Who cares about steel nationalisation? (1964)

From the March 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some of the steel companies are spending large sums of money telling us why the steel industry should not be re-nationalised and why therefore electors should not vote for the Labour Party. Large and costly space has been taken in national newspapers to put the views of the Chairmen of Stewarts & Lloyds and the Steel Company of Wales.

What the readers of the statements think of them we do not know, but it would be difficult to find more tedious, trivial and irrelevant utterances, of no concern to the workers in the steel industry or any other and not really of any significance to most of the investors.

The steel company's statements against nationalisation will not pass unchallenged and we may expect a cloud of equally tedious, trivial and irrelevant utterances from the Labour Party in support of nationalisation. But what does it matter either way to the mass of the population in this or any other country? What difference does it make in essentials whether they work for a company, a public board, or a government department? Whichever way it goes the workers will be paid as little as their employer can get them to take, and the policy of the employer, or board of directors running an industry, will in either event be to make profit.

Nationalisation can be of importance to the small group company directors who will lose their directorship without necessarily being given jobs on the nationalisation boards, but for the shareholders it is no more than changing a somewhat larger but not guaranteed income from stocks and shares in a company into a somewhat less but guaranteed income from government securities.

Of course, there is the old myth of high-principled investors who '"would rather die” than countenance nationalisation, but it looks rather silly against the fact that the national debt (now £30,000 million and paying out interest of £600 million a year) along with other functions, is used by the government to finance the nationalised industries.

What does it matter to investors whether they draw dividends directly from a company, or lend money to the government, at interest, for the government in its turn to lend it to the nationalised boards at interest? And what difference does it make to the workers whether they are exploited by a company or by a board for this purpose?

Half a century ago, when argument about nationalisation was really fierce, there was a reason. It was that nationalisation was being advocated by people who thought it could be used as the first stage towards ending capitalism and introducing Socialism, and the property owners feared it for the same reason that they feared Socialism.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain at the time rejected the idea that nationalisation was a step towards Socialism, and foretold the disrepute into which it has now fallen. When therefore the steel companies and the Labour Party engage in wordy battle over it they are both beating the air: the companies pretending to believe that behind nationalisation stands a Labour Party intention to introduce Socialism and an equally false Labour Party pretence that it is so.

When the two sides talk of efficiency, service to the public, national interests, low prices, etc., etc., it is entirely beside the point as far as nationalisation is concerned. Everything that is complained about the nationalised industries would apply equally if they had not been nationalised. Does anyone suppose that if the Railways were still run by half a dozen private companies they would have escaped the troubles resulting from road competition? 'Or does anyone now imagine that the need for the workers to strike in self-defence from time to time is any less under a board than under a company?

Broadly speaking, nationalisation in this country is a fading issue because it not only solves no problem of the working class (it never did or could have done), but it now rarely serves any purpose to the capitalists either. They no longer think of nationalisation as a means of controlling particular monopolies, in the interest of capitalism as a whole, and in face of experience they no longer believe that nationalised industries and services are likely to be any more efficient or cheap than those not nationalised.

One last word, though it will probably fall on deaf ears. Will Mr. Stewart and his colleagues of Stewarts & Lloyds accept our positive assurance that nationalisation is not Socialism and has nothing to do with Socialism? After all, we are out for Socialism and have never supported nationalisation.

Edgar Hardcastle

"Communism" in Latin America (1964)

From the April 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a sympathiser in Jamaica. 

Fidel Castro’s announcement that agrarian reform should be abandoned must have come as a shock to the Communists in other countries of Latin America. The Cubans have at last realised that agrarian reform alone means nothing: it does not change the relationship between the farmer, his land and his market. The distribution of land does not produce food, it often means a drop in production. A peasant farmer suddenly saddled with the responsibility of ownership but without knowledge in modern farming technique finds it hard to keep up his payments on his Government loan. In many cases he finds he would have been better off where he was before, on some landlord's estate.

The Communists are doing much work throughout this hemisphere. Because of the desperate economic inequalities existing in Latin America, students fall easy prey to Communist slogans of “Land for the Landless’’ and “ Bread for the Hungry."

The Alliance for Progress is under fire from all sections. The “Right” are fighting against it because some of the reforms suggested are against their interest; the Communists claim it is Imperialism. The Right Wing and Communists are often in agreement, each claiming to be the hope of the future. Communists are only interested in fighting American capitalism; they fully support local capitalism. Communist tactics vary from country to country; in Venezuela they take the form of open violence while in Haiti the campaign takes a racial line.

While this power struggle goes on, the people of Latin America continue to live in squalor, poverty and illiteracy. Population is increasing at a fast rate and every year more young people are condemned to a life of peasant farming; anyone who actually manages to get a university education automatically becomes a member of the “elite.”

In this atmosphere of uncertainty and poverty, it may not be long before there is a Communist government elected in Latin America. Then perhaps people would have another first-hand opinion (as in the case of Cuba) of Communists trying to solve the country's economic problems. Socialists know that they would fare no better than their predecessors.

The problems of Latin America are the same as those which beset men all over the world, only perhaps they are more obvious there. Only by the united effort of all mankind will these problems disappear from the earth. The establishment of Socialism is there for the taking; sooner or later man will realise that this is his only salvation. 

George Dolphy

Obituary: Freddie Lane (1964)

Obituary from the May 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with regret that Paddington Branch report the death of Freddie Lane, who joined the Party in 1951. In his early years in the Branch he devoted much of his time to literature selling, and had a regular number of Socialist Standard contacts on the Queens Park Estate. Every Sunday he would be seen at Hyde Park with Party literature, and he was well known to many Party contacts and sympathisers. He was always keen and anxious to talk about Socialism to everyone.

Over the last four years he suffered from very bad health, and could only get out when the weather was fine. Despite this, right up to the month of his death he was selling literature and supporting our platform in Hyde Park.

He will be sadly missed.

