Trade Unionism. A Debate. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard.

[To save repetition and for convenience of reference we have numbered the paragraphs in the reply of the Advocates, and will answer under those numbers.]

Reply of Advocates.

The loose and inaccurate habit of thought of the S.P.G.B. is well typified by the sub-heading of their answer, which attempts to make out that the present debate is with the S.L.P. instead of with the A. of I.U.

(1) When we speak of the S.P.G.B. wandering away from the correct position, it is in the sense that they totally fail to put into practice the principle expressed in their Manifesto, “that the basis of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the worker’s position under capitalism and the class struggle resulting therefrom,” by advocating the formation of such a union in Great Britain. Instead they deliberately attack those who are seeking to establish an industrial union based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the Socialist Republic.

(2) The S.P.G.B., after publishing in its official organ the statement that “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” reject another later article because it asks for the same thing. For the S.P. to contend that a union could not be a class union, that is, based on the class struggle, because it would be organised according to industries, cuts the ground from under their own feet, for if economic grouping in an economic body robs it of its class character, then geographical grouping in a political body must do likewise.

(3) There is no jumble of unions in our organisation. Our object is to organise the workers in a compact body along the same lines in which modern industrial conditions compel them to work together, that is united according to industrial, and not divided along craft lines. The object of our union is the taking over by and for the workers themselves the productive forces they now operate for a boss. Anyone knows that the General Federation of Trade Unions is simply out to federate the existing craft unions, duplicates as well, leaving their internal organisation absolutely intact. What we are out for is to organise one union of the whole working class, divided for administrative and other purposes into industrial departments and local industrial unions, just as an army is divided into regiments or a political party into local branches.

(4) The I.W.W. of America, in spite of the alleged split (a split only in the sense that the fakirs were kicked out) has now over 28,000 fully paying members. Several European countries, France, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Germany, etc., have unions organised on industrial lines, both before and since the I.W.W. was started, and now Australia is starting an industrial union, with the title, preamble and constitution of the I.W.W.—facts which prove the efficiency of revolutionary industrial organisation.

(5) To say that because we wish an economic organisation as being the chief means to overthrow capitalism and to form the foundation of the Socialist Republic, that we are Anarchist as believing in direct action, places the loyal S.P’ite in the same category should he become involved in a strike and should he not attempt to conduct it through the ballot box.

(6) We claim that were the working class organised in a revolutionary industrial union, we could prevent to a large extent the use of armed forces against the workers. Transport, food, clothing, ammunition, etc., are necessary factors in warfare, and the workers industrially organised could prevent the hired assassins of the capitalist class from using them. In the railway strike in Italy the Government used armed force to compel the men to run certain trains, but the organised workers in Milan and elsewhere called a series of strikes in these towns which made the Government withdraw the troops and grant the workers’ demands.

(7) If the revolution is to be effected by armed force, how are the workers going to get it ? because if the capitalists can prevent the organising of a revolutionary union because of their strict supervision, are we to suppose they will allow an armed force to be got together ? And if they did, how are workers ever to obtain sufficient wealth to purchase “the modern weapons of precision and death-dealing ?”

(8) Although the capitalists could not starve the industrially organised workers into submission, seeing we will have possession of the means of production, what would there be to prevent them starving a “Socialist” government out of power by refusing to give up control of the fighting forces and the means of production to the Socialist M.P.’s ?

(9) To say that the capitalist class laid the foundation of their control by building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax begs the question as to how they got control of this army, which we contend was only by the capitalists having since the time of Henry 8th been developing and getting economic power, thereby being able to purchase the munitions of war, pay their soldiers, etc., when the question of feudal or capitalist supremacy finally became relegated from Parliament to battlefield.

(10) We were wrong in describing the S.P. as “neutral,” for to actively oppose, as they do, those who are attempting to organise a union “based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic,” amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. To say that Allen’s article was allowed in because it asked for a Socialist union when it stated “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” and to reject a second article because it asked for the same thing, is equal to saying that a union “based on the class struggle,” etc., is not a Socialist union.

(11) The statement that Kent’s resolution did not say an industrial organisation “affiliated to and controlled by the S.P.G.B.” is a distinct suggestion of falsification. The facts are that these words were added to Kent’s resolution as an amendment by Anderson. The resolution as amended was carried, and Kent himself voted for it. If the S.P. attitude is not one of “boring from within” when it allows its members to hold office in existing unions that deny the class struggle, thus helping to build them up and extend their influence, we should like to know what is. They have some members who have denied the need for economic organisation at all.

(12) With regard to the I.W.W. excluding men on account of high dues, when first established the Executive Board had power to lower and forgive them if it so wished. The S.P. likewise conveniently overlooks the differences in the money rate of wages in America and here. Since Sherman & Co. were kicked out, the I.W.W. has organised men who were on strike without the payment of initiation fee or dues. The Paterson silk workers had their dues reduced 25 per cent., and they won their strike. In their official organ for July 27th, ’07 they report the winning of the Paterson Locomotive Workers’ strike, and in the same issue report Local 95 as exempted from paying assessments. Bridgeport I.W.W. machinists won their strike. The big strike in the mills of Skowhegan was won by the I.W.W. Case after case can be given proving it a lie to say that the I.W.W. has never won a strike, and also that it makes dues and initiation fees so high as to keep workers out. In Schenectady the I.W.W. had only 3,000 men : the rest of the 12,000 in the Works were in craft unions, and it was these remaining at work blacklegging on the I.W.W. that lost the strike. In Buffalo several new unions have been started. The I.W.W. has won more strikes than it has lost. Even if it had not, it does not prove industrial unionism wrong, because anyone with sense knows a union must have a certain proportion of workers inside to strike successfully ; while young and weak some strikes are sure to be lost. The S.P.G.B. has never won an election, therefore it is a fraud.

(13) With regard to the split, the S.P. should be the last to talk of splits seeing that it is simply the result of a split from the S.D.F. itself, and has since had splits at Islington and elsewhere in its own ranks.

(14) We attend workers political bodies, trade union branches, trades councils, etc., at their invitation just as the S.P.G.B. was prepared to let Lehane go to the Parliament branch U.I.L. when there was a chance to go. To drag in the S.L.P. is quite irrelevant as this is a debate with the A. of I.U. and not the S.L.P. The S.P.G.B. allows its members to hold office in unions that deny the class struggle, that are going to moralise the capitalists like the O.B.S., establish mutual relations between employer and employed, and that are affiliated to the bogus Labour Party which is supposed to be fought by the S.P. If industrial unionism is so bad and against Socialist principles why does the S.P.G.B. fail to tell us the methods on which a union should be organised, and then set about organising it to prove their honesty ?

S.P.G.B. answer to Advocates.

(1) Both on the platform and in our paper we continually point out to the working class the necessity for political and economic action and for building up their organisations from their class basis. To call a new organisation an “industrial” union merely conveys to the average worker the idea of a union similar in most respects to the existing unions and differing only in some details. Call it a “Socialist” union and attention is at once directed to the fundamental differences between that and the present unions. If the Advocates are in favour of a Socialist union why do they attempt to start unions that sectionalise the workers according to industry and then try to hide their stupidity by saying that this sectionalism is on a class basis ?

(2) As people usually live in different localities, geographical subdivision of organisation becomes necessary, and the I.W.W. has been compelled to adopt this form despite their denouncing this method as wrong. The S.P. is an organisation with geographical sub-divisions, but the I.W.W. is composed of Industrial and Local Unions—that is, of complete organisations or entities—not branches of an organisation, and is merely a conglomerate similar to the General Federation of Trade Unions.

(3) This is answered by No. 2 above.

(4) This is so clumsy an evasion of the truth that we can only suppose the Advocates to imagine their opponents know nothing of the facts. When the I.W.W. was formed it claimed 100,000 members. At the next Annual Convention these figures had dropped to 60 or 70,000. Now they are given as 28,000. Nor is this the most important fact. The union that formed the back-bone of the I.W.W., and was lauded in their press and speeches as the most clear-cut revolutionary union in America, is the Western Federation of Miners ; and it is just this union, stated to number 30,000 members, that has withdrawn from the I.W.W. No talk of “alleged splits” can cover the seriousness of these facts and figures.

