Forty Wasted Years: Three Labour Leaders Look Back (1934)

From the May 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Three men well on in years, each of whom has spent, a lifetime in the Labour Party and Independent Labour Party, have been looking back at the work those parties have done, and asking themselves whether it was good. Two of them, Lord Snowden and Mr. George Lansbury, have risen from obscurity to become Ministers of the Crown. The third, Mr. J. T. Abbott, has been active and influential in the I.L.P., of which he was for many years organiser. They are all three the possessors of qualities which would have made them an asset to any movement which had their undivided allegiance. They have all had their hour of triumph. Now they are all three either openly alienated from the movements they helped to form or putting forward a hostile policy. Lord Snowden, after serving in two Labour Governments, and being largely instrumental in swinging over working-class votes to the National Government which rose on the wreckage of the last Labour Government, soon left the National Government also and is now isolated from every organised movement, a lonely figure in the House of Lords. He tells us (John Bull, April 21st) that the “ best Government I have known" was a Liberal Government. "The years 1906 to 1914 were productive of a larger output of beneficial legislation than in any similar period in our history. ... I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Government of 1906 contained a larger number of able men than any Government I have known."

Mr. J. T. Abbott, after forty years in the I.L.P., finds himself compelled to resign, and is already outside the Labour Party. Late in life he must face the heartbreaking task of beginning all over again. In 1893 it was the Independent Labour Party; in 1934, he says, it is necessary to form an Independent Socialist Party! He partly realises now how wrong and useless the old effort was, and must be full of regret that he did not learn the lesson many years earlier.

Lastly there is Mr. George Lansbury, who for many weeks past has been laid up with a broken thigh. Pondering over the activities of his party he confesses (Clarion, April 14th and 21st) that he has had to throw over many views he has held for years. He sees now the meaningless nature of reforms—“ like baling out the ocean with a tea-spoon." He admits that some of his present views may conflict with Labour Party policy, but nevertheless declares against compromise, against fighting elections on any issue but Socialism, and against any more alliances with the Liberals. He states as clearly as he knows how that the only solution is common ownership and democratic control of the means of life. He admits that in saying these things he may be contradicting what he has been saying before. 

The significance of this declaration is not that it commits the Labour Party, of which Mr. Lansbury is leader—in that quarter it will be passed over and forgotten in a few weeks—nor that it means a deep and permanent change of attitude on his part. When he finds that the whole life of the Labour Party depends on a continuance of reform and compromise, as it does, he will either have to toe the line or he will be gradually superseded. It is almost a certainty that when he recovers his health he will again be absorbed in the day-to-day work of vote-catching and reformism and his sick-bed thoughts will be forgotten by him as by others. Already there are renewed talks of a Liberal-Labour alliance, which the Clarion receives sympathetically.

Nevertheless, the confession of past errors, and Lansbury's attempt to work out a new and different “profession of faith" has a significance. It shows, as the S.P.G.B. has claimed from its formation, that serious study of the working-class position and of the results of reformist activities cannot logically lead to any other conclusions than those we have been proclaiming high and low for thirty years. In spite of all the weight of influence against his appreciating these truths, Mr. Lansbury has been unable honestly to escape agreeing with at least some of them.

It is not a pleasant thought, either for the three chief actors or for their admirers, that their words and actions should testify to the complete and irretrievable failure of the Labour Party and I.L.P. For the working class, however, there is no need for despair. The forces and experiences which in the eyes of those who think have robbed the Labour Party of every vestige of a plausible case for reformism, have given the Socialist movement confidence and courage based on the confirmation that our case is sound and unanswerable.

As belief in Labourism declines, Socialism advances.

Edgar Hardcastle

Take a Tip From Me? (2016)

From the April 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

You tip the waiter but not the cleaner, the taxi driver but not the bus driver. Should you tip in a restaurant but not in a pub? Social customs, like tipping, differ from country to country, from situation to situation and change over time. Here, Ian Parkin explores the origins of tipping, its geographical and social nuances, and suggests its subservient nature is an anachronism.

It has filled the pages of countless tourist guides and been a topic of social etiquette for centuries. To tip or not to tip: how much to tip and who to tip? Recent news reports of high street companies regarding tips as profit have made the issue even more divisive.

Whenever I go to a restaurant, whether it is with friends, family or loved ones, we always end up disagreeing about tipping.

I recently booked a table at a restaurant and arriving early was shown to the bar. The barman serving offered, or should I say, persuaded me to add the cost of the drinks to my table bill. I wondered why since I was offering cash. The penny dropped when the bill arrived: it was a great deal more once taxes and gratuities were added.

There is the legal, government-imposed 20 percent Value Added Tax and a 12 percent service charge, which, I appreciate, is not obligatory. You can ask for it to be removed but must suffer the social embarrassment that this request involves. But the expenditure does not stop there.

The attending staff ask: ‘Was everything okay for you with your meal and the service?’ Which very much feels like a strong hint for: ‘Don’t forget my tip?’ When this is all added up, 12 percent service, a customary tip of at least 10 percent along with the 20 percent VAT: my bill has rocketed by a whopping 42 percent – almost half the total price.

On another occasion, when making a reservation at a different restaurant, I was informed that the restaurant levies a 10 percent music charge for the entertainment provided. In small print at the bottom of their menu it also states that a 12 percent service charge would be added to the final bill, and, true to form, the staff were still angling for their tip.

Furthermore, I am given to understand that 10 percent is increasingly being considered as a derisory gratuity. In the USA between 15 percent and 20 percent is now the threshold of social acceptability, if you don’t want to be branded a ‘Canadian’ (the insulting term for a mean tipper).

So, to tip or not to tip then, that is the question. It confronts us in so many social situations these days. But, before I attempt to offer an opinion on the subject, there are a number of factors to consider; not least the historical origins, the cultural, social and economic traditions and, not to forget, the political ramifications.

It is generally believed that the custom of tipping began in the taverns of England in the 17th century. Patrons would offer their waiter or server some money, ‘To Insure Prompt Service’, making the acronym a ‘tip’. The practice seems to have quickly caught on and soon spread among the taverns, pubs and restaurants of the time.

Similarly, guests who stayed in private homes around this time would pay monies to the servants as a gift; these gifts were known as ‘vails’. However the practice of vails predates tipping and as far back as the 16th century and earlier, during feudal times, lords and ladies who travelled the dirt roads of England would give a coin to longbowmen to ensure their safety of passage.

One popular misconception is that tipping started in the USA since they are the society that promotes and champions tipping more than any other. In fact, until the early 20th century, Americans viewed tipping as inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian, democratic society and at variance with the principles of the Founding Fathers.

The US, unlike Europe, had no aristocratic tradition but was founded on the constitutional principle that ‘all men are born equal’. The aftermath of the Civil War saw wealthy Americans beginning to travel to Europe in significant numbers, and returning home to the States they brought the tip tradition with them to demonstrate their status and sophistication as well-heeled and well-travelled.

And, as tipping spread, like ‘evil insects and weeds’ according to a New York Times report in 1897, many thought it was incompatible with America’s democratic ideals. ‘Tipping, and the aristocratic idea it exemplifies,’ commentators said, ‘is what we left Europe to escape.’

Opposition to tipping was not limited to the media and, in 1904; the Anti-Tipping Society of America sprang up in Georgia. 100,000 members signed pledges not to tip anyone for a year. Leagues of travelling salesmen opposed the tip, as did most labour unions. In 1909 Washington became the first of six states to pass an anti-tipping law.