A historic event (1964)

From the June 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Besides the four hundredth anniversary of the birth of Shakespeare, another anniversary that will be universally noted this year is the Jubilee Year of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

During the early days of the present century a group of young people within the Social Democratic Federation, at that lime the most advanced of the English radical parties, aimed at transforming the Federation into a genuine socialist organisation free from the fetters of reformism and leadership. A decade or so previously, dissatisfaction with the Federation had already led to the ill fated breakaway which formed the Socialist League, led by such notables as William Morris and Karl Marx's daughter, Eleanor. Unfortunately the "League" soon abandoned parliamentary action and came under the control of anarchists.

In 1903-4, however, the later group that had formed within the Social Democratic Federation made desperate efforts to head off the reformist policies of the Federation’s leaders and thus help to bring it into line with the class struggle basis of revolutionary political action. But the Federation, refusing to be thwarted from its reformist policies, its penchant for making agreements with capitalist parties, and its idea of working class leadership, commenced expulsion of the militants. 

In London on June 12th 1904 the expelled militants formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the members immediately set about framing principles and rules to guide them. The party also arranged to publish a monthly journal which first appeared September 1904.

Though similar parties have since been formed in other parts of the world, all adhering to the same socialist object and principles, the growth of socialist knowledge among the masses has been slow in comparison with the growth of confusion as to what socialism is. This will be readily admitted by anyone who has followed recent world polities, or even local politics. Yet through the past sixty years the S.P.G.B. has remained stable in character and consistent in its attitude and principles in spite of the bitterness and contumely that has appeared in other parties. It has also seen two world wars, the rise of state capitalism in Russia, the undemocratic attempt to impose by force the trappings of capitalist industrialisation on the populations of feudal China and Tibet, yet has maintained its original thesis: that the socialist revolution will not be brought about by its being imposed on the workers by a body of leaders, but will only come when a working-class majority understand and want socialism, and vote for it at the polling booth.

Peruvian Tragedy (1964)

From the July 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Football matches are not usually connected with carnage, but the massacre at Lima showed that human passion can cause untold misery and horror in almost any social activity or in any place, if the conditions happen to be there.

With a death roll at over three hundred, the newspapers brought us a wider picture of the tragedy, with stories of police firing on rioting fans, the exits covered with steel barriers to keep out gate crashers, and riots continuing outside the stadium while the dead were being identified or removed.

Many blame the police, who arrested a certain rabble-rouser nicknamed “Bomba.” Probably many Peruvians will not bother to ask why the police were necessary in force at a football match, why there were steel barriers, why the fans threw concrete lumps and fencing rubble to express their displeasure. One could be excused for dismissing the whole affair as just another example of human stupidity coupled with Latin temperament, but the temptation of such cursory examination must be resisted.

Peru seems a distant land that only figures infrequently in the news; a country that most know little—and care less— about. The economy and politics of the country are something of a closed book to the popular press. Recently a book by John Sykes called Family in Peru was published. By no means a profound work, it is an impression of the outlook and attitudes of some of the people the author met during his stay. He points out that 1.6 per cent. of the population own 76 per cent. of the land—an important enough factor in a country where agriculture is one of the principal occupations. The bulk of the population are Indians or “half breeds,” large numbers of them living on the great estates in feudal conditions, or working in the foreign owned mines. Their social environment is poverty, brutality and despair. Their escape is religion and the chewing of the coca leaf, the latter appearing to have an even more stupifying effect on their minds than the former.

Many of the Indians in some areas, Sykes tells us, were and are free peasants, but they have been tricked out of their land by the big ranchers. They have sold land after bad harvests, or to build churches. Some of them, in the last throes of poverty, have drifted into Lima, which is now surrounded by shanty towns full of unemployed and of employed slum proletariat.

In the towns the professional and student groups, along with the urban working class, have often given their support to a party called APRA whose policies (though Sykes does not say so) seem to be typical of the rising native capitalist class that is also known in many other countries. The main props of APRA’s aims are land reform, greater Peruvian industrial expansion, improved conditions for workers and peasants, more democracy, greater need and opportunities for technical skill. The Peruvian working class is still undeveloped by European and North American standards, weakened and weighed down by peons and peasants and a democracy that is strictly confined to paper. Because of this APRA which, like all political parties, can only rule on mass support, were in 1936 and 1945 turfed from power by the generals and the army in the interests of the large land owners.

Sykes felt the sense of frustration in a land suffering from industrial growing pains, a feeling of simmering violence about to erupt at any instigation. By understanding such conditions, one can get some small idea of the reasons for the pointless violence which spewed up in the football stadium. Sporting events to these people are an outlet for all their hates and fears, which they do not, or are unable to, express in a collective fashion. The blind fury of the depressed mob seeking revenge on any scapegoat was often a feature of 18th and 19th century Europe, and it has not by any means disappeared from the present social scene.

As industry and capitalism develops in Peru the workers will learn to canalise their protests into trade union and political action. Improved though many aspects of life will be for them, they will still be the class that produces wealth for a minority. Poverty, relative and real, will be their lot and frustrations in new ways as well as the old will always be there. They may renounce the escape routes of football violence and coca leaves for less spectacular narcotics, such as bingo and purple hearts, but while they and workers in other lands remain a subject class, that will be their lot in life.

Jack Law

The Legacy of 1914-18 (1964)

From the August 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the first world war was declared amid scenes of hysterical enthusiasm from crowds of workers on both sides, few thought that it would drag on for four dreadful years. Nor did many envisage the weapons that would be produced and developed in that period of carnage.

Much of what has been written recently has touched on these weapons, and criticism has centred on the failure of the high-ups to see their possibilities and exploit them to the full. A few months ago, The Sunday Times Magazine had this to say about air power, for instance: -

For much of the war pilots were more concerned about painted duels than with the destruction of men and material. The hero worship such individuals gained was great for the home front, but didn’t do a lot for the man in the mud . . . real ground strafing did not begin until Messines and Cambrai (1917). Only in the final weeks was the aeroplane fully used as a striking weapon!

Be that as it may, it is not our intention to join the largely futile arguments about who was right and who was wrong, who was far-sighted and who not. Perhaps from the viewpoint of some contemporary historians, the perfect war effort would be one which organised its resources up to the hilt and exploited every weapon to the limits of its potential. Thank goodness there is no such thing as perfection, for had it been achieved, the ghastly story of it all would have been that much ghastlier.

