Jottings. (1911)

The Jottings Column from the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I understand that about twenty of the lasters recently discharged from the Wheatsheaf Works through the introduction of new labour-saving machinery, have this week each been handed a solatium of £10 by the Committee of the Wholesale Co operative Society.”—”Shoe and Leather Record.”

* * *

Lucky dogs ! I don’t know which they ought to be most thankful for—Co-operation, or the fact that they are lasters. Now I’ll tell you what I should do if I were a laster displaced by machinery, but with a solatium (blessed word) of £10 in my pocket.

I’d just let the machine do the work, and I’d last out on stout and oysters and rest till the old-age pension came along. Of course, one would have to be a pretty good laster to do it, but then what is the good of being a laster if you can’t last ?

* * *

Ireland is not the only subject of injustice. Mr. Douglas Hall, M.P., has discovered that the ‘armless (ask the Manchester carters), necessary copper is unjustly put upon on occasion, and he has taken up the cudgels on his behalf. He has entered into wordy warfare with Mr. Winston Churchill on the subject of the policemen’s Coronation medals, for he thinks it a burning shame that the police force in the Isle of Wight should not have medals to commemorate the fact that they have done some work—of a kind.

The hon. member felt so strongly on the matter, and the pure flame of chivalry blazed up so strongly within him, that he was moved to get up a petition, and “in less than an hour” (says he in a letter to Mr. Churchill, (which he also took the opportunity to get inserted in that excellent advertising medium, the “Isle of Wight County Times”) he obtained 100 signatures of Members of Parliament to the appeal.

* * *

Since it was discovered at Belfast that police cannot be relied upon to “bash” strikers while they have grievances of their own to brood over, quite a lot has been done to make “buttons” lie more comfortably. The policemen’s Sunday rest, is a case in point. It would be a pity to spoil all this for the sake of a few medals.

But I was forgetting—it may interest some of the workers who were lately bashed on the head by policemen at Tonypandy, Hull, Manchester and other places, to learn that among the M.P.’s who signed the petition are those prominent members of the Labour Party, Mr. George N. Barnes and Mr. Philip Snowden.

Couldn’t either of these gentlemen be induced to get up a petition for the recognition of the extremely valuable services of the police who were sent to South Wales in connection with the colliery dispute ? I am sure he could get the signature of every colliery-owner in Wales.

* * *

“The reason of the strength of Socialism was that it was so strenuous and uncompromising.”

Thus the “Daily Chronicle” (13. 7.11) reports Lord Selborne. It is very well said. Socialism must be uncompromising in order to be Socialism ; it must be strenuous in order to be strong. It seems the I.LP.-er and S.D.P.-er may learn something from a lord—I had thought they were incapable of learning anything from anybody.

If Lord Selborne will watch us and read the Socialist Standard in the future as he has evidently done in the past, he will discover that there are other sources of Socialist strength.

* * *

The hopelessness of the workers’ fight for anything else than Socialism (though, of course, the struggle must be kept up) is finely illustrated in the columns of the “Manchester Daily Despatch” (10.7.11), wherein it is pointed out that owing to the carters’ strike in that city there has been an unprecedented demand for motor lorries and waggons. The result has been that many firms have found these vehicles so economical, speedy and convenient that they are adopting them as rapidly as their demands can be met. It is claimed, and probably upon fair grounds, that when the carters’ strike is finished, many of the men will have no work to return to.

The tragedy of the workers’ position under capitalism is that their struggles, and still more their victories, handicap them against their pitiless competitor, machinery. Though it does not justify resigning the fight, it is, nevertheless, a never-to be forgotten fact that the lower wages are the slower machinery advances.

There is but one escape from this—Socialism. I am not going to adorn the tale with a moral.

* * *

Mr. Lloyd George, speaking at the Welsh Baptist Chapel, Castle Street, London, on June 25, is reported to have said :

“No reform was ever brought about by the people who suffered only, but always through the help of those who profited nothing.”

As it stands the statement is sheer nonsense, for it is just those who “suffer only” who gain nothing from reforms. However, ascribing this to temporary aberration (perhaps on the part of the printer), and reading the true meaning into the words (i.e., that reforms are never brought about solely by those who are to gain by them, but always with the help of those they will not profit), it seems to me that the statement is very near the truth.

I am not well up in the matter of reforms, but as far as my observations go they bear out the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot call to mind any reform that has not solely benefited the ruling class, but to get which they have not sought and obtained the assistance of the gullible section of the working class.

* * *

Mr. Lloyd George also said upon the same auspicious occasion : “All the poverty of London was really at the door of religion.”

How redolent of truth he was that fine summer afternoon. Some little correction, possibly, is needed, as with all general truths ; but in the sense that religion is one of the chief pillars of the present system of robbery, the pronouncement is substantially correct—though the parson must think it is like the politician’s darn’d cheek to go into the chapel and say so.

* * *

One more little selection from the same candid chin-wag. There was no stopping him when he got on the straight and narrow path of truth. You see he had escaped from the House of Commons, where only good, honest, downright lying is permissible, and he felt something of the wild exultation of the converted cannibal who has the good fortune to drop into a hut where they are boiling the missionary for supper. He spake unto the multitude thus :

“There is nothing between the people and tyranny but the spirit of the Christian Church.”

That’s just it—the vacuous, ethereal, ghostly, spirituous, spiritual spirit of the Christian Church—an intangible obfuscation of the foggy order that romps the land with a collection bag—a something just solid enough to hide the tyrant and his methods, but no sort of a foil against his mailed fist.

Yes, it is quite true that the spirit of the Christian Church is all that stands between the workers and tyranny, and that is one of the reasons the former cannot see who is hitting them

* * *

The “Evening News” of July 15 has the following on the action of the Labour Party in voting for the Financial resolution of the Insurance Bill after protesting against it.

“It was a Labour Party—

    The ‘Independent’ sort—

Its manner bluff and hearty,

    Its temper sometimes short.

It was its chiefest glory

    Its manly breast to thump

And say for Rad. or Tory

   It didn’t care a dump.

“It had its fixed convictions,

   Its views on what to do ;

And knowing no restrictions,

   It meant to see them through.

If, thinking these were novel

   (And O, his lights were dim)

The Premier didn’t grovel,

   Well, all the worse for him.

“Amendments most extensive

    It cheerfully designed ;

Its manner was offensive,

    But O, its heart was kind !

And when its speeches sprightly

    The Chancellor had chid,

It touched its hat politely

    And voted as he bid !—C. E. B.”

So doth genius put the whole thing in a nutshell.

A. E. Jacomb.

History proves the soundness of our position. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, of all the political organisations in this country, is the only one which stands solidly and consistently for the attainment of the Socialist system of society. Others (meaning, of course, political organisations) have displayed that compromise and trading resulting either from ignorance of the worker’s status under the present system, or from the fact that certain persons preferred personal aggrandisement to the straight path of a revolutionary party.

The innumerable instances quoted in the Socialist Standard and the S.P.G.B. Manifesto are sufficient evidence of the treacherous nature of parties who parade as Socialists. But the S.P.G.B., since the day it was formed, has ever insisted upon this basis as the essential to working-class salvation—the imperative necessity of

THE CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL MACHINERY.

The constant use by the capitalist class of that power to quell any semblance of revolt on the part of the workers; the endeavour to terrorise our class with demonstrations of military force, must be an indication of the value of the armed forces to the master class.

We of the S.P.G.B. realise, then, that the primary function of a Socialist party is to capture political power. What transpires after that will depend upon the democratic decision of an enlightened proletariat.

The record of incidents in the development of society should be a means of assisting the workers to realise how powerful, how necessary, is political control. History is a formidable foe to those who harbour Anarchist and reformist ideas. Generally speaking, the history of most countries, according to the majority of historians, is a record of the likes and dislikes of kings and queens and their favourites and paramours. Interesting as all this may be, it is not, and from a scientific standpoint cannot be considered to be, the history of the race. History to is is but

A SERIES OF DEVELOPMENTS

of all mankind, in which process one nation plays but a small part.

Further, unless we realise that the records of one epoch result from the actions of a previous state, and that our actions are but the inevitable growth from a condition in society precedent to us ; unless we clearly grasp that fact, a correct view of history cannot be obtained. Moreover, the keener the investigation into history, the clearer becomes the position we, as a party, occupy in this country. For by historical reference we are more than fortified in our position. In fact, the Socialist Party are the only party who can justify their attitude by history.

To us every method of government, whether it be monarchical, autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic or “democratic,” is tyrannical, since government implies a subject class in society. Let us get to the Athenian ascendancy for proof of this contention.

