Reflections (1951)

From the January 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the declaration of Peace in 1945 the “ brave new world ” has been conspicuous by its absence. A brief survey of these post-war years to the present day daunts even the most optimistic nature. Many trusting thousands who built hopes of world peace on U.N.O. have been sadly disillusioned. This truly august body with world-wide ramifications was inaugurated five years ago to ensure Peace, even if it meant fighting for it! (Reminiscent of the Irishman who was determined to pull out the cork even if he had to push it in.) Moving ponderously like a Heath Robinson cartoon in slow motion it cut a ridiculous figure during its early years, as wars of varying degree and intensity broke out over the globe like the pimples on the face of an adolescent youth. Creaking and groaning in every joint it lumbered majestically through mandates, amendments,, vetos, adjournments and so on ad infinitum, also giving birth to a few offspring. Its predecessor the League of Nations, that puling infant of the 1914 war which failed so lamentably to justify its existence, was “small fry” in comparison for in the latest outbreak in Korea U.N.O. shapes up as a powerful instrument for war, revealing the mustering and reshuffling of the various Powers for the third large scale "War-to-end-all-Wars,” now openly discussed in Press and on radio. Under the much publicised banner of U.N.O. thousands of soldiers in Korea kill and are killed, with the ever increasing horrors of modern warfare. Once again we hear on the radio the familiar reports of "saturation” raids, and know that thousands of civilians are being pounded to injury and death in the dust and ashes of their homes. The latest weapon against tanks, annihilates at a “near miss of 200 yards” in a ball of fire. What further horrors will war bring forth? The Korean war is the straw which points the direction of the deadly blasts yet to come, prelude to an act to be “played” no-one knows when, with America and Soviet Russia in the leading roles, each dragging satellite nations in their wake into the maelstrom of Atomic Warfare. The Nazi bogey has been long since hauled down and now the Red Menace hoisted. The vacillations of the Japanese character can be likened to an oscillating electric fan. In 1914 they were our "staunch little Far East Allies.” In 1940 sub-human and bestial brutes, and now they aren't such bad fellows after all, depending of course on which side they line up when the next holocaust arrives.

In the industrial world strikes and labour unrest are the order of the day. Colour-bar troubles splutter intermittently but ominously in America and S. Africa. In India the workers are discovering that “self government” makes not one iota of difference to their miserable conditions and it is immaterial whether British or native capitalists exploit them. At home the post-war years have been punctuated by exhortations to “work harder, produce more, close the gap and save more.” Expanding prices shrink the value of wage packets. Some relaxations in the rationing system bring no relief as many cannot afford the extra cash involved. The housewife plods her weary way, her mind rarely able to rise above the level of the next meal or the weekly budget The monotony of her daily round finds its counterpart in the treadmill of the wage earner himself. Housing shortages result in overcrowding and “in-law” troubles breaking up hundreds of young marriages. Some live under almost unbelievable conditions in slums and cellars herded together like cattle.

The bebop fans and bobby soxers are a product of the age, craving excitement, living for today, subconsciously dreading the hardships and insecurity of a future they fear to face. The origin of crimes is rooted in the system. A miserable environment engenders hatred for a social system that hands out a raw deal. During war thousands are educated to violence and sudden death, trained in the arts of killing and to “get the better of the other fellow.” But in "peace” those lessons must be forgotten or it means the "8 o’clock walk,” not a medal.

In spite of crusades and special efforts to retain its place in the public eye religion is fighting a losing battle. It can prescribe no cure-all for this ailing world or indeed for itself. Even as they chant like the savages in the jungle whom they would self-righteously wish to convert, the staunchest of its followers must find difficulty in reconciling the idea of a merciful and loving God with the world as it is to-day. Its advocates distract attention from the substance of everyday life and. must surely deny themselves the luxury of thinking when they offer the shadow of a mythical future existence.

The pacifist sees the evils of war but not the cause and so is unable to propound the solution.

After over five years of Labour Government even its most enthusiastic supporters must realise that it is not by any means “jam today,” or to-morrow for that matter. Their programme differs only in the main from the Tory’s in regard to Nationalisation, which does not concern the interests of the workers. The National Health Scheme and Family Allowances were Beveridge’s babies, the Labour Government merely adopted them. Unfortunately the idea is quite prevalent that “Socialism” is in the making and this mishandling of the word does incalculable harm to the socialist movement. The Labour Government cannot function in the interests of the workers. It can only try to cope with the ever increasing problems of a capitalist society as they arise, blaming post war conditions, and appealing to the workers for cooperation. There are, however, signs that the workers patience is beginning to fray round the edges.

Leaping back over the past five years and reflecting on the present day we say "a brave new world indeed.” Over the whole of it broods the threat of Atomic warfare, inevitable while this vicious and effete system of Society stands, automatically breeding wars, poverty and untold misery. Only the apathy and political ignorance of the workers steady this palsied and tottering edifice. It is up to them to rouse their comrades and beat the Atom bomb with the establishment of a sane system of Society.

F. M. Robins

The Passing Show: Bill Sikes (1962)

The Passing Show column from the May 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bill Sikes

A new storm is blowing up over the amount of violence on television. As the night's ration of gunfire roars from the lantern in the corner, or bursts through the thin partition wall from the next house, many parents are sincerely worried about its effect on their children. There was much criticism of a recent BBC programme aimed at children which showed the scene from Oliver Twist in which Bill Sikes bludgeoned Nancy to death; and the accidental hanging of Bill Sikes was cut from the following week’s instalment.

It would, of course, be difficult to maintain that the regular diet of shootings, stabbings, stranglings, and knockout blows which is fed to children (and adults) by the television programmes does them any good. But it would be a waste of time to try to trace current “juvenile delinquency” and "violent crime" merely to the television. The whole of our society presents a picture of violence to the impressionable mind. No ruling class could exist without frequent recourse to violence of the crudest kind. While the main prop of the power of the ruling class is constant and insidious propaganda through every medium of communication—press, radio, pulpit, and so on—violence mast be used to punish and deter the small minority who refuse to accept the prevailing notions of private property or otherwise break the law. The television high-ups may censor the hanging of Bill Sikes; but they cannot censor the official and judicial hanging of James Hanratty. And there is no point in banning Westerns when every ruling class in the world, including our own, is prepared in order to achieve its aims to kill more people than all the black-shirted badmen who ever trod the studio boards.

Commodity

Education in any society prepares people to be members of that society. Education in capitalist society prepares people to be members of capitalist society. And in return for a steady supply of workers both at the factory bench and in the white-collar ranks, capitalists are prepared to pay (and have to pay) handsomely. Education to a capitalist is merely a commodity to be bought for a price like any other commodity. If you will not accept this from a Socialist, you may be more ready to accept it from a capitalist. This item appeared in The Times of March 2nd:

The University of Witwatersrand became 40 years old today and received a birthday present of £730,000 from the Chamber of Mines. The money would be spread over five years. Mr. H. C. Koch, president of the Chamber, said he hoped other industries would come to realise that money given to university was not a donation but was a payment fur an essential commodity.

Even a Socialist could not put it more clearly.

Demoralization

Anyone who thinks that only white people can sink to the level of racialism would be well advised to consider recent speeches made in Rhodesia. The publicity secretary of the United National Independence Party said that when UNIP achieved power in Northern Rhodesia it would declare Sir Roy Welensky a prohibited immigrant in the territory: this, he said, would be "the first step in UNIP’s programme of demoralization of the white man" (The Times, 10/4/62). The European, he said, was afraid of the African today, because he knew the African was no longer joking. At the same meeting the publicity secretary of the Southern Rhodesian Zimbabwe African People's Union said that “anyone who lived in Africa must identify himself with the African people. ZAPU would not accept European standards. In Africa no standards would be accepted that were not completely pan-African."

The aspiring Rhodesian African ruling class, having seen how valuable racialism has been to the European rulers of the country, are now trying to drum up support for themselves the same way. The more they can emphasise the irrelevant distinctions between members of the human race, such as colour of skin, the less inclined the African people will be to think about—and get rid of—the really important division in the human race, that between class and class.

Alwyn Edgar

Cooking the Books: A global capitalist class? (2011)

The Cooking the Books column from the May 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is there a global, “transnational” capitalist class? This is an issue that is dividing those in what can broadly be called the Marxist tradition (as those who analyse capitalism using the same categories that Marx did; so, very broadly).

One view is that the world is divided into independent, territorially-based states representing and pursuing the interests of capitalists from within their borders, and that the world economy is characterised by competing separate national capitals only. The other view is that the capitalist system has always been a single economy, even if divided politically and geographically, into separate “nation states”, and that the recent globalisation represents the emergence of a global capitalist class not tied to a particular national state.

One exponent of the second view is William I. Robinson who argues in an article “Beyond the theory of imperialism. Global capitalism and the transnational state” in Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism (edited by Alexander Anievas and published by Routledge this year) that:

“We have entered a qualitatively new transnational stage in the ongoing evolution of world capitalism marked by a number of fundamental shifts in the capitalist system, among them:
–   the rise of truly transnational capital and the integration of every country into a new global production and financial system;–   the appearance of a new transnational capitalist class (TCC), a class group grounded in new global markets and circuits of accumulation, rather than national markets and circuits;–   the rise of transnational state (TNS) apparatuses, (…).”

Obviously, national states have not disappeared and are still powerful players in the capitalist economy. Robinson does not deny this but argues that the transnational capitalist class uses them, through favourable politicians and governments, to pursue its transnational interests (rather than them being used by a national capitalist class to pursue its national interests).

Ever since the last World War, freer trade has been the policy of the dominant capitalist countries (in fact it could even be said to have been the main war aim of America and Britain). But has this now led to the emergence of a transnational capitalist class? Robinson makes out a good case for this and it would explain the present stuff of national politics in that a transnational capitalist class still has to act via national states to get them to pursue policies favouring free trade and transnational investment and to set up transnational institutions, such as the WTO and the IMF, to facilitate and regulate this (which he sees as an embryonic “transnational state”).

However, any transnational capitalist class would only be a section of the capitalist class of the world. There are still plenty of national capitalists, actual and would-be, whose interests are not the same as those of the transnational section. So, although political power in the advanced capitalist countries, may be in the hands of politicians favourable to transnational capitalists, there is still opposition to them.

The ideology of national capitalism, reflecting the interests of small-scale capitalists, is still strong and finds support both from the “right” and the “left” (who beat the same nationalist drum during referendums and votes on the EU) as well as from conspiracy theorists denouncing the “new world order”. Outside Europe there are states controlled by opponents of the transnational capitalists such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Burma and, above all and for the moment, China.

Leftists in effect argue that workers should support national as opposed to transnational capitalism. Socialists, on the other hand, don’t take sides in this conflict between different sections of the capitalist class.

A Socialist Survey. (1914)

From the August 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

We were taught at school that England is a free country. On reaching maturer years, however, we discover this to be a distortion of the truth. It all depends upon a person’s economic status, if he is rich he is free — comparatively. He is free to sweat and grind his poorer “brethren,” to maim and murder them in mines and pits, to butcher them in shunting yards, to drown them in over-burdened ships, to torture and burn them in rubber forests, to run them down and leave them mangled on the highways, and to starve and outrage and seduce them at will, within very wide limits and at a very low price. If he is poor, however, he possesses no freedom in any sense of the word. He is not free to work; he is not free to starve; he is not free to beg; he is not free to steal. He is even “pinched” if he tries to get off the earth.

I am reminded of this by the case of a man named Carter, aged 53 (far too old to work according to capitalist employers, and far too young for an old age pension according to those employers’ politicians), who was charged at the Salford Quarter Sessions with “wandering abroad to beg alms.” This, of course, was a heinous offence, and he was asked to retire under the care of His Majesty for a period of twelve months!

* * *

All that is necessary to ensure the success of any scheme of a “charitable” nature is to back it up with the name of some big figurehead of society, royal or otherwise. One of the latest schemes for parting fools from their money is that known an Alexandra Day. Hardly had the wage-slaves clutched the miserable pittance known as “wages,” when they were asked to “spare just a copper” for the odiferous cause of charity. And the way in which thousands of poor fools tumbled over each other in their eagerness to respond would be amusing were it not so tragic. It is estimated that in Manchester alone the receipts from the sale of roses totalled nearly £4,000. What a lot of plasters this sum will buy for the covering up of capitalist sores!

* * *

It is the fashion now a-days when performing some public function or other, for our noble masters to make some reference to the social conditions of to-day. They pretend a knowledge even when they don’t possess it. A few carefully chosen, high sounding words usually serve the purpose that of impressing their hearers (especially the Press) with the profundity of their “knowledge ”

Earl Grey, in laying the foundation stone of a new institute at Liverpool recently, must have taxed his cerebral tissue to its utmost capacity in order to treat the gathering to the following: “Those who believed that the ownership of property was a trust whose administration was of vital importance to the prosperity and progress of the country, were under a special obligation to take a share in the task of finding solutions for the social and economic problems which confront us.”

Sounds all right when you say it quickly, doesn’t it ? All the same, I don’t see that it matters whether they do or not. The task of finding a solution is not so difficult as the noble windbag seems to think. As a matter of fact, the solution is already found, without the help of Earl Grey or the property owners. The “social and economic problems” are problems no longer as Earl Grey and bis class will discover before very long. Has he never heard of Socialism ?

* * *

Speaking in his constituency a few days ago, Mr. J. R. Clynes referred to the “enormous taxation” borne by the workers. “Session after session,” be avowed, “the Labour Party have put forward in connection with the Finance Bill, proposals to wipe out the whole of the duties resting upon common foodstuffs such as tea, sugar, and currants, and which amount to about ten millions sterling, mainly coming from the pockets of the working class.”

No wonder the capitalists support the Labour Party if this is what they stand for. Abolish the food taxes and you render a great service to those largest of wage-payers—the manufacturers and distributors-since it would enable them to reduce wages.

Mr. Clynes’ point of view is wrong, of course. If it were true that the workers paid taxes, then they would be ten millions in pocket from the abolition of food taxes alone. Is Mr. CIynes prepared to make this claim ?

* * *

Mr. Will Thorne has got the same complaint. Speaking in the Newton Division (Lancs.) he stated that the Labour Party had never moved from their determination of putting the burden of taxation on the rich. They had declared for the abolition of all food taxes, and they intended to keep “banging away” until they bad got them removed.

It is hard to believe that these people do not know that it is the rich who pay the taxes and not the poor. In any case they are people who ought to know better. While such are allowed to stand in the limelight, so long will the workers be dazzled by the rays which emanate from these “lights,” and which, after all, are only the reflections of capitalist economics. Hence the confusion.

* * *

Mr. Emil Davies, the Nationalisation expert,’’ has been propounding for the benefit of the “Daily Citizen” readers, a scheme whereby will be secured what be calls “a just wage” for the worker. As usual, it is a State project, based upon ethical lines.

Mr. Davies believes that “municipalities or State departments are, in a large measure, released from the necessity of making big continuous profits, and are freer to consider the interests of those who are working under it."

A scheme based upon such a belief as this would have just about the solidity the “Daily Citizen" and its dupes look for. But enquiry of the Leeds and other corporation employees might disturb the equanimity of those who hold that municipalities are “freer to consider the interests” of these who work under them.

* * *

A writer in the “Daily Chronicle” (29/7/14) outlining the probable results of the threatened war says: “perhaps the working classes, hitherto so loyal and patriotic, will turn savagely against the powers that be. Let us all, whatever our party, stand together and do what we can to avert this coming disaster."

Tom Sala

Greasy Pole: Farewell To Tristram (2017)

The Greasy Pole column from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are a number of personal qualities which need to be developed by anyone with ambitions to rise to the top through the pressured universe of politics. For one there is the motivation to refashion the meaning of certain words so that, for example, poverty can be described as security, ruthless calculation as an enduring concern for human fallibility, a ready resort to falsehood as an unshakeable devotion to truth. Also an energising requirement of a talent to face full up to the observant cameras. A recent example of this is Tristram Julian Hunt who, apart from being encouraged to prefix his names with the word Honourable as the son of Baron Hunt of Chesterton and who performed so satisfactorily at Cambridge to earn the title of a FRHistS, won his way into Parliament as the MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central. Until, that is, he was offered the job of Director of the world-respected Victoria and Albert Museum. And apart from all that the 6ft 3 Hunt is a past-master at the photo pose, suitably arranged for someone on the climb – looking straight through to the adoring public beyond with a gently-smiling expression of combined strength and human concern. It also helps to have some relevant architectural masterpiece as a background – in Hunt’s case Westminster Bridge, Big Ben – and to offer a fringe of youthfully ruffled hair across a brain-stuffed forehead.

Stoke-On Trent

This pose was at one with the fact that Hunt had been more or less dumped on the Stoke constituency. Before that he had been rejected as an applicant for the candidature at two other seats. At some stage he had been noticed by Lord Mandelson, Labour’s master of dark manipulation (once described by Hunt, after he had been drinking, as ' . . . the most important ****ing minister in this ****ing government') as a rising star in the drive to turn the party away from the bad old days of attachment to Clause Four. Time was short then to prepare for the 2010 election so Hunt was selected as the Labour candidate (in some quarters said to have been ‘parachuted in’) for Stoke by the National Executive without any reference to the short list prepared by the local Party. This provoked the secretary Gary Elsby, who regarded himself as the obvious choice, to be angry enough to get himself nominated as an Independent candidate – with the full title of ‘Gary Labour Candidate Born In Stoke-On-Trent Elsby’ and to annoy the local party by using the red rose to decorate his election literature. But he received a total of 399 votes against the 12,605 which ushered Hunt into the Commons – which did not apparently instruct Elsby about the cynically determined methods so readily applied by the parties of capitalism when they are under pressure.

Education

In spite of his powerful backers, with the implied assumption that he would soon be among the leading political lights in Westminster, Hunt’s time there was not free of emergencies and doubt. His performance did not in general come up to expectations as he failed to deal with the theatrically loutish bullying. After a short spell as a Shadow Secretary of State for Education he progressed into the Shadow Cabinet in full charge of the Education portfolio, which the more envious of his colleagues described as him being ‘forced like a stick of rhubarb’. He did not come up to the demands of his new responsibilities, in particular those originating from his special rival Michael Gove who wallowed in overseeing Education where his own inadequacies did not prevent him sneering at Hunt for ‘. . . inconsistencies thy name is Tristram’. In February 2014 Hunt produced a book about Frederick Engels, praised by one reviewer for its ‘affectionate objectivity’, but he was not thereby persuaded against breaking a picket line of London University academics who were on strike over cuts in pay. Shortly after this it was revealed that he had received some £74,655 in payment for a research assistant by the financial adviser firm Price Waterhouse and Cooper, who deny having any political associations but agree that they ‘. . . provide limited and fully disclosed technical support to the main political parties in areas where our expertise and knowledge of the business environment can help them better understand technical matters and the consequences of their policy proposals.’

Victoria And Albert

But as his disenchantment with the prospects of a life in politics became more obvious Hunt told the Labour Club at Cambridge University: ‘You are the top one per cent. The Labour Party is in the shit’. Which was a forerunner to his decision in September 2015 to try to appease his ‘substantial political differences’ from the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn by resigning from the Shadow Cabinet. When he was interviewed last September about the Labour conference, where he was said to have ‘injected some exuberance into the proceedings with a spirited speech that verged on stand-up comedy’, Hunt did not so much as hint at any doubts about continuing as the MP for Stoke: ‘It is a profound privilege being an MP but you want to have Labour in charge. That’s what we’re here for’. But three months later he announced that he would be resigning from the Commons to take that equally glamorous – and much better paid – job as the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum. An especially pertinent comment on this came from ex-Chancellor George Osborne, who wondered if there will ever be another Labour MP by the name of Tristram (Osborne’s first name is Gideon). Hunt commented that he was ‘. . . sorry to put you, the party and the people of Stoke-on-Trent through a by-election. I have no desire to rock the boat’. But the stability of that boat is in doubt. The constituency has been damaged by the decline in the potteries and of the clay and coal extraction which historically provided its wealth. Unemployment has been well above the national average and it recently needed an intense, high profile charity campaign to ensure that the famous Wedgwood Collection should stay in Barlaston while on loan from the Victoria and Albert. The exhibition had been threatened by a debt of £144 million resulting from a subsidiary being broken up and sold – as ordered by rulings from the High Court and the Attorney General. Just another episode in the history of Tristram Hunt and his political ambitions, typical of the blundering politics of capitalism for inhuman cynicism and stress.

Ivan

Jottings. (1914)

The Jottings column from the March 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the whole of the Labour Party Conference, which lasted four days, the word “Socialism” was only mentioned once; that was when Mr. Bruce Glasier said they did not intend to discuss it!

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald told an interviewer on his return from India that the Conference “would be a record one as far as common sense was concerned.” Io the light of after events this can be taken as a reflection on the delegates. Mr. MacDonald told them to vote this way, and that—and they did !

* * *

One contemporary (“Modern Society”) wants to know: “Why did Mr. Ramsay MacDonald return from the Commission in India six weeks before the rest of the Commission left Bombay for home?” Well now, isn’t it obvious? Who could imagine a Labour Party Conference without Mr. MacDonald? What use is a ship without a rudder?

* * *

Speaking at Glasgow on the Sunday succeeding the Conference, he asked his audience "to realise that class feeling would not achieve Socialism. Class feeling was the mark of capitalism, not Socialism. Socialism united all classes and lifted them up to a common level of humanity.” (“Daily Citizen,” 2.2.14).

You will notice how he lets himself go on the question of Socialism outside the Conference, at which all reference to the subject was carefully avoided.

I wonder how many “classes” Mr. MacDonald thinks there are in society ? So far, Socialists have only discovered two—the working dan and the non-working class. Socialism would not “unite” these two—there can be no unity between the robber and the robbed—but would abolish the conditions which create a non-working class, thus compelling them to take part in the work of useful production or—starve. Socialism offers no other alternative. Socialism implies one class—the workers—not a combination of “classes.”

Whilst it is true that class feeling is the mark of capitalism, Mr. MacDonald has no right to condemn it as if it was something repugnant. It is the duty of Socialists to foster and direct it. Class action is necessary in order to achieve Socialism, but class feeling, born of class-consciousness, is the first essential. But Mr. MacDonald doesn’t think so.

* * *

  “I have been in Spain: once. I was there a night and a day, because I could not get a train to take me away sooner. I shall never go again. I prefer the niggers in the West Indies to the Spaniards. I think black devils are less loathsome than those of lighter hue.” (Robert Blatchford, “Clarion,” 23.1.14.)

  

  “I claim that men should not be classified as good and bad, but as fortunate and unfortunate; that they should be pitied and not blamed; helped instead of being punished. I base this claim upon the self-evident and undeniable feet that man has no part in the creation of his own nature.” (Robert Blatchford in “Not Guilty," page 10.) With his usual consistency! 

* * *

Christ as the saviour of mankind looks like getting left since Lloyd George took the field in his self-appointed task of redeeming mankind. In his speeches at Swindon and Bedford, the accounts he gave of the lot of the poor were so heartrending that one was tempted to express the fear that the country would not be able to stand another dose of the same kind without being washed away in a flood of compassionate tears, generated by the soul-stirring, heart-searching, and blood curdling oratory of the Liberal Messiah. Anyway, he chanced it—and to some purpose. And, if report speaks true, he hasn’t finished yet.

  Whether his visit to Glasgow immediately following the Labour Party Conference was only a coincidence I leave an open question. Certain it is that interest in the one quickly fell flat when it became known that the saviour was due in their midst. He said nothing new, of course. In describing the rotten conditions of this country he reiterated only what has been stated before and sniffed at. Liberals have constantly denied what Mr. Lloyd George is now hysterically affirming. Said he:

 “Take our cities, the great cities of a great Empire. Right in the heart of them everywhere you have ugly quagmires of human misery, seething, rottening, at last fermenting. We pass them by every day on the way to our comfortable homes. We forget Divine justice never passes by a great wrong, and you can hear, carried by the breezes from the north, the south, the east, and the west, ominous rumblings. The chariots of retribution are drawing nigh. How long will all these injustices last for myriads of men, women, and children created in the image of God—how long? I believe it is coming to an end." (Cheers.)

 So do we—but it won't be in the shape of a “Divine justice" personified in Lloyd George. When Socialists have pointed out the same facts (without the sloppy trimmings), they have been scoffed and jeered at as “agitators, humbugs, and discontents.” But coming from the lips of a Cabinet Minister on the platform of St. Andrew’s Hall—oh! what a difference!

  Apart from the disgusting spectacle of hew easy it is to gull and deceive these poor fools in order to capture support for another lease of robbery—it may yet possess an element of good. The awakening will be all the ruder! “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good.” Yet I wonder how many of his audience remembered his words at Limehouse—“Deception is always a pretty contemptible vice, but to deceive the poor is the meanest of all crimes.”

  One thing: the Labour Party wont thank him for queering their pitch!

* * *

 In the course of a discussion at a meeting of the Carnarvon Town Council on the County Council’s proposed by-laws for regulating vehicular traffic. Sir John Roberts pointed out that some of the vehicles now used as motor-’buses were only ’bus bodies put on the chassis of old motor-cars never intended to carry on their axles the enormous weight of passengers which these ’buses carried.

 It is a common-place enough saying that human life is cheap—so common-place in fact that, although the sacrifice of human life is increasingly evident every day, it passes with the majority as something that is inevitable —something that is part of the order of things. Investigation usually reveals the fact that most disasters are caused through cheapness, both of material and labour, while experience shows the acquisition of profits to be the prime incentive.

  

Only the working-class as a rule travel by motor-’bus, so perhaps that explains the callous disregard of possible accidents shown in their construction.

* * *

  Mr. Henry Ford, of the Ford Motor Co., of Detroit, has recently announced that he is prepared to divide his profits with his employees. He intends to reduce the working day from nine hours to eight, without reduction of pay. Indeed, the pay is to be increased—from 11/6 to £1 a day for all employees over the age of twenty-two. On the face of it, this looks like philanthropy with a vengeance, bat Mr. Ford has another name for it—good business.

  

  It would appear that the Ford Co. were going to be cleaned out of their profits, but that word “good business” gives us furiously to think.

  Hitherto the Ford Co. have paid low wages — and made big profits; now it is proposed to pay big wages and—lose profits ? Not on your life! Let me show you how it is done.

  Ford intends to increase his profits, and to do this he is figuring on getting absolutely the pick of the labour market by his “generous” offer. From the increased staff of 22,000 who will be employed he is expecting to get increased efficiency in every part of the trade. This means that he will specialize on each job. The very fact that an increased wage and a dividend are to be the outcome of their activity, will spur his employees to greater efforts than ever; even to competing with each other inside the shop, for the laggard is to be eliminated. It is expected that under this system the worker, being a “partner,” will boost it for all he is worth, and turn out more and better work than under the former system. Formerly the record for assembling a car stood at twenty six minutes. This is now going to be beaten — indeed, has been beaten, at their works in Manchester (Eng.)

  

Perhaps the following may be interesting:

  “In a little clear space in the centre of the assembling department, a bare frame lay surrounded by wheels, springs, axles, and, in fact, every article required for a complete motor car. A few yards further on, supported on wooden trestles, was a black enamelled four seated body. A horn screeched. Eight men hurried forward , and commenced to work furiously, but in absolute silence. Barely a minute had passed, but the front wheels (with tyres already attached) were on and the springs firmly fixed, while the back of the frame rested on two large jacks. The engine was next lifted into place. Two minutes later it was tightly bolted and the rear wheels and driving gear were in position. Seven minutes passed and the chassis stood on the ground complete in every detail. The body was lifted on, the wind screen fixed, running boards, mud-guards attached, and at the end of eleven minutes the car stood ready. With a cargo of six excited men the car was driven out of the factory and round the works. Later she was thoroughly tested with a good run into the country. The speed with which the whole assembling work was carried out was a revelation to all present, and was only possible with the perfect organisation which exists in the erecting of a Lord car from the beginning to the end. This perfect organisation of labour, it is claimed, is the only thing to account for the low price of the Lord car considering its power and general efficiency.” (Daily Mail," 24.1.14.)

“Perfect organisation of labour” ; that is the secret! Though each individual may get more wages than ever he got before, the fact will remain that he will have to work harder and still harder—or get out. By specializing and employing only highly skilled workers; by eliminating the slowest of these and speeding the rest up to a higher standard of skill and rapidity, Lord claims that the cost of the labour power will actually he less than before.

 Another point. Having regard to the fact that 10,000 men clamoured for jobs in one day at Detroit, what is to prevent this factor from operating against those who are “fortunate" enough to retain their jobs, by lowering the price of labour-power?

* * *

Parliament had hardly settled down to “business" when the Labour Party defined its position by once more saving the Government. The circumstances were exactly the same as have happened before—voting against their own amendment when the Tories tried to force it to a division. Readers will be familiar with the details, as great publicity has been the outcome. I only mention it because it is the sequel to a statement made by Mr. Macdonald on his return from India. Referring to the support they had offered the Liberals last session on the question of Churchill’s extravagance, and which was ignored, he remarked to an interviewer of the “Daily Citizen," “We can afford to let bygones be bygones, however, if they (the Liberals) will support us this session."

Not that we expect them to do anything else than support the Liberals; but unfortunately there are thousands of workers in this country who are deluded into supporting them, fondly believing that they are getting independent representation when such is not the case. Significant were the words of Mr. Philip Snowden at the Labour Party Conference. “So long as they had Labour members returned by Liberal votes, as nine-tenths of the Labour members were, they had no right to expect independent action from them in the House of Commons. It is clearly evident that there was no labour member in the House who did not know that he was dependent for his seat in that House on the good-will of those who belonged to the other political parties.”

Which is a damning admission, for it shows they possess a programme which can cater for all shades of opinion—except Socialist.

Tom Sala

Socialism and Charity (1933)

From the May 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

“There is no nobler work than this. It is unthinkable that it should be hampered or curtailed through sheer lack of funds.”

These are the concluding words of an appeal by Kingsley Long in the Daily Herald (February 23rd, 1933) entitled “ Mother must be Saved!”

This appeal is for help for the hospitals. Its good work in saving the lives of numbers of women in childbirth is cited as being one direction in which the hospitals have fullest claim upon our sympathies and to which we should respond with financial aid.

What is the Socialist’s attitude towards charities ?

This can best be answered by another question: Why do the workers need charity? Because they have not access to all the things that could give them joyous and healthy lives (the sure preventative of most diseases). Our answer, then, is that all our spare time and money, which is very limited, should be spent on furthering the cause of Socialism, the sure and only cure for all the economic and most other ills which humanity suffers.

The objection to this, of course, will be that while we are waiting for Socialism, humanity still suffers. Whether we continue to devote our time and energy towards getting Socialism, or whether we divert them into charitable channels we shall still have the vast majority of the workers needing immediate help and succour, simply because, as a class whose sole possession is its labour-power, the workers depend upon the sale of that commodity, whether or not they live frugally or plentifully, or in semi-starvation. We have only to look in the daily newspapers to find hundreds of cases of want and necessity, which are a crying disgrace to a so-called civilised community.

The Star (February 18th) calls attention in large black lettering to the ”Ill Fed Mothers of Poorest London.” It is a report prepared by Deptford Public Health Committee. It says: —

It is clear that in the case of families in receipt of public assistance the amount of relief afforded cannot assure its recipients the minimum varied diet recommended by the Ministry of Health. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that there are many homes in which, after the rent is paid and allowance made for heating and clothing, there is an insufficient sum available for food.

Dr. Keith, the Medical Officer for Health, points out that the member of the family who suffers most when there is a shortage of nourishment is usually the mother, and adds: —

The signs of malnutrition are rather insidious. There is a loss of vitality, with mental depression, apathy, due, as the old-fashioned mothers express it, to “poorness of blood.”

Again, in the Daily Herald of March 29th, 1933, there is a paragraph dealing with building with money borrowed at a cheap rate of interest for slum clearance. At the beginning of the paragraph it mentions that the Poor Law Authorities have found that they can only just, by buying wholesale, manage to keep a child for 4s. 8d. in a Poor Law Home.

It then goes on: —

But the slum housewife does not buy wholesale. Nor does she have 4/8 per head for her children alone, apart from.the grown ups, after she has paid her rent. How, then, can she. keep her family in reasonable health when her husband's wage is £2 a week and the rent for the home, to house a family of two adults and five children is 16/- a week. Someone has got to be sacrificed, if the children are to be nourished, and it is usually the mother and the unborn children.

Here, then, we have indisputable examples of some of the causes of the mothers of the working class losing their lives in child-birth, i.e., lack of pre-natal care and nourishment. What a hopeless endeavour charity is. First of all you are asked to help the hospitals, and when the hospitals fail, as they must, against such odds, you have got to clean up the slums, get a living wage for the workers, abolish unemployment, feed the schoolchildren, and spread the knowledge of birth control. But stop, stop, the task is too Herculean. Getting Socialism will be far simpler and quicker. It is the direct method of solving the poverty problem. Terrible suffering is undergone by women in childbirth, and chloroform capsules have been used in a number of experimental cases, with great success, but so far the treatment is too expensive for universal use upon working-class mothers.

The position, fellow-workers, is this: We are living in a state of society wherein one class is a subject class and one a dominant class. The subject class, the workers, must sell their labour-power in order to live. The wage they receive may suffice to enable them to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, and have a family. All these things must be managed within the limited amount of the wage. In many instances it will barely cover a certain amount of actual necessities. All things other than these have to be provided by the State or by private charity, or are not provided at all.

Thus, no allowance is made in a worker’s wage f6r hospital treatment. He may never need it, but the State is prepared to assist in a limited way when he does. A worker cannot save for unemployment, but a good and beneficient State has made unemployment insurance compulsory because they cannot rely on voluntary help being given when they have to dispense the necessary maintenance. The State (that is, the capitalists who control the State) is prepared, sometimes, to supplement the worker’s wage, when and if absolutely necessary.

It is rather significant that on February 28th the Daily Herald reports that the Ministry of Pensions is economising by closing, or partially so, its hospitals and transferring their patients (relics of the last war) to already overcrowded voluntary or municipal Poor Law hospitals. Here we have an example of how workers in the better-paid positions, who sacrifice part of their earnings to help their fellows, only succeed in helping the State to curtail expenditure. The Press, Pulpit, and now the B.B.C., are pleading and cajoling the people to help these causes. They never have to make a good cause out of sewers or refuse dumps. Disease is no respecter of persons, and these vital health services are scrupulously attended to, because the master class would speedily be affected, in many ways, by lack of attention to these details.

Tear down the veil of lies, cant, and humbug, fellow-workers, and let your sympathies go only to a cause which is worthy of your support as a class, namely, Socialism.

May Otway

Obituary: Eva Goodman (2013)

Obituary from the August 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

Eva Goodman (1927-2013)

One of the most long-standing members of the Socialist Party has died at the age of 85. Eva Goodman became a member in 1947 at a time of intense activity for the Party, especially in the London area, when indoor rallies and outdoor platforms were common and attracted large numbers of people. Eva threw herself wholeheartedly into this activity, cycling to and between venues. She grew to be a commanding presence at conferences and meetings over the years, knowing exactly what she wanted to say and saying it without standing on ceremony, with clarity and humour and, above all, in a way that compelled the attention of her listeners.

Her family had been refugees from Hitler’s Germany and were lucky to find asylum in London just before the Second World War broke out. After the war, in 1946 and before joining the Party, Eva found employment at Marks and Spencer’s Head Office and worked there for 40 years until retirement as a packaging technologist. She was well aware of the fact that being a socialist and wanting a completely different kind of world, one of co-operation and economic equality, didn’t mean that you could, or should, exclude yourself from the world as it existed. You had to get by in capitalism, often with people who didn’t necessarily share your view of the world or your social and political aspirations. So, apart from gaining the respect and admiration of those she worked with, Eva cultivated many interests outside the Party such as opera, theatre, cycling (she was a member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and cycling was one of her passions for much of her life) and, latterly, football. She was an enthusiastic member of Fulham Supporters’ Club, for many years being a season-ticket holder and rarely missing a match till ill-health kept her away.

Over the years Eva took on a number of important jobs in the Party. She was elected to the Executive Committee on many occasions, she was Secretary of her branch, Overseas Contacts Secretary, and Secretary to the committee that produces the Socialist Standard – whatever her roles were, she always carried them out with the utmost diligence and efficiency. One of her concerns was that, when the Party put its case in print – and in particular in the Socialist Standard – it should do so in the most effective and convincing way possible. To this end she conducted a persistent and persuasive campaign against what she called the ‘Hallelujah Chorus’ – the formula words that all too often ended articles in the Standard. Her argument was that the Socialist solution should emerge clearly and naturally from the arguments in the article and not have to be tacked on at the end like some kind of ‘hosannah’. 

After she retired from employment, Eva carried on enthusiastically with Party activity but also became a volunteer teacher at Brackenbury Primary School in Hammersmith, assisting pupils with learning disabilities for a number of years and stopping only when the stairs became too much for her.

A large number of people gathered to say their final farewell to Eva at her funeral on 14th June, including her nephew who had travelled from Spain and spoke movingly about ‘a favourite who brought so much joy into my life’. She will be greatly missed by all her family members, including her partner, Melvin, and by so many others both inside and outside the Socialist Party.

Action Replay: 'Crack Cocaine Style’ Gambling (2017)

The Action Replay column from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

The trade body for bookmakers has criticised a report by MPs on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) after it called for the maximum stake to be reduced from £100 to £2. The recommendations came from the All Party Parliamentary Group as it came to the end of a six month inquiry into FOBTs, following growing concern about the harm being caused on Britain’s high streets by the machines. The high- stake, high- speed electronic casino games have been branded ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ by campaigners, who argue that they are dangerously addictive (i newspaper, 1 February).

Carolyn Harris, leading the group of MPs involved, said ‘these machines are easily accessed in the most deprived areas, sucking money out of the pockets of cash strapped families’, adding ‘there is nothing responsible about how FOBTs are currently being operated.’

However, the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) warned that such a move would be a ‘hammer blow’ to high street bookies and would threaten thousands of jobs in the industry (British bookmakers currently employ more than 43,000 staff). It demanded an immediate inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into the group of MPs, saying the body was a ‘front for vested commercial interests.’ Malcolm George, the ABB chief executive, commented that ‘Betting shops are closing at the rate of more than 100 a year and if the findings of this rigged report are implemented it could spell the beginning of the end for the high street bookmaker.’

The All Party Parliamentary Group are disappointed that the bookmakers have declined to participate. ‘We fear this is a reflection of their denial of the problems associated with FOBTs and reluctance on their part to speak to policy makers about appropriate regulation.’

Around £3.3bn was generated by the high street betting sector in the year to March 2016, according to the latest figures from the Gambling Commission. Over the same period online gambling operators generated £4.5bn, the National Lottery contributed £3.4bn and £1bn came from traditional casinos and contribute more than £1bn a year in taxes according to the ABB.

Evidently the gambling industry is a lucrative business with FOBTs becoming its new ‘cash cow’. Despite the human misery caused by this form of gambling the bookmakers will fight for FOBTs to be promoted in their betting shops with little if any regulation – yet another example of profits being more important than people under capitalism.

Kevin.

Cooking the Books: Trumps – or Trumpery? (2017)

The Cooking the Books column from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his speech when installed as President in January, Donald Trump declared that ‘from this moment on it’s going to be America first’, promising ‘Every decision on trade, on taxes, on migration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.’

Theresa May had also promised to put the interests of those from for ‘an ordinary working class family’ before those of the ‘privileged few’ when she became Prime Minister last July. Only she couldn’t proclaim ‘Britain First’, as that’s the name of a fascist party here.

But they are advocating different, even opposing, ways of trying to benefit workers. Trump’s campaign rhetoric was about preserving the jobs of American workers through protective tariffs against imports. May, on the other hand, sees the way as more free trade, more globalisation. In a rather fanciful interpretation of the result of the EU referendum, she told the annual January gathering of the global elite in Davos that Leave voters were people who ‘chose to build a truly global Britain’ (Times, 20 January).

This is not an interpretation shared by most commentators. They noted the high vote to Leave in areas where industries involving heavy manual labour – coal, steel, shipbuilding – had been shut down, precisely because it had become cheaper to manufacture these products elsewhere in the world. These voters were certainly not voting for the more of the same that ‘a truly global Britain’ will involve. That was the view only of a few of the leaders of the Leave campaign who were doctrinaire ‘free’ marketeers.

Free trade, i.e., more globalisation, certainly won’t help, almost by definition, those ‘left behind by globalisation’. But what about protectionism?

The demand for protective tariffs has been the kneejerk reaction of trade unions in industries in difficulty because of foreign competition. In his hunt for votes Trump echoed this view, with some success in areas where workers wouldn’t normally vote for a Republican business tycoon. He is making a big show of honouring this election pledge , declaring when he withdrew the US from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that doing this was ‘a good thing for the American worker’ (Times, 24 January). He doesn’t like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) either and will no doubt finally scupper the TTIP deal with the EU.

These trade agreements were in the interest of important sections of the US capitalist class – those wanting more security for their overseas investments, those wanting protection for their ‘intellectual property’, agribusinesses wanting to break into the EU market, and, yes, manufacturers wanting to move the production of some components to cheaper parts of the world.

Scrapping these trade and investment deals won’t be welcomed by a large part of the US capitalist class. If Trump really puts jobs for American workers ahead of the profits of its capitalists he will come unstuck, just as left-wing governments have found. If, as a result, capitalists make less profits they will have less to invest and there’ll be less jobs. So, expect only token measures (TPP was dead in the water anyway) and ‘U turns’. Not that protecting the jobs of some workers at the expense of other workers is a worthy cause.

Editorial: Capitalism Doesn't Care (2017)

Editorial from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

If there is one thing that capitalism is good at and that is generating crises.  A report by the charity, Age UK, has warned that  social care in England is facing collapse in certain areas. Increasing numbers of elderly people find themselves being denied the healthcare they need. Is this because there are not enough trained staff and care facilities available ? No, there are plenty of those. As ever in capitalism, the problem boils down to money, or in this case, the lack of it.

According to a report from the Nuffield Trust, Central Government funding for local authorities in England has been reduced by 14 percent in real terms from 2011/12 to 2014/15. At the same time, the number of people over the age of 85 has risen by a third.  As the amount of fees paid by local authorities for care homes has fallen and  staff costs have risen, many care homes  have been forced to close. The upshot is that many old people are having to stay in NHS hospitals. The Local Government Association estimates that there will be at least a £2.6 billion shortfall in the provision of social care by 2020.

David Hodge, the Conservative leader of the Surrey Council, was moved to call a referendum to raise council taxes by 15 percent to ease the financial shortages. However, this plan has since been abandoned and the council has settled for a rise of 5 percent.  Some suspect that a 'sweetheart' deal was arranged in that the government would provide more funds to the council if it dropped its plans for a referendum.

The crisis has fallen hardest on working class people from poorer areas. In more wealthy areas, greater income from business rates and more prosperous pensioners contributing to their own care have softened the impact of reduced funding.

It is not only elderly people who are affected, many disabled people have found themselves without the care they need and some have become more ill as a result.

Why are funds for social care being slashed ? The answer lies in the austerity cuts that the government have imposed in response to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. The government had to cut its own spending in order to improve its own finances and reduce the financial burden on businesses, so that they may become profitable again. The cuts, inevitably, had  to fall on welfare services. 

The leftists blame the Tories and call for more social spending. However, Labour governments in the 1960s and  1970s were compelled to cut their expenditure in response to the economic crises that they faced. In the 2010 General Election, Labour, like the Tories, pledged to make large public expenditure cuts.

The Junior Health Minister David Mowat, has suggested that families should do more to care for their elderly relatives. So, according to him, the crisis is not a social problem, but a case of selfish workers failing in their family duties.

This appalling treatment of working class elderly and other 'vulnerable' people reveals yet again that under capitalism profits must come before human welfare.

Eugène Ionesco and the Defeatist Dilemma (1958)

Eugène Ionesco

From the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The whole history of the world has been governed by . . . nostalgias and anxieties, which political action does no more than reflect and interpret, very imperfectly. No society has been able to abolish human sadness, no political system can deliver us from the pain of living, from our fear of death; it is the human condition that directs the social condition not vice versa.”

This in essence is the subjective theory of history; it is also the philosophy of the French playwright Eugène Ionesco.

Eugène Ionesco, who is of Rumanian origin, has in the last ten years become one of the leading dramatists of the French avant-garde. Like all such writers his plays were first acted in the tiny left-bank theatres in Paris. He has now acquired a world-wide reputation and his plays are being performed in many languages.

The constant theme of his plays (for example: Armedée. Victims of Duty, etc.) is the personal predicament of the individual in the modem world, expressed in a highly original and unusual style of dramatic writing. In an article on “ The Playwrights Roll ” (Observer, June 29th, 1958), from which the opening quotation is taken, he says: "What is called the 'social' plane (of reality) . . .  seems to me to be the most external, in other words, the most superficial."

It is a characteristic of our times for many people to deny the efficacy of political action and to turn to the sad futility of attempting to solve the inner, personal problem; simply because heretofore, all political action has left us still with each his own personal predicament in an impersonal and anti-social world.

Ionesco says elsewhere in his article: "I believe that what separates us all from one another is simply society itself . . . This is what raises barriers between men, this is what creates misunderstanding.” And again: “To discover the fundamental problem common to all mankind, I must ask myself what my fundamental problem is, what my most ineradicable fear is. I am certain, then, to find the problems and fears of literally everyone.” 

True, society does separate us one from another, but the question, why? is not asked. True, my problems are those of literally everyone, in other words, they are common problems, therefore may they not be social in origin? Society and human beings cannot be considered in abstraction, as separate entities, we have no existence apart from one another and the whole which constitutes society. Our individual condition is determined on all counts by our common (social) condition. Neither is there an eternal paradox whereby the nature of our existence should, or must be, the barrier to perfect communication and harmonious living. If this were true, it would mean that at no time and in no place have men lived without the problems Ionesco poses, and this we cannot countenance. Personal problems are only the manifestations on the individual plane of the social malaise; for all problems can be seen on analysis no matter what their nature, to stem from the wider circle of causality—society. To describe social reality as therefore merely “external” and “superficial,” is to assume à priori that we have an existence which is “extra-social” and in some way superior to the social. Obviously, Ionesco has something in mind as to what this might be and he describes it as “a wider, deeper society, that which is revealed by our common anxieties, our desires, our secret nostalgias.” It is not that these things are not real enough, or for that matter of vital importance, but the emphasis is misplaced; that in some way they are more real, more potent, than the social existence. (There are no realities which can be conceived as being more, or less, real than others; there are only factors of varying powers of determinancy within reality.) This is not to question that our emotions, or rather, say our subjective impulses, do not have their influence on the course of human history, or on life in general (that would be silly), men make their own history and emotions are part of our human composition, but to say that (see opening quotation) what Ionesco calls the human condition, the psychological totality, directs the social condition, is an untenable assumption. Who could possibly give a cogent, convincing explanation of human history by way of such an hypothesis? I cavil at the thought of even putting rhetorical questions on the subject; the result would be so ludicrous, that I can only assume Ionesco does not mean precisely what he says. Perhaps I am wrong in my interpretation of what he means by the human condition, perhaps it is our unique human consciousness; our ability to experience the subjective, to be aware of ourselves, to have powers of abstraction, to be able to plan ahead; but these things are in fact historically the result of the very social reality that to Ionesco is mere external superficiality, as well as being a necessary factor for the existence of society anyway and can only exist itself and have meaning, within the social context. It is important to realise also that each human emotion only becomes overt as a response, and thus never without a reason, and that reason can only emanate from the environment, which is to all intents and purposes—society. Therefore, if our subjective impulses give rise to any problems on the psychological plane, they must be ascribed in origin to the social one. Ionesco rightly says of the “saviours of the world ”; “the founders of religions”; “the moralists” and “the politicians,” that “they make a pretty poor job of it” Yet at the same time he wrongly lays the responsibility for the business of directing human affairs, upon the very people whom he denigrates; contentedly leaving the destiny of the human race in the hands of professional bunglers, thus absolving himself from any responsibility, either as an artist or (one must presume) as a human being for the whole lamentable situation; which being social in origin—the completely insane, inherently unstable organisation of human life—must be tackled on that level, for to put it bluntly: there is no other.

As stated earlier, the question why? as Ionesco rightly contends (though for the wrong reason), that society raises barriers between men was not asked. I do not intend to state at length an answer which should be patently obvious to any one who reads this journal, except to say that in this case, as in many others, if we try to understand human beings in isolation, we find that we have to invent causes to replace those we choose in our ignorance to ignore. In this case the nature of society.

The flagrant contradictions, the class structure, the thoroughly warped relationships and hollow values that characterise the very mode of our human existence, it is well understood can easily lead to Ionesco’s position.

The utter boredom, futility and terror of our world which is fast becoming more and more “the air-conditioned nightmare” (to use Henry Miller’s phrase) of Huxleyan prophecy; which throws people back on themselves. to seek inwardly for peace and security, to escape from the vast, infinite, impersonal, oppressive world beyond, over which they feel they have no power to control. Our social nature pines and withers, for it has nowhere to flourish, for which the penalty has to be paid in full. The case-books of the psychologists attest to this.

In “The Starting Point” an essay which has been prefaced to the first volume of his plays in English (published by John Calder), Ionesco says: “. . . the world oppresses, the universe is crushing me. A curtain, an impassable wall stands between me and the world, . . . the horizon closes in and the world becomes a stifling dungeon . . . I feel I am invaded by heavy forces, against which I can only fight a losing battle.”

It is this highly personal expression of the predicament of the individual, from which he has evolved his theory of Dramatic art. It is from this point of view that he has written his creed as a playwright.

As the “human condition” is to him more important than the “social” condition,” it follows that in Ionesco’s opinion those who write on the wider social aspect of life, commit a host of artistic fallacies, since: “such writers . . . offer nothing that one does not know already through books and political speeches.” On this account he cites Sartre, Osborne, Miller and Brecht.

It is in no way to condone the conclusions of the aforementioned writers (though we may find much to agree with) to defend their dramatic approach, for in their works we are always aware of the world outside the immediate action, so that what the characters say, do and experience, has meaning for us. They are engaged in living; and acting on their environment, not merely thumb-sucking their complexes in a vacuum.

If and when the development of a Socialist theatre is possible, giving voice to Socialist ideas, aspirations and criticism, it can only be through the medium of “social” theatre that this can be accomplished. Apart from this, the pernicious fallacies of Ionesco’s theatre concerning the nature of man and society are opposed to the whole Socialist philosophy, and it is on this score that I draw issue with him and make my criticism.

If, as Ionesco says: “. . .  every work of art is outside ideology,” we are reduced to a conception of art that takes no account of the artist, who as a creative individual, is himself created in turn by the living, vital forces of society which he transforms into artistic terms. 

Ionesco is himself, no more and no less than his particular anathema Bertholt Brecht, a product of some aspect of Capitalism.

"Human kind cannot bear very much reality," wrote T. S. Eliot, but when that reality is inimical to use, we tend, like Ionesco, to hope that by refusing to look at it, it will somehow cease to be; or perhaps—simply go away.

Man’s greatest need is man, that is why we are Socialists and go the Socialist way. "Fellowship is life, and lack of fellowship is death—but we may choose.

Ian Jones

The Passing of the Communist Party (1942)

From the January 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

My membership of the Communist Party was in the days when it claimed loyalty to the teachings of Lenin and a Marxian attitude to all social questions. In those days the C.P. attracted many an honest and energetic member of the working class to its ranks. In the main they were studious people who believed that the road to Socialism could only be made, by insurrection, led and fostered by an intelligent minority.

They rejected the position that the workers must understand, and that Socialism could only be achieved by a majority capturing the powers of government legally. They argued that the capitalist class would never permit itself to be voted out of power, that Parliament would be closed down if it were threatened by a determined working class bent on its capture. They taught that the workers should build up extra legal organisations to effect the taking of power. Such in brief was the basic attitude of many of us in those days, when cynicism had not bitten into the membership by glaring changes of policy.

Time has had its revenge on the C.P. Contrast the beliefs and hopes of twenty years ago and the position to-day.

How we then propagated the Lenin injunction: turn an imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war. We would, out of the conflict of boss-class, lead the war-weary workers to revolution and Socialism. Moreover, many of us quietly hoped that war would come soon to deliver us from the fetters of capitalism.

To-day, instead of exploiting the violent quarrels of the master-class, the communists are committed to the preservation of capitalism in one form or another, using every device to prove their loyalty to the concept of patriotism.

Civil war or revolution is farthest from their mind.

The membership of the C.P. has changed often in the course of its history; a change of policy has meant generally a change in personnel. Over the past few years the nationalistic and patriotic line of the party has found reflection in the membership.

Revolutionaries of yesterday are now found outside, forming groups such as the Trotskyists.

Others just drifted out of the political scene completely.

Minor changes of policy could be explained by the usual method—i.e., that changing conditions required changing tactics.

But complete abandonment of the class struggle, that day-to-day struggle so beloved by the C.P.? Read Mr. Arthur Homer, at a conference of mine-owners, managers and workers at Cardiff:

The common danger facing owners, managers and workers is the magnet that draws all together.
—“World News and Views," October 11th, 1941.

In international affairs the Communists stand for British capitalism. To quote Mr. Maisky, it will be “based on close collaboration during and after the war" (Daily Chronicle, November 22nd). Now not one communist living twenty or even five years ago would have dared to prophesy what has come to pass.

It would be easy to gloat, to sneer over the dismal end of the much bruited Third International and its affiliated bodies, for events have finally disposed of the claim to be socialist that that organisation pressed in its early days.

Socialists have pointed out, year in, year out, to the Communists that their tie-up with Russia’s foreign policy precluded a clear understanding of the nature of capitalism.

The State capitalism of that country may have distinguishing features from orthodox capitalism, but it was not Socialism.

The road to Socialism is a long one, and unremitting propaganda must make an intelligent working-class fit for Socialism.

Frank Dawe

Party Notes (1904)

Party News from the October 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

The encouraging results attending our outdoor propaganda continue. New members are being enrolled every week. But if comrades in charge of the meetings would keep a sharper look out greater results still would be achieved. 

* * *

At the close of the meetings, one can usually observe a few persons remaining after the bulk of the audience has gone away. In many cases these persons are waiting to be approached by our members. They are a little shy of taking the initiative, but our comrades should break the ice and introduce themselves in a friendly

* * *

Then a quiet suggestion could be made that if they find themselves in agreement with the position of the speaker to whom they have just been listening, they ought to join the party and help to spread the light. On the other hand, any point on which there may exist any misconception could be plainly elucidated and the listeners will go away impressed with the opinion that at any rate the members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain have a sincere desire to impart a knowledge of the true position of the working class.

* * *

The Socialist Standard, if we judge by the first number, has been a success. The sales have been good. We have to thank the many readers who have expressed their appreciation of its contents.

* * *

While we recognise the strenuous efforts made by our comrades in disposing of the papers, we trust that they will not slacken those efforts. We fully realise that we have brought out our paper at the worst possible time—the end of our summer propagandist season. That being so, we must rely on our members to use their best endeavours to boom the paper in the winter months. The paper is the property of the party, and its success is desired by all who have the best interests of the party at heart.

* * *

Since our last issue we have to chronicle the formation of two new branches—one in Clerkenwell, London, and the other in the Romford Division of Essex. All Socialists in these districts should get in touch with these branches so as to make them the nuclei of strong local bodies.

* * *

We have bad further requests for information from various parts of the country, and we think the result will be that in the near future we shall be able to record the formation of branches in the provinces.

* * *

Any Socialist desiring to obtain information as to the constitution or principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain will receive courteous consideration at our hands. We shall always be willing to satisfy any doubts in the minds of our correspondents or to give them any information'

* * *

Any Socialists residing in any district where no branch of the party exists may, pending the formation of such branch, become members of the Central Branch of the party.

Con Lehane

Party Notes. (1905)

Party News from the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Manifesto of The Socialist Party of Great Britain to the Working-Class has been published in pamphlet form, and can be had from the Party Literature Agent, F. C Watts, 154. Ashmore Road, Paddington, London, W., price 1½d. post free. This pronouncement will, of course, be differently viewed by both the friends and the enemies of the working-class. The publication of the document marks the advent of a new era in working-class polities in Britain.

* * *

The Manifesto deals with the present position of the working-class, the historical developments which brought about that position, lays down the basis of working-class political action, and by a clear and sober analysis shows wherein the various political organisations other than the S.P.G.B. claiming to be the party of the workers fail to meet the requirements of the present juncture. No student of modern politics should be without a copy of the Manifesto.

* * *

What is the difference between the S.P.G.B. and the S.D.F.?—the Fabian Society?—the I.LP. ?—the L.R.C.? Read the Manifesto, which is replete with facts bearing on the differences. What are the tactics of The Socialist Party? Read the Manifesto.

* * *

The Party Organ and the Manifesto should be pushed at all propaganda meetings. During the summer we base the best opportunities of selling the Party literature. Make hay while the son shines.

* * *

Propaganda meetings should always be held precisely at the advertised time. This is generally done, but a few cases have come under my observation where, owing to meetings being opened a little late, our speakers have failed to secure audiences they otherwise would have had. Let punctuality be the order of the day.

* * *

Branches and speakers are reminded that they should regularly send to the centre reports of the propaganda meetings, so that the entire propaganda activity of the Party may be accurately ascertained. If a meeting is worth holding it is worth reporting.

* * *

The West Ham comrades show evidences of greet activity and the East Ham Branch of the Party is in process of formation. More power to their elbows!

* * *

The Romford Division Branch is opening an S.P.G.B. Club at 43. York Road, Ilford, and all Party members residing outside the Romford Parliamentary Division are honorary members. This Branch, too, seems determined to give a good account of itself, and has extended its activity into the East End of London.

* * *

In Islington the S.P.G.B. is at present well in evidence. In Finsbury Park our local Branch appears to have killed the efforts of the other organisations claiming to be Socialist, for during the past few Sundays our comrades have had no opposition “Socialist” meetings.

* * *

In other directions our Branches are doing well, and if the results so far are a fair indication as to the success of our Party during the remainder of the propaganda season, then we may rest assured that our efforts will not have been in vain.

* * *

The Delegate Meeting of the S.P.G.B. will be held at the Communist Club, London, on Monday, 31st July, 1905, 8 p.m., and in order that the E.C. may be enabled to present a complete report Branches are requested to send in their quarterly statements with the least possible delay.

* * *

Photographs of First Annual Conference of the S.P.G.B. are still obtainable, price 2/-. Orders, accompanied by remittances, should be sent to the undersigned.

Con Lehane