes: “We are clear that the market and the private sector have an enormously important and valuable role to play in any modern industrial society . . .").

That is why Labour is going through yet another policy re-appraisal and why the party leadership begins to look like a steeplechase when the horses are coming to the last fence and the run in to the winning post.

Prescott's luck

And that brings us back to John Prescott and his job as transport spokesman. When he was reshuffled the media were still juggling with the most recent exposure, by the capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise and the fire at Kings Cross, of the fact that capitalism's priority has to be profit before safety. This is perfectly apparent to anyone with any insight into what happens in the world, and why it happens, but insight and clarity are things which the media are not noted for.

Since then a series of outrages, misnamed accidents, have provided Prescott with one opportunity after another to boost his public image. At one stage it seemed as if no day was complete unless it included Prescott on our TV screen, snarling and snapping and posing as the outraged guardian of the travelling public. Slack security, after the Lockerbie crash, was exposed by a series of journalists and other pranksters wangling their way on to aircraft. Botched production standards and inadequate maintenance caused the Boeing 737 to come down on the M1. The Clapham rail crash came about because electricians were being overworked to the point of exhaustion The only way we could put all this to rights was . . . to get bulldoggish Mr Prescott in charge at the Ministry of Transport, or better still at Number Ten.

Channon's pure genius

A rather different person is the target of many of Prescott’s barbs. Paul Channon is an extremely wealthy member of the Guinness family. He sits for the Southend constituency which is regarded as more or less the electoral property of his family; it was previously held by his father who was one of capitalism's mega-parasites and who didn't seem to care who knew it. Channon cannot match Prescott for being bulldoggish: he looks more like a mournful turtle with a complexion which often signals an over-indulgence in the beverage on which the family fortunes are based. Or perhaps he spends too much time in the sun; he owns a place in the West Indian paradise island of Mustique. where only the super-rich can afford to enjoy the silver sands, the turquoise sea and the temperature held steady in the eighties.

It was to Mustique that Channon sped, just after the Lockerbie crash, excusing himself by saying that he wanted to spend Christmas with his family like everyone else — which did not. of course, include the people killed in the crash and their families. Since then the Guardian has revealed his contemptuous treatment of a couple whose son was killed at Lockerbie, an incident which hints that Channon has a view of society which, as a Tory politician, he would do better not to make so obvious.

Channon’s wealth originates from the labour of the workers employed by the Guinness company. It comes from their unpaid labour time, from the wealth they produce which is surplus to what they receive for the sale of their ability to work. This is called (although so unpleasant a word probably never sullies the lips of a member of the Guinness clan) exploitation. The exploited people in society — the working class — are the majority: they are the non-parasites, the useful, productive people. Yet they do not have, nor are they expected to desire, any real say in how society is run, in how significant decisions are taken. It is assumed that they will accept their lot — their poverty, repression, their needlessly truncated lives — without complaint or question. If they should die in one of capitalism's "accidents”, in a capsized ferry or a train trapped by a faulty signal — why. they are sacrifices to the god of profit and that, after all the hypocrisy about their deaths, should be satisfaction enough for them.

If that is degrading — well, so is this social system. Capitalism is kept going by working class sacrifice. It churns out the wealth of people like Channon and it boosts the ambitions of those like Prescott. Perhaps sacrifice is the wrong word; perhaps suicide would be better.

Ivan.

Euro-capitalism or world socialism (1989)

From the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

June 15th 1989 is your opportunity to register your support for The Socialist Party candidate in the European elections. You may not have heard of The Socialist Party before so what is it?

We are a political party, separate from all others, Left, Right or Centre. We stand for the sole aim of establishing a world social system based upon human need instead of private or state profit. The Object and Declaration of Principles printed on the back of this manifesto were adopted by The Socialist Party at its formation in 1904. In other countries there are companion parties sharing the same object and principles and they too remain independent of all other political parties.

SO WHAT DO WE MEAN “EURO-CAPITALISM OR WORLD SOCIALISM?”

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world (including Russia, China, etc). Under this system the means of production and distribution (land, factories, offices, newspapers, etc) are owned by a minority, the capitalist class. All wealth is produced by us the majority working class, who sell our physical and mental energies to the capitalists in return for a price called a wage or salary. The object of production is primarily to produce profits for the capitalists (less than 5% of the population) by selling on the market goods and services created by us the workers. Not only do the capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class, but as a class, they go on accumulating wealth extracted from each generation of workers.