Athenian society originally was tribal. Later on the citizens were divided into classes principally on a private-property basis. Each section had political power corresponding to the volume of property it possessed. In Athens there existed a large population of propertyless slaves, who had no political rights of expression.

A remedy for such conditions being necessary, the famous constitutionalist and law-giver, Solon, so organised the political State that though the democracy had a voice, the aristocracy

WERE ALWAYS THE DOMINANT FACTOR

in Athenian political life. Nor was Athens the only State where such happenings were recorded, for after the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus—the last of the seven Kings—from Rome in 509 B.C., the Romans swore they would never have another monarch.

Admirable as that may have appeared, it was in reality a further means for the nobility to suppress the “lower orders.” The Patricians and the Plebians were really the Aristocracy and the Commoners of the time. The latter had a split, and threatened to withdraw from the State unless there was some modification of the laws.

The masters (that is the controllers) of the political machinery, thereupon permitted a tribunate to be appointed, who were invested with power to veto certain actions of the Patricians. Then came the “Licinian Rogations,” due to combined action by the tribunes Licinius and Sextiud.

From the economic standpoint those laws, passed about 367 B.C., had no great value, and were purposely introduced to give the aristocracy greater power. It caused discontent to be stifled by grants of land to the plebians in all new territory conquered by the Romans. A later result of those laws was the extension of citizenship to the occupants of conquered cities, but with no political rights in the way of voting. The idea of the rulers in Rome was, “Keep what you like but let us have the political dominance.”

With the development in Rome came, too, the intermarrying of wealthy Plebians with the Patricians, with the result that the two sections became, socially and politically, a combination, and monopolised the public offices,

ALL AGAINST THE PROLETARIAT

of the day. Further, the constant usage of the political power had caused many acts which had been passed to become dormant. An instance is the Hortensian law of 287 B.C., which finally permitted the Plebian tribes to make laws without the assistance of the Comitia Centuriata.

Another interesting matter is that though each city conquered by Rome was given local autonomy, in most cases they were subordinate to the officials appointed from Rome. That had a tendency to give loyalty to the Romans, who, as are the British with regard to Egypt and India, were simply inspired by the possession of private property in the interest of the ruling class.

After the futile endeavours of Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, still another incident transpired that proves our contention conclusively. It was the reorganisation of the army by Marius, and after his death the actions of Sulla in using that army. The latter proved master of the situation because he had control of the army.

Let it be clearly understood that Rome was in a state of anarchy at this time. She was unable to master her possessions owing to the

GROWTH OF CORRUPTION

amongst the propertied classes.

Another fact illustrating the strength of the political power is afforded us by a reference to the actions of Constantine when he was at war with Maxeratius and Licinius for control of both the Eastern and Western Empires. Maxentius was defeated at Myvern Bridge, and Licinius, who hated Christianity intensely, was anxious to become emperor. Constantine, knowing full well that Licinius had great power, made Christianity a State religion, by which means he got greater support than ever. But for that incident Licinius would have defeated him, and Constantine would have become a cypher. The political exigences caused Constantine to extend his protection to the Christian or his power would have gone. With the support given him by converts to his curious mixture of Christianity and paganism he was enabled to overwhelm his rival and retain his throne.

Coming still nearer to the present time, we find that the wisdom of Charlemagne gives a voice in the government to the people. That voice was the bi-annual conferences he presided at “to hear the opinion of his people.” His control was so great that at his coronation the pope paid homage to him.

Perhaps the history of England may be viewed profitably to show that, whatever economic power any class possessed, they were always at the mercy of those who possessed the political power. If it was economic power that was the prime factor, how was it the Roman Catholic dominance was destroyed by Henry VIII ?

Perhaps it is unlikely that any Direct Actionist or other individual displaying

ANARCHISTIC TENDENCIES

would deny that the control of Parliament by Halifax and Cromwell caused a change in the British Constitution in 1649. A fact ever illuminating in history is that a class that had acquired great wealth were never free to utilise that wealth to its fullest advantage unless it had first the control of the political machinery. The severest impediment to the capitalist in this country was the control and monopoly by the landlords prior to the Reform Bill of 1832. 

In order to give free and full development to industry ; in order to sanction and legalise the. robbery of the working class ; in order to cheapen the cost of production, the present capitalist class were compelled to get political control. But that was simply the act in the final development of capitalism. Then our capitalist went to Parliament himself, but now he is leaving his work to paid hacks, lawyers, solicitors, and professional politicians.

The increasing productivity of the working class has solved the problem of production. Prior to the capitalist system the periodic panics and financial catastrophes were unheard of. Now we have them frequently, showing that even the ingenuity of the capitalist cannot avoid the ever intensifying control capital has over the capitalist. No longer can he control the profit system—the latter completely dominates him, and that is why the working class will have to take control of the political force. That this is evident one can see from the way the capitalist uses the political machinery. Strikes and economic eruptions,

“RIOTOUS OUTBREAKS”

as they call them, are squelched (where the starvation process is not sufficient) by sending armed forces into the disaffected districts.

We desire to obtain immediately a condition of society wherein we will enjoy all the means of life to the utmost advantage, and our fellow-slaves must be made conscious of it. The naval and military section of the working class can be made to understand that; and surely, when intelligence becomes uppermost in their minds, they will see that life under democratic control is much better than the rigorous discipline under which they exist at present.

Those who hold political power dominate the country in which they live. Therefore we strongly appeal to the working class to exercise their intelligence and to examine this question from the historical standpoint. The Socialist Party of Great Britain have never deviated from the scientific position such an examination logically leads to. It remains for you to put yourself in agreement with that position and to join us, and to assist in the spreading of working-class enlightenment.

Moses Baritz

Naked and unashamed. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is an old adage running somewhat to the effect that when men of doubtful honesty have a difference of opinion, then is the time for honest men to come by their own. The Labour Party, through its prominent members, who appear at the moment to be very much at variance, enables us, by means of its internal squabbles, to give further proof of our contention as to its utterly incompetent and fraudulent methods ; enables us to show, once again, how much—or rather, how little—reliance can be placed in its vaunted independence of the Liberal party and policy.

As is well known, for years past, in and out of Parliament, the members of the Labour Party have vehemently protested their independence, have repudiated with indignation and scorn any suggestion of a coalition between them and the Liberals. Now, however, it would seem that the object for which they have been striving and intriguing is near enough to accomplishment to render any further disguise on their part unnecessary. They stand condemned, not from the words of the S.P.G.B., but out of the mouth of one of their most prominent leaders, who, for reasons of his own, wishes still to pose as an incorruptible.

Mr. Philip Snowden, writing in the “Labour Leader” of June 14, referring to the vote of the Labour Party the previous Thursday on the Financial Resolution of the Insurance Bill, says :

“Six members of the Labour Party voted against that resolution ; the majority supported the Government.

“The Labour Party had amendments down to raise the contribution of the State from 2d. to 3d. They had others which proposed to increase the benefits. The Financial Resolution submitted by the Government was designed, as Mr. Lloyd George frankly said, to rule out every amendment which would increase the State’s contribution.

“In answer to a question the Chairman said that if the Resolution was passed it would not be permissible to move the Labour Party’s amendments. Yet in the face of this the official spokesman of the Labour Party, after joining with the Unionist speaker in condemning the resolution, and after condemning the State’s ‘inadequate contribution,’ announced, not that the Labour Party would vote against it, or abstain, but that they would support the resolution which killed every one of their amendments worth trying to get !

“If the I.L.P. will stand this it will stand anything. If it submits to this it is time to go into voluntary liquidation as a preliminary to affiliating with the National Liberal Federation. The official Labour Party is now indistinguishable from the official Liberals. The Labour Whip was put on to send the Labour Members into the lobby to destroy their own amendment.”

Further, in “The Christian Commonwealth,” July 12, he writes with reference to this same amendments :

“There was never a clearer case of men deliberately putting an halter round their necks. … The Labour Party was instructed by the Conference which met three weeks ago to proceed with that amendment.

“But when the test of its independence came, when it was called upon to choose between obeying the instructions of its own conference and supporting the Liberal Government on an occasion when the Tories were not voting, the Labour Members, with about half-a dozen dissentients, showed that they were more anxious to follow the Liberal Whip than to obey the authority from which they profess to derive their mandate. This action on the part of the official Labour Party finally completes their identity with official Liberalism.”

This righteous indignation on the part of Mr. Snowden is rather amusing when one considers that it emanates from the man who, but a short time ago, was eulogising the honesty of Mr. Asquith, defending the action of the Liberals in sending the military to shoot down the workers at Belfast and Featherstone, and who was only returned to Parliament with the aid of Lord Morley and by Liberal votes.