The great lesson is that the war-like nature of capitalism continues, whether or not hostilities are actually in progress. Once a weapon has arrived on the scene, it will be developed, refined and used until changes in the conduct and techniques of warfare make it out of date. Perhaps the brasshats will be slow to grasp when a particular weapon has had its day and there will be the usual controversy among the war councils.

Let us consider one or two examples. In 1916 the first tanks appeared on the western front, much to the annoyance of the cavalry men. The tank was an early sign that warfare was to become much more mobile.. It was the answer to the machine gun nests which had prevailed until then, although some of the Allied chiefs were slow to realise its possibilities. Who, then, would have foreseen the day over twenty years later, when tank warfare would grow to the extent that it did, and Panzer divisions overrun France in a few weeks? But even the tanks of early 1940 were as babies compared with the sixty-ton monsters which smashed their way through Germany from all directions only five years later.

When the first world war broke out, the aeroplane was in its infancy, but at the end it was being used more extensively, and a fleet of four-engined bombers was being prepared to raid Berlin. Here, perhaps, is one of the most apt examples of our point, for the inter-war years saw rapid changes in the design of fighting aircraft. The Spitfire and Hurricane, and their German opposite numbers, could fly at well over three hundred miles per hour, and by 1939 the day of the bomber had really dawned. It is as well to remember, incidentally, that only just before this, the Spanish civil war had provided a testing ground for some of the new ’planes. Even in the midst of “peace” we are in war.

The growth of air power during 1939- 45, and its use against soldier and civilian alike, had its roots in the events of twenty-odd years before. During the first war, the allies had produced incendiary and high explosive bombs which were dropped on enemy airfields with devastating effect. Practically the whole of Baron von Richthofen’s Flying Circus was destroyed on the ground in one such raid. German Zeppelins bombed London and other parts until around 1916. But if civilians found the Zeppelin raids terrifying, a glimpse into the future would certainly have widened their eyes still further in horror. For there they would have seen the firestorms of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Dresden, the flying bombs and rockets on London, and the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The casualty lists of 1914 shocked many of those who had been so enthusiastic for a fight, and the relief when it was all over was matched only by a “never again” feeling. Post-war conferences of the big powers outlawed dumdum bullets and poison gas, and supply us with a fitting example of the futility of such a piecemeal approach to the problem of war. For even by then, developments had rendered these weapons obsolete and far more efficient means of killing were to be our lot. Yet it is one of the tragedies that this attitude has persisted until the present time. Even the anti-war movements of the inter war years never got down to an examination of causes.

They have been succeeded by that prime futility of the fifties—the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. This body has canalised the fright which many understandably felt when Hiroshima and Nagasaki hit the head-lines, but like its predecessors, CND has based its policy on the false assumption that the way to abolish war is to begin by outlawing its worst weapons and then work backwards through the list. “There is no war but nuclear war” was the remark made by one of their young supporters to an S.P.G.B. speaker a few years ago, and it seems a fair summary of at least their earlier attitude.

Last summer saw the signing of the test ban treaty, and this went to their heads a bit, having the effect of diverting their attention somewhat to other sources of capitalism. The words of Bertrand Russell illustrate to some extent their current feelings. At the end of January this year, he said;

  Owing to changes in government opinion, it seems more possible than it did to avert nuclear war . . . friends of peace should look for compromise solutions possibly acceptable to both sides. It should also be part of our work to expose punishments inflicted by governments which are unjustifiable and exacerbate international hostility. (Guardian, 29.1.64.)

It has been left to the SPGB to point out that the danger of war is just as great as ever and that the test ban treaty was only a sign of the changing balance of power between the major capitalist countries. It will be the same sort of story as long as capitalism is with us.

The horror of war weapons past, present and future, cannot be divorced from the social system which produces them. Let us correct the words of the young C.N.D.'er:--There is no war but a capitalist war.

Eddie Critchfield

The "Standard" in America (1964)

From the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was in the year 1909 that I joined the old Socialist Party of Canada, in Vancouver, B.C. All I knew of the philosophy of Socialism at that time was restricted to the fact that I was a wage slave, disillusioned by my contacts with capitalism, and firmly convinced, by listening to lectures and reading Socialist papers and pamphlets, that Socialism was the only solution for working class problems. This was enough to go on at the start

At our headquarters, which were open day and night and at our propaganda meetings, which were held regularly inside and out there were two papers which were always sold and read. These two were the Western Clarion and the Socialist Standard.

It is natural that in a Party that had adopted it as the official organ, the Clarion would be regarded as the more important. Its distribution was advocated by the Dominion Executive Committee, and faithfully carried out by the general membership.

In our study classes we closely examined the material in both papers, and some of us became aware of the fact that, while the main objective was similar, there were differences of a serious and material kind. In the platform of the S.P. of C. was the paragraph: “The irrepressible conflict of interests between the capitalist and the worker is rapidly culminating in a struggle for possession of the reins of government—the capitalist to hold, the worker to secure it by political action. This is the class struggle."

Our reading of the Socialist Standard led us to conclude that this definition of the class struggle was not correct. That the struggle also included the workers who were selling labour power in exchange for wages. Some of the pioneer members even went so far as to contend that there was a commodity struggle as well as a class struggle. But the Socialist Standard explanation was accepted by the younger members as correct.

Again, in the S.P. of C. platform was a declaration of what the Socialist Party would do concerning legislation when in office. This, with the aid of the Standard, we fought so strongly that it was later deleted from the platform.

Here in the United States, the Socialist Standard has always been distributed as widely as possible by the World Socialist Party, and the members continuously advised to read and study the contents. The results have been reasonably satisfactory. It has furnished us with a picture, on a broader canvas, of which the Socialist movement means on the international scene, and the mode of activity in which it is carried on.

Even more important, perhaps, is the stabilizing influence it exerts on the members, particularly on the new recruits who have had no experience, or the wrong kind of experience, before making application for membership in the Party. Our problem with the inclusion of new members is greater than that in Britain, due to the large area in which we operate. In Britain it is feasible to invite the applicant to headquarters, or to send a committee from the branch to his home, to examine his past political connections, his present attitude, and his qualifications for becoming a member.