Food mountains and wine lakes exist throughout the EEC. Farmers are paid subsidies not to grow food and yet, at the same time, people throughout the world starve or go hungry.

The formation of the EEC in 1957 and the widely advertised removal of barriers to trade by 1992 are examples of capitalist production relating to new economic circumstances. This is what we mean by referring to the EEC as 'euro-capitalism'.

The other parties taking part in this election, such as the Labour Party or the Green Party are in effect telling you that capitalism can be reformed in our interests. This is untrue for, as long as capitalism exists, profits will come before needs. Some reforms are welcomed by some workers but no reform can abolish the fundamental contradiction between profit and need which is built into the present system. No matter whether promises to make capitalism run in the interests of the workers are made sincerely or by opportunist politicians they are bound to fail, for such a promise is like offering to run the slaughter house in the interests of the cattle!

SO WHAT IS THIS ALTERNATIVE OF SOCIALISM WHICH WE WISH TO ESTABLISH?

Socialism does not yet exist. When it is established it must be on a worldwide basis, as an alternative to the outdated system of world capitalism. In a socialist society there will be common ownership and democratic control of the Earth by its inhabitants. No minority class will be in a position to dictate to the majority that production must be geared to profit. There will be no owners in this classless society: everything will belong to everyone. Production will be solely for use, not for sale. The only questions society will need to ask about wealth production will be: what do people require, and can the needs be met? These questions will be answered on the basis of the resources available to meet such needs. Then, unlike now, modern technology and communications will be able to be used to their fullest extent. The basic socialist principle will be that people give according to their abilities and take according to their self-defined needs. Work will be on the basis of voluntary cooperation: the coercion of wage and salary work will be abolished. There will be no buying and selling and money will not be necessary, in a society of common ownership and free access. For the first time ever the people of the world will have common possession of the planet Earth.

HOW WILL SOCIALISM SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY?

Capitalism with its constant drive to serve profit before need, throws up an endless stream of problems. Most workers in Britain feel insecure about their future: almost one in four families with children live below the poverty line: many old people live in dangerously cold conditions each winter and thousands die; millions of our fellow men and women are dying of starvation—tens of thousands of them each day. A society based on production for use will end those problems because the priority of socialist society will be the fullest possible satisfaction of needs. At the moment houses stand empty and thousands of building workers are unemployed; yet many people are homeless or inhabiting slums. At the moment food is destroyed and farmers are subsidised not to produce more; yet many millions are malnourished. At the moment hospital queues are growing longer and people are dying of curable illnesses: yet it is not “economically viable" to provide decent health treatment for all. In a socialist society nothing short of the best will be good enough for any human being.

The election of our candidate would not, in itself, bring about Socialism. It would be one step in the process of capturing political control in the interests of us, the working class of the world. It would give us a useful platform to put our ideas across on the world stage. If you agree with us, 

VOTE KILGALLON (Socialist Party of Great Britain), Tyne and Wear constituency.

Blogger's Note:

From the same issue of the Socialist Standard, see 'European Election Manifesto'.

Brave new world (1989)

From the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 4 January 1941 Special Issue of Picture Post was devoted to A PLAN FOR BRITAIN, looking ahead to the post-war world. It was a wide-ranging review, covering work, social services, urban development, housing, farming, education, health and leisure. Forty-eight years on it is interesting to compare what was envisaged with reality.

The introduction is a letter written to Picture Post by a Welsh worker who had left the land to become a miner.

So, one day in late autumn, when the unwanted apples were killing the grass in the orchard, I went eighty miles away to work in the mines. That night, in my new home. I found that apples were dear and scarce. The people would hardly believe that I had seen them left to rot.

Equally he found that coal, which was scarce and expensive in the country, held no value where it was mined even though nearby out-of-work miners were picking over disused tips in the hope of finding bits of coal among the rubble. He ended his letter:

Between the dear coal and the cheap cutting. the scarce apples and those that rot. I think I can see the peace aim I would like to achieve. It is security — security against war and exploitation, by man or by country. And what I ask for ourselves should be granted to the whole world.

Amen to that; as good a definition of socialism as we have heard!