If further evidence is needed of the betrayal of their followers by these leaders of “Labour,” it can be found in a recital of their doings during the recent Coronation festivities. As was pointed out at the recent I.L.P. conference, a Labour Party representative was allowed to serve on the Committee which sat in connection with the Coronation celebration. At the Coronation ceremony itself Messrs. Mullin and Davis attended on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress ; Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, “in faultless morning dress, disquietingly like a labour leader” (“Christian Commonwealth”), also graced the ceremony with his presence.

The sycophantic attitude of the Labour Party to Royalty is still further illustrated by the appearance of the Chairman of the Labour Party at the luncheon party given by the Secretary of State for War in honour of William II. of Germany. Mr. MacDonald went to the luncheon with the consent of the Labour Party, thus becoming its official representative. It might well be asked what a member of the Independent Labour Party, which a few months previously had been indulging in what was called “a great anti war campaign,” and who himself had taken a prominent part in the campaign, was doing in such a galley. He had as fellow-guests, such lovers and advocates of peace as the war-lord of Germany himself, Count Matternich, Gen. von Plessen, Admiral von Mülller, Lord Kitchener, and numerous others. Did the Kaiser and the Labour leader discuss, during their long conversation, the brutal repressive measures that have been taken in Germany, even in recent years ? Did Mr. MacDonald mention, for example, the ruthless manner in which the police shot down men, women, and children at the end of September last year during the strikes in Berlin ? Possibly, however, these small troubles of the working class slipped his memory—the memories of Labour leaders are conveniently short upon occasions.

Again, at the recent investiture .of the Prince of Wales, it might reasonably have been supposed that the official representatives of Labour would have no part. At the time this investiture was taking place, on the hillsides and in the valleys of South Wales were thousands of locked out and striking miners, fighting what must, unfortunately, be a losing fight with the powers of capitalism. The distress prevalent among these men and those immediately dependent upon them was appalling in its intensity. One would have thought that in common decency the least the Labour representatives could have done would have been to refrain from identifying themselves with the symbols and regalia of the flaunting wealth of capitalism. But no ! In the procession formed to do honour to the boy Edward, among other Welsh M.P.s, walked Mr. Keir Hardie, the Rt. Hon. W. Abraham, Mr. William Brace, Mr. J. Williams, and Mr. T. Richards. So glad were these men to be allowed the opportunity of licking the boots of Royalty, so eager were they to be acclaimed loyal subjects, that less than nothing to them were the starving men and women whom they have the audacity to claim to represent. The insult contained in this wanton callousness could not very well be greater.

The Labour Party appear to have thrown off all disguise. What does this kow-towing to kings and princes, this servile waiting upon the Liberal party, portend ? Perhaps the following paragraph, which appeared in the “Daily Chronicle” of 19 July, may throw some further light on the subject.

“The Ministry of Labour Bill, the text of which was issued yesterday, has for its object ‘to establish a Ministry of Labour for the better organisation of the labour market, for the prevention of unemployment, to regulate and in certain cases prohibit child labour, and to establish a general minimum wage for adult workers.’

“The salary of the Minister is placed at £5,000 a year, ‘and to the secretary, assistant secretary, officials and servants such salaries as the Treasury may from time to time determine.’

“The Bill, which is presented by Mr. Lansbury, is supported by Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Jowett and Mr. Snowden.”

The vultures are gathering together about the carcase and have already started fighting among themselves for the choicest tit-bits. They are welcome to the spoil. The present writer, however, for one, finds that even the thought of its putridity is almost too nauseating for his mental digestion. Would that the whole working class could say the same.

F. J. Webb

The cardinal point in wages. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing editorially in “The Gas World ” of July the 15th, a learned scribe asks how the cardinal point of wages in a certain locality and for a particular description of work, is determined.

Lord Robert Cecil, we are informed, delivered himself, at the last Co-partnership Conference, of some pearls of economic wisdom. The “ultimate” sanction of rates of wages payable, he said for instance, is the law of supply and demand, but the employers only know from time to time what wages they can afford to pay.

The clarity with which the scion of a noble house elaborated his case can only be compared with a good old-fashioned November fog. For he leaves the Editor of “The Gas World” rolling up the whites of his eyes and inquiring what determines wages.

“So far as we can see for the present,” says the editor, “the principle of co-partnership does not touch this dictum.”

May I ask the literary gentleman what laws determine the wages of the printers, compositors, and others whose labour produces that scintillating wonder of Bouverie Street, “The Gas World” ? If the supply of these workmen was not equal to the demand, they could secure higher wages. If the supply and demand were equal and there was no surplus either way, then supply and demand cancel each other. Now take conditions as they really are. There is, to-day, a greater supply of labour-power than there is demand for. According to Lord R. Cecil, wages fall steadily pro rata, as the balance of labour-power exceeds the demand.

It is clear, however, that this is absurd, that something else is necessary to determine wages.

Before touching this let us consider what is necessary to permit of the issuing of a single copy of “The Gas World.”

First we must have the raw material—paper, type, ink, etc. These, shovelled into a heap, would make a fearful mess, and though the resemblance to the editor’s economics might be striking, its resemblance to “The Gas World” would be undiscernible.

The thing essential to the assembling of the raw materials in such manner that they will lure the wily coppers out of the pockets of a wide and ever increasing clientele is human energy.

Now in reckoning out the selling price of the paper it has to be considered that if the price is too high a competitor will be let in. This fact will keep the price down, just as a superabundance of labour-power will keep wages down.

But suppose a competitor does appear—is that fact going to run the price of the journal down to zero ? No, you then begin to tot up the cost of production, and when you find that you are not making the necessary profit and have no chance of freezing out your rival, you think of the official receiver and cease publication. So supply and demand are not the only factors in the determination of price.

In the same manner wages, which are the price of labour-power, though fluctuating with supply and demand, find their “cardinal point” in something very different. That something is the necessary cost of subsistence—the cost, that is, of the production of the labour-power.

If the noble lord is left with only supply and demand to determine wages, then, with the application of science in industry continually displacing labour and making the supply increasingly in excess of the demand, a time would be reached when the workers’ wage would consist of air and daylight. This consummation of the dreams of the advocates of co-partnery is, however, too absurd for anybody but a lord.

"Southerner."

Some Paddington activities. (1911)

Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Paddington Branch have been busy in the work of expounding Socialism, to the dismay of those pusillanimous purveyors of capitalist platitudes that crowd the street corners nightly.

A somewhat protracted discussion has been, raging in the local paper on the “evils and perils of Socialism.” It originated in an enquiry from a correspondent as to whether Socialism was atheistic or not. This elicited the following from an I.L.P.’er : “As chairman of the Paddington I.L.P. I feel somewhat responsible for the opinions that are being circulated in the district concerning the philosophy we are organised to teach. Now I and all Socialists wish it to be clearly understood that Socialism has nothing whatever to do with atheism or religion ; in the Socialist movement we have every cult under the sun.” He also claimed that the I.L.P. had made Socialism a practical working theory by forcing local authorities to municipalise gas-works, trams, etc., and getting old-age pensions granted by the Government, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act put on the Statute Book. These things, they claim, are steps in the right direction.

A letter from our Branch was inserted, repudiating the right of this I.L.P. chairman to speak in the name of Socialism, since his letter made it clear that he was intent upon keeping the working class confused on this matter.

The discussion afforded opportunity for certain individuals priding themselves on their “Socialism,” to flatter their honesty at the expense of their intelligence. They attempted to deflect the discussion from its course with an outrageous mass of biblical quotations and hoary superstitious illusions that exposed their duplicity to those who recognise the irrepressible antagonism that exists between the master and his slave. The materialist conception of history was cited as showing that Socialism and religion are not synonymous terms, but are as incompatible as fire and water. The new pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” was forced upon their attention. Yet, when the Socialist seeks to dispel the rhetorical dust kicked up by these professional misleaders, he is met with mutterings of “materialism will not do” ; “Socialism is not based on science—only on a part of it” ; “Socialism has nothing to do with materialism,” and so on.

Of course, these frauds strenuously resist the light of science, for it is only because the workers are steeped in ignorance that the Labour crooks are able to climb over their backs into “jobs,”

The Anti-Socialist Union was also represented in the discussion by a person who held classes for anti-Socialist speakers in the district. The amount of preposterous piffle with which he sought to stifle the subject clearly proved that, being unable to refute the arguments for Socialism, he was compelled to resort to deliberate lying and misrepresentation in order to combat us.