William Scott wrote a stinging diatribe against the practice in his book, The Itching Palm. In it he condemns the policy of paying for a service twice – ’once to the employer and again to the employee’. He criticises tipping as ‘democracy’s mortal foe’ that creates ‘a servile attitude for a fee’.

‘In the American democracy,’ Scott cautioned, ‘to be servile is incompatible with citizenship’.  ‘Every tip given in the United States is a blow at our experiment in democracy. The custom announces to the world… that we do not believe practically that ‘all men are created equal’. Unless a waiter can be a gentleman, democracy is a failure. If any form of service is menial, democracy is a failure. Those Americans who dislike self-respect in servants are undesirable citizens; they belong in an aristocracy.’

Scott continues: ‘If tipping is un-American, some day, somehow, it will be uprooted like African slavery.’

One periodical of the same era deplored tipping for creating a class of workers who relied on 'fawning for favours'.

But hostility to tipping was not limited to those previously mentioned. Some proprietors also regarded tips as equivalent to bribing an employee to do something that was otherwise forbidden, such as tipping a waiter to get a larger portion of food.

And more broadly in society, tips, gratuities and gifts were viewed pejoratively; to curry favour, secure a contract, to win a bid or gain an unfair advantage.

Despite this opposition, while diners and servers alike haven’t stopped grumbling since about the system of tipping, there was no serious legislative effort to end the practice.

Prohibition, when introduced in 1919, made the sale of alcohol illegal and had a huge impact on hotels and restaurants which lost a major revenue stream. The resulting financial pressure converted proprietors to welcome tipping as a way of supplementing employee wages. Contrary to popular belief, tipping did not necessarily arise because of servers' low wages – the waiter profession was relatively well paid in the era when tipping became institutionalised. And tipping persisted.

The new laws rarely were enforced, and when they were, they did not hold up in court. By 1926, every anti-tipping law had been repealed.

Ultimately, even those who, in principle opposed the practice found themselves unable to stiff their servers. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labour and a leading figure of the anti-tipping movement, admitted that he ‘followed the usual custom of giving tips’.

In Britain after the Second World War, the period became known as the post-war consensus (1945 -1979) during which time both the Conservative and the Labour shared common ground on policy.

Nationalised Industries such as the then General Post Office (GPO) strongly discouraged their staff from accepting gratuities and local authority workers such as refuse collection had ‘no gratuities’ marked on their vehicles.

The process of tipping itself is whimsical and ambiguous. The people that tip tend to have golden rules about who to tip that, in fact, do not stand up to scrutiny when analysed. People tip when travelling. They tend to tip taxicab drivers, who are in fact self-employed, but they do not tip a bus driver, a train driver or an airline pilot.

People who tip when dining, tip a waiter or waitress in a restaurant but not in a café, coffee shop or an airline steward. Furthermore, they do not leave tips for the kitchen or cleaning staff that contributed towards them enjoying their evening.

Tipping is therefore both capricious and illogical and engenders a ‘doff the cap’ mentality. However, on a positive note, it does afford the individual the opportunity to express their appreciation for a job well done. But it should of course be the norm that a job is well done and not the exception.

Tipping is an anomaly and not all tips get to be kept by the intended recipient. When a tip is included in a credit card payment, there is no guarantee that the person it was intended for will receive it and furthermore they have no right to it.

Many establishments operate a ‘Tronc system’ under which all tips are collected by the Troncmaster, the monies are then pooled and shared between all employees, both front of house and back room staff.

Different countries across the world have very different attitudes to tipping. Throughout Europe tipping is not expected, although the bill is often rounded up or some small change left, as in Spain. In France tipping is not expected but a service charge is added to the bill. In China, Hong Kong and Singapore it is not expected except in certain situations.

I am reliably informed that New Zealand once displayed a sign in their airport arrivals lounge to the effect that: ‘Our people are paid good wages and there is no need for tipping’. And in Japan I understand that tipping is rarely seen and any direct offer of money is viewed as rude.

In Britain there is a legal minimum wage in place to ensure that people do not rely on the ‘grace and favour’ of a no-wage or low-wage economy, where tips are often used to make up wages.

Tom Bishop, head of travel insurance at Direct Line said: ‘Our laws prevent restaurants in Britain from using tips to up salaries, meaning that there is not an established tipping culture in the UK.’

It can be argued that we should not support tipping but strive for increases to minimum wages and to lessen the disparity of wealth. Furthermore, it is difficult to support Fay Maschler’s idea of a legally-enforced service charge (Evening Standard  28 August 2015). Restaurants should pay their staff realistic, living wages. Whether a tip or service charge is expected or legally imposed to supplement low wages; it is in fact exploitation of both staff and customers.

Tipping is an anachronism that finds its roots in class-based society and encourages staff to be subservient. All the time that we find ourselves living in the money-orientated, capitalist system we should reject the notion of tipping and gratuities in favour of increased wages and a more egalitarian society.

The realisation of a socialist system would of course render the whole process of capitalism as a social economic system redundant – and tipping with it.

Ian Parkin

Why they want more unemployed! (1966)

From the November 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

No one would deny that the theories of the late Lord Keynes had a big influence on the views of economists, the programmes of political parties and the policies of governments and their financial institutions. For 30 years they were nearly all Keynesians, or so intiminated by the fashion that they would not or could not challenge it—all except those like the Socialist Party of Gt. Britain who remained convinced that the very different approach of Karl Marx was the sound one.

More recently Keynes has been more and more criticised by those who first followed him and the ironical thing is that just as unemployment gave Keynes his opportunity so unemployment, though in an inverted sense, is proving his undoing.

Keynes was studying and writing in a period of heavy and prolonged depression. He, like many other observers of capitalism, thought it absurd that people should be in want while there were idle men and idle machines waiting to be used. He also saw how politically dangerous it was. Through inability to abolish or seriously reduce unemployment governments were thrown out, political parties undermined and reputations ruined and, as he saw it, this situation helped to encourage the rise of dictatorship exploiting discontent and bent on war.

He argued that it was possible for governments to have positive policies for increasing production and maintaining more or less full employment, and under his influence it has become normal for the political parties, Liberal, Labour, Tory and Communist, to proclaim “full employment” as a priority aim.

Keynes was well aware of the way capitalism had, for a century or more, gone through successive phases of boom, crisis, depression and then boom again. What in effect he claimed was that if a government had full information of what was going on in industry and marketing it could always find the appropriate action to take to avoid all but minor fluctuations: in effect it was a claim that boom conditions could be made permanent.

To many admirers of Keynes the course of events, particularly after the Second World War, seemed to be positive proof that Keynes was right in theory and that his theories were politically practicable. They pointed to the generally low level of unemployment in Britain and to the way particular crises were handled, apparently with success.

The “proof’ however, is a hollow one. In the first place low unemployment has not been continuous even in Britain; it reached over 900,000 early in 1963 and no one could say that that was full employment: In many countries very heavy unemployment has gone on for prolonged periods: indeed according to the latest annual report of the International Monetary Fund (Daily Mail, 6 September)

virtually all industrial countries have been enjoying high levels of employment for the first time since the war.

And the I.M.F. is, as the Mail points out, gloomy about the future of world trade.

It is also unproved that the relatively high post-war levels of employment have been due to the Keynesian policies of governments. As Enoch Powell has pointed out (with reference to governments of his own Tory Party) the evidence is that events took their normal course irrespective of government policy: the setbacks endured for a while and disappeared just as they would have done anyway.