If the existence of so-called industrial unions on the continent of Europe proves the efficiency of this form of organisation, then the so-called ”craft” unions must be immensely more efficient as they exist with a far greater membership.

But the truth is that these industrial unions are Anarchist unions and fight Socialism at every opportunity. The strongest and most important of them all—the General Federation of Labour of France—has for years bitterly opposed the Socialist party and propaganda there ; while— a curious fact —the Australian S.L.P. has withdrawn from the Socialist Federation in Australia that endorsed (not started) the I.W.W. there.

(5) Utter inability to refute our case showing how the A. of I. U. adopt the Anarchist position is proved by the absurd paragraph in question. To talk of conducting an economic strike through the ballot box is sheer idiocy.

(6) While this paragraph is the first attempt to come to anything like close quarters in the discussion, it carefully evades our previous statement. In the first place they have utterly failed to show how unarmed workers could prevent the armed “hired assassins” from using the immense stores that are under the control of the capitalist class, in the Arsenals, victualing yards, etc. ; and in the second place the only “demands” granted the railway workers in Italy were doses of lead in Milan and Barra Bridge. Far from the men winning they were completely routed by the use of the soldiers in running—and compelling the men to run—the services in question.

(7) This paragraph shows how completely the Anarchist notions have bitten into the Advocatee, as the only alternative to an economic struggle they appear capable of grasping is the Bakunine position of street riots with such arms as the workers can secure by purchase or theft. They fail to see that with the control of the political machinery there is control of the ordering departments, and therefore control of the fighting forces already in existence ; and until this control is obtained by the workers they cannot hold the means of production.

(8) This reiterates the same old fallacy that, “industrially” organised, the workers are invincible, the absurdity of which we have shown above.

(9) The contention that the capitalists in the seventeenth century were only able to control the Army because they had the means to purchase munitions of war and pay soldiers is entirely inaccurate. Leaving out the point, so well established in the Thirty Years’ War, that an Army can support itself while production exists at all, the bourgeois class obtained their army in the first place from the militia existing in England and which was under the control of Parliament. When they had conquered political power in the Commons they were able to use this militia to protect themselves, while the King had to rely upon his courtiers and their retainers for an army to fight them, showing in a striking manner the importance of the working class gaining control of the political machinery to accomplish their emancipation.

(10) The naive admission made here well shows how the Advocates merely repeat parrot-like phrases and statements used in America even against facts existing here. The American S.L.P. denounces the Socialist Party there for claiming to be “neutral” on the trade union question. Then the Advocates here—formed by, and largely consisting of members of, the Scots S.L.P.—must use the same phrase against the S.P.G.B., although the subject was debated on Peckham Rye with G. Geis in August, 1906 and again at Plumstead in January, 1907, with Allen ; in the latter case the debate was, technically, on the political question, but it was almost wholly taken up with with industrial unionism. This is now the third encounter we have had on the subject, yet the Advocates only discover in their second contribution that we are not “neutral” but in opposition ! This they say amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. The fact that we have lately had to defend ourselves in a libel action, due to our criticism of some of these reactionaries, is by itself a sufficient refutation of the statement; but in truth, from the publication of our Manifesto onwards, we have always opposed all organisations that are non-Socialist, whether political or economic.

The almost pathetic reiteration of one sentence from an article by E. J. B. Allen is best met by further quotation from that article.

“We must carry on an organised agitation and education within the existing unions to which our members belong, so as to form a nucleus of sound Socialists in each. They should proceed with the educational work … so that they can get a sufficient number of sound men within the unions, so that when we are strong enough and conditions are ripe, we can call them out to form the foundation of the Socialist union. . . . Better do this and build a solid foundation by education . . . than pass pious resolutions instructing the E.C. to form Socialist unions at a time when it is a numerical and financial impossibility.”

In an article two months previous to the above the same writer stated :—

“The question therefore arises can the unions be made of service to the working class ? The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

And further on it is said :—

“They (the Socialist trade unionists) should, it seems to me, endeavour to effect the sound economic organisation of the workers by systematic propaganda of Socialism inside existing unions—a work which, it must be remembered, has, hitherto, never been seriously undertaken.”

In face of these quotations it is unnecessary to labour the point further.

(11) It is now admitted that Kent’s resolution did not contain the statement questioned. It is not true that Kent voted for the resolution as amended. The next point is “boring from within.” It is stated that “the S.P. allows its members to hold office in existing unions.” So do the Advocates ! G. Geis, a prominent member of both Advocates and S.L.P., has held office in his trade union as late as last November. Evidently everyone but an “Advocate” holding office is only “helping to build them up and extend their influence.”

(12) The opening statement here is entirely false. Nowhere in the constitution is any provision made for remitting dues, nor is any power given to the Executive Board to do so and where this has occurred, the Executive have acted outside the rules. Every union that entered upon a strike has found itself compelled to organise the non-members without payment of dues, as such payment is obviously impossible then. Local No. 95 were exempted from payment to headquarters because they were supporting an organiser entirely by their own efforts, thus saving the centre a good sum.

In Secretary Trautmann’s Report to the I.W.W. Convention it is stated that the “Paterson Silk Workers’ strike is still pending” and up to time of writing no further report has appeared. In their official organ for June 15th it is pointed out that the blacksmiths, hammermen and helpers of Paterson Locomotive Works all belong to an independent union, and that the I.W.W. helpers worked jointly with them when the strike was called. The above is a sample of the bluff indulged in by the Advocates, but more can be quoted. In the report of July 27th it says a telegram was received saying “Paterson strike won” but neither then nor since have the details of the “victory” been published. The Skowhegan strike was so “big” that in his first report, organiser French described the firm as “a cockroach concern that cannot stand for any long period without going into bankruptcy,” and while it was only claimed that the women in the finishing department were in the I.W.W., the whole of the employes came out on strike and received support from various quarters. But here again no details are given of the “victory,” while in the case of Bridgeport Machinists, not only is there no mention of the strike in the secretary’s report, but it is not claimed anywhere that the strike was won, though it is stated it was “settled.” The significance of this silence as to details is vividly shown by the solitary case where they are given and we cannot do better than quote the secretary :—

“In the strike of the smeltermen of Tacoma, Wash., the workers made a splendid showing. The company settled on the terms of the 8 hour day and 15 per cent. increase of wages, but singled out all officers and active workers of the union for the black list. They had to leave the town, after the spokesman of the company had succeeded in having the organisation dissolved. The concessions of the company, however, will not be lived up to, and the misguided few may soon again see the necessity of organising so as to preserve what was conceded on account of the splendid fight conducted by those who were finally made the victims.”

Did ever “craft” union win such a “victory”? It must be left to the imagination to picture what the “victories” were on the details of which they are silent.

We are then told that it was the craft unions remaining at work that lost the Schenectady strike. Secretary Trautmann says it was due to leading individuals, who afterwards received their rewards in the shape of well-compensated foremen’s positions for having delivered the goods (Ind. Bulletin, Sept. 18th, 1907), and later on it is stated that “It was C. W. Noonan” who sold out the strike. Our readers may take their choice.

But superior to all these petty details, however, is the point made in our last contribution, namely, that attempts to form Socialist unions with non-Socialist material was a stupid farce and merely encouraged further labour faking. The Advocates have entirely ignored this point, while, in addition to the quotation given above, the following, from the same report, clinch the argument:—

“But the unions in Schenectady had hardly gone through the transitory stage of development, unions formerly connected with the American Federation of Labour had joined in full force the Industrial Workers of the World without sufficiently understanding the difference in the basic principles. The change of name did not materially change the structure of the organisation, . . .”

And this section of the report closes as follows:—

“It is essential that in every organisation at least a good minority be fully possessed of the knowledge of the aims and objects of the Industrial Workers of the World, so that in times of conflicts this element can assume control of the situation and rise fully to the occasion required in critical and crucial hours.”