Here, due to the distances between the applicant and the National Administrative Committee Headquarters or the local, the contact with workers who show a desire to join us has to be made mainly through the medium of the mail. A set of relevant questions are sent. He ponders their significance, makes inquires as to what such and such a query means, a further explanation is given, so that in the end we have just about told him how to answer the questions in order to be eligible to become a member.

It is in such cases that the value of papers like the Socialist Standard and the Western Socialist can be seen. There are articles in each from time to time dealing with every phase of socialist philosophy. In these the applicant can see beyond the matters touched upon in the questionnaire, and they open up a new intellectual area that provides the opportunity for more and deeper research.

In recent correspondence with a young man interested in our work, and anxious to know more about it, I was asked about the import of the Negro movement towards attaining what they consider to be their “civil rights.” He stated that he thought the Negroes’ desire to acquire the franchise should entitle them to our support, as their membership was largely made up of working men and women.

In addition to my own endeavour to negate his theory, pointing out that the great majority of the members in all parties and movements belonged to the working class, and that this fact in itself was not sufficient to warrant our participation in their efforts, I happily dug up a copy of the Socialist Standard, published back in the days when the Pankhurst family were engaged in smashing windows, and going on hunger strikes in their demands that votes be given to women.

The writer of this article, in clear and simple terms, analysed the suffragette movement. He explained the capitalist character of the movement, its lack of recognition or understanding of present society and the social forces tending to its abolition, and ended up with the affirmation that our movement would not be interested in supporting any part of it. I sent this copy to my correspondent. The next time I heard from him he conceded that he had overlooked the real points of the issue, and that the Socialist Standard had set him straight.

Jack MacDonald

Editorial: Tweedledee or 'dum (1964)

Editorial from the October 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the 1964 General Election, as in those of the past, the capitalist political parties have encouraged us to believe that fundamental issues are at stake.

This is far from the truth. The Labour and Conservative Parties are arguing over trifles—the fight between them is sham. On the vital issues of the day they are one.

This is reflected in many ways. It is reflected in the basic agreement in the parties’ policies. It is reflected in the fact that, although each side presents its leader as a paragon of honesty, knowledge and strength, none of them take the fundamentally different stand of opposing leadership in principle.

Home or Wilson? Landed aristocrat or Grammar schoolboy made good? Amiable elegance or rumpled, chubby purpose? The voters are asked to make their choice between these two representatives of capitalism, on the assumption that leaders are necessary, because without them we poor dunderheads would lose our way in the treacherous maze of the wicked world.

It is not difficult to penetrate this sham. The most casual investigation of leaders past and present reveals them as hard, cynical men-dedicated to the ruthless administration of the capitalist system. It also shows up the game of leadership as a dirty business.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home has recently joined in the game for whatever advantage his party can get out of it. On the other side Harold Wilson has shown that a leader’s most valuable asset is a cold, professional determination.

It is no coincidence, and not entirely due to the General Election, that since Wilson became leader the Labour Party has kept its splits plastered over. So smooth has his political handling been that his public relations men are trying now to dispel the image of him as too clever, as the cocksure, calculating political climber.

There have been several books about Wilson recently. One, Harold Wilson —The Authentic Portrait by Leslie Smith (Hodder & Stoughton, 16s.) — relates the now familiar story of the boy prodigy, born into the “ lower middle class,” who rises to knock on the door of “Number Ten.”

Young Harold quickly showed that he had a talent for politics. When he was seven he urged his parents not to miss voting for their Labour candidate — Philip Snowden. Is Wilson now satisfied that this advice was sound?

A few years later Wilson would calmly announce, when asked about his future,"I should like to be Prime Minister.”

The rest of the story is familiar enough. War time civil servant, work with Beveridge, Labour MP for Ormskirk, junior minister and later President of the Board of Trade in the Attlee government.

It was from this post that Wilson resigned in 1951 over the level of armaments expenditure and the Health Service charges. This earned him Dalton’s contemptuous description of "Nye’s little dog.” More accurate, perhaps, was the reporter who wrote of Wilson’s resignation speech. "Mr. Bevan had ended with his boats ablaze. Mr. Wilson’s boat carried fire fighting equipment.”

The Wilson fire extinguisher has stood him in good stead, and his boat has floated serenely on, past many who started out before him.

Another book—Harold Wilson, A Pictorial Biography, by Michael Foot (Pergamon Press, 12s. 6d.)—tells the same story as Leslie Smith’s, but in racier style. And, of course, there are the photographs and the cartoons.

These are worked hard to establish the Wilson legend. Mr. Wilson wiping the dishes; playing shove ha’penny with Attlee; holding up George Brown’s arm at last year’s Conference. Mr. Wilson with an old age pensioner, with Freddie Trueman, with Erhard, Khrushchev, Kennedy, Johnson. Mr. Wilson with the Beatles. And Mr. Wilson with his pipe. Always his pipe. A thin book, in content as well as size.

The fact is Harold Wilson has posed the Labour Party a considerable problem. How to reconcile the traditional, emotional and working class appeal of its past for what it called "Socialism,” with its present wholehearted acceptance of the status quo? Like the Conservatives, Labour upholds the capitalist system and is a Party of opportunism without principles.

How, for example, to reconcile old notions still dimly held, about internationalism with Wilson’s declaration to the 1963 Conference: " . . . we are a deeply patriotic party?” How to satisfy a few lingering ideas on common ownership with: “I’ve no prejudice at all against big business or industry . . . . I am in favour of investment . . . ”

Michael Foot answers these doubts by referring to Wilson ". . , skilfully combining the Socialist heritage with the new challenge.” Leslie Smith less dramatically calls Wilson: “a highly disciplined professional politician.”

And these are the men whom the working class are asked to vote for election — skilful, professional opportunists whose purpose is to secure the continued existence of capitalism. On all sides these men plead for our votes. But there can be no hope for the working class as long as they put their trust in leaders and support the capitalist system.

The issue which should concern the workers of Britain in the Election is the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism.