And a prominent American Keynesian, Professor Hansen, argues in his book, A Guide to Keynes: “full employment was, however, primarily the result of the war and post-war developments, not of conscious policy.” He was referring to the early post-war years, but some of the developments he had in mind have continued and have been added to by the vast industrialisation schemes in the new countries of Africa and Asia.

But in many countries, especially in Britain, doubts about Keynes have sprung not from heavy unemployment but from the problems of full employment and in a way that is proving disastrous for the Labour government.

The Labour Party has always claimed to have a special interest in avoiding unemployment. They believed that it ought not to exist and need not exist. For the 1959 election, when the late Hugh Gaitskell was party leader, they published a glossy pamphlet The Future Labour Offers You, which contained a scathing criticism of the Tories.

   The great ideals of jobs for all first became a peace-time reality under the 1945 Labour Government Under the Tories fear of the sack has returned. Tory ministers have now had to admit publicly that they deliberately caused the sharp increase in unemployment. In the Tory view, unemployment is the remedy for soaring prices.
    Labour totally rejects the repugnant idea that the nation's economic troubles can only be cured by throwing people out of work. The first objective of the Labour Government will be to restore full employment and to preserve full employment. This is the prime purpose of our plan for controlled expansion.

With the newspapers now full of reports of the thousands of men and women being declared redundant or put on short time, as a result of the government’s credit squeeze and other measures, the Selective Employment Tax designed to induce employers to get rid of workers in the service industries and government statements that they expect their policy of “redeployment” to produce not more than 450,000 unemployed it is not necessary to labour the point that Gaitskell’s attack on the Tories has been a boomerang.

But a wider question is involved. The Keynesians (and the Prime Minister) had habitually scoffed at the Marxian view of the way capitalism works, especially Marx’s view that capitalism needs unemployment, “an industrial reserve army.”

In the past, when some Tories and spokesmen for the employers declared that capitalism needed more unemployed, the Labour Party called it a natural exhibition of contempt for the workers. Now, when Sir Gordon Newton, Editor of the Financial Times, writing in the Director (August, 1966) declares, “I doubt myself whether anything which does not produce a level of unemployment of two per cent—will be adequate,” he is but echoing the Labour Prime Minister.

Marx wrote about unemployment in Capital, Volume I (chapter XXV) and argued that unemployment is, “a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production." It helps of course to keep down wages and to make the workers in employment work harder than they would if not threatened with unemployment. Also, as Marx put it, the capitalist, in order to take advantage of the sudden opening up of new markets, must have “the possibility of throwing great masses of men suddenly on the decisive points without injury to the scale of production in other spheres.”

Observing the agitated “policies” of the Labour Government to “redeploy” labour so that exporters shall be able to get the men they need to take advantage of foreign markets it is obvious that they are trying to grapple with exactly the kind of situation Marx described—and the only way they can find to do it is, in the last resort, nothing more than the traditional, capitalist way. Those who believed they could run capitalism without unemployment end up by trying to create some.

Marx was right after all, and the moral for the workers is not more delving into Keynes (who did not even claim to have the answer to this particular problem) but to concern themselves with getting rid of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The wages system (1966)

From the October 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The basic fact of social life today is the ownership of the materials and instruments of production by a small class. The rest of us depend on this class for a living. To live we have to work for those who own. The places where we work are not ours; nor is what we produce. We are needed by the owners because we can work. The ability to work is, to all intents and purposes, our only asset. We cannot use this ourselves of course since we have no materials or instruments of production. But it is of use to those who do own the places of work. Without it their factories, farms, mines and mills cannot be operated. For selling our ability to work to these people we are paid a price, variously called a wage or salary.

Wages (salary is just a fancy name in keeping with a silly distinction among us) are thus a price—the price of human energy. While potatoes are sold by weight and petrol by volume human energy is sold by time. Houseroom too is sold by time. The buyer pays for the use of some rooms for, say, a week. The buyer of human energy likewise pays for its use for a certain time, perhaps an hour, week, month, year or an even longer period.

We live, then, by selling our energies. Our standard of living depends on the size of our wage packet or salary cheque. It is thus worth finding out what it is that fixes the price of what we sell.

After working, that is using up our energies, we are tired. Before we can work again we must recover. This is a biological process for which we need food, clothing and shelter. The cost of living is the cost of keeping ourselves in efficient working order. It is the sum of the costs of buying the food, clothing and shelter we must have to be in a fit state to work. There is also the cost of keeping a family. A man can only work for so many years. The cost of keeping a family is like the depreciation fund for a machine. With this fund a new machine can be bought when the old one is worn out. So our children replace us when we are worn out.

What we can produce in a week is worth much more than it costs to create our energies for a week. This, of course, is why those who own the instruments of production buy our energies. The difference between what we cost and what we make is the source of their income.

But, are there not greater differences between the wages of workers; some get only £10 a week while others get £50? Why is this? Just as there are various qualities of apples so there are various types of human energy. Some of the many different kinds of human energy are more costly to create and keep than others. So they tend to sell at a higher price. Any cost of training, that is of improving the quality of the human energy, increases the value of that energy.

But, over time, don’t the wages of workers of the same skill vary? This is true. As with other things that are bought and sold the price of human energy varies with supply and demand. These changes take place around the value of the particular type of human energy.

There is, however, one peculiar feature of wages that doesn’t apply to other prices. The demand for human energy depends on the prospect of profits. If the owners don't think they can sell what we produce at a profit they won’t employ us. If, on the other hand, they think the chances of profits are good there will be a strong demand for workers, which will tend to raise wages. But because profits are made out of our unpaid work there is a limit to the level to which wages can rise. If wages rise too high profits are threatened and the demand for workers falls off. This is why the ups and downs of wages coincide with those of the business cycle.

The influences given so far—cost of living, training, the business cycle—might suggest that the general level of wages is fixed by iron laws over which we have no control. These influences are decisive but they are not the only ones at work. We can affect our standard of living in a small way by union, by joining with others to try to raise wages and get better conditions of work.

In fact, the system under which we live forces us to do this. It makes us struggle over the price of our energies. But this struggle is not just a dispute over a price or a contract of sale. It is far more than this. It is part of the struggle which is going on all the time, between those who own and those who work, over the division of wealth. Trade unions, employers’ organisations, collective bargaining, strikes, States of Emergency, wage freezes and the like are expressions of this struggle over how much of the wealth that is and has been produced should go to each class. Trade unions are one of our weapons in this class struggle. Persistent trade union action is necessary to keep a given standard of living and, when the unions are used as such, they have the full support of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Just as our unions are weapons we can use in the class struggle so the state machine which the owners now control is one of the weapons they can use. The present wage freeze will show this. The power of the state is being used to counter the pressure of the unions.

Economic union is not our only weapon in the class struggle. The vote could be a far more powerful one. For when we see through the present system we can use the vote to send our delegates to take control of the state. We can then use it in our interests to force the owners to hand over the materials and instruments of production to the democratic control of the whole community.

The wages system is a system that lowers our working ability to the level of mere things bought and sold. It is a system that shows up our dependence on others to live. It is a system that deprives us of what we, together, produce. But it needn’t last for ever.

When once the materials and instruments of production belong in common to and are democratically controlled by everybody, then classes will have been abolished. With this will go also the buying and selling of human energy. All will be socially equal. All will have free access to the things they need to live and enjoy life. The wages system will be replaced by the free co-operative work of everyone to make what people need, as individuals and as a community.