Our forthcoming week’s mission will afford us the opportunity of exposing the utter cant and humbug of all these champions of confusion.

The Clarion Van has been in our midst doing its dirty work of spreading confusion and despair among the working class. The lecturer had the brazen effrontery to state, on a platform over which the word “Socialism” shone like a beacon, that at the last three elections he had voted Tory to further Socialism. He did this to balance both parties, to play off one against the other and so gain concessions for the Socialist !

We want all Paddington to come to our week’s mission (and also our regular meetings) and hear what we have to say on the matter. We guarantee they will hear Socialism explained in clear and cogent phraseology that will be understood by everybody.

Ben Carthurs

“Labour’s” tragic triumph in Australia. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Labour” Prime Ministers and “Labour” leaders of Australia have been prominent in Great Britain of late, owing to the Imperial Conference and the Coronation. They have fraternised with the Lords of Capitalism and rejoiced at the progress of the “greatest Empire (read vampire) the world has ever seen.” All the enemies of Labour have gathered together to do honour to “these men who have risen from the plough.” Amidst the eulogies of Asquith, Balfour, and the rest of the holy capitalist family, they have toured the country urging the propertyless wage slaves to emigrate to the scene of “Labour’s triumphs,” and so escape from the suffering they encounter here.

 

The fact that a “Labour” Party controls the “Commonwealth,” and is supreme in at least two States, has misled some into following their advice. But these unfortunate workers will have a rude and rapid awakening.

 

The Labour Government in the Australian Privatewealth have a platform which includes the conversion of trusts into State monopolies. Already in the Antipodes, although the population is sparse and the land to a great extent uncultivated, the great industries and services are becoming trustified. That is eloquent of the speed with which the newer lands ore influenced by developments in the old.

The State ownership of such services as are already nationalised has been a mixed blessing to the toilers. New South Wales is the State of Labourism’s greatest advance, yet the capital (Sydney) will be remembered as the centre of the great strike of State employed tramway men for “a living wage.”  State ownership is the refuge of the business men being crushed by the trusts.

 

“A White Australia” is another plank in the Labour platform. They have always had a particular preference for “White Slavery” as opposed to other hues. Yet a “White Australia” hasn’t saved the workers from the ills that affect them in “open door” countries. Sydney, for instance, boasts of slums as hideous as the classic ones of the East End of London. The homeworkers of Sydney are a frightful example of how capitalism crushes women, as well as men, “in the land beyond the seas.”

Employment in “White Australia” is precarious. The "Sydney Daily Telegraph" of May 26 contains the following news:

 “Mr. A Rickard, of Messrs. Arthur Rickard & Co., admits he received a surprise yesterday morning. He advertised for forty-one general labourers in the Telegraph, and before noon he had several hundred applicants. When the office opened at nine o’clock there were dozens waiting and the number increased rapidly; they ran over the premises inside and jammed the door outside. Judging the men as a whole they were of the average hard-working type, and were mostly eager to accept the offered 8s. a day. We engaged 59 men and could have had as many more had we wanted them.”

 This in a country where the cost of living is more than double that in Britain, and where the rise in prices in the last decade bas been phenomenal and is still advancing.

 

The Taxation of Land Values is a prominent feature of the Labour programme. Its existence in the Commonwealth has led to it being boomed here, and in view of Australia being the pet example of the “good” effects of land taxes, it would be well to show their real character and influence.

The great merit of land taxes is said to be the releasing of the land and bringing it within the means of the poor man. But the Labour Premier, Mr. Andrew Fisher, told a deputation from the London Chamber of Commerce that “land sold at prices quite as high as, if not higher than, those realised before the tax was passed,” and the report (Manchester Guardian, 14.6.11) goes on to say that “he asserted that since the tax was passed Australian credit had been higher than for many years before.” In face of the criticism of land financiers he “denied that the tax was intended to he vindictive against anybody.” Plaintively he asked: “Could anything be more offensive than to charge his Government with class legislation?”

 

Whether offensive or not, it is but true to charge them with legislation benefiting the capitalist class. Their tax on land values been warmly welcomed by the merchants and store keepers of Australia (for it means a reduction of taxation to them), whilst the capitalist nature of their rule has been shown to all by their institution of compulsory military service to protect the property of Australian plutocrats from seizure by other nations. Conscription! How well it makes for the liberty of the worker in the “land of the free”! Liberty for the employer but continued slavery for the employed – that is the guiding principle of the Labour policy.

The brutal attitude they adopt towards workmen on strike is an instance of this. The Labour Party have control of the State legislature in S. Australia, and they have had many opportunities to show how they stand toward struggling Labour. At the present time down at Renmark, in the agricultural portion of the State, a fight is being waged by the fruit pickers in the endeavour to make their wages cover the increased cost of living. They have been met with the most bitter opposition of the Growers’ Association – the organisation of the masters. The Government have helped the blacklegs and sent down armed police to protect them. The Adelaide Advertiser published an interview on May 11 with Mr. Verran, the Labour Premier, who said: “There is no doubt whatever about the policy of our Government regarding industrial disputes. We stand straight for Compulsory Arbitration. We have no sympathy with Unions that profess a revolutionary tactical policy. Labour in our State has said the strike is a barbarous, out-of-date method of deciding differences between employers and employees”.

 

“Then what are you going to do to prevent trouble like that being experienced at Renmark just now?” he was asked.

 

“Unfortunately we have no power now,” was the reply. “But since the Federal Referenda have decided that local disputes are to be a State matter, my Government has decided to introduce a Compulsory Arbitration Bill. The principal provision of the measure will be to make every union and every association of employers register under the new law, and the Wages Board’s decision must bet be observed, just as any other law is abided by. Once the two Houses of Parliament say all industrial disputes must be decided by law the striker will be treated as any other law breaker.”

“What about the Right to Strike?” “There is no Right to Strike recognised,” said Mr. Verran. “When a Labour Government is in power it is just as necessary to have law and order observed as at any other time.”

“Then why does not your Government prevent lawlessness at Renmark?”

“We have taken every precaution to see that the law as we find it is carried out. It is not true that we hesitated regarding action at Renmark. The police authorities there have not asked for additional help. Indeed, they have reported that the police are sufficient to cope with any trouble. In spite of that, when we heard that there was likely to be something special happening there on a certain date, we sent two additional mounted police to Renmark. We do not fear any legitimate unionism, but the leaders in the Renmark strike are men with revolutionary intentions, who make no secret of their opposition to Labour. We have no necessity to pander to them in any way and we attack them openly. This class of opposition causes us no embarrassment.”

In the same paper Mr. J. Murphy, the men’s union organiser, says: “The police action is the result of bias against the workers. Ever since the Hon. J. P. Wilson  (Labour Minister) took up his well-known attitude against the workers and the Hon. C. Vaughan (Labour Treasurer) backed him up, the Growers (masters) and ‘scabs’ have been very aggressive, as they know the Government are behind them.” Speaking of the suppression of the men’s meetings he said: “Our men are prepared to continue holding meetings of protest there against what we regard as the Russian tyranny of the Labour Government over this Free Speech question.”

The employers’ representative (Mr. R. Young), interviewed, said: “In future the employers’ association will not employ any but non-union men or free labourers, as they are called. It appears to me that the Growers can get plenty of non unionist hands. My impression is that the Renmark Growers will always win, as they have won three times already, easily beating all opposition.”

The damning indictment of Labourism these facts contain should make the workers ponder over the actions of the British Labour Party. The latter’s praise of their Australian colleagues, in spite of their open hostility to struggling toilers, is but another of their many crimes. The workers of Australia are in the same abject condition that the English toilers stood in in the time of the Tolpuddle martyrs – the days before the Combination Acts.

The Labour Parliament offer the workers Compulsory Arbitration – a method by which the capitalist arbitrator lets the wage-slaves down every time. Compulsory Arbitration is such an overt fraud that the miners of Broken Hill and Newcastle (Australia) suffered imprisonment rather than agree to it.

The lesson for the working class is well pointed by these facts. They can hope for little while means of living are owned by the capitalist class and controlled by their henchmen, “Labour” or otherwise. At the 1911 Annual Conference of the Political Labour Leagues of New South Wales Mr. Verran (who attended) voiced the following sentiment :

“They must be exceedingly careful not to be intoxicated by their own success, and to remember that they were pledged to carry on the same social order as had developed up to the present time”.