Cyprus Report (1964)

From the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is now almost a year since Cyprus’ Black Christmas erupted into the headlines. Since then, frequent murders and incidents of vandalism have kept the inter-communal mistrust simmering; a lasting settlement between the Greek and Turkish populations seems almost impossible.

The dispute between the Greek and Turkish factions centres round the island’s Constitution. This, in its first article, prohibits activities aimed at promoting the union of Cyprus with any other country or at the partition of the island. The Turks have insisted on the inviolability of the Constitution as their best hope of defeating enosis; by the same token, the Greeks have tried to amend it. In fact, in a population openly divided by national allegiances, the Constitution has proved unworkable.

Whichever side started the fighting last December, it is a fact that both had been spoiling for it for a long time. The Turkish underground (TMT) had secretly landed arms and EOKA was still in organised existence. When the flare-up came, nobody should have been surprised.

The Turks probably erred in walking out of the Cypriot government. Although in theory this made illegal any decision by the Greek side, in fact it left the Greeks to perform all the necessary state business, including sending a delegation to UNO. This in turn made the Turkish Cypriots appear to be an insurgent minority; the whole weight of the state forces was turned against them. The police force (minus its disaffected Turkish members), the Army and the Greek vigilante groups (transformed by some propaganda alchemy into “Security Forces”) were used in the fighting.

The Greeks also took over the organs of propaganda. Mr. Yiorgadjis took charge at the Ministry of Defence and in his other capacity of Minister of the Interior dictated policy to the press, radio and Public Information Office. The Turks erected their “Bayrak" radio station but this was quickly jammed. Revolting atrocities committed by the “legally established State Security Forces” lighting the “insurgent illegally armed Turks’’ were either not mentioned, or reported only when given prominent publicity in the foreign press. This is not to say that the Turks were innocent of committing atrocities, but the Greeks' control of the official propaganda channels enabled them to distort the news in their own favour.

Television and radio appeals by Makarios and Küçük for an end to the fighting were ignored. The arrival of the British troops and the Red Cross workers brought a lull, but. the fighting soon broke out again on the news of more atrocities. A press campaign against the British troops (who were themselves guilty of acts of vandalism) was supported by demonstrations of school children shouting for the return of General Grivas. Such demonstrations, with their inculcation of nationalism into young minds, were one of the most frightening and disgusting aspects of the crisis. I saw the logical consequences of it all, as a small group of young Greeks watched with callous disregard the shot and still bleeding body of an unarmed Turkish driver, lying beside his NAAFI vehicle.

What is the background to the bloody struggle? in Cyprus the class structure has not yet hardened into the classical capitalist form. The majority of the subject part of the islands’ population are not proletariat, landless and propertyless in the means of production. Agriculture accounts for over half the labour force and in both Greek and Turkish communities there are many peasant farmers, often struggling in debt. In this situation official decisions on matters like the provision of irrigation become not only a subject of husbandry but also of politics, with many only too ready to suspect officialdom of partisan bias. This makes the nationalists’ exhortations more readily accepted.

The official Turkish attitude, according to the press, lay in conformity to the strict letter of the Constitution. But that was not the whole story. The Turkish Cypriot aim, based on their claims to be a separate community, is Taksim, or perhaps federation. The statement of their leaders Küçük and Denktash, backed by the voice of Ankara, leave no doubt on this point. The Turkish suffering at the hands of Greek terrorists created sympathy for their aims but should not persuade anyone that these are any better than the other so-called solutions to the Cyprus crisis.

The apparent Greek aim of a unitary and independent state can see nothing strange in a strategically important island of half a million people trying to steer its own course through the tortuous channels of big power line ups. American intervention now seems to indicate that, if enosis comes, it will do so on some sort of compromise. For sure, the Turkish desire for partition would cut across the complex Cypriot landholding system, since most of the land, livestock and industry is in Greek hands.

The Greeks, who make up 80 per cent, of Cyprus’ population, say that they will not be thwarted. They make much play of what they call ancient Greek democracy, overlooking the fact that 80 per cent. of that society's population—the chattel slaves—were ruled by the other 20 per cent. Enosis remains the real object of the Greek struggle; their spokesmen have often referred to the London and Zurich agreements as stepping stones to this end. The demands for enosis were noticeably absent from Cypriot government functions after the Spring of 1963, which led some people to conclude that the idea had been shelved. Now all that is changed.

The Greek faction in Cyprus is now faced with a considerable problem, of its own making. Legalising the bands of gunmen in the “Security Force” meant condoning the private armies of men like Nicos Samson. These men had wielded considerable power, and caused the Greek Cypriot leaders much embarrassment. The Conscription Bill passed in June, ostensibly “to defend the country from aggression from without, or subversion . . .  was in fact designed to regularise the State Forces and to disarm and outlaw the volunteers.” In this way, apprehensive Greek ministers hoped to neutralise the power of the private armies.

Inevitably, the businessmen of Cyprus are concerned to procure political and economic stability. Some have suffered heavy financial losses and in private will admit indifference to enosis. For them, self determination is one thing, enosis another. Characteristically, the Cyprus Employers Consultative Association, during the crisis, called on all employers and workers to return to work, as the best way of solving the problem.

If only because it is numerically strong, and stands an outside chance of coming to power, we should mention the Communist Party. Almost exclusively Greek, and not having studied such foreign vote-catching plans as Home Rule for Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, etc., it regards the Turkish advocacy of partition as subversive. As usual, the Communists are hunting with the hounds while also being prepared to run with the hare.

But hypocrisy does not end with the Communist Party. With the return of Grivas—now probably on his way back to respectability—and the apparent United States support for enosis, things seem to be going Athens’ way. Behind the cloak of legal arguments, and in the name of self-determination, enosis, federation, taksim and the rest, thousands of people have been killed, have been made homeless, have suffered in a multitude of ways.

That is not the end of the tragedy. The young man next door who takes up a gun in the Cyprus struggle is not a barbarian. He exists, in one way or another, all over the world. Ignorant as yet of the real nature of the inhuman society of sovereign states, political and economic blocs, nationalism and the rest, be blindly follows his leader, if necessary to kill and be killed.

In that fact, and in no other, is to be found the ultimate cause of the suffering in Cyprus and in the rest of the world.