Adam Buick

A Few Words on Fascism (1934)

Editorial from the April 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The cause of the triumph of the groups that have gone under the name of “Socialist” in the years immediately following the war, and the reason they failed to hold the support of the people afterwards, has not yet been properly appreciated by those who aspire to lead the labour movement. Labour leaders of one kind or another attribute their declining influence to what they look upon as a peculiar, powerful and savage bogeyman, “Fascism,” and do not ask themselves what Fascism really is and why it claims adherents so rapidly even among working men. The savagery attributed to the various Fascist movements is by no means new, it has been a common characteristic of the social struggle for ages and is not a particular and pernicious post-war growth.

Capitalism was born and flourished on brutality, both at home and abroad. As far as England is concerned, what a record of brutality is contained in the history of the treatment of its factory and agricultural slaves during the last century, of the treatment of the Irish peasant, the African and the Hindu. What recent proceedings have surpassed in brutality the wiping out of the Communards in France sixty-three years ago ?

Apart from other considerations the point to be kept in mind is that all privileged classes, from the beginning of their existence in the distant past, fight savagely against all attempts that they believe will encroach upon their privileged position and, where the means are available, they will continue to do so. In modern times the privileged groups are neither capable enough nor numerous enough to do the work of suppression themselves and  so they beguile sections of the oppressed into the belief that the interests of all are identical with the continuance of privilege and they endeavour to weaken the movement for change by setting other sections at loggerheads.

Such being the position the only thing that will combat capitalist movements is clearness of understanding—the spread of knowledge among the workers. Temporary expedients that give a movement size without solidity only raise false hopes and leave the way open for the inevitable collapse. The desertion by workers from the labour parties of England, Italy and Germany was, to a great extent, due to the compromising policies of those parties. On the other hand, had those parties been soundly based, had compromise been excluded, the parties in question would have been smaller, but solid; they would have raised no false hopes nor brought to many the despair they have done.

While parties claiming to be Socialist ally themselves with capitalist groups to gain temporary ends, working men will not draw a line of fundamental distinction between any of the groups that solicit their support. While their suffrages are asked for in support of reforms that do not make any fundamental difference in their social position, the workers naturally tend to support the group that makes the most enticing promises, whatever be the label—in fact, the newer the label the better. Those who do not fulfil their promises are temporarily deserted. The capitalists know this quite well, hence their misuse of the term "Socialist” so much lately.

That is all there is to it at the bottom, and Fascism is no more permanent than the other reform movements that have been used to stave off the inevitable abolition of capitalism.

Whatever happened to Free Trade? (2003)

From the January 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the illusions that modern capitalist governments like to foster is that they are in favour of “free trade”. Mr Bush, Mr Blair and just about every political leader in Western European countries, thunder on about its wondrous benefits. They pose as champions of liberalisation, of tariff busting and global freedom of trade. The reality is somewhat different.

“The past year has been lousy for free trade. The Americans have ratcheted up farm subsidies and slapped new import duties on foreign steel. A European summit made little progress towards reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP); indeed, the French managed to secure agreement to preserve CAP spending at present levels. Poor countries are despairing over the outlook for the Doha round of trade negotiations, which was intended to benefit them. Just this week, negotiations between rich and poor countries over access to patented drugs through “compulsory licensing”, a big aim of poor countries, stalled” Economist, 30 November.

So how do we explain this apparent contradiction? The politicians are all for anti-protectionism and yet at the same time we get more and more trade barriers, more trade quotas and more restrictions on imports According to Mr Bush's trade representative Robert Zoellick all this can be changed. He is a man with a plan and he states his plan in a very concrete fashion.

By 2010, WTO members would reduce all tariffs to below 8 per cent, and scrap altogether those that are now less than 5 per cent. By 2015, all tariffs on manufactured goods would be reduced to zero. Splendid free trade rhetoric you may think; but of course it is all about manufactured goods. Mr Bush's trade representative remains strangely silent about the farming industry. For a very good reason.

“Sadly absent from the plan is any more discussion of farm goods, which form the basis of the poorest countries economics. Admittedly in July Mr Zoellick put forward a proposal to scrap many farm subsidies, but there is little sign that American farmers will support this. Rich countries' tariffs on factory goods are already low – typically less than 5 per cent – while their subsidies and tariffs on farm goods are in general far higher.”

So let us get this quite clear. Some members of the owning class, whose wealth is dependent on the exploitation of a highly skilled industrial work force, are in favour of free trade in such goods that they can sell cheaper than their competitors, but opposed to free trade when they fear that their competitors may undersell them. Politicians are just so many hired hands, hired to be in favour of free trade one minute and opposed to “dumpimg” the next, depending on their master's whim.

As a member of the only useful class in society – the working class, don't you think it is time to get rid of your exploiters and their apologists?

Richard Donnelly

The myth of "the nation" (1997)

Editorial from the August 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard

How is one nation distinguished from another?

What makes somebody a member of one nation and somebody else a member of another? Is it the language they speak? Their culture? Where they live? Where they were born? Where their parents were born? Nobody has even been able to come up with a coherent definition, certainly not the political commentators and sports journalists who are always mouthing the word.

The nearest sensible definition is that a nation is made up of those who are either the subjects of some already-existing state or the future subjects of a state that some political group wants to set up. In other words, that it is an artificial, political division imposed on people by the fact that under capitalism those who own and control the worlds resources are organised geographically into separate states.

Far from the nation being a pre-existing grouping which finds expression in a separate state, it is the other way round. It is the various states into which the world is artificially divided that create nations, by inculcating into their subjects the idea that they are a separate human grouping with interests separate from those of the rest of humanity. Nationalism is the ideology of ruling classes, actual or would-be.

Under capitalism there are indeed groups which do have separate interests: precisely the ruling classes which control these states. But this doesn’t apply to us, the subjects of these various states. A worker in Britain or India or Russia or South Africa does not have a separate interest from workers in France or Pakistan or Germany or Argentina or anywhere else.

The true situation is that each so-called nation-state is divided into those who own and control the means of production (the ruling class) and those who don’t and have to work for them (the rest of us). While different ruling classes do have separate interests—which lead them to equip their states with the most destructive weapons they can afford and whose clashes of interest over raw materials, markets, trade routes and investment outlets are the cause of modern war—we, the workers, do not.

We are the international working class and we have a common interest. To unite against ruling classes everywhere and to establish a world community based on the Earth s resources being the common heritage of all humanity where every human being will no longer be a subject of one or other artificial state but where, wherever we live or work or whatever our language or culture, we will all be citizens of a united world.

I'm not interested in politics (1966)

A Short Story from the September 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The inexperienced young speaker had been on the Socialist Party platform for about ten minutes. Most of that time had been spent talking to thin air, and he was becoming disheartened. In desperation he called out to someone of about the same age who was passing by.

“Excuse me, do you mind coming over here and chatting for a bit? I’m getting rather lonely up here. 1 shan’t keep you long—I only want to talk to you till I’ve got an audience, anyway.” Surprisingly, the passer-by obliged.

"Who's this mob you're speaking for?” he asked.

"The Socialist Party of Great Britain,” replied the speaker, “not to be confused with cheap imitations.”

“Well, you're wasting your time with me. I'm not interested in politics.”

“That’s O.K. Neither am I.”

“What are you doing up there, then?”