So ! not only are the rank and file in mass not required to know the principles of the organisation they join, but not even a majority need know them. All that is wanted is a minority to control and guide the rest. And this is called a Socialist organisation ! Nothing we have ever said is so strong a refutation of such a claim as the secretary’s own statement given above.

Obituary: Ferdinand Czilinsky (1907)

Obituary from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce that our Comrade Ferdinand Czilinsky, of the Tottenham branch, died on September 20th after an illness of three days. Our comrade was seventy-two years of age.

Pomp, Pageantry and Privilege (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The coronation on June 2nd of a young woman by the name of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of Windsor, as Queen of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations, is an event which, it is safe to say, has received more publicity and been the subject of more propaganda than any other peace-time occurrence of the last fifty years. Since the death of her father, the Queen has been publicised to such an extent that there can hardly be a literate person in the whole world who is not aware of the forthcoming event.

For the first time millions of people will, as it were, be inside the Abbey witnessing the ceremonial, the religious service, and the rest of the mumbo jumbo with which a Monarch is crowned. They will be there by virtue of Television, and wireless which will relate every detail of the ritual. Every organ of propaganda has been geared to the event; schools, Churches, newspapers have given it every attention all with the design to make us feel that we are part of the coronation and that we shall all be the better for it.

There can be no doubt that the organisation will prove itself efficient. The collection of notabilities from every corner of the world; the display of heraldic symbols; the presence of dignitaries with such titles as Gold Stick, Bluemantle, and Rouge Dragon will provide a magnificent spectacle beside which the productions of Hollywood will pale into insignificance. We may be sure that the belted Earls, the Dukes and Marquesses, the Society ladies, the Dowagers, the Duchesses and so forth will appear dressed in their full regalia, their diamonds sparkling, and their coronets adding lustre to the occasion.

But when the cheering has died away; when the inevitable dustcarts which follow coronations as well as Lord Mayor’s Shows appear to clear the debris; when the “captains and the kings” have departed, what will remain? When the sightseers stands have been demolished; when the red carpets have been taken up; when the diadems and the crowns and the rest of the regalia have been returned for safe keeping to the Tower of London, what then?

If the historians and the publicists, the journalists and broadcasters are to be believed, Coronation day is to usher in a new period of glory and prosperity for this country. They assure us that whenever a Queen had ruled this land it has flowed with milk and honey, and its influence spread all over the earth. They cite the days of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria as evidence for their claims, yet even the most superficial examination of those two periods will show that they are either ignorant fools or deliberate liars who by promising us the fictional glories of the past, hope to blind us to the grim, sordid realities of the present.

The Elizabethan Era

What are these glories of the first Elizabethan age? It is true that then was laid the foundations of the British Empire and British mastery of the seas. It is true that British merchantmen sailed all over the world trading goods and bringing back to these shores unimaginable wealth. Colonies were established in America; pirates, cut-throats and swashbucklers flourished, prospered and were honoured by the Virgin Queen. Those not brave enough to fight the Spaniards indulged in trading in the human flesh of the African coast. Many fortunes were made in those days and it is interesting to note that some of the congregation at Westminster Abbey are there because their ancestors in the days of Queen Elizabeth were successful freebooters. But while all these things are true and while the rich and ruthless became ever more wealthy, the majority of the people of England had no share in that prosperity. For them there was work and poverty and starvation. For them the privilege of fighting to preserve the wealth of their Feudal Lords. (Strange how history repeats itself!) All the viciousness of the Elizabethan era is now glossed over with a tawdry coating of journalistic paint. But a writer of the period shows in a few words the hollowness of the claim that England as a whole was prosperous in the days of Queen Elizabeth:-

“The poor lie in the street upon pallets of straw, and well if they have that too, or else in the mire and dirt as commonly it is seen, having neither house to put in their heads, covering to keep them from cold, nor yet to hide their shame withal, penny to buy them sustenance, nor anything else, but are suffered to die in the streets like dogs or beasts, without mercy or shame showed to them at all.

“Truly, brother, if I had not seen it, I would scarcely credit that like the Turkish cruelty had been used in all the world.” (Philip Stubbs; The Anatomie of Abuses).

The truth is that in all ages and at all times in written history, prosperity has always been for the rich, never for the labourers, the “hewers of wood and drawers of water”.

The Victorian Era

If we have demolished, as is the case, the claims made about the days of Good Queen Bess, what of the age of Victoria? The Industrial Revolution had already taken place. Railways had been introduced and England had become the workshop of the world. No other country could compete in the manufacture of goods, and the world’s markets were the preserve of British industrialists. Huge fortunes were built up and their possessors bought themselves titles forming a new aristocracy to replace the fast-dying old. At such a time then, surely the poor and oppressed were better off? Work there was in plenty for they were forced to toil sixteen to eighteen hours a day. Surely, therefore, the workers were amply rewarded for their toil? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Men, women and children slaved in the factories, their pay a miserable pittance, their homes hovels, their food cheap and adulterated. Epidemics, when they came, killed them off like flies. The child labourers became stunted and old before their time. There was no lack of priest or Bishop to condone this cruelty in the name of God. They praised the manufacturers for keeping children at work so that evil thoughts would not invade their otherwise idle hours.

During the reign of Queen Victoria, India became the “most precious jewel in the Imperial crown”; the Suez Canal came under British control, and yet a poet of that time could still write of Child Labour:-

“‘How long’, they say, ‘how long, O cruel nation

Will you stand to move the world on a child’s heart–

Stiffle down with a mailed heel its palpitation,

And tread onward to your throne amid the mart?”

(“The Cry of the Children”, E. B. Browning)

And if a poet’s word is not considered evidence we can refer to many factual reports given by Government Inspectors, reformers and others. In a book published just before Queen Victoria came to the throne, and dealing with conditions which prevailed well into the Victorian era, the author, J. Fielden (“The Curse of the Factory System”) wrote:–

“Cruelties of the most heart rending were practised upon the unoffending and friendless creatures who were thus consigned to the charge of master manufacturers; they . . . were harassed to the brink of death by excess labour . . . they were in many cases starved to the bone while flogged to their work . . .

“The beautiful and romantic valleys of Derbyshire . . . secluded from the public eye, became the dismal solitudes of torture and of many a murder. The profits of manufacturers were enormous; but this only whetted the appetite it should have satisfied.” (Fielden did not know his capitalists!)

So much for the “prosperity” of the Victorian era, that age of ruthless exploitation when the wealth and power of the ruling class was literally built on the blood and life of the workers.

The Coronation and its Meaning

Not content with telling us that the Coronation will usher in this new period of glory and prosperity, we are told that it will be a dedication and a consecration. Bishops have prated on the holiness of the occasion, politicians, with their ability to seize every opportunity, have tried to fill us with patriotism, and the whole collection of lick-spittles, ink-slingers and columnists of Fleet Street have combined to convince us of the promising life which lies ahead.

What is this dedication and to whom in this day consecrated? Prayers for the safe keeping of her Majesty will be offered up to God; and all over the country, if the Archbishop’s suggestion is followed, people will join the choir at Westminster in singing “All people that on earth do dwell”. And in that sense perhaps it will be a day of dedication. But behind the facade of prayer and patriotism there are other interests involved which makes the Coronation a day of dedication to Mammon.

The late King’s body was scarcely cold in its grave, when every junk manufacturer in the Kingdom rushed to produce enormous quantities of shoddy souvenirs. Not one avenue for making money has been neglected. Even the “Gentry” tumbled over themselves to cash in on this “day of consecration”. They have advertised their homes to let at fabulous rentals, from which even American millionaires have recoiled. Hotels and boarding houses, restaurants and nightclubs have put up their charges, and anybody with window-space to let on the route of the procession has been courted, bribed and enriched.

Nothing has been overlooked in this money-making jamboree called the coronation. The Star fashion expert tells us:–

“If you’re fired with a desire to be patriotic through and through, so you can be . . . right down to your corsets. Berlei are showing—as the star item of their new summer collection—a strapless one-piece controlette in elastic net and nylon voile in a choice of red, white or royal blue”.