W. Robertson

Report on a visit to USA and Canada (1964)

Party News from the December 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the months July, August and September I was in the United States on a student vacation scheme. During this time I was in Boston for 10 weeks and in Montreal and Toronto for one week. In Boston I was able to take part in all the activities of the local, indoor and outdoor meetings, socials and leaflet distribution as well as attend the W.S.P. conference as our fraternal delegate. In September, together with W.S.P. members Rab and Lyle [I] visited Montreal and Toronto to meet members of the Socialist Party of Canada and attend various meetings that had been arranged.

BOSTON
The local (Branch) has a very active membership, both locally and nationally. As will be appreciated the political atmosphere in the United States is considerably different from that in Britain. There the working class have no interest in politics which quite literally is an in-fight between members of various rival political gangs without even the popular participation which occurs in Britain. This makes it all the harder for the American Socialists to put over our case. It means that some of the traditional activities of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, such as debates with opponents and large indoor meetings cannot be carried on. On the other hand, members in the U.S. have openings which we have not as for instance, the purchase of radio time and radio programmes in which listeners can participate by telephone.

In Boston activities are in the hands of a Local Administrative Committee, composed of the younger members of the Party. They are responsible for organising all activities which consist of indoor and outdoor meetings and leaflet distribution. Indoor meetings each week take the form of a talk or tape-recordings or a film followed by discussion. Outdoor meetings arc held every Sunday on Boston Common. The W.S.P. is the only organisation to avail themselves of these opportunities, although the conditions are not ideal owing to the persistent attempts by Cuban refugees and various patriots to shout down our speakers. Occasionally protest meetings on Civil Rights, peace, slum clearance etc. are covered by the Local’s literature sellers. During the University term other opportunities for putting over our case are available. All in all, prospects in Boston are hopeful.

MONTREAL
Members here speak French, but to assist in their activities, leaflets and literature in French are needed, especially as French Canada is in the middle of a period of political ferment, following the overthrow of the backward-looking Duplessis regime in 1960. Many ideas on Marxism and on separatism are circulated and it is important that our voice be heard.

TORONTO
Regular indoor and outdoor meetings are held in Toronto which, like Montreal is hoping soon to form a Local. Literature is sold, and it is hoped that with the help from other Locals, the support here will increase in the near future.

The hospitality and help received from members in both the United States and Canada was greatly appreciated and for which I am extremely grateful. It is a sign of the genuine fraternal relations which exist between the various sections of the Socialist Movement.

Adam Buick

The "World's Fair" of Politics. (1922)

From the January 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is usual at this time of the year to see displayed on some of the hoardings large posters advertising the “World’s Fair.” This annual conglomeration of “freaks” and “side-shows” undoubtedly attracts quite a large number of members of the working class, who, anxious to forget for a few moments the wretched conditions of the factory, and also the unhealthy surroundings of their homes, part with a few of their hard-earned coppers to gain admission. Having seen the show, their superficial pleasure is ended; and they return once again to face the real facts of life under capitalism.

These facts are only too apparent to the Socialist, and consequently he becomes more keenly interested in something that happens all the year round; and for the purpose of analogy, we can call it the “World’s Fair” of Politics; wherein the average member of the working class can have an endless variety of side-shows to distract his attention from the real cause of his poverty. Every performance is very effectively carried out by a host of “Political Jugglers,” Christian "Fortune Tellers,” and a troupe of Labour Tamers, who usually perform the celebrated “Red Herring” trick successfully.

After many months the great “Wizard” from Wales has accomplished the “Irish” trick, amidst great applause from the working class—and the “Red” element that we hear so much about are as “Green” as ever.

The Socialist remains cold; such incidents fail to move him from the task he set out to accomplish. That task is to distribute, wherever it is possible, the knowledge of Socialism that he possesses. So long as the workers continue to place political power in the hands of their masters, so long will capitalism remain. Whilst capitalism remains, the capitalists, only a small section of the community, own all the tools and instruments of wealth production, and the working class, which comprise the largest portion in Society, will be forced to sell the only thing that they possess—their labour power—to the capitalist class in order to get food, clothing and shelter.

Whether it be in the form of a "Washington Conflab” or a “League of Take All,” as the Socialist points out over and over again, they are no concern of the worker. Whilst capitalism continues the conditions of the working class must tend to grow worse.

Therefore, we urge upon all members of the working class to take advantage of the knowledge distributed by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, become organised into its ranks, and help to bring nearer the day when Socialism will become possible.

A. Spratt.

A Striking Coincidence. (1922)

From the February 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although written by a man who lived too early to have studied Marx (and who, in addition, stated, he was no economist, and merely wished to learn from the public men of his day) the following analysis of the causes of the misery following upon the close of the Napoleonic wars is as applicable in its main points to-day as when written over a hundred years ago.

   “I said the cause of this apparently unaccountable distress seemed to me to be the new extraordinary changes which had occurred during so long a war, when men and materials had been for a quarter of a century in such urgent demand, to support the waste of our armies and navies upon so extensive a scale for so long a period. All things had attained to war prices, and these had been so long maintained, that they appeared to the present generation the natural state of business and public affairs. The want of hands and materials, with the lavish expenditure, created a demand for and gave great encouragement to new mechanical inventions and chemical discoveries, to supersede manual labour in supplying the materials required for warlike purposes, and these, direct and indirect, were innumerable. The war was a great and most extravagant customer to farmers, manufacturers, and other producers of wealth, and many during this period became very wealthy. The expenditure of the last year of the war for this country alone was one hundred and thirty millions sterling, or an excess of eighty millions of pounds sterling over the peace expenditure. And on the day on which peace was signed, this great customer of the producers died, and prices fell as the demand diminished, until the prime cost of the articles required for war could not be obtained. The barns and farmyards were full, warehouses loaded, and such was our artificial state of society that this very superabundance of wealth was the sole cause of the existing distress. Burn the stock in the farmyards and warehouses, and prosperity would immediately recommence in the same manner as if the war had continued. This want of demand at remunerating prices compelled the master producers to consider what they could do to diminish the amount of their productions and the cost of producing until these surplus stocks could be taken off the market. To effect these results, every economy in producing was resorted to, and men, being more expensive machines for producing than mechanical and chemical invention and discoveries, so extensively brought into action during the war, the men were discharged, and the machines were made to supersede them, while the numbers unemployed were increased by the discharge of men from the Army and Navy.
 
    Hence the great distress for want of work among all classes whose labour was so much in demand while the war continued. This increase of mechanical and chemical power was continually diminishing the demand for and value of manual labour, and would continue to do so, and would effect great changes throughout society. For the new power created by these new inventions and discoveries was already enormous, and was superseding manual power."—Robert Owen (page 171, “Life of Robert Owen," Bohn's Popular Library.)

Editorial: An Impartial Critic. (1922)

Editorial from the March 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

A story is related of Mark Twain that he once offered to deliver a lecture to the members of a great scientific society upon their own special subject. The secretary of the society suavely pointed out that Mr. Twain’s equipment for such a lecture consisted of an entire absence of any knowledge of the subject chosen. "All the better,” replied Twain. "I shall be quite impartial in my treatment of the matter.” Somehow this failed to satisfy the secretary and the lecture was never delivered.

Undeterred by this example, we still find people willing to deal with subjects, or criticise them, whose only qualification for the purpose is a complete lack of acquaintance with the subject they attempt to discuss.

An instance of this kind occurs in the February issue of the “English Review,” where a writer calling' himself "Judex” contributes an article entitled “The Lesson of Bolshevism.” 

“Judex” scorns to burden his article with any facts, evidence, or quotations to support the various statements he makes. This may be a sign of wisdom, for had he attempted to quote any authority for many of his remarks he could at once have been exposed for an imposter, whereas now one may conclude that he is merely ignorant.

He claims that Marxian Socialism has been tried in Russia and been found a failure when he says :

  “The orthodox expropriation of the expropriators (according to Marx) has been completely tried.”

The most superficial reader of Marx’s writings knows that the above statement is not only false, but is in complete contradiction to the whole of Marx’s teachings. From the world-renowned “Communist Manifesto” down to the “Civil War in France,” Marx showed how human societies have developed from primitive communism to Capitalism, and how Capitalism, when it has passed through the stages of its development, must be followed by Socialism. In the preface to the "Critique of Political Economy” (page 12, Kerr ed.), Marx says:

  “No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured in the womb of the old society.”

Later on, in the preface to “Capital,” Marx extends and amplifies this point in the famous, oft-quoted passage where he says :

    "One nation can and should learn from others. And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement—and it is the ultimate aim of this work to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society-it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth pangs.”

(Page XIX, Sonnenschein Ed.) 

These quotations prove not only that Marx did not expect a country in a backward condition economically to be able to establish Socialism, but also that he expressly denied such a thing being possible. So far from following Marx, as "Judex” suggests, Lenin has acted in direct opposition to Marx’s teaching. To suggest that a country like Russia, still largely feudalistic, with only the beginnings of Capitalism, is “most suitable for applied Socialism,” shows a most complete ignorance of Marx, coupled with a boundless recklessness of assertion.

After such a brilliant display of his marvellous intellect, one is not surprised to find such a gem as the following in "Judex’s” article :

   "In highly industrialised countries such as England, Germany, Belgium, and even France, Socialism could only function with enormously reduced populations. In Britain certainly 10,000,000 people would have to die or emigrate; in Belgium 2,000,000; in France 5,000,000; because Socialism would imply the elimination of all production of a luxury or surplus character, thereby implying the elimination of an export trade which is the strength of highly industrial people."

Not a tittle of evidence nor a single fact is given to support this bundle of nonsense.

As Socialism will mean the abolition of the idle class of present society—the Capitalist class—who gather all the best of what is produced to themselves to lead lives of barbaric luxury, the first result of the establishment of Socialism will be that a large quantity of wealth will become available for distribution among the producers that was never within their reach under Capitalism. So far from it being necessary to reduce the populations under Socialism, the elimination of the idle thieves will be one factor in making it possible to support far larger numbers than the present system is doing.

“Judex’s” complete innocence of the simplest economic facts is shown in the scintillating assertion that “the purest Socialist State must function on capital or credit of some kind. " Evidently he has not the faintest conception of what capital is, or upon what credit is based.

Capital is wealth used for the purpose of producing a profit. Profit is a portion of that wealth produced by the worker, but robbed from him under the present system. Hence capital is wealth used for the purpose of robbery. Clearly, when the system of robbery is abolished, capital will disappear. Production will then be carried on for use; wealth will be used to promote the well-being of all.

Direct Action in South Africa. (1922)

From the April 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent attempts on the part of the Rand miners at Johannesburg to gain their ends by force of arms affords another striking instance of the futility of adopting such methods in the face of the organised, well-disciplined force of the governing class. Into the pros and cons of this particular case we do not propose to go. The broad facts of the case are sufficient for our purpose. In the mining districts of South Africa we find the masters organising for wage reductions; in fact, throughout the Capitalist world the same thing is going on all round. In England we had the coal mine owners making the first grand onslaught towards wage reductions. The Engineering industry at the present moment witnesses another great move on the part of the masters to force a reduction of wages.

In both instances the workers have been locked out. In all these contests we have the advocates of direct action on the industrial field proclaiming that this is the appointed time for the workers to use their “industrial power.” These people do not explain what this industrial power of the workers is. The reason is simple—there is no such thing as this so-called “industrial power” or “economic power,” as some prefer to call it; it is just a phrase, mouthed about by “revolutionary” Labour leaders, to impress their sheep-like followers with their “revolutionary heroism.” “Industrial power,” “ the power of industry,” “economic power,” are meaningless terms so far as advantage to the workers’ cause is concerned.

The fact that has to be solidly grasped is that, a ruling class exists to-day—the owners and controllers of the means of life. It matters not under what national banner or flag these captains of industry — the Capitalist class—are domiciled, whether it be in South Africa, Australia, America, the same force is used—the army, navy, and aerial contingents—to impose the masters’ will over the subject class, the working class. Therefore, while the workers of the world remain politically ignorant—i.e., vote their enemies into the seat of power—then it logically follows that that power, which gives them control of the forces of the State, be used whenever occasion demands, as witness on the Rand in South Africa.