WORK FOR ALL lists a number of aims (including lower Income Tax, state control and state managed investments, and a job for every able-bodied man) and outlines a "national plan" related to an "international plan”. Thomas Baiogh calls for planning control and stimulated demand to ensure full employment (in spite of the role women played in industry in the First and Second World War, he specifies only jobs for men!). He warns against a post-war boom which would “create big profits for a few and high wages for a minority of workers”, saying that "there must be no return to what used to be called 'normal' — that is, complete freedom for the speculator to make high profits". Towards the end he says:

If we are to make a success of such a system it would have to be based on practical international understanding . . . It is obvious that such planning is not possible while maintaining the traditional concepts of sovereignty. They will have to go.

What Professor Baiogh failed to grasp is that while capitalism exists the need to generate profit and the ongoing fight for markets between competing factions, nationally and internationally, will prevent the achievement of even his limited aims. The situation has not changed from that outlined by the unemployed Welsh miner.

The next two articles dealt with social security and urban planning. Most of us at some time have experienced first hand the continuous honing down of the former, and we did not need the heir to the throne to point out the hideous character of much urban development and the inadequacies of high rise and other working class housing, which turns into slums a decade after it has been built. A warning against crystal-qazing is in the pictures of hospitals, factories and housing estates then held to be desirable, which few would not condemn today.

PLAN THE HOME. Here Elizabeth Denby, described as a "housing consultant whose chief interest is planning working class homes”, puts her view of the desirable future. The first thing which strikes you is that conditions shown in a miserable slum picture of 1941 can still be found in many parts of town and country, despite innumerable promises by Labour and Tory politicians to solve “The Housing Problem" during the intervening decades. The "planned kitchen" and “spacious, sunlit, cheery" living room pictured would today be described as hopelessly outmoded and spartan, but the aim that “hot water should be immediately available at any time of day or night, at every bath, sink and basin in the house" is still, in 1989, wishful thinking for many who cannot even boast a bath, never mind constant hot water.

A PLAN FOR EDUCATION has a topical ring. The aim set out by A.D. Lindsay is to give equal learning opportunities to all children and eliminate the elitist privileges of the rich; making education from primary school to university available to all on the basis of ability rather than cash. (Incidentally, here again the writer refers only to boys, which is strange because even though Balliol, at which he was Master, did not admit women, quite a few were nevertheless going to university and had been doing so for many years.) Mr. Baker's proposals show how far we have (not!) progressed towards achieving even the very limited aims of Professor Lindsay. The need is still to train the workforce for the tasks they will be required to perform; if there has been any change at all, it is that today’s Tory government is more open about that than was the wartime Coalition of 1941.

HEALTH FOR ALL and A REAL MEDICAL SERVICE. The picture of the crowded outpatients' waiting room in a hospital is familiar; only the clothes look a bit old- fashioned. Another showing a patient getting special preventative treatment is captioned “This is out of reach of most people, who must wait for serious illness to receive attention". Forecasts of immediate free explorative X-rays, dental treatment and chiropody are especially ironic today, when not only are waiting lists growing ever longer but both examination and treatment have again become fee-charging in the case of the latter two.

The final article, WHEN WORK IS OVER deals with how we shall be spending our leisure time. Compared to the "exotic” cruises, foreign and far-away places we want (and pay for) during our two or three weeks off the chain, their expectations were indeed modest. Would J. B. Priestley say today, as he did in Picture Post, “Nor can I agree with those theorists who believe that this . . . silly style of amusement is something deliberately imposed upon the masses by wicked capitalists". While we agree with him that creative activity is a satisfying use of leisure time, his view that woman needs more leisure time than a man to enable her to "cultivate all the small graces of living and making herself and her domestic surroundings look more attractive" is quaint, to say the least, on two counts. It is not only the idea of the “little home-maker", but the notion that housework is leisure!

At the end of the Special Issue, Picture Post asked readers for their views on the PLAN FOR BRITAIN. Although too late for publication (Picture Post was long ago laid to rest) we give them now. This is not with the benefit of hindsight, but in the certain knowledge that our comrades would have said the same thing in 1941.

However good the intention, while society is ruled by the profit motive, it cannot be made to run for the benefit of the majority, the workers. Capitalism cannot be reformed to any significant degree. The only alternative is to replace it with socialism. We will then achieve not just a Better Britain but a Better World.

Eva Goodman