A. Cleveland

More Unity! (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July there was a bye election for a vacancy on the Woolwich Borough Council. The Woolwich I.L.P. ran one of their members, Mr. Jack Sheppard, as an “I.L.P.” candidate. But a member of the adjacent Bexley Heath Branch named Barefoot stood as a “Labour” candidate. The happy spectacle of two I.L.P. candidates contesting one vacancy caused some consternation in the Labour camp, and the Bexley Heath Branch I.L.P. sent the following resolution to the “Woolwich Pioneer” (21.7.11):

“That we, the members of this Branch in meeting assembled, wish success to our fellow-member, Comrade W. Barefoot, the candidate of the organised workers of Woolwich, in his fight for a seat on the Woolwich Borough Council, and appeal to every loyal I.L.P.-er, and to organised Labour, to rally to his support and secure a great victory on Tuesday next for the Labour cause.

“It further records its strong disapproval of the action of the Woolwich I.L.P. in helping to bring out a candidate to oppose one who has been a member of the Party for 15 years, and because we believe such action is contrary to the whole spirit of the I.L.P. constitution.”

The Labourite Barefoot topped the poll with 815 votes, and the other Labourite mustered 27 ! That’s how they educate the workers (particularly in the matter of unity) of Woolwich.

Answers to Correspondents. (1911)

Letters to the Editors from the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Higgins (Philadelphia). — Next month.

J. Randall (London, W.). — Next month.

J. H. Lamb (Manchester). — Your points will be considered next month.

L. A. Bostock (Forest Gate). — Cuttings received and contents noted.

#    #    #    #

The receipt of a copy of this paper is an invitation to subscribe.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1911)

 Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: Socialism no accident (1982)

Editorial from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The readers of the Sun may not have been aware of it, but when their man in the Falklands sent in his reports, couched as they were in glorious yobspeak (“Up Yours, Galtieri”), he was making his small contribution to bolstering a seriously misguided concept of history.

It is an established, popular notion that wars spring from the personal idiosyncrasies and failings of political leaders. In some cases, those leaders are supposed to be insatiably belligerent — like Galtieri. In other cases, they are described as bloodthirsty and genocidal — like Hitler or Menachem Begin. According to this theory, if there had been no Galtieri and no junta, there would have been no war over the Falklands. More peaceable leaders would never have tried to take by force that which was not theirs by “right”. On this theory, the Falklands war was something of an historical accident.

At home, we have seen this notion at work also in the case of the rail strikes by ASLEF and the NUR. These strikes, we were told, were the work of a minority of unreasonable, restless militants. Without them, the railways would operate smoothly, as workers and management co-operated to the benefit of everyone. By these standards, the rail strikes were also accidental.

Then there is the example of Margaret Thatcher, who is the butt of much anger as a stubborn, prejudiced and callous adherent to policies which. she insists, will be good for us even if they kill us in the process. Three million unemployed, and the intensifying pressure on workers’ living standards, are attributed to the historical misfortunes of Thatcher’s obduracy. Without her, we hear, there would be less unemployment — or even none at all — and easier, fuller lives for everyone.

But while it is true that people have a crucial influence on the course of history, and while there are important historical factors which might loosely be described as “accidents”, the fact is that history is basically not to be understood in such terms. The process of social development from the most primitive of societies to the present day has only one valid interpretation and that is as a continuous, predictable, evolution along a discernible course. On that concept, we not only understand what has happened in the past; we can foresee with some confidence what is likely to happen in the future.

The Falklands crisis did not spring solely from the determined belligerence of a handful of South American militarists. Latterly the Islands have assumed an increasing importance in the overall strategy of Argentinian capitalism, complicated by the possible presence of rich oil fields and the fact that historically the Falklands issue has been cynically used to stifle the realities of wage slavery in Argentina under a blanket of patriotism. The British ruling class, far from losing sleep over the “paramount” wishes of the Falklanders, have for decades been negotiating to pass the Islands over to Argentinian rule. This policy was no accident; it fitted in with the reality of Britain’s place in the conflicts of world capitalism.

The rail strikes cannot be explained in romantic terms, of militants against the true interests of the railwaymen. Workers on the railways, like those in other industries, were resisting a downward pressure on their wages and working conditions. Perhaps their effort was badly timed; when there is high unemployment strikes can have little muscle behind them. Perhaps the abrupt climb-down by the NUR was their acknowledgement that the time was not propitious. But in historical terms it was another incident in the continuing class struggle of capitalism and it will not be the last of its kind, as one side or the other takes advantage of the current conditions of the labour market.

The policies of the Thatcher government are not basically different from those of Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Macmillan . . . Every government has to contest with the working class; that is part of their function as the administrative arm of the capitalist class. In most cases, governments in post-war Britain have been weakened in their efforts by the strength the workers have drawn from relatively high employment and demand for labour power. This meant that attempts to keep wages in check — pay pauses, wage freezes, social contracts, whatever name they went under — were easily undermined and, sooner or later, modified or abandoned. As Thatcher came to power, the slump in world capitalism had reached such depths as to enable a government to impose policies which until then had had scant chance of success. Thatcher, then, is no accident; she personifies an especially repressive, exploitative phase in capitalist history.

The importance of understanding that capitalism does not progress through a series of accidents is in the fact that the next stage in human history — socialist society — will evolve from the contradictions of the present and will not therefore be accidental. Indeed, the very conditions for that change have been, and are being, historically laid down.

Capitalism has provided the human race with the possibility of producing an abundance of wealth. It has developed the means of production, distribution and communication to the point at which a society in which the human race can live in material security is immediately available to them.

Capitalism has refined the class structure so that there are now only two classes in society. It follows from this that the revolution to bring about the next stage in social evolution must be the work of one of those classes, with the object of emancipating that class.

It is the working class who historically fit that bill; they are the revolutionary class under capitalism. They are the class who are to be emancipated, the class who produce the wealth of capitalism but have no effective ownership. To fulfil their historical, revolutionary role the working class must understand capitalism, and the need to abolish it. They must also be aware of the effectiveness of replacing capitalism with a society of common ownership and free access. Capitalism itself, in the everyday experience of its inability to meet the needs of its people — its wars, famine, repression, disease — provides the motivation towards such an understanding. Historically, capitalism works towards its own demise.

History can be left to condition itself; the work of human beings is to make their history, albeit with many “accidents . . . surprises . . . mistakes. . . ." On those terms, the human race is moving to the historical step of establishing the first social order based on the interests of the majority.

Unemployment in the 30s and the 80s (1982)

From the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every one of the political parties in this country (except the SPGB) claims that it has a policy which, if the government applied it. would reduce capitalism's unemployment to a very low level and keep it there. It was the late Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, who wrote in 1959:

The great ideal of jobs for all first became a peacetime reality under the 1945 Labour government . . . The first objective of the Labour Government will be to restore full employment and preserve full employment. 

They had to wait five years, until October 1964, to see a Labour government in office again. At first it had some luck, in a small decline of unemployment in 1965. Emboldened by this. John (now Lord) Diamond, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, explained to the House of Commons on 1 March 1966 how this fall had been the result of government policy, and “that is how we propose to continue doing it". Then the government's luck ran out. Instead of unemployment remaining at 371,000, as instructed by Diamond, it jumped in 12 months to 631,000. and when the Labour government left office in June 1970 the Tories were able to show that unemployment was 200,000 higher when it took office.

But the Heath government which followed was equally unlucky. They, too, were pledged to “full employment" but saw the total rise from 582,000 in June 1970 to nearly a million in 1971 and 1972. Then came the Labour government of 1974-79, during which unemployment more than doubled, followed by the Thatcher government under which it has more than doubled again. All four governments from 1964 to the present time have been sailing on a rising tide of unemployment and there was nothing any of them could do about it except wait for it to subside in capitalism's own time.

However, though the governments cannot do anything about the amount of unemployment, the party politicians can indulge in an old game of challenging the official figures. This needs two teams, the opposition and the government, though anyone can join in. An accepted rule of the game is that the opposition, whether Tory or Labour, is on the attack, and the government, whether Tory or Labour, is on the defensive. Points are scored by the opposition when it can plausibly argue that the real number of unemployed is higher than the official figures; and by the government when it can counter the charge or claim that unemployment is really a blessing in disguise.

There was a splendid match in the winter of 1971. It was then that the official figure nearly reached a million and the Heath government had to meet the charge that the proper figure was higher. But how much higher? The Financial Times (11 December 1971) suggested that it was perhaps 1,250,000! The Observer (23 January 1972) quoted an estimate of 1,500,000. but in a later issue (23 February 1972) thought it might be 2,000,000. Not to be outdone Harold Wilson (Financial Times, 8 April 1972) put it at "nearly 3.000,000", and Peter Jay (The Times. 9 March) reckoned that it was "over 3 million”. An official estimate was that there might perhaps be 400,000 out of work who were not on the register, which would have given a total of 1,367,000.