As a writer in the Manchester Guardian, 17/3/22, says, commenting on the matter—

   “There certainly has been no indecision about General Smuts' way of taking up a clear challenge; not, of course, that the challenge from the rioters on the Rand was personal to him. He received it as the chosen head man of the European .Democracy in South Africa. It was no individual will, but the will of the majority—evidently a vast majority—of South African voters."

In this case the "vast majority” in their political ignorance voted for the return to the seat of power—the State Assembly—representatives of the owners of property in land, mines, railways, etc. Therefore, when this property is attacked by bands of rebel workers, it is naturally defended by the forces of the State.

Now listen to the champions of "industrial action"—"Workers' Dreadnought" (18/3/22) —commenting on the South African trouble :—

   “Labour will not be victorious whilst it merely strikes and starves. It must take control of production and distribution before it can achieve anything.”

We agree, but we are not told how the workers are to get control. Also same authority commenting on the Engineers' lock-out: -

  “They must show themselves able and ready to supply their own needs and those of the proletarian community as a whole.”

We agree, but how? And further same authority :—

   “The questions the locked-out workers have to ask themselves are just these :—
1. 'Why should we suffer want in a land of plenty? ’
2. 'How can we avoid doing so? ”

The answer to No. 1 is that the workers will continue to suffer want, so long as the means of life are owned by a few—the ruling Capitalist class.

The question as to how this state of things may be avoided is readily answered by the Socialist, who claims that the means of life must be made the common property of the people—i.e., by the establishment of Socialism, viz., "a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community." The Declaration of Principles on the back page of this issue sets out concisely but clearly how that object may be attained.

Revolutionary wind may be very relieving to people like the writer in the “Workers’ Dreadnought," quoted above; there’s been an epidemic of it since Bolshevism was discovered in Russia. What the workers need is Revolutionary knowledge. Study our position and then act.

B. I.

Editorial: Psychology and Industry. (1922)

Editorial from the May 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

For the last few years there has been a boom in psychology. Most bookshops exhibit ponderous volumes dealing with this particular subject. Booksellers’ lists advertise numerous books setting forth conflicting theories.

As a general rule, when there is a boom in the scientific or pseudo scientific world in any particular subject, a close examination of the matter will disclose some important material interest lying at the back of the boom; or some material interest that is served by assisting to boom whatever matter is in question.

To this general rule psychology is no exception.

A short time ago a little book was published by Methuen & Co., Ltd., entitled "Present-Day Applications of Psychology, with special reference to Industry, Education, and Nervous Breakdown,” by Charles S. Myers, M.A., M.D., Sc.D., F.R.S., Director of the Psychological Laboratory, Cambridge.

The author defines Psychology as the scientific study of the human and animal mind. He advocates the appointment of trained Psychologists in all branches of industry as a profitable proposition from a commercial point of view. In order to illustrate how valuable such a proposition would be to employers he gives a description of certain experiments that have been made.

One such experiment he describes as follows—with reference to the principle of the number of contractions that could be carried out in lifting weights before exhaustion ensues:—

   “This principle has been applied practically in the case of 500 shovellers who were being employed in shovelling, with a shovel of constant size, material of very varying weight—sometimes coal, sometimes ashes, at other times heavy iron ore, etc., etc. Experiments were conducted with shovels of different sizes in order to ascertain the optimal weight per shovel load of a good shoveller. The best average weight was found to be 21 lbs. Accordingly, shovels were made of different sizes, in proportion to the heaviness of the material shovelled, so that each shovel whether full of coal, ash or iron, etc., weighed 21 lbs. This was the  most important innovation, although others were at the same time carried out. The results were as follows :—(i) the average amount shovelled per day rose by nearly 270 per cent—from 16 to 59 tons per man; (ii) 150 men could now perform what 500 men had performed under previous conditions ; (iii) the average earnings of the shovellers increased by 60 per cent,; (iv) the cost of the management, after paying all extra expenses, was reduced by 50 per cent.; (v) there was no evidence of increased fatigue of the shovellers.” (Page 9— italics ours.)

From the above it will be seen that by applying the results of scientific psychology in this particular case the gain to the capitalist would be 270 per cent, in the amount shovelled, whilst the increase in shovellers’ earnings was only 60 per cent., i.e., a nett gain to the capitalist of 210 per cent. Of course, experience tells us that the workers in question would not be long in receipt of the 60 per cent. increase. There is little doubt that in such a case a revision of piece-work rates would soon occur.

On top of the nett gain of 210 per cent, there is a further advantage to the capitalist of 50 per cent, decrease in the cost of management.

The following quotation from the "Daily News" (11/3/22) gives an illustration of the application of scientific psychology in another branch of industry. The quotation refers to the activity of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology: -

  “Dr. C. S. Myers, the director of the institute, who stated that he had resigned the chair of psychology at Cambridge University to devote himself to the work of the institute, said that during the year investigators had examined into the methods of packing chocolates for Messrs. J. Lyons & Co. By favouring rhythmical movements and abolishing unnecessary ones, an average increase of output amounting to 35 per cent. had been obtained." (Italics ours.)

Here again we have the same point illustrated—a gain to the employers.

According to the above two quotations it will be seen that the nett result obtained by the application of scientific psychology to industry may be stated as follows: A larger amount of surplus value will be obtained by the capitalist and there will be less employment to be obtained by the workers. This will be due to the more economical handling of the means of wealth production.

One main point is forced to our notice here. The application of science to industry under capitalism has two general effects: it increases the productiveness of a given quantity of human labour power, thereby increasing the profits of the capitalists, and at the same time increasing the unemployment and consequent misery of the workers.

How topsy-turvy, then, is a system of society in which the valuable productive methods provided by scientific research are of necessity converted into a source of profit for the few and a source of misery for the mass of the population?

The only way to avoid such an anomaly is to substitute for the present form of society another form in which all the means and methods that science can discover to aid in the production of wealth and lessen the toil of the producers will be welcomed by the whole of society as means to obtain increased leisure and enjoyment.