“I’ll explain. I’m up here because I happen to think life’s pretty scabby.”

"You sound very bitter. What makes you say that?" 

“Well, certain things I think we might agree about. Work’s the biggest moan for a start. I don’t suppose I’ve been going to work any longer than you, but I'm fed up already with the way my life revolves around it. 

"Up we get at some uncivilised hour when the alarm clock goes off, and after that the whole day is regulated. Some stuffy office till the best hours of the day arc gone—in winter you don’t even see daylight except through the window. I spend the majority of my waking hours doing something I'm not interested in, and my own life can only begin in the few hours when I’m not at my job. Even then my activities are limited because I'm constantly aware that I must be up in time to go back to work the following day.

“And that’s not the worst of it. You and I are going to have to do this five days a week, 50 weeks a year, for the next 40 years or so. And if you want to know what the result of the process is just look round at our parents. I sometimes look at my own father and wonder what he's got to show for a lifetime’s hard work. Answer: a mortgage round his neck, callouses on his hands, and me—hardly a great accumulation. You might as well say he's ended up with what he started out with—nothing.

"But on the other hand he's been through two world wars and a slump, so a whippersnapper like me can't tell him anything. Whether our generation ends lip with this big-headed attitude remains to be seen."

"Well, you haven't told me anything yet. I do agree that life’s pretty rotten in the ways you’ve said. But that doesn’t explain what you’re doing up on that platform. I thought you would consider your time too precious to waste.”

“I’d like to explain, but I don't want to keep you out late. I expect you’ve got to go to work tomorrow yourself.”

“Of course I have. So has everyone else.”

“Well not quite everyone; Some of those people who are so wealthy they don’t need to work, probably won’t for a start.”

“You mean the bosses?”

“Yes. Not the managers, who probably put in more hours, unpaid worry included, than you or me. 1 mean the people who actually own all the industries in the country. They are few in number—about 10 per cent of the population— and for that reason are very rich.

“Now don’t you feel slightly peeved that there are people in this privileged position? They don’t have to put up with the same dull routine as we do.”

“I suppose so, but I can’t do anything about it, can I? And anyway, good luck to them, they must have worked some time to have got what they have."

“No. First, it’s not strictly true that members of this privileged class must have necessarily worked to own all they do. A great deal of their wealth is inherited. But in any case, let’s ask ourselves how these fortunes are made in the first place. After all, they’re so huge it seems unlikely that they are made simply by living a frugal life.”

“You tell me then."

“Well, what I want to suggest is that these fortunes are made out of mugs like you and me.

“In any industry, the workers produce more in terms of wealth than they receive as wages—because they are not paid for what they produce, but just enough for them to live at a certain standard of living. This is then used up and then back we go to work again the following week. In other words, it’s because wages, on an average, only provide us with enough to keep alive and healthy—plus enough to reproduce sufficient offspring to carry on the job of piling up more wealth than we ever see—that we have to perpetuate the agony in the way I've described. And it is the difference between this amount and the amount actually produced by workers which accounts for the profits of the owners. So we also perpetuate our compulsory generosity at the same time.”

“But even if all this is true, it doesn't get us very far. After all. these people do own everything, and even if I agree that their position depends on exploiting us, we can’t do anything about it by shouting our heads off on a soap-box."

“This is the other point you made a moment ago, and I must say I disagree with you. For a start it depends on how many people listen to what you say on the soap-box.

“Now the present system, and the way it is run. depends entirely on the effort of people like us, who have to work. We run the whole show from, lop to bottom. For that reason, if all of us united together, it would be in our power to set up a system where there would not be the rat-race that exists at present.”

“What do you suggest—shooting all the owners or something!"

“No. Even if that were a practical possibility it would only result in other people taking over their privileged position. What I do seriously suggest is a complete and fundamental change in the way we run our lives at present. I suggest that we set up a system where we all co-operate to make necessary work as pleasant as possible and our conditions of life the best possible, too. This, in turn, I suggest, can be done by establishing a society where all wealth is owned in common.”

“It sounds marvellous. How are you going to do it?"

“No. How are YOU going to do it. 1 can’t do a thing on my own, and neither can the Socialist Party. What is needed is a majority of people like us to do something.

“And this brings me back to what 1 said about not being interested in politics. 1 joined this party only because I realised that my own interests are identical with the interests of 90 per cent of people in society; and that all of us can only achieve an appreciable improvement in our position by political action.

“This doesn’t mean going into Parliament and forming a government. Rather it means going into Parliament to end the need for a Parliament at all! As far as the hours spent there by the professionals concerned, I find it about as boring as you do. But for all that it’s very important. It is from Parliament, you see, that the system of private ownership is ultimately run. The government of the day deals with affairs which affect the owners of industry as a class rather than as individuals. Hence all the time spent on finance, influence and control over whole industries, and so on. All this will go when private ownership goes.

“Now one day, we hope, this is a task for which the Socialist Party can be used. It doesn’t run for office, as all the other political parties do, since they clearly don’t want to abolish property society. It exists as a vehicle which the population can use for ending property society, if it decides to, by sending the party’s delegates to Parliament for that purpose.

“This is the reason, and the only reason, the Socialist Party contests elections. We always lose, but that doesn’t mean to say we’re wasting our time. We expect to lose elections until enough people have accepted the arguments for the radical change I’ve been talking about. And by contesting elections we help to propagate these ideas. So at this stage we are mainly a propaganda organisation; that explains what I’m doing on this platform.”

“But your party can’t be very powerful. I hadn’t even heard of it before tonight."

“Well, we’d be very fortunate if that was all that was wrong! But I find myself in the following position, and I suggest that whether you realise it or not, so are you. I can see that there can only be a radical change in the way I must lead my life if there is a corresponding radical change in society. I recognise that this must be done ultimately by a majority of the population bringing about the kind of change I’ve indicated.

“Now I agree with you that the task seems almost hopeless. But there is a slim chance, and so far as I'm aware the only organisation which gives voice to these ideas is the Socialist Party of Great Britain.”

Keith Graham

Lady Thatcher's Shadow (1997)

From the July 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard

Margaret Thatcher casts a long political shadow. She may have failed to fully transform the Tory Party but Thatcherism had a far-reaching effect on the Labour Party.

A remarkable political unanimity existed for three decades following the end of the Second World War. Both major parties followed broadly similar policies aimed at creating full employment through government intervention in the working of the economy. Additionally both parties were committed to the so-called welfare state and accepted the economic theories of Keynes which claimed that the boom and slump cycle of capitalist economic activity could be smoothed out by government intervention. Conservatives willingly dropped their minimal intervention political stance and bid for support on an openly reformist platform. There was a general shift in politics towards collectivist thinking. However capitalism remained as anarchic as ever and was not to be controlled and run smoothly to order.

General economic expansion in the post-war period was punctuated by increasingly severe economic recessions, and Britain’s share of world trade continued to decline. By the time the OPEC cartel quadrupled oil prices in the early 1970s a section in the Conservative Party was ready to accept the ideas of the New Right. Less state intervention in economic life, complete free trade, and strict control over government spending as advocated by the New Right theorists drew an increasing number of adherents, among them Thatcher. Here at last was a body of ideas that could provide the movers and shakers in the party with an intellectually respectable anti-statist ideology despite the fact that Conservatives saw themselves as resolutely non-ideological.