This then is the “holy” character of Coronation day, a day on which the money-makers will give their workers a day off on full pay. While they count their money they will join in the singing of the incantations at Westminster Abbey. And indeed they will have something to sing about for it is estimated that over twenty million pounds will accrue as a result of this “day of consecration”. Is it not strange how holiness is so often linked with the “things of this world”?

A People’s Coronation

Efforts have been made by means of propaganda to imbue this Coronation with a democratic flavour. For the first time, at least that is what we have been told, the people are to take part in this event. But again this claim is hollow. The only part that the “people” will have is to stand in the streets and at their windows, or crouch before their TV sets cheering the procession of as great a collection of parasites as have ever been seen together before.

Not a dignitary involved but is a wealthy banker, landowner, Field Marshal or Major-General. There will be Black rods, and Gold sticks, and Knights Pursuivants in profusion. Most of them directors of large Banking or Insurance Companies. Many of them huge land-owners who are no more representative of the people than is the Queen herself, a by no means poverty-stricken personage. Surrounded as she is by these wealthy courtiers and nurtured in Palaces with a background of wealth and splendour she is cushioned off from the ordinary cares that beset the people who will stand and cheer her as she passes through the streets.

We have no personal quarrel with the Queen. As occupant of the Throne of Great Britain she has no power. The monarchy has become a mere facade of authority, a rubber stamp signature at the bottom of State documents. The Queen’s whole life is regulated by strictly-defined rules and a standard of behaviour is expected which would make even the humblest of us protest.

Surrounded at the Abbey by Bankers, landowners, Labour leaders and a “few representatives” of the Trade Unions her Majesty will perform her part, we have no doubt, with grace, charm and dexterity, and the Archbishop will intone at the right time and in the right places. The choirboys will contribute their “Vivats”, and the people whose coronation we are told this is, will stand outside and cheer. Thus it has always been; the people on the outside looking in, wearing clothes which cost less than one button of the gorgeous raiment that they have made and which they are allowed to see only at a distance. This is all the people will receive or can expect from this “People’s” coronation.

The ceremony to be performed on June 2nd has no meaning for us. It is of no consequence who sits on the throne, which flag or Royal Standard flies over Buckingham Palace; or whether her titles are Elizabeth II or I. We are not concerned with all the flummery and mediaeval mumbo-jumbo with which the event is to be celebrated. Nothing will have changed. The private ownership of the means of life will continue with all its consequences. The threat of war, the general insecurity will not be abated one jot or tittle by this glorified circus. Not one of the claims made for this event will be fulfilled as far as the workers are concerned. The promises and allurements of a brilliant future will be forgotten almost as soon as the procession has disappeared from sight.

In the Psalms, some of which will be read during the service there is a phrase which we commend:–

“Oh, put not your trust in Princes, nor in any child of man . . .”

adding only the counsel to trust to yourselves, to your experience, to your knowledge to build a better Society in which all mankind will live in freedom, peace and security.

“Who would be free themselves must strike the blow.”

A. S.

Human Nature and Socialism (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the previous issue.

Numerous undesirable social conditions have been and still are explained away or justified by the glib remark that “you can’t change human nature/’ Yet the science of anthropology shows these conditions to be cultural acquisitions, subject to change, and not the inevitable result of something inherent in man. Let us try to see, then, the particular ways in which human nature is supposed to be unchangeable, and what follows from thinking in this way.

Human nature is held, by opponents of Socialism, to be unalterable in certain respects that effectively prevent any conscious improvement in social conditions. Men, it is said, will go on acting in the same old ways, and so inevitably bring the same problems that have “always” faced them. Of course, if this were the case then it would be useless even to try to improve things; we might as well face the “inevitable” now. But those who hold this view obstinately refuse to have the courage of their convictions, and they are often found taking very active measures to avoid a fate, such as grinding poverty, that they forecast for others.

What are the reasons for holding and propagating the idea that “you can’t change human nature”? From the point of view of those seeking too justify Capitalism, there are many reasons. People are unemployed because they are “naturally lazy”; fight wars because they are “naturally belligerent"; cheat, injure and bankrupt each other because they “naturally act on the profit motive.”

There are many variants of these arguments, and not all are put as directly as the examples quoted. Sometimes the objector to social change will try to coat the bitter pill that he forces himself to swallow. “Of course, it would be a good thing if people could always live in peace, but until we get a new race of human beings I am afraid this will be impossible.” He wants social change, but only provided that certain impossible conditions can be fulfilled—which amounts to not wanting social change at all.

We can now see where all these arguments lead. It is toward the prevention of future change through the spread of a philosophy that justifies present evils. If men can be persuaded that what they want is impossible to achieve then they will give up struggling for it. Instead, they will content themselves with whatever crumbs they can pick up within the present set-up, in the knowledge that all social evils from which they suffer are “natural,” and therefore unavoidable.

"Incurably Selfish”

There are two main ways in which human nature is said to be unalterable. One is that men are supposed to be universally and incurably selfish, and the other is that mankind is mostly stupid and unteachable, and that intelligence is the prerogative of a few “born” leaders.

Let us examine these statements to see what truth they contain. If men were really incurably selfish, then there could never have been any sort of stable society, because no one would have co-operated with anyone else. If men were really so stupid by nature, then they could never have overcome previous obstacles to the development of their productive forces, and Capitalism could never have grown out of Feudalism.

When we take a closer look at the “incurably selfish” argument, we see that it rests upon the assumption that everything that men do involves loss or sacrifice for other people. Now there is no question that some of the things men do have that effect. But there is equally no question that society depends for its very existence on the fact that there is co-operative behaviour, and that people do work at things which are of no immediate benefit to themselves.

We may infer from this that behaviour which benefits other people is at least as consistent with human nature as that which harms other people. Nevertheless, granting all this, it might still be true that selfishness exists in human nature side by side with social-mindedness, and that therefore it cannot be eradicated. Or, to put it more concretely, there are some things which men need so badly that they will injure other people in order to get them.

The answer to this is that, though such behaviour exists and may even be the general rule in property society, it is not natural to human beings. The fact that there is unselfish behaviour means that selfishness is not inherent in man. People only act selfishly or anti-socially when they can see no other way of obtaining what they desire (by co-operation, for instance) then there is no reason to suppose that they will not choose it when they see that it is better to do so.

Justification for Behaviour

It is important not to confuse selfishness with self-interest. Self-interest is the satisfaction of one's desires; selfishness is the satisfaction of one's desires at the expense of someone else. Self-interest is an integral part of human nature, but selfishness is not—unless it is assumed that everything we do is at someone else's expense. But we continually do things without detriment to other people, and the satisfaction of some of our desires, such as companionship and love, involves the satisfaction of other people's. Any selfish, anti-social behaviour that is present cannot therefore exist in the desires themselves, but only in the way they are sometimes satisfied.

Having seen that there is nothing in human nature that necessitates men's injuring one another, we must conclude that there is nothing in human nature that necessitates war. War can occur under certain conditions, but as far as human nature is concerned these conditions need not exist

There is one contradiction in the argument of “selfish human nature” that we must point out. If it really is selfish then all men must share an equal guilt and it is a case of one sinner condemning another. But those who use the argument give the lie to it themselves, because they impute incurable selfishness only to others and never to themselves. We have never met the objector to Socialism who seriously maintains that if an article were freely available he would still fight someone for his share.

The real reason for the doctrine of human selfishness is not hard to discover. It is a justification for the anti-social behaviour that a highly competitive society produces. The employer blandly counters the accusation of “selfish profiteering” with “selfish wage demand,” and the worker who is not class-conscious falls for the trick. In reality, all the antagonisms result from the nature of the system that all except socialists support, and not from the selfish natures of either capitalists or workers.