Basically the official figures of unemployed on the register were, and are, disputed on the ground that a lot of unemployed workers do not trouble to register — including, in recent years, some redundant workers who do not seek work while they are spending their redundancy pay. The official figures are arrived at in the monthly count of the number of people available for, and genuinely seeking, work. The more extravagant estimates of a higher figure include guesses at the number of people, particularly married women, who are not seeking work but might perhaps do so if they could see that vacant jobs were available at sufficiently attractive rates of pay.

Faced with these embarrassing estimates of much higher unemployment the government at the time thought up some counter arguments to show that real unemployment was actually less that the official figures. They said that the large number of people they described as "unemployable” ought to be taken out, as should those registered unemployed who were only in the process of changing jobs, with a gap of a few weeks in between. And what about the people improperly included in the register who were secretly doing jobs on the side?

The most ingenious government defence came from John Eden, Minister for Industry, who said that the large number of unemployed on the register "reflect in part the redeployment that is under way"; meaning that it arose out of the government's policy of moving workers from contracting industries into expanding ones. "We can now look forward to what could be our greatest period of sustained growth in decades" (Financial Times 11 December 1971). The Thatcher government has had to fall back on the argument that the unemployed largely owe their condition to having pressed for too-high wages, and that it will take a long time for Tory policy to get things right.

In the politician's game about the unemployment figures points are scored by the opposition if they can claim that unemployment has reached a record level. For months on end. during the Labour government of 1974-79. the Tory opposition was able to do this, as unemployment climbed by over a million, from 629,000 to 1,636,000 in 1977. The form of the attack was that the figures were “a post-war record". Latterly, Labour Party politicians have been saying that the present figure of 3 million is “the highest ever recorded". The intention is to convey that unemployment now is greater than it was in the 1930s which it certainly is not.

The point is that the severity of unemployment has to take into account not only the number of unemployed but also the total number of workers to which it is related. For example, 2 million unemployed out of 10 million workers would be twice as severe as 2 million unemployed out of 20 million workers. Firstly, in 1932, the total number of wage and salary earners was perhaps about 19 million compared with the present 24 million. Secondly, fewer than 13 million of the 19 million were covered by the Unemployment Insurance Scheme and the official figure of unemployment in 1932 (over 2,900,000) took into account only those of the unemployed who were insured. If unemployment was as severe among the other 6 million workers as among the 13 million who were insured, the number of unemployed would have been shown as well over 4 million. Among the workers who were not insured were agricultural workers and non-manual workers generally.

Writing about unemployment in 1936, when it had fallen far below its peak of 1931-2, G.D.H.Cole dealt with the point:

There are, as we write, roughly 1.600.000 of them in Great Britain in the insured trades alone, there are really a good many more altogether; for there are also 110,000 uninsured workers on the register of the Employment Exchanges and an unknown number more who are neither insured nor registered. (The Condition of Britain, p. 219.)

Cole mentioned that at that time there were nearly 250,000 unemployed coal miners.

In 1932, when there were over 2.900,000 unemployed insured workers, on the register, it is the fact that 23 percent of the insured workers were out of work which gives a more accurate picture of the severity of unemployment generally, among both insured and uninsured workers. Unemployment was therefore very more severe in 1931-32 than it is in 1982. when it is 12.8 percent. The same is true of the United States where unemployment in 1933 was over 25 percent, compared with about 10 percent at present. Needless to say the “numbers” game was in full swing in the 1930s and with even more scope for guessing, since nobody knew how many of the millions of uninsured workers were out of a job.

As unemployment under the Labour government had risen from 1,164,000 (9.6 per cent) in June 1929 to 2.813.000 (21.9 percent) in August 1931 when they went out of office, they got a little satisfaction from seeing it go on rising under the National government which followed. Among the points made in the Labour Year Book 1932 was that a seeming 60,000 drop of unemployed among women late in 1931 was due to “changes in the conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit, by which the claims of a large number of married women were disallowed”.

Of course the Thatcher government’s much-heralded recovery has not yet produced results, and unemployment might yet rise to the levels of the 1930s.

Edgar Hardcastle

Political Notes: Social Democrats so what (1982)

The Political Notes Column from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Social Democrats so what

Who cares about the leadership of the Social Democrats?

Well Roy Jenkins cares. No banqueting table ever received so delighted a slaver from him as when, declared the winner of the leadership contest, he contemplated the new brilliance of his once-glimmering hopes of becoming Prime Minister. “Our aim is to . . . make a major breakthrough to government". he asserted. David Owen cares. Second in the two-man race, he did not actually say "I want an important job in any future SDP government". What he did gulp out of his chagrin was: "Roy Jenkins is a friend of mine and we will work very much together". The SDP membership cares. Nearly 76 per cent of them cast their votes in the election for the man who, they hope, will head the next government over British capitalism.

But should anyone care about the outcome of this supreme non-event? A little more than 47,000 members of the SDP expressed a preference for one or other of two politicians who are inseparably associated with one of the most dismal failures in recent history. Jenkins’ time as Chancellor of the Exchequer was marked by a savage assault on working class living standards and by a succession of economic crises, all of which were clearly beyond his control. Owen was Foreign Secretary through an average period of international tension and conflict (including early rumblings of the Falklands war). If he had any ability or knowledge of how to eliminate these problems, he successfully concealed it.

Politicians have to base their appeal on a veiled assurance that there is some sort of magic trick of competence, learning or skill which can be applied to make capitalism run in the interests of its peoples. So far, even the slickest of them have not been able to perform the promised miracle. It is depressing, if unsurprising, that there are 65,000 workers in the SDP who are naive enough to believe that a tedious rehash of the discredited tricks of the other parties of capitalism can have any effect on the system's ailments.

An authentic desire to break the political mould would lead to the discarding of all the parties who stand for capitalism. To the detriment of the human race, few workers care about that at present.

Polish capitalism

For several months now, Poland has been under martial law, and very little information has been forthcoming about developments there. But there are still thousands of trade unionists imprisoned for their activities. Solidarity is still operating underground. There have been several demonstrations against the regime which the armed thugs of the state have brutally put down with water-cannon and truncheons.

But why is independent trade-union activity and the wage rises it might gain such a horrible threat in the eyes of Jaruzelski and the other representatives of capital and profit in Poland? On July 7, Polish leaders met their Western bank creditors in Vienna to negotiate the further rescheduling of debts. The Polish rulers are still over 27 billion dollars in debt, having borrowed large amounts to finance the boom of the 'seventies.

With the onset of world recession in the 'eighties, they are finding it impossible to repay these debts, both because of the lack of resources internally and the decreased purchases in the West of Polish exports — the preferred method of repayment.

As the Financial Times put it: “Even if Polish productivity accelerated sharply, the world recession would prevent the West from buying as much as the generals in Warsaw would like” (26 January 1982). Previous rescheduling has meant that two billion dollars of capital, plus interest, are due to be repaid this year.

The Polish rulers say they can do neither, and although some of the Western governments have made hypocritically pious noises about the martial law regime, the bankers themselves are generally anxious to see their Polish counterparts do anything they can to screw more wealth out of the Polish workers, for the repayment at least of the interest. They complain that their capital has been invested without purpose since they have not seen a profit.

All of these developments prove beyond the slightest doubt that state-capitalist countries like Poland and Russia are giant corporations, which fit quite consistently into the overall framework of world capitalism, with its exploitation of wage labour by capital to accumulate profit.

Anyone for democracy?

Even for the House of Commons — where they are not unwaveringly in touch with reality — it was a remarkable day when David Owen got up to voice his concern for the welfare of the trade unions. Was this the man who was Foreign Secretary in the government which ruled during the infamous winter of discontent?

Worse was to come. Owen’s unoriginal opinion that the collapse of the NUR strike proved the need for an extension of democratic procedures in the unions was applauded by Margaret Thatcher. Was this the Prime Minister presiding over the present ruthless assault on the unions?

Thatcher foresaw the introduction of new laws to force the unions to hold secret ballots before calling a strike. It is popularly viewed that such laws would drastically reduce the number and incidence of strikes. The theory is that stolid, responsible trade unionists who want only to be left in peace to surrender up the maximum of surplus value to their employers are being harassed and misled into strikes they oppose by militant trade union leaders. Just let the silent majority have its voice, runs the theory, and there will be very, very few strikes.