It had been the achievement of Conservatism in the nineteenth century that it adapted the strong individualist tendencies of Liberalism (the ideas associated with laissez-faire economic policies) to the more traditional aristocratic values of social order and cohesion, deference, community and reciprocity. Thatcherism was a revival of this earlier strand of Conservatism emphasising self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, free markets, and small enterprise. It was intolerant of other, paternalistic, strands of Toryism typified by those she called the “wets”. Many in the party were appalled by these developments and Lord Alport was moved to write to the Times in 1985 expressing his opinion that “Thatcherism is not Conservatism.” But her strong leadership qualities were attractive to large sections of the working class and she became the Conservative Party’s strongest asset.

Success and failure

Some of the changes implemented between 1979 and 1990 were obvious successes for Thatcher’s programme. The sale of council houses and the privatisation of state enterprises are not going to be reversed. Control of local government finances is too useful a tool for Labour to want to abandon and in any case was something they themselves had been attempting to do while last in office. Similarly, the laws restricting trade union rights and controlling their internal organisation are likely to remain with only minor modification. Again this is something Labour had been trying to address, and they have recently again distanced themselves from the trade unions.

But Thatcherism failed to fully convert the workers in Britain to acceptance of the joys of popular capitalism. The sale of state-owned industries saw millions buying shares just to sell them shortly after to realise a quick profit. However the number of shares held by private investors continued to fall—a trend which went against the Conservative policy on share ownership. Capitalism was for Thatcher a system designed to bring wealth to the many, and her ideal was an obvious impossibility—’’Every man and woman a capitalist” (Observer, 8 May 1983). (If we were all capitalists who among us would continue to suffer the indignity of having to sell ourselves for a wage or a salary?)

By late 1984 the British public had become largely indifferent to privatisation. Unemployment was stated to be the top priority by 75 percent of respondents in an opinion poll in August 1984, as opposed to curbing inflation which was given top priority by a mere 18 percent. The “drag up” effect by which Thatcher expected a general rise in economic prosperity through the promotion of “enterprise” also failed to materialise. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the 1990s revealed that “the gap between rich and poor is at its widest for 50 years . . .  millions of people have no stake in future prosperity” (Independent, 10 February 1995). Howard Davies, Director General of the CBI, and a member of the report team, said it was a problem which could not be ignored and a solution would have to include more government intervention. (Financial Times, 10 February 1995.)

The “Thatcher revolution” was not delivering the economic goods any more successfully than the abandoned interventionist Keynesianism. Indeed, the policies were increasingly out of favour among the leaders of British industry for whom the “red meat” was getting a little rancid. Peter Morgan, Director General of the Institute of Directors complained that British business recovery had been “. . torpedoed by runaway inflation . . . This awful recession . . .  is a failure of government economic management. It is a government failure.” (Financial Times, 24 April 1991). The Iron Lady had become a political liability.

John Major’s first move on succeeding her was to reshuffle the cabinet. He appointed to it the arch interventionist Heseltine. Political commentators expected Major “ . . .  to listen less to the political theoreticians and gurus beloved of Mrs Thatcher [the] radical right-wingers who campaigned for him knew perfectly well that he was not ‘one of us’.” (Economist, 11 December 1990). While advocating “prudence” in public spending (“We must not . . . run in with our chequebooks flapping” (Economist, 1 July 1989)). He struggled with the economic recession he had inherited declaring that “a strategy for growth is what we need . . . ” Inflation was running at above 10 percent, industrial output falling at the rate of 11.5 percent, retail sales falling at 5.75 percent, with unemployment again rising.

Labour Mark Two Tory Party

Margaret Thatcher’s real significance lay in the agenda she set for political  debate. If she failed to fully transform the Conservative Party Thatcherism had a far-reaching effect on the Labour Party. Labour consciously and deliberately set about transforming itself into a Mark II Conservative party by ditching any pretence of having anything to do with changing society. Accepting the values dictated by a market economy Labour now talked of “ . . .  efficient, competitive industry . . .  capturing the markets at home and abroad” (Neil Kinnock: Making Our Way: Investing in Britain's Future, Blackwell. 1986, p.60). Labour more  than ever before accepts the market as the arbiter in the setting of economic goals. Clause 4 has been totally abandoned only to be replaced by the  anodyne commitment to “ . . .  a united  and prosperous society and to the fair distribution of wealth and opportunity . . ." (Guardian, 30 January 1995). Blair has dedicated himself to the promotion of a “dynamic modern economy (Economist, 14 January 1995).

The harsh realities of capitalist economics have forced the Party to realign their policies to the new consensus to such an extent that the Institute of Directors were pleased to report that “Labour has moved massively toward the Conservative agenda” (International Herald Tribune, 2 May 1997). In addition we have been reassured by no less a person than Lady Thatcher that Blair will “not let Britain down” (Guardian, 14 March 1997). It is little wonder that ’Bagehot’ could note in the Economist (7 January 1995) that one could forget accusing the “new” Labour Party of “being socialist” because “sometimes it is stretching things to describe it as left wing.”

Those who voted for the Labour Party cannot say that they were not warned in advance that Labour intends to run capitalism. We predict that Labour will fail to run capitalism in the interest of the vast majority who make up the working class in Britain, just as Lady Thatcher did.

Gwynn Thomas

Editorial: Woe to the Vanquished. (1934)

Editorial from the March 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour parties in different countries that go under the names of Communist or Socialist, in spite of the futile nature of their reform policies, are, as a rule, an expression of the discontent of the more advanced workers. In spite of the trickery and place-hunting of leaders the rank and file is made up of many who are prepared to give up their all in the defence of ideas and parties that they believe will bring an end to working class suffering.

The civil struggles that have become such a common feature of social life on the continent of Europe during post-war years are instances of two important problems that the capitalists as a class are endeavouring to solve. On the other hand, they want to cut down the huge state expenditures, much of which is looked upon as an unprofitable employment of money by large sections of the capitalists who object to some of their brethren living upon them, and, on the other hand, they want to curb the dangerous tendencies of working class discontent.

For both purposes they require a stronger and more centralised state power, free as far as possible of party strife.

During the building up of this more centralised state power different groups of capitalists endeavour to exploit the movement for their own ends. Hence the bewildering welter of warring parties with apparently conflicting aims. Upon one question, however, these capitalist parties are united, and that is on the need to crush out anything that suggests an attempt by the workers to lift from their shoulders the burden of exploitation. It is for- this reason that antipathy to “Marxism” is a prominent feature of all these capitalist movements. The name of Marx is synonymous with the class struggle and Socialism. Hence the ruthless means employed against individuals and organisations that pay court to Marx—even when his name and ideas have been taken in vain—by those who for a while obtain the spoils of power.

The ferocity of the repressive measures is often the offspring of panic on the part of the ruling class, who, fancying their privileged position challenged, let loose the feelings of the jungle and savagery has its way.

There has just been an example of this in Austria during a struggle that has been long anticipated. The struggle was provoked by the Government with a cunning that is familiar, and of which we had an example here during the War, when the bulk of the men of this country were brought into the army and the munition works by the skilful use of Derby Scheme and Conscription Acts. The Austrian Government has recently made no secret of its intention to crush out the Social Democratic Party and the haste with which it brought into use artillery against the workers makes glaringly evident the grimness of its determination. The Government intends that the lesson shall be salutary and that neither women nor children, neither the aged nor the non-combatants, are safe from its ferocity when they let loose the revengeful guns.

While the guns were still booming the gallows were put up and the executions began in haste lest the opportunity might slip by that was provided by the excuse of unbridled passion.

The dispassionate savagery behind the directing of the guns was illustrated by the fact that in the midst of the strife the cessation of the bombardment by artillery was ordered in one of the districts of Vienna because damage was being caused to valuable property—and this was done while the artillery continued to blow to pieces even women and children who were cowering in terror in the blocks of working class flats that were the centre of the chief bombardment! Let the workers remember such incidents.

Whatever we may think of the mistaken policies of the Austrian labour movement we have nothing but admiration for the Austrian workers who put up such a determined if despairing struggle against the attempt to destroy their organisations.

As was obvious from the beginning, the Austrian Government have been successful in their object. Many working class homes mourn the death or the mutilation of participants in the struggle. The destruction of their organisations is being pursued with vigour and mercilessness.

The Austrian ruling class have been successful. They believe they will stamp out all tendency to revolt against exploitation. Their success, however, can only be temporary. The fire they have smothered will smoulder and break out again later on. When it does so, we hope that the Austrian workers will be guided by greater knowledge than they have been in the past, and will base their movement on a policy that has for its single object the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production and the establishment of Socialism.

Death of Another Comrade (1934)

Obituary from the February 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with deep regret that we have to record the death, at the age of 32 years, of Comrade Harry Milton. He died from cancer of the lungs in Bethnal Green Hospital on December 25th.

The passing of the years accustoms us to expect news of the deaths of those elder comrades who, active in the past, retire after long and ardent devotion to Party work, and become but names to the new generation, and in the end pass from the struggle for good. But with the young and active the loss is more intimate and more of a shock.

Comrade Milton joined the Party in March, 1927. Almost immediately he became an active propagandist and later was appointed secretary to the propaganda committee. Whilst acting in this post he spoke at practically all the Party’s London outdoor meeting places, addressing sometimes as many as eight and nine meetings in one week. He often addressed three meetings on a Sunday at different ends of London, perhaps involving seven or eight hours' speaking. The time he spent on active propaganda work did not prevent him from discharging his duties as propaganda secretary with competence. In 1931 he presented the Annual Conference with a report of the year’s propaganda activities as detailed and comprehensive as perhaps any that has been given, and was commended by Conference.

About eighteen months ago, in pursuance of his employment, he went to Sheffield. The following extract out of a letter from a comrade illustrates the esteem in which he was held there.

  Although he was a member of this branch (Sheffield) for only a few months, he made a decided impression upon them and also upon numerous sympathisers and opponents.
   Last winter he made several journeys to different places in Yorkshire in the endeavour to spread the Party’s message and literature. Though dogged persistently by ill-health, he never spared himself if he thought there was an opportunity of striking a blow at the enemy.
   Harry Milton chose to spend himself in the service of his class on its highest plane. He will be remembered with respectful affection by many of us in Sheffield.

This letter expresses the feelings of all who knew Comrade Milton.

The interment took place on Tuesday, January 2nd, at Leytonstone cemetery.

We extend our sympathy to his parents and other relatives.

Meeting of Party Speakers (1934)

From the January 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

A very well attended and successful meeting of Party propagandists was held at Head Office on Saturday, November 11th. The organiser, “Robertus,” spoke at some length on problems facing speakers at outdoor meetings.

He said that, in his opinion, based on his experience extending over many years, it is a bad practice and harmful to the Party that speakers should be abusive to opponents. It should be remembered that opponents in organisations such as the Communist Party and I.L.P. are, generally speaking, just as sincere as are members of the Socialist Party, and just as certain that they are right. They are enthusiastic, and believe in the views they put forward, and should be treated accordingly and reasoned with accordingly.

There is a difference between indoor and outdoor speaking in that, with an indoor meeting, the subject can be dealt with at once. People have come there to listen to a set subject, and consequently the argument must be consecutive which presupposes considerable preparation beforehand. Outdoor meetings, on the other hand, are subject to interrupters, and must allow for the need to touch upon a number of different points; consequently the same tactics cannot be employed at outdoor meetings as indoors. That does not mean, however, that speakers at outdoor meetings need not prepare their material. Preparation is just as necessary, although the kind of subject may be different. One method suitable to outdoor meetings is to take a few current questions of topical interest and expound the Socialist view in relation to them.

Some young speakers find it difficult to speak for longer than, say, 15 minutes on a topic. If that is so, be content to speak for that period. Do not attempt to carry on for half an hour. No good is  ever done by this.

In conclusion, the organiser said that he is convinced that the Party has within its ranks much good material, and he hoped his remarks would help towards increasing the number of effective propagandists for Socialism.

In the discussion which followed many points were put forward. The usefulness of outdoor meetings under present-day conditions was questioned by one speaker, who suggested that consideration should be given to alternative forms of activity, such as door-to-door canvassing and advertising. This was countered by a speaker who insisted that in outdoor meetings lies the strength of the Party.

It was pointed out that, at least in some areas, it is impossible to avoid controversy about other political parties, since members of the audience are interested in such questions and throw, them up at the speaker as soon as the meeting begins.

Another member who spoke agreed that speakers must take the local situation as they find it, but would be well advised to keep off attacks on other organisations as far as possible. For the same reason as that put forward by the organiser, it is inadvisable to make a special point of attacking religion. It is far more useful to get the economic case for Socialism accepted by an individual and deal with his objections to the Socialist attitude towards religion afterwards.

Another point brought out in discussion was that at certain meeting places it is difficult to get an audience. This could never be achieved by putting the Socialist case. The only way is to attract attention by arranging for Party members to put questions to the speaker.

Another suggestion was that difficult stations should be closed down and attention concentrated on more fruitful areas.

The meeting passed two resolutions.

  The first recommended the E.C. to appoint district organisers to assist the central organiser.
  The second recommended the setting up of speakers' classes, at Head Office or elsewhere, under the supervision of the organiser.

It is intended to call further meetings to consider problems of propaganda, and the organiser will make arrangements and issue an announcement of the next meeting in due course.

News In Review: Sour Rent Act (1966)

The News in Review column from the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sour Rent Act

Speaking in Salford on June 12 Labour M.P. Frank Allaun complained that the 1965 Rent Act had "gone sour on us." In other words it wasn't working as expected. This, of course, is nothing unusual for Acts to reform capitalism, especially in the field of housing. The evidence that has accumulated for over a century points to only one conclusion: there is no solution to the housing problem within capitalism. Lack of adequate housing is just one of the many problems that capitalism causes for workers. Since capitalism is the cause it is futile to pass Acts to find some solution within capitalism. There is no such solution. Such Acts are doomed to failure from the start as they try to do the impossible.

Socialists have always said that reform measures can’t be taken at their face value as they don’t always work as intended or they give rise to new problems. Labour’s Rent Act is an interesting confirmation of this. Although this Act was not intended to cut rents, those who voted Labour can be excused for thinking so. After all, had not Labour fought the 1957 Tory Rent Act tooth and nail in Parliament? Had they not pledged themselves time and time again to repeal it? Since the obvious result of the Tory Rent Act was to lead to rent increases ‘‘repeal’’ could justifiably be taken to mean "cut rents.” In fact, the aim of Labour's Act was to fix a "fair” rent—what the rent would be if supply and demand were equal, a formula bound to justify increasing controlled rents. Rent Officers and Rent Assessment Committees were appointed to work out these "fair” rents.

Now Sir Sydney Littlewood, the president of the Greater London Rent Assessment Panel, turns round and tells his Labour critics that they "did not understand the Act they had passed,” saying that they had the mistaken idea that the object of the Rent Act was to curb rents. The object was, he said, to find a fair rent.

No wonder Frank Allaun is annoyed. But those who have been cruelly deceived by Labour have much greater reason to be. They've been taken for a ride by Labour once again.

Vietnam - a reminder

Some time ago Harold Wilson startled the world, stilled a revolt in his Party and got a lot of Publicity, by suggesting a Peace Mission from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to settle the war in Vietnam.

A lot of people thought this was a dazzingly good idea.

But what happened?

The mission never went to Vietnam— it never, in fact, went anywhere.

Its members never met between themselves, let alone met the belligerents of Vietnam.

Some of the members of the Mission —for example, Nkrumah—are no longer Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

In other words, Wilson’s dazzling idea was an historic flop.

Meanwhile, the war goes on.

There will be no prizes for the next futile, vote-cadging suggestion.

Rebels too late

Few things have more searingly exposed the futility and absurdity of Labour’s so-called left wing than their “revolt” over the government’s policies on prices and incomes and Vietnam.

In all the fuss over the revolt, it seemed to escape notice that, not for the first time, the rebels were rather late.

The Prices and Incomes Bill was first introduced during the lifetime of the last government; the version which caused Frank Cousins to resign his Ministry is actually milder than the previous one.

On Vietnam, the Wilson government always made clear their support for American actions, including the bombing of the North.

In other words, the present government are simply carrying on the policies of the last. But in between there was the general election; that was the time for the rebels to make their disagreements known.

They might even have resigned from the Labour Party and fought on an independent platform. But they had probably all studied the fate of the Radical Alliance in Hull North.

So what did they do?

Well here are extracts from the election addresses of two of the Vietnam rebels:

  Hugh Jenkins (Putney): . . .  we need a longer period of office, with a more secure majority, so that we can get on with the job.
  Sydney Bidwell (Southall): If you . . . intend to vole Labour again . . . may I warmly thank you in advance and urge you, in the name of our just and common cause, to make absolutely sure you use your vote.

No word of dissension disturbed the orthodoxy of these addresses. Hugh Jenkins was hanging so firmly on to Wilson's coat tails that he embellished his address with a picture of the Leader, pipe and avuncular expression and all.

There was plenty to protest about last March but the rebels held their tongues. And their seats.

De Gaulle in Moscow

Statesmen do not visit each other to exchange expressions of mutual respect.

So why did De Gaulle go to Russia?

French policy is now based upon acceptance of the fact that the days of independent glory, when France was a world power, are past. They ended in the mud on the Aisne and in the graveyards of Verdun.

For a long time, France took her new place in the world as a paid-up member of the American gang—a complaisant signatory of the NATO Pact, of the EEC and so on.

De Gaulle signified the first important change in this. Under him, French policy has been to solidify Europe into an area independent of both Russia and the United States, but dominated by France.

Hence the opposition to British membership of the Common Market. Hence De Gaulle’s famous visit to West Germany—and now his trip to Russia.

This last expedition probably followed from the French withdrawal from NATO, of which West Germany is still a member. Germany may yet become a nuclear power, may yet revive her expansionist ambitions.

For about a century Russia has been France's counterweight against German expansion; this fact has not been changed by two World Wars and a lot of bloodshed.

One of the significant things about De Gaulle’s visit, however, was the way in which the Russians reminded him, delicately, that they are more than a European power.

Russian interests and influence now extend all over the world—and they will fight for them world-wide if they are threatened.

So De Gaulle had to face another reality. After the usual cloak of meaningless communique had been thrown over the visit he came home, and the disputes and intrigues of capitalism's world conflict continue.

Escalation in Vietnam

In Vietnam the American bombers spread their wings wider and more lethally as the weeks go by. This is escalation, an ugly word the use of which is almost obligatory when anyone is talking about the war there.

Vietnam is not the first war to have escalated. The First World War developed with a terrible speed, on an almost predetermined course, into something so bitter and destructive that it changed the world for good.

The Second World War escalated— and in a way if is still escalating—from simple high explosive bombs, and High Commands solemnly declaring their intentions of protecting civilian populations, to the fireballs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This development went step by step, as the war became fiercer and more desperate. Each stage was justified by the commanders to their own consciences. It was an inexorable process; it showed up the fact that the development of wars is a one-way affair; they never escalate downwards.

This leads us to the heart of the matter. As long as society accepts war. as long as it accepts the system which gives rise to war. it can have no logical objection to the effects of war.

There is no such thing as a humane war, or a controlled war fought to rules. War is its own master, with its own momentum and its own rules. 

The demonstrators, some of them incensed at the killing of children and other non-combatants, carry their banners and get themselves jailed. None of them protests against the cause of it all.

None of them, however sincere, are near the heart of the matter.

Poor Harold Wilson

Poor Harold Wilson, everyone is after him.

He has been stabbed so many times from behind that his back must resemble a kitchen collander.

Even before Wilson became Prime Minister, Aims of Industry and the Economic League were busily knifing him, with their anti-nationalisation campaign financed by private industry.

Then during the 1964 election he received another thrust between his shoulder blades from Hardy Spicers, who were apparently forcing their workers out on strike so that everyone would rush out and vote Tory.

The prospect of anyone voting against him was so agonising a wound for Wilson that he promised to expose the murderous activities of private industry in an enquiry after he was in Number Ten.

Nothing more was heard of this idea; perhaps Wilson was too busy because no sooner was he in office than the Gnomes of Zurich were at work with their daggers, threatening all he had planned.

And now the latest political flick-knife boys are the Communist Party, the '‘tightly knit group of politically motivated men" who apparently also stir up strikes but who have not yet thought of getting together with Hardy Spicers.

Perhaps some seamen remember the many trade union leaders who. from political motives, tried to force the Attlee government’s wage freeze down their members’ throats.

Perhaps some of them reflect that, like all its predecessors, the Wilson government is failing to deliver the goods as promised and must find excuses for its failure.

Perhaps, in other words. Wilson’s desperate search for a scapegoat will help some people to see through the dirty, futile game of capitalist politics.

Old Tricks

One of the legends concerning Zaharoff, the ‘‘merchant of death," was that he acted as mediator in one of the South American wars at the turn of the century and helped to arrange a truce. He then sold arms to the two sides and a few months later when they had been delivered the fighting restarted. Part of this story could be re-enacted in the near future. The Times reported on 10 June:

The pro-Government Karachi newspaper Dawn reported that the Soviet Union has offered to sell arms to Pakistan on the same terms as she already sells to India.

It may be remembered that the recent war between India and Pakistan was followed by the Tashkent conference, at which Russia played the role of peacemaker. The fighting has stopped for the time being but the cause of the conflict remains. The conflict over Kashmir and other issues originating from private property society are still there. Increased arms spending by both sides provides attractive markets for the world’s arms makers.

In recent years Russia has broken into one market alter the other with its arms. So why not Pakistan? After all, business is business, and in his recent budget Pakistan’s Finance Minister. Mohammad Shoaib. announced that defence spending would increase from 1,360 million to 2,250 million rupees.

The interests of the Russian and American rulers require peace in this area. It is also vital that opportunities for profitable trade should be taken advantage of. This is just one of the many contradictions of capitalism. Zaharoff made a living by taking advantage of them when he could. Heads of state, pledged to look after the national capitalist interest, are forced to act in contradictory ways. Like talking peace while cashing on the arms market.