“Stupid and Unteachable”

The other way in which human nature is commonly said to be unalterable is that people are, on the whole, stupid and unteachable. Human intelligence is supposed to be too weak to enable people to solve the complex problems that face them—they must fight a losing battle with ignorance. The particular form in which we usually meet this argument is that most people are incapable of understanding Socialism. Allied to this is the assertion that ordinary folk would never be able to run society in their own interest.

It must be noted that, although most people are supposed to be incapable of understanding what are sometimes called the abstruse principles of Socialism, the understanding of such complicated matters as the balance of payments or the American electoral system is assumed to be quite within their power. Propagandists for Capitalism never tell us that we are too stupid to understand the tortuous arguments used, for instance, to prove that the way to preserve peace is to prepare for war. The point is not that arguments either way are too complicated and therefore beyond universal comprehension, but that the will to learn is actively discouraged when its threat to the continuation of Capitalism becomes apparent.

From the unwarranted assertion that most people are stupid flows the equally unwarranted assertion that therefore they must always have leaders. And why must they have leaders? Because those who are in the position of having a following do not wish to lose their privileged position. The existence of leaders and “the led" implies that the former have the power to make decisions, whereas the latter have not. In co-operative enterprises the concept of leadership is foreign, since all the participants have a common purpose. When you know what you are doing you do not need somebody else to "lead” you to do it. The leader is thus the reflection of “the led,” and the measure of their ignorance (not stupidity), and both disappear when people know what they want and how to get it.

As we saw in the first article, human nature is strictly what is common to the natures of the vast mass of all human beings. It has nothing to do with possession or non-possession of knowledge, which is governed by environmental factors, such as whether the particular knowledge is available to people.

The varying capacity for acquisition of knowledge (which is sometimes called the intelligence factor) means nothing more than that some people learn certain things quicker than others, and does not prove that some are incapable of learning. Language—the expression for all communicable experience—is the possession of humanity as a whole, and it is the crassest prejudice to suppose that its fruits are beyond the reach of any individual or section of society.

Stan Parker

(Next Article: The Role of the Socialist.)

Slings and Arrows: The Wages of Philanthropy (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Wages of Philanthropy

A poet of the eighteenth century commented that “Virtue is its own reward.” That thought is often quoted and applied, especially when workers want a rise in pay. It is nice to know, however; that occasionally virtue brings other and more tangible rewards than the mere satisfaction of knowing one has been virtuous.

When, in 1892, Lord Rowton built the first of his enormous lodging-houses, he did so because he believed (Daily Express, 30/4/53) “every man should have a room to himself—with a door—for 6d. a night.” Five such lodging houses were established and although every man was entitled to pay his sixpence and get his room—with a door—only the poor turned up. The rich, either ignorant of these facilities, or not wishing to stop the poor using them, continued to reside at the Ritz or Claridges. But time has a habit of evening things out and in due course the rich were duly rewarded for their consideration, as we shall see.

It is a far cry from the nineties of the last century to the present time but Rowton Houses still go on and although the price has increased to 2s. 3d. per night nevertheless there is a constant demand for accommodation. So much so that the dividends on the capital of Rowton Houses Ltd. has recently been increased. Its properties are reputed to be worth £2,000,000, and the shares, if the firm were sold, would have a break-up value of £10 each. The City Editor of the Daily Express tells us that although the share and property dealers are envious and would like to do a deal in Rowton House shares their chances are slender, for the shares are held by people “who put service to the not-so-wealthy before profit.” It is perhaps a coincidence that the shares of Rowton Houses are regarded as gilt-edged and that that institution of putting “service before profit,” the Britannic Assurance Co. hold 11,000 shares. When “service to the not-so-wealthy” is accompanied by an increased dividend then virtue gets more than its “own reward,” and when Ecclesiastes wrote “Cast thy bread upon the waters and it shall return after many days ” he little dreamed that it would return buttered.

The Rest is Silence

Dr. Dalton, bright star in the Labour firmament, has published the first instalment of his three volume autobiography. Apart from a few admissions and statements, the book has no merit either as a work of literature or a study of political events. In the normal course of events this book would not be mentioned in these columns as it would be a waste of space to do so. But some of the disclosures are worthy of comment because they throw a significant light on the present Labour leaders who pretend to be more prescient, and more faithful to the cause than the idols of yesteryear.

Dr. Dalton tells us in 1953, that he knew in 1924 or 1925 that Ramsay MacDonald was vain, conceited, snobbish and untrustworthy. But between those years and 1931 Dalton was his supporter and indeed served under him in the second Labour Government. Never, until after the debacle of 1931, did Dalton and the rest of the gang who pretend to have known all along, say one word which would lead either the electorate or rank and file Labourites to believe that all was not well with the Party leadership. On the contrary their mouths dripped honeyed words of admiration.

Dalton quotes Tom Johnston as saying “If the party meeting only got to know of a few things like this, they’d all be climbing up the walls, not just the I.L.P. but the soberest trade unionists in the Party.” But if Dalton knew and Johnston knew how was it that the Party meeting did not know? The truth was concealed.

We are left then with two conclusions. If MacDonald betrayed the Labour Party and was suspect all the time then those who suspected him were culpable. If on the other hand, they did not know, but pretend to do so in order to appear wise, then what reliance can be placed on them? Here they were, working day by day with men whom they now call traitors and they remained blithely innocent of the fact. Are these the leaders who ask for support because of their qualifications?

We are also indebted to Dalton for telling us something of the quality of the Labour leadership. He tells us that when the Labour Government was being formed in 1929, would-be Ministers besieged MacDonald and some of them wept and fainted in their anxiety. What a disgusting spectacle.

That is the sort of thing that goes on when Leaders take refuge in secrecy and when they rely for support as they must do (or they wouldn’t be leaders), on the political ignorance of their followers.

Who knows but that in another twenty-five years we may be reading some future Dalton on some present day traitor or betrayer of the Labour Party. For judging on past experience we don’t know.what goes on in the hierarchical section of the Labour Party; the Party meeting does not know and the rank and file do not know. We can only guess. And we are on reasonably safe ground if we venture to predict that the present day Labour Leaders are as anxious as those of the past to remain leaders, and to take power in order to run capitalism.

Whose Mother isn’t using Persil?

Among the American prisoners released by the Koreans are a small group, who according to the Authorities have been infected with Communist propaganda. And, since the United States is a land of freedom, and the right to think as one pleases is upheld by the American Constitution, this small group has been sent to a hospital for treatment. The treatment will consist of reading books and seeing newsreels approved by the authorities, so that they may be cured of their infection. The State Department announces: “The privations, and dangers suffered by prisoners of the Communists, may have made them susceptible to the Communist brain-washing techniques.”

Here is some peculiar reasoning. Are we to understand that the way to make people agree with and become permeated by one’s ideas is to make them suffer privations and dangers? If it is true, as we have been told by sundry journalists, that American prisoners of war were badly treated by the Chinese and Koreans then how could a “small group” become infected with their oppressors ideas? No one has heard of any Jew who suffered in concentration camps at the hands of Hitler, having to be "brainwashed” because he had become convinced that the Germans were a "Master race.” How then could prisoners subjected to "privations and dangers ” by their captors become convinced of the benefits to be derived from their ideas?

If it is because of the ill-treatment, are these returned prisoners to be even worse-treated so that they may become imbued with the benefits and joys of the "American way of life ”?

As if these unfortunate prisoners have not had enough, psychiatrists have been turned loose on them in order to "brainwash” them back to a belief in free enterprise, democracy, and Americanism. It has not yet occurred to these psychiatrists and “brainwash” experts that men who have been held prisoners for many years and whose subsequent release is dependent upon their change of attitude, will "brainwash” themselves so fast as to outdo any claim made by the makers of Persil soap.

If it were not so tragic this whole episode would make a good subject for an Aldwych farce!

S.A.

Blogger's Note:

The February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard carries an interesting article by 'Ivan' on Rowton Houses.

Churchill's damp squib (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May the 11th Sir Winston Churchill made his speech proposing that the leading Western Powers should have informal private meetings “at the highest level” with Russian representatives in order to explore the possibility of relaxing the international tension. He was not very confident that worthwhile results would be obtained but argued that the signs of change in Russia since Stalin’s death made it desirable to try.