It is not so long ago that the opposite theory was popular with the likes of Owen and Thatcher. In those days the union leadership (men like Arthur Deakin and Tom Williamson) were respected as bulwarks resisting the pressure for strikes from the union membership. The result was often that the pressure boiled over into "unofficial” strikes — which meant that the members were in favour of them but the leadership would not organise them. The House of Commons then did not hear calls from vain politicians for the majority of trade unionists to have its way. Instead, it heard thanks and praise for the undemocratic, resisting leaders.

In any case, Thatcher and Owen got it wrong. There is no evidence that ballots would reduce strikes; it is very possible that a strike called after a ballot would be that much stronger and determined and therefore difficult for the employers to break. Above it all is the fact that industrial disputes arise directly, unavoidably, from the class struggle. There is no doubt which side Owen and Thatcher are on. A more democratic, more powerful trade union movement will be built in spite of their opposition.

Letter From Europe: Mitterrand clamps down (1982)

The Letter From Europe Column from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

It had to happen sooner or later. The attempt by Mitterrand's PS/PC government to revive the economy and reduce unemployment in France by giving people more money to spend—increasing “popular consumption" as it was called—just couldn't last. Since capitalism is a system which cannot be controlled or manipulated by governments and since most of the money to finance the social reforms in question came straight off the printing press, what happened was inevitable: the general price level in France rose, and at a rate faster than in other countries, leading to a fall-off in exports and a record balance of payments deficit which in turn made a devaluation of the franc inevitable. The effect on employment, on the other hand, was minimal: sales of consumer goods picked up for a while but the number of unemployed continued to grow, by nearly 16 per cent since Mitterrand came to power, passing the 2 million mark in October.

Exactly a year ago the Socialist Standard, analysing the economic policy of the then brand new PS/PC government, wrote:

It will fail completely and within a year or so they will be faced with growing working class discontent over persisting unemployment and rising prices which they will not be able to satisfy, since the continuing crisis will force them to recognise that under capitalism priority must be given to profits and profit-making rather than to social reforms and popular consumption. The crunch will then come and they will be forced, like all governments of capitalism sooner or later, to take openly anti-working class measures. 

As a matter of fact the crunch has come sooner rather than later, less than a year after the PS/PC government took office at the end of June 1981. On 12 June this year the French franc was devalued within the European Monetary System, for the second time in less than 9 months in fact, since Mitterrand had already been forced to devalue last October too. The October devaluation had been accompanied by rather timid price controls and mere appeals for some wage moderation. This time it was different. The government has adopted the following measures:

• a legally-imposed wage freeze lasting till the end of October, the only exception being the rise in the minimum wage due on 1 July; a legally-imposed price freeze also until the end of October but with some important exceptions such as oil, gas, electricity and imported goods;
• an increase in contributions to the health service accompanied by a cut in some benefits;
• a similar operation of increased contributions for less benefits regarding the unemployment insurance scheme.

The Minister of Finance, Jacques Delors, has already announced that austerity will not finish at the end of October but will continue. in the form of a restrictive “incomes policy", at least until the end of 1983; in other words, for at least 18 months in all.

Delors has also made no attempt to disguise the fact that the living standards of workers will have fallen by the end of October. He has publicly admitted that, while wages will be completely frozen, prices will rise by at least 2.8 per cent during this period. This will happen not only because prices are much harder to control than wages, but also because a number of exceptions to the so-called "prices freeze” are being allowed, particularly oil products (petrol, heating oil. paraffin) and imported goods. Since one effect of the devaluation will precisely be to increase the prices of imported goods, it is evident how large a loophole this latter will be.

So the government has now done a complete U-turn. The aim is now not to increase popular consumption but to reduce it! The Prime Minister, Pierre Mauroy, had already forewarned, even before the devaluation. that wages were soon going to come under direct attack from the government when he told a PS meeting on 21 May: 

Excessive nominal increases in incomes and wages maintain inflation and deprive our economy of the means to create jobs. The government has decided to act and we will shortly have occasion to talk about this again (Republicain Lorrain, 22 May).

It is clear from this that the government accepts the old. mistaken theory that it is wage increases that cause inflation. In fact, wages only increase in a period of inflation because inflation—an overissue of an inconvertible currency—inevitably leads to a rise in the general price level; wages, the price of labour power, merely rise in line with all other prices. Wage and salary earners are the victims not the cause of inflation.

The government's hope is that its austerity package will bring price rises—currently running at an annual rate of 14 per cent— down to an average of 10 per cent over the 12 months of 1982. This means of course that for the remaining months of the year the rate will have to fall well below 10 per cent. But unless they limit the amount of inconvertible paper money in circulation to what the level of economic activity requires—and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is their intention—then the pressure for prices to go on rising will continue.

If the currency is being overissued, then freezing wages and prices can’t stop prices rising. Certainly this can work for a limited period, just as a dam can stop a river flowing . . . for a limited period. Thus it is possible that the government could achieve a short term success but in the long run they will fail. Eventually, and sooner rather than later, the dam will burst and prices—including wages—will resume their upward trend. Delors is in fact very worried about what is going to happen after the legal wage and price freeze is over and this is why he is hoping to persuade the unions to moderate their wage demands over a longer period.

The union leaders, or some of them, may be prepared to go along with this. French union leaders are also politically involved and may well be prepared to betray their members’ interests to help a government they support just as British union leaders have done when Labour has been in power.

Indeed, just like Labour governments in Britain, the PS/PC government in France hopes to exploit its links with the unions to keep wages down and is publicly boasting that it will be better able to get the unions to co-operate in this than the opposition parties. And it is true that when the previous "right wing’’ government decided in September 1976 to block prices for 3 months it didn't dare block wages as well, as the present "left wing" government has done, limiting itself simply to asking employers not to offer excessive wage increases. But even this brought trade unionists out on to the streets proclaiming "No to Austerity". History shows that allegedly "socialist” governments in all countries are better able to impose austerity on workers than openly capitalist ones. (A case could even be made out for saying that this is their role within capitalism.) What is happening in France today is a further confirmation of this rule.

Two further points must however be made. First, in a period of high unemployment real wages (what wages can buy) will tend to be under pressure anyway for purely economic reasons, irrespective of government policy or of whether the union leaders betray their members or not. Second, if inflation of the currency continues, then nominal money wages will go on rising, once again irrespective of what governments and union leaders may or may not do. But government action to try, in the one case, to reinforce downward pressures on real wages and, in the other, to try to counter the upward pressures on nominal wages clearly reveals that all governments are forced to run capitalism in the only way it can be — against the interests of the wage and salary earning majority. A sustained policy of increasing “popular consumption” under capitalism must sooner or later restrict popular consumption to protect profits.

Actually, as we pointed out in the article last August, Delors did not have such a simplistic solution to the economic crisis as the PCF, the CGT trade union and some of his PC colleagues — that economic activity could he revived by giving people more money to spend. He realised that the French economy was part of the world economy and that a revival in France could not be sustained without a revival in the world capitalist economy. But he too was naive in believing, without any reasonable grounds for doing so, that this world revival would occur within a year and that therefore the French government could safely "reflate” its economy (print more money to finance government spending) in anticipation. In June last year he declared that "the reflation measures already taken by the government . . . are a limited anticipation of the recovery of the world economy which the experts foresee for the end of this year or the beginning of next (The Times, 24 June 1981).

The end of 1981 came, but there was no world recovery. The months of 1982 passed, still no world recovery. The "experts” began to creep back into their holes. Meanwhile, as a direct result of the government's spending financed by the printing press, the rate of inflation remained higher in France than in other countries. . . leading eventually to the devaluation of 12 June and the current austerity measures.

When Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy announced the devaluation he could only remark pathetically that his government had done what it could "but the international recovery was not at the rendez-vous”. It takes two to make a rendez-vous and the PS/ PC government has found out the hard way that governments are in no position to impose a rendez vous on the capitalist economy. Capitalism is a world system which operates according to its own economic laws, going through its regular boom-slump. boom-slump cycles, irrespective of what governments may or may not do. It is true however that, while governments can do nothing to bring about a recovery before it would normally occur, they can. as Marx pointed out. make things worse by mistaken monetary policies, as the present French government just seems to have done. Mauroy would have been better to have employed some other metaphor: "we took a risk and we lost" or "we took a leap in the dark and fell flat on our faces". Or even Harold Wilson's "we were blown off course”!

This utter failure of the PS/PC government in France is yet another confirmation of our contention that capitalism can never be made to work in the interests of the wage and salary earning majority. It is a profit-making system based on the exploitation of wage-labour and can only function as such, whatever the political colour the government may happen to have. Any party which takes on the responsibility for governing under capitalism is sooner or later forced, whether it originally intended to or not, to respect the economic logic of capitalism which decrees that profits must come before wages, that the consumption of the wage and salary earning class must be limited so as to allow profits to be made.

Mitterrand's failure is proof that reformism is a futile waste of time. Since the Labour Party’s economic policy resembles very closely that pursued by Mitterrand until 12 June, there's a lesson here for workers in Britain too.

Adam Buick (Luxemburg)

War fair (1982)

From the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

One feature of the Falklands conflict which caused the jingoists to boil over with ill-directed wrath was the fact that some of the armaments used by the Argentine forces had been made in Britain or EEC "partner" countries. Some details are given in a recent New Statesman article by Duncan Campbell, under the extremely confused title of "No Lesson Learnt" (21 June 1981). Campbell tells us how

Ferranti workers in Edinburgh and Manchester made the Isis bombing sights with which the Argentine Skyhawks were fitted . . . Their French counterparts at Bourges made the Exocets. Sterling Armaments of Dagenham sold the Argentines some 100 submachine guns seven years ago, which turned up at Goose Green.

Later in the same article, we learn that Sterling Armaments and Ferranti were among the exhibitors at last month's British Army Equipment Exhibition, a bi-annual international arms sale held at Aldershot. Campbell writes:

In 1976. just three months after we had broken off diplomatic relations .  . . two Argentine generals came to Aldershot. In 1978 ten officers came. In 1980. after the restoration of diplomatic links, five generals visited Britain. The Ministry of Defence even paid their air fares . . . Every other military dictatorship from Turkey to the Americas got the same treatment.

Unexpectedly, no reformist cries for "control" appear in the text, although the title does hint at a belief in such "solutions". On a note of unusual realism. Campbell signs off by saying: "There is no sign from Britain or anywhere else in Europe that the Falklands war will have changed the world of arms dealing”.

Those who express patriotic anger at such revelations are probably unaware that history provides many examples of arms sales to the "enemy", and of those not directly involved in a conflict selling the machines of death to both sides. Even in the Middle Ages, mercenary soldiers took whichever side could offer them employment at the time. After the Industrial Revolution, however, the arms trade gathered pace.

Alfred Nobel, like many of the early giants of this business, was a complex character. Idealist, pacifist and admirer of Shelley (in whose style he enjoyed writing poetry), he was also a ruthless financier obsessed with the science of explosives. He is. of course, best known as the originator of the Nobel Peace Prize, a fitting testament to his contradictory nature: fewer people realise that he was one of the earliest to subscribe to the deterrent theory. At the Berne Peace Congress of 1892 he explained his viewpoint to Bertha von Suttner, Austrian aristocrat, authoress and pacifist, who had earlier applied to be his private secretary: “My factories may end war sooner than your Congress. The day when two army corps can destroy each other in one second, all civilised nations will recoil in horror from war” (The Arms Bazaar, Anthony Sampson). Nobel's nightmare vision of destructive power is now all but come to pass, but with no sign of the response for which he apparently hoped. However this philosophy provided an excellent justification for a man who had made his fortune out of the arms race. Sampson believes that Nobel was Bernard Shaw's model for the character of Andrew Undershaft in his play Major Barbara. Undershaft, however, explicitly rejects the deterrent theory when his son-in-law puts his point of view to him: "I am obliged to you for making the usual excuses for my trade, but I’m ashamed of it. I am not one of those men who keep their morals and their business in watertight compartments". There have been both types in the arms trade. Whether the capitalist provides his own justification or relies on others makes very little difference.

Alfred Krupp was a less complicated person than Nobel. In 1866 he insisted, against the wishes of Bismarck, on exporting guns to Austria, which were very soon in use against Prussia in the Austro- Prussian War. Shortly afterwards, despite having just raised a loan from the King of Prussia. Krupp tried to export his guns to France and failed only because the complacency of the French generals stood in his way. At the turn of the century Sir Basil Zaharoff, in his role as master salesman for Vickers, had considerable success travelling between opposing Balkan states — Greece and Turkey — to escalate orders from both sides. In the First World War the Maxim gun, sold by Sir Hiram Maxim to Germans, Austrians and Italians, was the prototype for the guns which fired from all sides on the Western Front. In Russia, Krupp guns fired on German soldiers and the Belgian army had been stocked from the same source. At sea both sides fired shells with Krupp fuses, and after hostilities ceased Krupp’s successfully sued Vickers for payment of royalties on its shells.

All this nefarious traffic inevitably spawned pressure for control on arms sales and for nationalisation of the industry. Even staunch capitalist defenders of “free enterprise” did not wish to see organisations from within their own territory supplying arms to a potential enemy. Whatever the views of the individuals involved, the development of capitalism led inevitably to attempts by the state machine to interfere with the freedom of the private arms manufacturers to sell to whomsoever their immediate interests dictated. The League of Nations, as ineffective before World War One as the United Nations has been since 1945, passed resolutions such as that of December 1933: “That it is contrary to the public interest that the manufacture and sale of armaments should be for private profit”.

The United States Congress, following the report of the Nye Committee of investigation into the arms business, passed in August 1935 a Neutrality Bill which compelled the President, in the event of war between foreign countries, to apply an arms embargo. The hearings of the Nye Committee were freely quoted by the British Labour Party in support of its demands for nationalisation, yet the ineffectiveness of control “remedies” had already been revealed during the Manchurian crisis of 1931. In that year Japan invaded Manchuria, then part of China, in the face of condemnation from Britain and the League of Nations and a boom in British arms exports to both sides ensued. For a couple of weeks the British government imposed an arms embargo. Duff Cooper, then Financial Secretary to the War Office, described the situation thus: "In a fortnight we took off the embargo, but during those weeks we lost a great many orders. China and Japan did not get less munitions, but men in this country got less work, less food, less employment". Thus Duff Cooper, like Alfred Nobel, used an argument more common today than in his own time. The concern of the capitalist over loss of profit is. with varying degrees of hypocrisy and cynicism, masked as sympathy for the workers thrown onto the streets as a result of unemployment. More recently the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East turmoil in general have provided further examples of duplicity. French pressure in 1969 forced Dassault, previously a generous supplier of Israel, to sell Mirage jets to Libya. Significantly the main reason was the need to ensure continuing supplies of oil.

Why does this destructive absurdity continue? The answer lies in the nature of the capitalist system itself. Unsold stocks of any commodity are a dangerous embarrassment to the owners of the means of wealth production. If the value embodied in these goods cannot be converted into cash, profits are lost and, in some cases, bankruptcy results. In the last resort this desperate pressure to sell in the face of cut-throat competition from rivals drives capitalist governments into war. This pressure of course applies in the final analysis as much to government controlled industries.

Under capitalism alliances between stales are often of a transitory nature. Japan was an ally of Britain and America in 1914-18, but fought against them in 1941-45. And despite the long-standing Falklands dispute, Argentina was not regarded as an enemy until the time of the invasion. Despite recent technological advances in the means of destruction, some comparatively old weapons are still effective, particularly in small scale wars. The Canberra bomber, the design of which started as early as 1945, helped India "liberate” Bangladesh in "Mrs. Gandhi’s War” in 1971. This aeroplane and the Lightning (1960) are much in evidence in South American air forces and are indeed not yet completely phased out of the RAF. The variability of capitalist alliances and the long life of some weapons obviously increase the danger of supplying a potential enemy with the means to hit you hard. Weapons bought with one purpose in mind can easily be put to another use. The guns from Sterling Armaments which turned up seven years later at Goose Green may well have been purchased for domestic rather than "anti-colonial” use. Campbell reports that "five were fitted with silencers, which reduce the performance of the bullets too much for conventional military use”. Probably they were intended for use against workers at home rather than abroad.

There is however yet another reason why, even with government control of arms production, sales opportunities abroad cannot be lightly spurned, even if embarrassment is risked in the process. The capitalist class has the problem of how to maintain in peacetime the capacity to produce armaments in an emergency. To convert too many factories to other products such as kidney machines would clearly put this capability at risk. In February 1935, Bernard Baruch, adviser to Franklin Roosevelt, spelled out his government’s policy with brutal frankness:

The only expedient yet used is for the governments of industrial countries at least not to discourage (and I fear almost universally to encourage) the manufacture of lethal weapons for exportation to belligerent countries actively preparing for war. but which have an insufficient munitions industry or none at all. Without specific evidence 1 still conjecture that the Nye investigation will disclose that our Government has not operated on a different policy. To put it bluntly, this is a method of providing a laboratory to test killing implements and a nucleus for a wartime munitions industry by maintaining an export market for instruments of death. Of course, it is absolutely indefensible and we could not be put in a position of excusing it.

This really says it all.

E. C. Edge