“It might well be that no hard-and-fast agreements would be reached, but there might be a general feeling among those gathered together that they might do something better than tear the human race, including themselves, into bits.”

“I only say this might happen. 1 do not see why anyone should be frightened of having a try at it.

“At the worst, participation in the meeting would establish more intimate contacts. At the best we might have a generation of peace”

(Daily Herald, 12/5/53.) 

It was received with rapturous approval in the daily Press and among the Labour Party Opposition in the House of Commons. The Daily Herald, reporting its reception in the Commons wrote that "the Prime Minister was several times more loudly applauded by the Labour Party than by the Tories.” And on the following day Mr. Attlee, in his reply, stated that Churchill’s “general tone and approach” had been warmly welcomed on the Labour side. (Daily Herald 13/5/53.)

“His survey of world affairs, like Sir Winston Churchill's the day before, was constantly cheered by both sides."

Beyond the modest expectation that something might come from these personal contacts among the topline politicians there was very little in any of the speeches. But the world situation has become so acute and is generally viewed with so much despair that even a small grain of hope sufficed to rouse enthusiasm among the millions of potential cannon-fodder of the next world war.

How small the grounds for optimism was admitted or implied in the speeches themselves for it has all been tried already and in vain. Churchill recalled that, in addition to the personal contacts with Stalin that preceded the cold war, he had in 1945 sent a “peace appeal” telegram to Stalin urging the avoidance of abuse and counter abuse. He also now tentatively proposed a new treaty to guarantee Germany against attack by Russia and Russia against attack by Germany —a new “Locarno” treaty. But the Locarno Treaty of 1925, which guaranteed France and Germany in that way, was a dead letter. As the Daily Herald pointed out,

“When Hitler violated it by re-occupying and fortifying the Rhineland, no action was taken." (Daily Herald, 12/5/53.)

The keynote of the Churchill speech was the need for “realism”; gone are the high hopes of universal peace through United Nations, now, in effect, we should get back to the old diplomacy of trying to do a deal piecemeal on each issue as it arises. Or as Mr. Attlee put it:—

“ The Prime Minister, I think, made a very realistic speech and it is necessary to be realistic in foreign affairs. So many critics do not realise that all international relations are a subject for everyone and you cannot do just what you want to do."

But the significance of this confession of lack of faith was not explicitly put by Mr. Attlee though it was implied when he stated in the same speech:—

“It is desirable wherever possible, and in foreign affairs particularly, that government policy should have the support of all."

It is an admission by Mr. Attlee that the Labour Party accepts the view that there should be a “British” foreign policy confronting the National policies of all the other Powers. And as we live in a world of capitalist national groups all alike engaged in the cutthroat struggle for survival and expansion, this means acceptance of all the trade rivalries, contests for markets and colonies, the armaments and armed bases and the wars big and little that ensue as the contestants manoeuvre for advantage. Against this background all the aggressions of all the capitalist national groups are equally “realistic”; they only cease to be so when, through insufficient military force to sustain the aggression, they come to failure.

This “realism” is for the working class not a doctrine of hope or even of making the best of things but a policy of being passively submerged in the drift to war.

illusion of the Labour Party as of the Tories and Communists is to suppose that there are ways of running capitalism which will avoid war altogether or at least will confine the wars to some other parts of the world, leaving Britain immune. There is no such policy. If by realistic is meant recognition of the facts of the situation and avoidance of self-deception the only policy for the working class of all countries is to get rid of capitalism. While capitalism continues, in Britain, America, Russia and all the other countries great and small, it will continue to be true as Mr. Attlee said, that in foreign relations he cannot do just what he wants to do. Only Socialists want in foreign affairs the Socialist human relationships that they want at homeland only as the workers of all countries become Socialists will they have identical aims which will obviate all international conflict.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Passing Show: Hay while the Sun Shines (1953)

The Passing Show Column from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hay while the Sun Shines

Recent events in Indo-China have provided an interesting object-lesson in the game of power politics as it is played in the middle of the 20th century. The protagonists have been the French Government on the one hand and the native rulers of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia on the other.

The Viet-Minh forces first crossed the boundary separating Viet Nam, to which they had previously confined their operations, and Laos, on or about April 13th. One of the disturbing features, from the French point of view, was that a number of Laotians joined in the fighting on the side of the rebels. The king of Cambodia, which is the third of the Indo-Chinese States, lost no time in pointing the moral. On his way home from Paris on April 19th, he gave an interview in New York, and complained about the powers of the French over the Cambodian judiciary, armed forces and economy generally. Unless the French took immediate steps towards granting “more independence to Cambodia” there was a real danger that the Cambodians would go over to Viet-Minh, he said. The French ruling class was more hurt than aggrieved at this open threat, if we may believe M. Letoumeau, the Minister for the Associated States. On April 22nd he said that “I am bound to state, with all the responsibility which rests on me, that the independence of Cambodia has been granted fully and without reservation.” What, then, were French forces doing in Cambodia ? Why, they were there merely to “watch over the independence of the Cambodian people,” said M. Letoumeau.

The Imperialists Misunderstood

On the same day decrees were issued in Paris under which the French Commissioners in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia were to be called High Commissioners in future; this move was said by the French to confirm the independence granted to these States within the French Union. On April 27th the French Commander-in-Chief in Indo-China, General Salan, issued a statement that “ the Indo-Chinese war was not always well understood.” General Salan was convinced that, “when doubts in the minds of the people of Viet Nam and of Cambodia about the nature of the independence that France had granted to these nations were cleared up, the threat of terrorism and the effect of propaganda would lose their power ” But two days later the Cambodian Prime Minister, unimpressed by the fact that he would now be able to take his orders from a High Commissioner instead of from a mere Commissioner, said that if France did not grant the Cambodian demands, the people would answer the call of the rebels and Cambodia would be lost to the French. Meanwhile, the native ruling class in Viet Nam had been making similar representations to the French, and on May 8th M. Letoumeau gave an “assurance, in the name of the French Government, that no initiative will be taken and no agreement made by France in any question concerning Viet Nam, or generally affecting the future of Indo-China, without first consulting and obtaining the formal agreement of the Viet Namese Government.”

Danger Past

But when this promise was given, events had already taken a turn which made it unnecessary. On May 7th it was reported that the Viet-Minh forces had begun to withdraw. And on May 10th the French Government, without asking anyone’s advice, announced the devaluation of the Indo-Chinese piastre from 17 French francs to 10. This drew strong protests from the Government of Laos and from the Prime Minister of Viet Nam, who said that devaluation would dislocate the economy of the country. So far, no French official spokesman has come forward to explain how this unilateral decision is consonant with the independence that is supposed to have been granted to the Indo-Chinese States; the official line is simply that the French treaties with the Associated States allow the French Government to act by itself in matters of this kind. Now that the external danger has disappeared, at least temporarily, there is no longer any need to represent the native ruling circles in Indo-China as free from French control. But if the Viet-Minh forces advance again when the rainy season has ended, we may see the whole shabby play revived for a further performance.

New Jerseys

Mr. Donnelly, the Labour M.P. for Pembroke, is concerned at the rumours in the Labour Party that "public ownership” would in future take the form of the acquisition of majority shareholdings. He said recently that “the Labour Party rank and file will say, ‘This is not Socialism, it is State Capitalism, it is the same team in new jerseys '. " Mr. Donnelly is right to be disturbed. Clearly the buying up of the majority of shares in any business by the State is not Socialism, nor has it anything to do with Socialism. But what essential difference is there between this form of State Capitalism and the form known as nationalisation ? In the former, as in the latter, the shareholders would be compensated with interest-bearing State-bonds, the workers would be allowed no voice in the running of the industry and would continue to be exploited, and the first concern would still be production for profit, not for use. If Mr. Donnelly wishes to convince us that, in spite of everything, he is a Socialist, he will have to follow up this statement with another one denouncing nationalisation in the same terms.

To Keep Operations on an Economic Basis

The real nature of nationalisation seems to be understood more clearly in India, where the Government recently introduced a Bill to nationalise the airlines. As reported in the British press, the Minister for Communications, in his introductory speech, made no pretence that this would be an advance for “Socialism,” nor did he allege that the workers in the industry would derive any benefit from the move. He advocated the change solely on the ground that the impending need to replace Dakotas in the services run by Indian air companies by more modern and expensive aircraft would need resources beyond the command of individual companies. To employ these new aircraft, and thus keep operations on an economic basis, “would be possible only if the present large number of operating units were substantially reduced," he said. Thus State industry was presented in its true light as an amalgamation of independent companies made necessary by the demands of 20th-century capitalism, and carried out for precisely the same reasons that lead private capitalists to form corporations, monopolies and cartels on their own initiative.

Freedom for the Few

The granting of independence to India, Pakistan and Ceylon in the years immediately following the war was hailed by the Labour Party as a great step forward. Socialists were unable to see that the substitution of one ruling class for another would be of any advantage to the workers. It was obvious that capitalism would continue, as it must, until the great majority of workers understand and want Socialism. And Socialists believed that political and social injustices, which have their origin in and are inseparable from the private property systems of society (although they are modified from country to country by the conditions prevailing locally) would also continue. This view has, in fact, been confirmed.

Tamils and Untouchables

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has approved as being intra vires, legislation passed in Ceylon which has the effect of depriving of the vote a large part of the Indian Tamil community resident there. The particular member of the Tamil community whose case was before them had, in fact, been on the electoral register from 1935 until 1950, when the Act in question was passed. Indian official circles have expressed themselves strongly on the question of this legislation and its discrimination against one part of the community ; but in India itself, on April 19th, several members of the House of the People made bitter protests against the continuing practice of untouchability, which is said to affect between seventy and eighty million Indians. One member said: “Mr. Nehru speaks frequently of the condition of Indians in South Africa. But you find South Africa in every village and every nook and comer of India.”

These examples go to show that while a system of society based on private property flourishes, it is useless to try to remove the social injustice which stems from it by reforms like the grant of Dominion status.

Bent on our Destruction

Advertisements are often distasteful. But few advertisements can be so objectionable as advertisements for armaments. The usual technique is followed. First, the consumer must be persuaded that he wants something, and wants it badly; then he must be convinced that the particular company advertising can supply the want he has begun to feel better than its rivals. A large group of aircraft companies has recently been advertising its warplanes in a series of half-page adverts., called “In Defence of Freedom.” It begins by building up the idea that arms are essential, by references to "that wilful group of men bent on our destruction,” and by insisting that “we must build up our strength to the point where no one will dare to attack us.” After five paragraphs of this, the reader is treated to a list of the excellent fighters, bombers, anti-submarine planes and the other instruments of destruction which this particular group is able to supply to cash customers.

Alwyn Edgar

Mutual aid in adversity (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is frequently argued that, notwithstanding the validity of the Socialist case against Capitalism, Socialism is foredoomed to failure because of "human nature.” This last-ditch argument of capitalist apologists is based on the assumption that human nature is fundamentally anti-social and self-destructive. The absurdity of this notion is easily demonstrated, if only by observing that, were this true, the human species would have destroyed itself in the first generation.

The idea that it is only by the good offices of our “natural” leaders in maintaining a vast integrated structure of legal, police and military organisation that we are restrained from wholesale robbing, raping and murdering of our neighbours is one actively encouraged by the propaganda agencies of Capitalism. The Press, the cinema, radio and religions are all concerned in representing the coercive machinery of Capitalism as a set of benevolent institutions, exercising a firm but impartial discipline in the interest of society at large.

The Socialist argues that it is human nature to desire co-operation and social intercourse. It is the influence of and the reaction to the economic environment, based on oppression, insecurity and ruthless competition that forces men to behave in an apparently un-co-operative and anti-social manner—a manner entirely opposed to the fundamental promptings of human nature.

Occasionally, particularly at times of singular stress, when fellow creatures are subjected to exceptional privations and sufferings, human nature breaks through the brittle veneer of civilised behaviour and all thoughts of personal gain and advantage are submerged in a vast social effort to aid those in distress. The Capitalist spokesmen note these manifestations with considerable interest but are apparently, unable to interpret them in terms of their popular “human nature” theory. The Editor of the “Observer” (5.4.53) asks

“Why should it take an emergency to bring out the best in people? This was often asked during air raids in the war, and again at the time of the recent East Coast floods. The spontaneous response to the floods was felt to be remarkably different from the grumbling inertia often detected in post-war Britain, especially in the industrial field.”

It is evident that the Editor is disturbed at the apparent inconsistency of a people who will give of their best to help their fellows in an emergency, but who cannot be persuaded to show the same spirit in applying themselves to the relief of the emergency which threatens industrial profits. He continues

“When the floods broke, people showed exactly the virtues and the spirit needed in a modern industrial society. Machines and material had to be moved quickly to the coast, and so had a labour force of many thousands. There had to be a service of engineers and technicians, and a system of administrative control . .. the total organisation worked well, mainly because so many people worked willingly and in relative harmony.” 

Now, why should this be so? Why, for instance, should a gang of men work “with fortitude and persistence, under conditions of unrelieved hardship” near a spot where a short time ago "thousands of men struck work partly because they had been denied a tea-break”? The Editor supplies his own answers :— 

"The motive force was enthusiasm, sweeping away the inhibitions and protective restrictions which persist in many of our industries.”

“Nobody on the East Coast was afraid of working too hard or of working himself out of a job . . . nobody was worried by the thought that he was working to make profits for someone else”

“Part of the answer, perhaps, was given ... by a man working strenuously on the defences of Canvey Island—' I know that this job is. worth while '. " 

The Editor of the “Observer” is, of course, concerned with the problem of harnessing this enthusiasm and feeling of “worth-whileness” to the needs of industry, and he sees the answer in terms of industrial relations. With that problem we are not concerned, but what is of interest to us is the evidence of the fact, clearly given in this article, that when events temporarily push the daily struggle into the background, human nature compels men and women, in spite of a life-time under the “blow-you-Jack” rules of Capitalism, to co-operate and to enjoy co-operating for their mutual well-being.

". . .  once the tragic side of the disaster had receded, people scarcely bothered to disguise the fact that they were enjoying themselves. They seemed to welcome the chance to work without sparing themselves, in co-operation with others, and for the good of an obviously stricken community.”

And when Capitalism, with its tragic toll of war and poverty-stricken victims and its legacy of insecurity and misery has finally receded, people will still welcome the chance to work without sparing themselves, in cooperation with others, for the good of the Socialist community.

H.J.G.

Blogger's Note:

See this blogger's note from a previous post for background on why I think 'H.J.G.' was Howard Grew of Birmingham Branch.

A manager gets his cards (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Dear Sir,  it is with deep regret! ”

 

A man has written to the newspapers to make a complaint. His complaint is that his employers have given him the sack. A popular week-end paper gave it prominence, with the comment that “its the hidden tragedy that makes it worth the reading.”

As this is something happening to people every day, the reader may wonder what all the fuss is about The answer is that the complainant was not an ordinary man. By this, we do not mean that he had double joints, or second sight He was a works manager.

"If you are earning, as I was £1,500 or so a year, the men in the workshops envy you. They call themselves the under dogs. They think you've got it easy, ordering them about . . . But if the Company gets into difficulties, the first thing that comes under scrutiny is the higher salary list. . . They (the under dogs) have chances of several hundreds to my one of getting another post because there's only one works manager and 200 or more hands.” (News of the World, 5/4/53).

Our well-educated and expensively-trained manager who, of course, is not a mere “hand,” but a highly qualified “brain,” with technical qualifications, two degrees, and thirty years" administrative experience, has made some important discoveries.

“ Nobody wants a man of 53 whose job has collapsed under him,” he says.

And yet his own letter tells us that he knew what the end would be, “I had, in fact, spent the last twelve months in pruning the factory staff to the extent that if the firm ever got busy again it would be very short of skilled operatives.”

But even a common hand, without degrees, would know that “pruning” staff (giving other people the sack) is hardly likely to prove a permanent occupation, even in a large factory.

What would you do ? he asks, and answers, first you apply to your professional institute. No good, too old. Second, you go to the Special Appointments Bureau of the Ministry of Labour. No good, “things are quiet just now."" Meanwhile, your six months' cheque is being exhausted, you will have to live on your savings. Savings! You had to live up to the job, dress Well, run a car, entertain. What savings ?

Next, worry all your business friends. “ I should think 25 per cent. of British industry is bearing my name in mind,” he says sardonically. “Gone by now are the hopes of a job at the kind of salary I used to enjoy. Half the amount—I’d jump at it—go anywhere —do anything. Anyone want a secretary-stooge ? Or a butler-valet cum gardener-handyman, or a chauffeur?”

“The story of a man who climbed the ladder of success only to have it fall under him at the age of 53,” says the Editor’s blurb. A commonplace story, you think.

“I wonder what the remedy is for cases like mine ? Is it just rotten luck or is there something else wrong somewhere ? 1 cannot decide,” says our unhappy ex-staff pruner.

These are the most valuable lines of his long statement.

The first thing is the pathetic folly of imagining that anyone is immune from the hazards and blows of the profit system. There is no escape. There are no special cases. Whether a man is manager at £1,500, or messenger at £200, anybody employed by somebody, or something else, like Public Corporation, Company or Board, or just a “ guv’nor,” can be dis-employed (sacked) by those employers at will. Leering round the shoulder of every employed person, Dustman or Duke of Windsor, War-Lord, or Warehouseman is the malevolent demon called the Threat of the Sack, making the eternal dream of the employee “ security ” (Welfare State and all), a weary nightmare.

Employment is dependence and subservience of members of the property-less class upon the owners of wealth. Whether these workers are well-paid managers or low-paid domestic helots is irrelevant “Improvements” in the conditions of wage-takers, as our manager has now discovered, frequently turn out, in the finish, to be the reverse. The fact that a job carries £1,500 a year allows the employer to pick the youthful and energetic suitably-qualified man and burn him up quickly.

Small consolation for the employee, having gone for the big lot, to find it does not last. This is the simple explanation of the fabulous (?) salaries of actresses, athletic champions and boxers, whose fortunes and life may hang on one blow.

It also explains the basis of so-called “permanent” and “regular” employment, such as that of State employees, Civil Servants, Railwaymen, Teachers and Postmen as opposed to casual labour subject to rapid fluctuation in alternating trade movements (Dockers, Building, Snow-clearers, Canvassers).

So it is that the Postal Authorities, by offering “Establishment” in “permanent” employment, can take their pick of a larger bunch, without high wages. Thus the great “progress” of the workers under Capitalism is to find themselves raised higher up, only to be smashed harder down.

Having got his motor-driver’s or gardener’s job (and he will be by no means the first degree’d man to sweep the streets), our manager must now, at 53, start a stiff course in a new tricky subject, Marxian economics. There he will find the answer to his questions, and stop wondering.

He will read in Volume I of “Capital” these pregnant lines

“Just as little as better clothing, food and treatment, and a larger allowance do away with the exploitation of the slave so little do they set aside that of the wageworker. A rise in the price of labour as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of tension of it.” (“Capital" Page 127. Dawson Edition).

Socialists work to break this chain of gold, replacing even well-paid employment by voluntary cooperative free labour.

Horatio.

Snobbery (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you want a smart and attractive “mother” for the evening ? If so, there is a London model agency which will supply you with “escorts for all occasions”; and this includes “mothers” as chaperons—at two guineas a night! Or would you like to adopt an elephant at the Zoo for a pound a week ? You can’t take the elephant home with you, but you can have your name inscribed on the cage. Perhaps you would like your favourite cigarettes monogramed for 24s. a hundred; or maybe, you’d like to take lessons at a swank dancing salon, in court manners—how to curtsy and open and shut doors in the correct way. Cost? Anything from a guinea upwards. Remember, you might meet a real live duke one day, and if you haven’t learnt to curtsy the right way you will be in the cart. You can also hire a butler for an evening’s booze-up (sorry, cocktail party); and if you are going to have dinner you can hire a cook, a kitchen full of waiters and flunkeys—and all the silver and gold plate. . . .

These are just a few of the things that our “betters ” and aspiring betters get up to, according to The Weekly Overseas Mail (April 23rd-27th, 1953). But it is not only the rich and not-so-rich who are smitten by this disease of snobbery. How many workers are there living in sweet suburbia who spend their lives trying to “keep up with the Joneses”? How many clerks and white-collar workers, earning about eight or nine pounds a week, are there who pretend that they belong to the “middle-class”? How many workers are there with T.V. aerials above “their” houses—and no television sets inside ? How many young fellows kid their girl friends that they have got “good” jobs, and then have to admit, after they are married, that their jobs are not so good, after all ? How many young couples are there who say that they don’t like kids, but are not prepared to admit that they cannot afford to have children ?

The world of to-day is a world of make-believe. Where the cash nexus and “getting on” is the “thing,” both workers and capitalists are forced to put on a show; where the vast majority of mankind live in perpetual poverty, insecurity, worry—yes, and loneliness—people are forced to pretend that things are not so bad as they are. If you are wealthy, but your relations or friends are wealthier, then you have to hire a butler, a cook and flunkeys—and the gold plate, for the evening party; if you are a worker you have to pretend you’ve got a television set or you own a house—even if its mortgaged to a building society.

Whilst this system—which we in the Socialist Party call capitalism—continues, people, both rich and poor, will continue this snobbery, pretence and make-believe. Unfortunately, most people do not yet see that only by getting rid of the existing social system and replacing it by a sane one, based on cooperation, equality and common ownership, will they not only get rid of the evils of poverty and insecurity, but also that of snobbery and pretence.

Peter E. Newell

Holding the baby (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist class own the means and instruments for producing society’s needs. The working class must sell their ability to work to the capitalist class for wages which are often not sufficient to keep them according to the conventional standard of living. Many working-class women—unmarried mothers, widowed and deserted mothers, mothers whose husbands are disabled or whose husbands haven’t a large enough wage to support the family, are forced to take a job to augment their income and send their children to day nurseries.

Remarking on such cases, the “Economist” (April 4th, 1953), wrote :—

"The cost per head of keeping a child in a day nursery varies from thirty-five shillings a week to five pounds, according to staffing ratios and amenities. The average wage of adult working women is just under four pounds ten shillings a week. As a matter of plain arithmetic, this means that full cost of the productive services of a working woman who sends her children to a day nursery may easily be both her actual wage, paid by the employer, and an equal amount paid through the local authority that looks after her children. Where several children must be cared for, the full cost may be several times the value of the product—a wildly uneconomical transaction. Where nursery costs are highest it would pay, hands down, to give the mother of two or more children, her full market wage, plus a substantial bonus, simply to mind her babies at home. That normally gratuitous job turns out, when actually priced on the market, to be more valuable than most other occupations open to those doing it."

"This hard headed arithmetical conclusion does not translate easily into practical policy. Not even the wildest speculations of welfare Utopians have included a universal payment to mothers of the market value of their work as child-minders. There might be a case for making such payments, as an alternative to the provision of day nurseries, only to those women who would suffer special hardships if they could not go out to work—to widowed or deserted or unmarried mothers, or to wives of disabled husbands. But an economic payment to such people would make them better off than many normal wives dependent on a breadwinner’s earnings.

"The problem must in fact continue to be fudged rather than solved."

No doubt this appears a very ridiculous situation to the “Economist,” the capitalist class and those who think like them—in terms of exchange value and profit and loss. But the capitalist class are not likely to endorse the obvious solution. Free the working class from the need to sell their labour power to live—a job that can only be done by the workers themselves—by making the means and instrument of production the common property of all.

J.T.

"The trouble with workers . . . " (1953)

Cartoon from the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard