Political Notebook: At The Seaside (1978)

The Political Notebook Column from the November 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

At The Seaside

In case you failed to notice, another season of seaside political conferences has passed. The three large parties carefully go through the charade of participation by the faithful and then proceed to ignore the wishes of the membership. This, they call democracy. The Labour Party have some experts in this field. Their former leader (more anon) is famous for his resolute refusal to take a blind bit of notice of the Labour Party Conference decisions from 1966 to 1970.

We can all remember Ted Heath’s famous U-turn on economic policy but we shall have to find another letter of the alphabet to fit the change which is apparently being contemplated now by Callaghan’s government.

To begin with, a little recent history. Labour came back to power in 1974 on a clear pledge that there would be no more interference with the unions’ bargaining strength. Their policy in the October 1974 election said, in part:

    The Social Contract . . .  is the agreed basis upon which the Labour Party and the trade unions define their common purpose . . . The unions in response confirm how they will seek to exercise the newly restored right of free collective bargaining.

Well we have seen what happened to the so-called free collective bargaining, as Healey has tried to impose successively lower limits on wage rises. But even more striking was the change in policy which Callaghan was threatening, when this year’s Labour Party conference rejected Healey's proposed 5 per cent limit on rises.

    “. . . if, as a result inflation starts to move up”, said Callaghan, "the government will take offsetting action to keep inflation down through monetary and fiscal measures”.

Now this is exactly the policy which has been put forward, as the solution to the current problems of British capitalism, by the likes of Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher who, says the Labour Party, have a burning ambition to discipline the workers with the scourge of unemployment.

Of course there is nothing new in Labour and Conservative Parties adopting each other’s policies; that is all part of the fact that they have basically the same policy — the maintenance of capitalism and, within that social system, the protection of the interests of the British capitalist class.

Dirty Hands Make Light Work

The Labour Party has other problems, too. George (now Lord) Thomson accuses Harold (now Sir) Wilson of having dirty hands; soaked in oil flowing into the illegal (“matter of weeks, not months”) Rhodesian Regime. Harold denies knowing anything about it. George says he has a copy of a letter sent to Harold when Harold was P.M. pointing out that petrol companies were breaking the sanctions. As The Times (21.9.78.) put it so diplomatically after the publication of the Bingham Report:

     Sir Harold has said that he never received any report of British Oil Companies being involved in supplying oil to Rhodesia. Lord Thomson maintained that he informed the Prime Minister of the time and other Ministers most directly concerned, of everything that happened at the meeting.

One of them is lying. It is so difficult to know which to believe, but as Harold is only a mere “Sir” and George is a “Lord”, I suppose most people will believe George . . .

One of the problems at the Labour Conference was whether Harold would turn up at all, and if so, what he would say, and what would be said to him. In pre-conference gossip, the Daily Mirror said Harold had applied for a ticket but his presence was “by no means assured” (29.9.78.). His assured presence was certainly dinted when a Canadian T.V. Reporter had the cheek to ask him directly about the sanction busting. Harold just stopped the interview. How dare they ask him such awkward questions!

Incompetent Criminals

The Liberal Party has similar problems. Their main difficulty seems to be in shaking off the scandal so obstinately sticking to them. What with missing funds, and the police swooping around their conference, they had indigestible problems enough. But these shrank to trifles compared to the unsavoury dishes being served up to Jeremy Thorpe; little matters like allegations of conspiracy to murder are not good for the image of the Party of good losers.

The majority of the current leadership tried to ensure Thorpe was isolated prior to the October general election that never was. They issued an injunction imprisoning him in his Devon Constituency. Treated like the chief carrier of the latest smallpox outbreak, Jeremy was banished from the Liberals National Campaign. He was also asked not to turn up at the Liberal Conference in September at Southport. Nevertheless, up he turned. The press loved it; perhaps they realise that the policies of the Liberal Party are about as interesting as steak to a vegetarian. But a bit of scandal . . . nothing sells better. So The Daily Mirror (15.9.78.) could write theatrical reports like “Everybody felt the tension, everybody knew he was out there, away from sight, standing in the wings, waiting for the signal to make his entrance”. Even The Times got carried away with the amateur dramatics of it all and ran a headline the same day saying "Mr Thorpe Takes The Limelight”. For those interested in these matters, Mr Thorpe is due to take more limelight at Minehead Magistrates Court on the 20th of this month.

This concentration on the bad boy of the moment annoyed the other Liberals at their Conference, so Cyril Smith made a long speech in which he explained just how good the Liberal Party really was. He spoke about its wonderful history and excellent record etc. Nice one Cyril! Nothing like self praise. Cyril also said with real feeling that the Liberal Party were sick of being painted as a bunch of “incompetent criminals" (The Times 15.9.78.). Suppose. Cyril, we call you and all capitalist politicians "competent criminals". Does that improve things? You are criminals because you deliberately deceive the working class into believing you can solve their problems, without a shred of evidence that you can actually do so. “Competent” because, alas, to date you succeed in your criminal enterprises.

Ronnie Warrington

Political Notebook: Chinese Takeaway (1978)

The Political Notebook Column from the December 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month’s Notebook looked at the current goings on in the big two and a half political parties. This month we turn our attention to what are commonly referred to as 'the extremists', a euphemism for those organisations which pursue the same sterile policies as Lib-Lab-Con, but haven't got many members.


Chinese Takeaway

Bad news for a few hundred million Chinese peasants. That famous book of everyday slogans for work, rest and sleep,  Quotations From The Thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. is no longer to be treated like the bible. The Chinese leadership — and the Maoists in the West — have decided that the time has come to end the deification of Mao. So, after a quarter of a century in which Chinese workers and peasants have been taught to learn the words of the great book parrot-fashion, it seems that all has changed. Indeed, Maoist bookshops in London seem to have stopped displaying the little red book, the Chinese Embassy has stopped giving away free copies and even the tramp who used to sell them at Speakers' Corner for thirty pence a copy has been given the push. It can be predicted that by 2001 — the year by which Mao says China will have become ‘a powerful socialist country' (p.179) — the little red book will be as scarce as the collected works of Stalin in Russia today. Mao’s book contains the following passage:

    . . . US imperialism has made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly isolated itself. Those who refuse to be enslaved will never be cowed by the atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the US imperialists. The raging tide of the people of the world against the US aggressors is irresistable. (p.78. written in 1964).

We wonder whether the book’s withdrawal could possibly have anything to do with the fact that China is now a diplomatic ally of the USA against Russia, is itself an imperialist power and has recently placed a multi-million pound order for Harrier jump-jets with the British Government.


A Front for What?

Mr. John Tyndall, like most of his good and sturdy fellow National Front leaders, is a man with convictions. In the case of Tyndall, these have sometimes been for breaking the law. It is interesting to read, in the NF paper. Spearhead, No. 18. just what Tyndall's idea of 'restoring law and order' involves:

    Driving out of Carnaby Street I beheld walking about a species of humanity that 1 thought only existed in the wilder forms of horror fiction and I resolved there and then that if I ever revisited this neighbourhood in the future it would not be at the wheel of a car but at the tiller of a chieftain tank, preferably with a flame thrower apparatus attached as an extra, and a large refuse van bringing up the rear.

Are we honestly supposed to treat the National Front as a serious political party?


Vanessa's Revolution

Down at the High Court, Ms. Vanessa Redgrave (actress) and Mr. David Astor (former editor of The Observer) argued about whether the Trotskyist Workers' Revolutionary Party is a 'nasty, despicable, ludicrous and silly’ party (as Mr. John Wilmers QC. appearing for Ms Redgrave neatly put it), or not. The case concerned an article entitled "Vanessa and the Red House Mystery”, published by The Observer in 1975. The article described events involving an actress. Irene Gorst, which are alleged to have taken place at the WRP's ‘education school’ in the Derbyshire Peak District. Ms Gorst claimed that she was forcibly detained at ‘the school', subjected to political indoctrination and told of stores of hidden arms in the basement of 'the Red House'. Clearly, it was not for us, but for the Defenders of British Justice, to determine whether Ms Gorst's story was a complete fabrication or whether, as we've always believed, the WRP comprises a crowd of crazy fantasists, waiting to re-enact the events of Petrograd 1917 in the streets of Derby. Whether or not it’s true that they’ve got a few rifles hidden in the closet, the plain fact is that the entire Leninist concept of revolution. based upon enlightened leaders and armed uprising, is doomed to failure in the capitalism of 1978. So that’s why you’re 'nasty, despicable, ludicrous and silly', Vanessa. And you can’t sue us for libel for writing that.


Star Wars

The Communist Party also went to Court last month to try and stop the new soft porn daily from calling itself the Daily Star in case readers mix it up with the Morning Star. If readers ever began to confuse what’s written in the Socialist Standard with the nonsense in the London Evening Standard, we'd politely tell our editorial committee that it's time they gave up the job.

Steve Coleman

Flaming Forests (2017)

From the August 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

High temperatures and heat-waves are spreading like...wild-fires.

Recently extreme hot weather of 40 degrees Celsius in Portugal resulted in a devastating forest fire in the Pedrogao Grande region, some 150 kilometres north-east of Lisbon, leaving scores dead and many more injured. Early this year, firefighters died battling some of the worst forest fires to hit Chile in half a century. In both countries the natural compositions of their forests had been changed for the sole commercial purpose of exportation of timber and wood-pulp with the planting of eucalyptus and pine trees, known for their enormous thirst for water. Capitalism has always placed profit before people, and it always will. The timber industry has contributed to the destruction of native forests and its habitat. The state is at the service of capital, at the service of forestry companies that have only benefited a small group of individuals. Yet the responsibility ultimately lies with those who keep voting for capitalist politicians.

There have also been numerous big fires in various other places around the world and in increasing numbers where typically there used not to be large-scale wildfires. Forest fires aren't always necessarily bad and sometimes beneficial to the forest ecosystem for them to stay healthy. But this unnatural increase where entire forests burn down uncontrollably is bad for the environment and a risk not just to human life but also detrimental to human health.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, every state in the western US has experienced an increase in the average annual number of large wildfires over past decades. 2015 was a record-breaking year in the US, with more than 10 million acres burned. That's about an area the size of the Netherlands or Switzerland. Large forest fires in the western US have been occurring nearly five times more often since the 1970s and 80s. Such fires are burning more than six times the land area as before, and lasting almost five times longer. The wildfire season has universally become longer over the past 40 years. There is very well-documented scientific evidence that climate change has been increasing the length of the fire season, the size of the area burned each year and the number of wildfires. Prevailing climate conditions have become warmer and drier due to global warming from greenhouse emissions and this enhances the likelihood of forest fires.

The winters are shorter and warmer. The summers are hotter and drier. Human-caused warming makes forests more susceptible to burning. Record heat has increased evaporation and dried-out the soil and tinder-dry vegetation will set forests ablaze. Worldwide, droughts associated with climate change are causing increasingly unnatural forest conditions leading to forest fires in a way never seen before. 

The situation is a direct result of unplanned and unrestrained industrial growth and an economic dependence on fossil fuels. It is crucial to understand that climate change/global warming has contributed to the higher temperatures. Our choice is between capitalism and its environmental destruction or building a healthy socialist planet. Socialism will place the resources of the world in the hands of the people. Until the capitalist is removed from the management of natural resources, we can only expect that the antagonism between human society and nature will continue with mounting tragic consequences. What we are witnessing is the impact of capitalism throughout the world and humanity needs a socialist society that has social control, where production is for use and not for profit. The capitalist system is working against the interests of humankind.

ALJO

Editorial: Postscript on Mosley (1944)

Editorial from the January 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a demonstration that working-class sentiment is against Fascism, the outcry over the release of Mosley is welcome—but sentiment alone never won any permanent achievements for the working class, and the socialist movement, and the linking up of the agitation with acceptance of the Defence Regulations which give the Home Secretary power to arrest without trial is a dangerous feature. No ruling class has ever been deeply attached to democratic and constitutional methods for their, own sake, and if a time comes when our rulers want to use Regulation 18b to incarcerate without trial men and women active in the working-class movement, some of those who want Mosley sent back under powers given by that Regulation may see their mistake.

Though we are opposed to that and similar regulations and restrictions, we have no tears to shed over Mosley, whose British Union of Fascists was in favour of suppressing the propaganda of its opponents, though this aim was phrased in the contradictory declaration that "free speech" should be “regulated and controlled."—("Fascist Week," January 5—11, 1934.)

Mosley the Fascist denounces Parliamentary Government, and years before, when he was in the I.L.P. and Labour Party, he was advocating the use of Emergency Powers in order to get speedy action free from parliamentary "obstruction." In 1926 the Labour Party at first declined to endorse his candidature at Smethwick where he was put forward by the I.L.P., and the "New Leader" (December 3, 1926) said that one of the rumoured objections to Mosley was that at the I.L.P. Summer School he had “advocated the socialist use of the Emergency Powers Act.” It is ironical that Mosley owed his detention in 1940 to the Government's use of the kind of emergency powers he himself had advocated, and that he now owes his release to the fact that Parliament, which he despises, endorsed the action of the Home Secretary. It is interesting to recall that Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as many other members of the Labour Party and I.L.P., used also to advocate the use of emergency powers. Sir Stafford Cripps wrote in 1933: "The first measure to come before Parliament under a Labour Government should be the Enabling Act to deal with the emergency by Orders in Council." ("Where Stands Socialism To-day?" p. 39.)

On the other hand, many of those who for years denounced the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and demanded its repeal (among them the Communists), and who opposed Regulation 18b when it was introduced in 1939, have completely changed their attitude. Yet the E.P. Act was a far less powerful weapon in the hands of the ruling class than are the present war-time Acts and Regulations. In particular that earlier Act excluded "any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription"—but now its erstwhile opponents are favouring both the latter measures.

Much more important than the question whether Mosley should be in or out is the question how such people as Mosley come to be a force in politics at all. Among those who now oppose him are many who rapturously supported him when he left the Tory Party, flirted with the Liberals, joined the labour Party and I.L.P. (1924), went on to form the New Party (1931) and became Fascist (1932). Yet Mosley and the ideas he stood for were always a danger to the workers not merely when he donned a black shirt. Mosley was the flamboyant, rich and ambitious demagogue who offered to lead the workers to the promised land while carving out for himself a career in politics. He would never have amounted to anything if there had not been sycophantic hangers-on in the Labour Party and I.L.P. who helped to build him up so that at one time he was spoken of as the future leader of the Labour Party. He had hardly joined that party five minutes before it was reported that he had been offered the choice of 80 seats as Labour candidate. That such a thing could happen was due to the attitude of mind of the working class; not understanding Socialism they could then, and do now, believe in the dangerous illusion that leaders can bring them emancipation.

Writing years afterwards, “Reynold's News" had this to say about him:—

    “It should not be forgotten . . . that the Democratic movement 'spoiled' Sir Oswald on his 'conversion’ from Toryism. Its leaders feted and flattered him. Even the I.L.P., archapostle of discipline, broke its constitution to endorse his candidature in a Smethwick by-election."—(“Reynold's [News]," July 26, 1931.)

Mosley, on his entry to the Labour Party, quickly mastered the oratory of the Labour leaders and learned how to win votes by giving the workers the soothing phrases they wanted to hear. A typical oratorical effort was the following, delivered after the defeat of the General Strike:—

      " . . . Without exerting anything approaching the full power of Labour, they had beaten the boss class. With one hand behind their backs they had whipped the Government. They were there to celebrate one of the greatest events in the history of the world. . . . They had shown that with industrial power alone they could beat the boss class. . . . Let them not forget this was a great workers' victory.—("Birmingham Post," May 17,1926.)

Though in April, 1931, "The Labour Magazine," organ of the T.U.C. and Labour Party, could publish an article saying that nobody "could have doubted the genuineness of Mosley's Socialism at that time" (i.e., 1929), the truth is that Mosley was never at any time a socialist—but neither were those who supported him. What they called Socialism was merely the advocacy of planning, State control, a "living wage," investment boards, etc., and this accounts for the fact that Mosley was able to take over many of the planks in the I.L.P. and Labour Programme into his new party. The “New Leader" wrote (November 7, 1930), "in the ideas of the I.L.P. group and the smaller Mosley group there is a good deal in common."

Mosley’s wealth and title, his friendship with MacDonald, his influential friends, and his fiery oratory all helped to give him a following in the Labour movement, though finally his arrogance and impatience robbed him of leadership when it appeared to be within his grasp. He quarrelled with the Labour Government in 1930 because it rejected his schemes for dealing with unemployment, and broke away with n considerable group of Labour M.P.s, most of whom, however, left him before he formed the New Party in 1931, or soon afterwards. Among those who in 1931 helped to draft Mosley’s manifesto, “A National Policy," were Aneurin Bevan, M.P., W. J. Brown, M.P., and John Strachey. Among his admirers at that period was the late Ben Tillett, who, according to A. J. Cummings ("News Chronicle," March 10, 1934), had declared that Mosley would one day become "the Solomon of a great philosophy of statesmanship." Earlier the communists had been among his admirers, and at the General Elections of 1923 and 1924 the Communist Party backed all the Labour candidates including, of course, MacDonald. J. H. Thomas, and Mosley. (The Communist Party has not changed in, that respect and doubtless a year or two ahead they will be denouncing as " fascist" the Tory M.P.s they have been backing in elections during the past two years.)

After Mosley, had been built up by his Labour admirers and had then gone Fascist he found new supporters who thought that he might be useful as a tool for anti-working-class measures. He claimed ("News Chronicle, October 19, 1936) that a number of industrialists in the North of England had been giving him secret support and the late Lord Rothermere backed him openly in the "Daily Mail." It was one of Rothermere's star journalists. Mr. G. Ward Price, who declared ("Daily Mail," April 23, 1934) that Mosley had proved himself at his Albert Hall demonstration to be "the paramount political personality in Britain."

Mr. Ward Price wrote this about a Fascist rally at Birmingham:—

    "The hold which Blackshirt ideas have upon the best elements of British life was manifested by the rapt attention with which each step of the technical argumentation was followed" (Italics ours.) — ("Daily Mail." January 22. 1934.)

The demand has been made that Mosley should be brought to trial, though on what precise charge is not stated. (It would be funny if the Communists wanted Mosley to be charged with sedition, for at one time they were campaigning for the abolition of the Sedition Laws "Workers' Weekly," October 10, 1924). If he were brought to trial it can be imagined that he would cause a good deal of embarrassment in very distinguished quarters by naming the men who backed him or who, like him, professed their admiration for Hitler and Mussolini before the present war.

One rather nauseating feature of Labour denunciation of Mosley now is the charge that he used his wealth to further his political aims.

A case in point is an article, "The Mosley Moneybags" by Mr. Will Nally, in "Reynold's News" (November 28, 1943). Mosley's Labour admirers never talked like that when he was in the Labour Party. Mosley declared, And it was never contradicted, that in those days he and other rich men were privately appealed to by the Labour Party for donations to their secret funds. ("Manchester Guardian" April 28, 1931.)

The moral of Mosley’s career is that the working-class movement should concern itself with the spread of socialist knowledge and with principles, not personalities. If the workers continue to put their trust in leaders and cherish the ever-renewed hope that at last they have found the inspired political Moses, who will lead them out of the wilderness, they do so at their peril.

The Docker's Problems (1944)

From the February 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having witnessed the spectacle of millions of their fellows chasing the will o* the wisp of steady employment in the long years before the present war, to-day in 1944 the workers are performing miracles of constant, unremitting toil. Their numbers reduced by the calls of the armed forces, they are feeding the mammoth war machine of Britain and simultaneously providing the civilian population with at least that minimum of creature comforts necessary. Intriguing speculations are rife in the world of the industrial workers, contrasting tho pre-war scene with the present one. One vivid contrast is that which prevails in the great ports.

Before the war, in “normal” shipping circumstances, there was invariably enacted at the northern ports scenes of struggle for four to eight hours' work that had to be seen to be believed. The docker was then ironically termed a “casual” worker, and the fight for bread often became an actual physical reality. Unfortunate foremen, whose unenviable task it was to select the recipients of four hours' work were often injured, their hands bitten and their clothing torn in the wolfish scramble that took place. Favouritism and nepotism were the order of the day, and violent was the experience often of any who presumed to change the status quo. To-day “things” are changed. The Government, in the beginning of 1941, perceiving the vital need of a trained supply of dock labour, introduced various schemes that have in effect decasualised dock labour. A minority of the men, recognising dangerous anomalies in the official proposals, resisted the innovation. Albeit, the Ministry of War Transport had its way, and to-day in all great ports the Government directs the ebb and flow of labour. Viewed superficially, the weekly guarantee of sums ranging from 55s. to 82s. 6d. to dockers is an immense improvement on previous conditions. For months past, in the columns of the Glasgow dailies, officious magistrates and others have dilated oracularly on the “enormous" wages of the Glasgow dockers. Their effusions have been productive of acid comment among the men concerned. The docker's wage rate has remained unchanged since early in 1940, since when prices generally have risen. The docker to-day, in order to earn a wage that will provide him and his dependants with a working-class standard of comfort has to work many hours of overtime. And that, at a task unquestionably enervating and exhausting. The dockers imagine that most Labour magistrates—who are especially prone to criticism of the men—would quail at the prospect of one hour's work wrestling with bales and cases or pushing trucks, let alone 70 or 80 hours! For years deprived of steady employment, to-day subjected to disciplinary measures for absenting themselves from work.

For years, accustomed to scrambling for work, to-day. in some instances, scrambling in the opposite direction. Their natural industrial combativeness gelded by a combination of patriotism and bureaucratic efficiency, they have in a situation favourable to them as sellers of their commodity, labour-power, allowed their wage-rate to remain static since the first year of war. The Government selected as local administrators prominent members of the dockers' unions, some of them Communists and I.L.P.ers. As is usual, these individuals have “out-Heroded Herod”! The dockers to-day are afflicted with misgivings regarding post-war conditions. Under the plea of a "quick turn round ” of ships to expedite the war effort, they have seen the insidious "whittling away” of much of their T.U. rights and conditions. Conditions that were won after years of unceasing bloody struggle. They see, also, mechanisation taking place, speed-ups that will remain, that will displace large numbers of men in the years to come.

Mr. Bevin, with others, has reassured dockers of the continued existence of guaranteed wages in peace-time, but— they are sceptical. Like the vast majority of workers, the promises made by official spokesmen of projected changes in the post-war industrial set-up, leave dockers cold.

They have been lavishly praised for their fortitude during the period of the blitz, and mention has been made of the fact that their dockside homes have been the target of many bombs. Despite all this, they are profoundly aware of the odds against them in their day-to-day struggle. The end of hostilities will find dockers denuded of many defensive conditions, essential to them to—at best—maintain their conditions of existence. The confident prediction that can be made of general post-war industrial upheaval can be made emphatically of dock-land. Unemployment has driven men to the docks of a higher intellectual level than the old-time docker, and this factor will be felt. The remedy for the docker, like all others possessing nothing but the ability to work, is clear. Jealously guarding their existing T.U. privileges, recognising the essential limitations of their efforts to withstand the attacks of their masters, they must perceive that the private ownership of the machinery of producing wealth, including shipping, is the basic cause of their perpetual poverty and consequent struggle for miserable employment. The S.P.G.B. do not, as our opponents impugn, idly wait on the working class. The lie must be bludgeoned—that S.P.G.B.ers are dilletantes, and the efforts of the members in the actual arena of the industrial workshops is the irrefutable proof. The clerks, labourers, dockers, railwaymen, seamen, taxicabmen, waitresses, etc., that form the membership of the S.P.G.B., call upon their mates, wherever they may be, to examine our case carefully. Having done so, we are sure of their ultimate verdict. We have a great historical responsibility to carry, and we need the help of the working class of the world.

Tony Mulheron

The Art of Insurrection by the B.B.C. (1944)

From the March 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

When one listens to the numerous "Revolutionary’’ plays broadcast for the benefit of home consumers, as well as for the oppressed nations of Europe, one wonders if the ruling class is conscious of a possible effect of their propaganda. The strike as a weapon of the class struggle has always been a thorn in the sides of the ruling class, but now that there is a war on we find the ruling powers on both sides applauding strikes abroad and condemning those at home.

Nationalists, Monarchists, Right and Left Wing Patriots, Liberals, Democrats, Priests and Communists, all come in for their shares of praise for their work against Hitlerism. This heterogenous mass, who are undoubtedly helping to undermine the Nazi regime, are being praised as heroes of freedom, because they are doing what the "British ruling class" want them to do at present.

When listening to this B.B.C. propaganda one cannot help thinking how childishly simple are these plays. Those who take the part of Germans, either as S.S. leaders or Generals, talk as if they were blockheads, and yet these men are supposed to imitate the executives of the German ruling class—thoroughly trained and disciplined soldiers of what the Nazis believe is a new social order, and, moreover, what we have been given to believe is a most ruthlessly efficient system.

It is a bit ironical for those who remember how British interests supported Hitler in his early years, at a time when even his friend Mussolini mobilised his troops against the Third Reich. Again, when the B.B.C. tells us about Hitler's speeches and denunciations against Bolshevism, it carefully refrains from reminding us that the British ruling class for several years believed these fulminations, and preferred to back Hitler as the Policeman of Europe to prevent the spread of the "Red Terror" 

Sabotage is a virtue if carried on in France, Belgium or Holland etc., but a crime if it takes place in India, according to the views of the British Government, and of course, just the opposite to the Nazis.

Many hints are broadcast from time to time to occupied Europe for the benefit of those who undoubtedly risk their lives for what they believe is the cause of freedom; but there is no intention behind the voice of the B.B.C. that a revolutionary change shall be made in the nature of society on the Continent.

That Conservative England should take a hand at such propaganda has its amusing side for Socialists, for are they not trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds? The speeches of Eden, Halifax and others have made it abundantly clear that the English capitalists look forward to their European markets after the war. which means that they hope and believe that capitalism, with all its privileges for them, and miseries for the workers, will continue to exist. But if the B.B.C. has any effect by encouraging the workers to print newspapers against the Nazis, and to blow up munition factories and power stations, in the occupied countries, Conservative England may well find that it has removed the Policeman of Europe only to find what it calls "anarchy or chaos" has replaced it.

Of course, there is always Russia to be taken into consideration. and as her present-day propaganda is far more nationalistic than England’s, we can console the B.B.C. that if they overdo this revolutionary stuff they will be able to rely on Russia putting the break on for them. Lenin is alleged to have said that it is one thing to start a revolution, but it’s another thing to stop it; and he should know.

So far as we are concerned all kinds of "revolutionary" activity may take place on the Continent after the war is over, with or without the B.B.C.’s contribution; but there are three things of which we can be fairly certain. Firstly, the ruling class will act along the line of its own class interest. Secondly, if the working class follow their example and adopt the principle of the class struggle, the ruling class of England (and Russia) will get very annoyed. Thirdly, unless the workers develop an understanding and desire for socialism, then all their struggles (so far as socialism is concerned) will have been in vain, and the B.B.C.’s plays and talks will merely leave them with but another, and perhaps modified, variety of capitalism.

Horace Jarvis

Miners and Leaders (1944)

From the April 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes to express its deepest sympathy with our miner fellow-workers. By the time this article appears, the struggle in South Wales will no doubt have been “settled.” Even in the extremely improbable granting of the strikers' full demands, the miner will remain one of the worst victims of capitalism. We speak as worker to worker. All of us in varying degrees have tasted the bitter pill of poverty and been under the harrow of callous employers.

We rejoice that the miner has not been driven so low as to be indifferent to the taste of the dirt of life offered by his masters, and explained away by his pastors.

The Daily Herald has offered you advice. It bids you “Go back to work; Trust your Leaders .”

The S.P.G.B. begs its comrades of the pit to review their history, especially in the light of this advice.

We appeal especially to those who are old enough to remember that staggering upper-cut delivered to the worker generally, and the miner in particular, in 1926 by Baldwin and “our beloved Prime Minister.” Never was the rottenness of the “Trust” advice more vividly shown up than by the General Strike.

The Daily Herald of May 30th, 1926, gave precisely the same advice, in the same words, “Trust your leaders.”

J. H. Thomas and others on the General Council were only too glad to seize on the previous “Samuel Report” (as useful as the “Porter Award”) to sound a retreat. Your own Arthur Horner (now slavishly toeing the line to the Government) wrote at the time, "The General Council betrayed the miners.

Six hundred years ago a youthful king promised an insurgent mob of peasants that he “would be their leader"; the history books your children read at school seldom mention the array of gallows which succeeded this promise.

Roman history relates how an aristocratic and privileged class bade the underdog of that time “trust their leaders,” though it was shown that the people's leaders were all too ready to act as the tools of the governing clique.

Consider the case of Ramsay MacDonald; fulsome adulation was accorded him by “Labour.” The S.P.G.B. alone saw the hollowness of the idol; it would be an unfortunate piece of history if there is likely to be a repetition to-day of something in the same line. Herbert Morrison (one of MacDonald's former supporters) is exhibiting the same vagueness of phrasing as characterised MacDonald—an astuter man than MacDonald, he may prove a real menace to the working class.

The News Chronicle has a cartoon (9/3/44). “Underground” workers are depicted listening in; one exclaims, “So the Comrades in Wales are letting us down?” We hear precious little about the owners who are “letting us down.” There is a clear way out to end the trouble. Accede to the strikers' terms. It is safe to say that the diminution of profits to owners would still leave that class sufficient to continue to live at a scale which would not entail the deprivation of a fur coat for the women folk. It outrages decency to know that the pitiably small increase to the miner would still be a matter of real relief to the heroic miner’s wife. Colliery companies are doing well. “Labour Research” (February, 1944) states that out of 32 colliery companies chosen at random, 27 paid higher dividends in the last five years than in the period 1934-38. Yet the Government, as it admits, is concerned to prevent miners’ wages and all wages from rising, on the specious plea of preventing inflation.

When the rank and file of the Unions cease to be gulled by the “leader” who too frequently is seeking to round his own life into a success, when a secretary becomes a servant and not a boss, the Trade Unions will be a big factor in assisting at the birth of SOCIALISM.

Fellow-workers of the pit: In Socialism alone can your degradation be liquidated. Don’t be misled as to what constitutes “Socialism?" Study the eight points of our “Declaration of Principles,” and be assured that our “Object” is no pious expression of impossible attainment. In the politically instructed worker lies the future hope of all mankind.

Reginald.

Turmoil in the Coalfield (1944)

From the May 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Four days after the Miners Federation, the coal-owners and the Government reached an agreement which it was stated would guarantee peace in the industry for four years, the South Wales Miners' Executive Council recommended to the delegate conference that they reject the proposals (29.3.44). It was also announced that day that 80,000 Yorkshire miners were on strike; only two weeks had passed since 91,000 miners had returned to work in the South Wales coalfield. Four years is a short period for a peace pact when compared with Chamberlain's “peace for our time," but when considered against the background of turmoil in the coalfields, it seems as though the miners' leaders are guilty of wishful thinking. Industrial peace like international peace is impossible in capitalist society and we can confidently state that should the proposals be accepted, they will last only a short time. Little has been said about them but the main features are wage stabilisation and simplification. How these proposals will guarantee peace is not shown; rising or falling prices will compel owners and workers to press for changes in wages. The disputes are resolved, sometimes by arbitration, often by strikes or lock-outs. The miners will discover that like all previous agreements, this will leave their poverty intact.

Underlying much of the recent trouble are the experiences from which the miners have suffered during the bitter struggles of pre-war days, and also that many know that an even more grim struggle lies ahead when the war is over. These experiences and this knowledge makes them hostile to the glib and complacent phrases of their leaders. An example of this was the strike in the S. Wales coalfield which started on March 6th and soon involved 96,000 workers; the miners went on strike against the advice of their leaders. The immediate causes are now fairly generally known. According to the Porter "award" all underground workers (adult) are to receive £5 per week minimum wage. Whilst the terms of payment were drawn up the £5 was made inclusive, i.e., that special allowances for working in excessive dust and water were to be discontinued and also an extra, charge of 1/6 per week was proposed for the "cheap" home coal that miners obtain as a "privilege." These proposals had the effect of reducing the increase to a mere 2/6 for many miners; some had less while piece-workers had nothing. The immediate result of the strike was to hasten negotiations and extract a promise that the anomalies created by the award would be removed. The editors of Fleet-street surpassed themselves in scurrility; from their offices they hurled terms such as "plain anarchy" "intolerable" "industrial sabotage" and "difficult and irrational temper" against the coal producers. The Labour press offered much sympathy but they also "deplored" the strike. From the Times to the Daily Worker advice was offered to the miner that it was in his interest to return to work; it seemed as though the only person blind to the miners' interest was the miner. The Daily Mail discovered cause for alarm in the fact that the miners ignored the advice of their leaders (13/3/44). Our hearts, however, are warmed to the miner who at a mass meeting in the Rhondda, when urged to follow the lead of the officials, yelled "Follow your lead? we will lead you." A sound attitude. The Daily Telegraph added to the lighter side of the struggle, and became comical in its rage; it complained that the miners were able to get their extra 9-oz. of cheese, although idle (14/3/44). So we lost not merely 300,000 tons of coal but also about 20 tons of cheese. An interesting light on capitalist impartiality was provided by the Manchester Guardian Weekly, With the strike in progress they reported: "As for the strikes there is no 'bold imaginative step' open except the appeal to loyalty and common decency" (10/3/44). Four weeks earlier their comment on the explanation advanced by the mine-owners for not paying the increase, was: "The owners explanation is logical enough " (11/2/44). Logic it would appear is the prerogative of the ruling class and its representatives when dealing with discontented workers, who apparently lack even common decency.

Mr. Arthur Horner made an attack on the "comfortable people" who speak in "contemptuous accents" of the miner, who Horner states: "is a sport; when things are bad he can take it on the chin" (Reynold's News 12/3/44). On previous occasions when miners have found it necessary to take industrial action their leaders were the people who helped to create prejudice and spread contempt for them. The following examples of mud-slinging are from Trade Union sources: Mr. A. Horner; "Anarchy in the coalfield," "Certain irresponsible elements" (D. Herald 18/10/43). Durham Miners' Association : "These unwarranted stoppages," "Sabotaging the war effort and assisting the enemy." and "Section of disruptionists." (D. Herald 18/10/43). We agree, Mr. Horner, these "smugly righteous people" should note a few facts.

A Word on Wages
The method of computing wages is extremely complicated, and is very confusing to anyone not connected with the mines; it has been described as "baffling the outsider." Piecework rates are fixed, sometimes by measure, sometimes by weight; there are allowances for working in excess dust or water and also a percentage addition that differs in each district. Because of this confusion there has been agitation for a simplified wage structure which it is understood will be obtained under the new proposals. We cannot see that it will be of any real advantage to the miners as even though the method be simplified the wages will still be roughly the same as before i.e„ barely sufficient to replenish the energies of the worker and to enable him to keep a family. It has always "baffled" the writer how people lived on the wages. We suggest that in place of the reorganisation of the wage structure the miners follow the advice of Marx and substitute "Abolition of the wages system."

While on the subject of wages it is interesting to note that the Economist had the distinction of making a most reactionary proposal:

      "There may even be something to learn from the Soviet Wages system. Traditionally, the response of coalminers to increased wages is "heterodox"; above a certain level of earnings they are satisfied not to earn more by harder work. Increased wages should therefore not be guaranteed ay a flat rate. First the ratio between day wages and hewing pay should be weighted much more in favour of the latter, which is more dangerous, less attractive and more productive. Secondly, according to Soviet example, and contrary to the miners' own proposals, minimum wages should be left unchanged. Thirdly, increases in piece wages should be heavily weighted in favour of output above a certain minimum. Both time and piece rates should be made dependent on minimum attendance and minimum output. Should these fall below it, in the Soviet system, cumulative deductions are introduced. Thus the avenge wage of a miner would rise and fall substantially with output." (1/1/44. Our italics.)

One feature of the strike and its immediate sequel, the new agreement, was the critical attitude of the men to these new proposals and to their leaders. It has just been reported that the S. Wales miners' conference have rejected the proposals (2/4/44). Their attitude to it is that it is merely the "old meat—fresh gravy." It will become even more difficult for the capitalists to submit schemes for dealing with working-class poverty that will satisfy workers. The miners' exhausting toil has made wealth and luxury possible for the mine-owner—his toil has brought the miner only disease and poverty. They have worked hard so that their masters may live easily. They are now urged to forget the past, when their heavy work was no guarantee against poverty, and to work hard now, so that in the future, when the mistakes of the past will be avoided, we shall all enjoy prosperity. Hard thought, not hard work is required. Hard thought will show the miners and other workers the solution to their difficulties —the common ownership of the means of wealth production.

Lew Jones

Death and Disablement in the Mines (1944)

From the June 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is from an article, “ Dust in the Mine," The Lancet, April 22nd, 1944: —

   "Those whom the unfortunate events in the South Wales coalfield have made impatient with the miners should remember the risk of pneumokoniosis as well as of accidents that they have to face year after year, in peace or war. Eleven lusty colliers represented a large Welsh anthracite colliery in the League Football Championship of 1930. What are they doing to-day? None is at full work; 7 are totally or partially disabled through pneumokoniosis; 3 are disabled through accidents; 1 has died of rheumatism. And the survivors are still under 45 years old. This is an extreme example, but the Medical Research Council's reports in 1942 and 1943 demonstrated the increasing menace of pneumokoniosis to life and health in South Wales, and more recent figures given by Mr. Morrison in Parliament show that over 1,000 new cases of the disease were certified in 1943 in that area, a rate of about 1 in 100 workers."

The Scottish Workers' Congress: Curious Stuff from Glasgow (1944)

From the June 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

An organisation calling itself the "Scottish Workers' Congress" called a preliminary meeting at Central Halls, Glasgow, on May 21st. What took place at the meeting we do not know at the time of going to press, but, judging from the explanatory leaflet issued beforehand, it is a curious re-hash of reformism, Scottish nationalism and anti-political activity. The 10-point programme contains some of the stock demands of the reformist parties, such as a minimum wage of 3s. an hour, a 30-hour week, double income-tax allowances on all incomes under £600 a year, immediate provision of sufficient decent houses "by prefabrication and other means in Scotland" (our italics), “democratic workers' control of Scottish industry," and “equal pay for the job for both men and women."

Although the leaflet appeals to "all workers to speak and act directly for themselves" (our italics), the 10 points are directed to Scotland and Scotland only, and among them are such points as "an end to the closing down and shifting south of our industry " (our italics).

On its political attitude the leaflet says only that “the Committee is non-sectarian and non-party," and its task "cannot be undertaken by any of the existing organisations. They exist for other purposes."

How it proposes to achieve its aims is not very clearly indicated, though as it apparently rejects political action, and as point 5 wants the factory committee to "take over the workshop where closing down is threatened," we may assume that the Committee intends that the workers shall take "direct action," thus reviving once more the old delusion that working-class political action is unnecessary.

As the 10 points imply the retention of the wages system and minor modifications of the income tax, it is obvious that the Committee does not aim at the abolition of capitalism and the institution of Socialism; which is, of course, made unmistakeable by the narrow nationalist point of view that stands out in all the 10 points.

How thorough-going is the Committee's acceptance of capitalism can be seen from the points relating to minimum wages and to the income tax. It seeks to raise “the standard of living”—but not too much; for not only does the point about income tax envisage some people having more than £600 a year and some having less, but the minimum wage of 3s. an hour for a 30-hour week only means a minimum wage of £4 10s., or £235 a year.

We await further details of this curious organisation.

Editorial Committee.

No Half-Way House to Socialism. (1944)

From the July 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war is still going strong, although we are informed by our musters’ press that this year may see the finish of the conflict in Europe.

The wage slave views the cessation of hostilities with some misgiving, especially if he was living on the dole when the struggle commenced. Many never knew what a steady job was, and some had never been employed in any capacity until the war came along.

The wage slave who starts life on the dole, and who, after experiencing the horrors of war, finds himself back on the dole, may view life somewhat differently to the worker who has been on the treadmill of regular employment: the former should provide material for a psychological study; he can’t function on the job or in a trade union, and the question is how will he react to the conditions that prevail in the aftermath of the war?

The answer is that he is likely to become the follower of some leader with large political aspirations. A Fascist Party is a political group with an army at its back: the conditions that brought a Mussolini and a Hitler into being may reappear in an intensified form if capitalism continues to function after the war: and the latter appears to be a safe bet.

Lewis H. Morgan stated that the economic development moves blindly, but social institutions are the product of thought. Cartels and combines are appearing in ever more gigantic forms; these easily leap over national barriers, and refuse to be held hack by out of date political parties. The capitalist class will continue to try and perpetuate those social and political features which promise to them the right to the appropriation of surplus value. As the interests of our masters are now definitely opposed to the interests of society as a whole, we are approaching a period when the class struggle will come into the open. There are indications of this in the ranks of those organisations that function as would-be reformers. These are being forced by moving circumstances to expose themselves as collaborators and defenders of capital. Look at the Labour Party, for instance, openly acting as overseers for the slave owners. The Communists also have ably seconded and supported these henchmen of the exploiter ever since Russia came into the war. Betrayed and bereft, the wage slave looks in vain for a way out, and as he sees no further than the horizon of the wages system, he can find none. He will, however, struggle to live, and be buffeted and knocked around more systematically than heretofore by the powers that be in his efforts to do so. Capitalism has no mercy on an unwanted slave.

The Labour Party leadership in the main consists of ambitions men who consider there is more to be gained by fooling the working class than by arousing them against the capitalist exploiter. Our masters describe them as safe and sane. If they are good they may receive titles, and it is to be noted that the higher they climb the more they function as the willing tools of those who are labour’s enemies. The strutting peacocks basking in the sunshine of ruling class smiles have long ago abandoned the idea of fighting for the emancipation of the class to which we belong, and we may expect nothing but the persistent attempt to rivet the chains of wage slavery perpetually to the limbs of the toilers. When these creatures speak of Socialism, their idea is capitalist nationalisation, which simply means state capitalism: the capitalist class pool their interests and use the public power of coercion to compel the slaves to work in accordance with capitalist requirements.

You can see what would happen by observing what is happening during the war: “You have been late for work on four occasions.” Fined £4.

The working class are, however, beginning to wake up, and the exploiters are getting worried, and when they do the labour leader has to do his stuff: when the worker is doaded beyond endurance and quits work, his trade union leader at the command of capital tries to drive him back: the rank and file are in increasing numbers losing confidence and turning against the co-operating officials. This is causing anxiety in capitalist circles.

The conditions prevailing after the war are likely to be chaotic, and the general confusion may be intensified by the bewildered state of the wage slaves’ mind. The acid test of destiny cannot but find all labour leaders wanting, the ground will give way under their feet, and we may expect them to come tumbling down from their pedestals, being unable to cope with or to understand the meaning of what is transpiring around them.

It is not theory but reality that is the test of truth. Confusion is becoming worse confounded as a result of changing names, whilst allowing the substance of things to remain the same. Public Assistance Boards are poor relief outfits, and Old Age Pensions amount to the same thing. The Labour Exchange is in reality the slave market. By giving things names that denote their real meaning we quicken the intelligence. of our class. We explain the situation as it really is and do not get entangled in ruling class verbiage. Our appeal is to the proletariat, the propertyless class; they understand us best when we express ourselves in terms similar to those they use when on the job. The be-all and end-all of propaganda is to translate into everyday wage slave language the economics of the present system and the necessity for Socialism.

The Socialist tries to get his non-Socialist workmates to perceive that until the means of wealth production are made common property and a system of production solely for use is established, their lot will be that of wage slaves, receiving in exchange for the use of their labour power food, clothing and shelter of a quality and quantity barely sufficient to regenerate in their bodies the energy that is taken out of them when on the jobs.

In other words, the body of the wage slave functions as a mechanism for producing energy for the ruling class to exploit. The labour power of the worker sells at the cost of its reproduction.

The source of all surplus value is living labour. The capitalist instinctively realises this: so does the politician and the priest. The worker is the goose that lays the golden eggs. As the wealth he produces is taken from him practically as fast as it is brought into being, he fails to grasp the facts underlying the real position. He knows his wages are nicely adjusted to what he can live and work upon, but he is fooled by the money trick into believing he is paid for his labour.

The capitalist class use the means of wealth production, the land, factories, railways, mines, etc. us a means of corraling the real thing—the slave.

The slave is the only form of property that brings to the owner a revenue—something for nothing. When the ruling class quarrel amongst themselves, the wage slaves are torn from productive industry and made to engage in war, the industry of destruction.

The workers in different camps are pitted against one another. They re-echo their masters’ slogans of democracy and liberty, but no matter what the result of the conflict may be, the rulers will never sacrifice their right to appropriate unto themselves all the worker produces over and above what is necessary to sustain him. What the capitalist means by liberty and democracy is the full and free opportunity to exploit labour for profit, and those who stand for less than the abolition of the wages system are on the side of labour’s enemies, though they may know it not.

The reforms of the reformers never deal with the source of the trouble: the wealth of the ruling class has not been made less as a result of the activities of those who believe in the inevitability of gradualness, neither has the relative position of master and slave changed. The wealth of the ruling class in normal times steadily increases, and that of the worker becomes relatively less.

Put not your trust in leaders! The Socialist calls upon the worker himself to put an end to the present deplorable state of things. Instead of relying upon others, he must tackle the job on his own. There is nothing to prevent the working class democratically getting hold of the political machinery through the vote. Against the united advance of the working class the capitalist class are absolutely helpless. The interests of the working class are identical on tho class field—the political field. The issue between the wage slaves and their masters is one of ownership.

Shall the means of life become common property, or shall they continue to remain the exclusive property of the master class.

When the change is effected that history decrees must be, mankind will open a new page in its development.

The coming of Socialism will lift human society to a higher plane than it has occupied heretofore: then and then only will man be free in the real sense of the term.

Until the means of life are made common property, no power ou earth can take labour power out of the category of commodities: there it is fixed by the economic laws of capitalism, and all the pious resolutions of the I.L.O. cannot alter that fundamental fact, therefore the worker must establish Socialism or perish in capitalist slavery. There is no half-way house.

Charles Lestor

Editorial: Unholy Deadlock in Soviet Russia (1944)

Editorial from the August 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

A few years ago a campaign for the relaxation of the British divorce laws resulted in some changes which made divorce easier. Mr. A. P. Herbert, M.P., who led the campaign, coined the phrase “Holy Deadlock” to describe the position of those who wanted to dissolve their unsuccessful marriage, but were prevented by the existing law. The modifications of the law would have been greater but for the opposition of the Churches. The attitude of the Orthodox Church in Russia is not different from that of the Church of England and the Roman Catholics, and it is interesting to observe that the official recognition of the Orthodox Church by Stalin’s Government has been quickly followed by a tightening up of the divorce laws in Russia. Divorce in Russia used to be easy and costless, and Communist and other admirers of all things done by the Bolshevists made much of that fact. Mr. Pat Sloan, in his “Soviet Democracy” (Victor Gollancz, 1937, p. 124), wrote that “the holding of people unwillingly together, by force of law or by economic compulsion, has always been opposed. Divorce has been made easy . . ."

The Webbs, in their “Soviet Communism," describing the earliest official attitude, said that on the “principle of freedom in personal relations, divorce, at the option of either party, was as optional as a registered marriage. . . .” (p. 1054).

The Dean of Canterbury, Dr Hewlett Johnson, writing of the recent position, likewise states that “a woman is free to divorce her husband, though strongly discouraged from doing so. Divorce is granted readily at the request of either party. . . .” (“Socialist Sixth of the World,” Gollancz, 1944, p. 268).

Now all this is changed, at least for the low-paid masses. Divorce is to be both difficult and costly. Miss Marion Sinclair, Moscow correspondent of the Daily Mirror (July 13, 1944), gives interesting details. “By the new laws, divorce has been made a long, complicated and expensive process.” She continues: —

   One must apply to the People’s Court, paying 100 roubles, giving reasons and particulars about the partner, who is then called to court. This means that no one who is at the front, or doing war work in distant parts, of the Soviet Union, can be divorced. An announcement of the forthcoming action must be inserted in the local newspaper, the fee payable by the person seeking the divorce. The hearing must be public unless the court, for good reasons, rules otherwise, and so unpleasant publicity is now added to the troubles of the divorce-seeker. The duty of the People’s Court is to reconcile parties. If it fails, witnesses will be produced and the Court will decide whether there are sufficient grounds for divorce. It cannot, however, grant the divorce, but passes on the parties to the District Court, where the whole proceedings are gone through again. The costs are from 500 to 2,000 roubles, not including the fees of the lawyers who—for the first time—will be engaged in divorce actions, if the petitioner does not succeed with the District Court, he works his way up through the Regional, Provincial and City Courts to the Supreme Court of the Republic—a process which may take years, and which will certainly cost a great deal of money.

The Economist (July 15, 1944) points out what this means : “ . . . the fees to be paid on obtaining a divorce have been fixed so high as to be entirely prohibitive for the working classes. Divorce has become a privilege open only to the high income classes.”

One obvious reason for the change is to be found in the Russian Government's policy of increasing the population to make up for war deaths, which is being energetically fostered by the recently announced increase of children’s allowances and the institution of medals for mothers of large numbers of children. The mother of ten children is entitled to be called a “Mother Heroine,” and is awarded a large medal.

In spite of statements that the change is approved, it needs no special insight to know that the low-paid Russian workers who are barred from divorce will resent the new arrangement, which make divorce a privilege confined to the wealthier sections of the population.

Doubtless the British Communists who praised the former easy divorce will be just as slavishly enthusiastic about the reversal of policy, which puts State capitalist Russia well behind capitalist Britain. It would, however, be interesting to know what Communists have to say about Lenin's statement, quoted in The Economist (July J5, 1944): 

   The example of divorce shows that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a Socialist without at once demanding the full freedom of divorce, because the absence of that freedom is an additional vexation to the oppressed sex, to the women.

Editorial: The Evolution of Sir Stafford Cripps, The "Revolutionary" (1944)

Editorial from the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists are not concerned about the career of Sir Stafford Cripps and his success in the world of capitalist politics. There is, however, a value in observing the evolution of his political ideas because he represents a type with which Socialists have long been familiar. Forty years ago, when the S.P.G.B. first laid it down that Socialism could never be brought about except by the conscious act of a Socialist majority, this principle was criticised by all the reformists because it meant, they said, long postponement of the emancipation of the working class. There were quicker ways, we were told, and the Socialist Party year after year has had to show the fallacy of the advocates of short cuts to Socialism, whether they were preaching the general strike, the seizure of power by a minority, or the formation of Labour Governments which would introduce so-called "revolutionary" reforms to speed us on the way. Nothing daunted by a succession of past failures, there are always new men coming along to preach the same doctrine. Always, as they make their spectacular way, their career takes the same general course. First they denounce the slowness of the S.P.G.B. and demand action to get "Socialism now"; then they climb to high office in the Labour movement or the capitalist State, only to find that they cannot deliver the goods: then they fall back into the ranks of those who accept capitalism and merely advocate the petty reforms that have always been the stock-in-trade of the capitalist parties. Ten years ago Cripps was in full and furious fight. He was in a hurry. Everyone else was holding back the Socialist triumph. He attacked them all and gained the reputation of being the hundred per cent. revolutionary. He declared he wanted Socialism now and nothing but Socialism. He had no time for compromise and compromisers, and no time for the S.P.G.B. view that the laborious task had first to be carried out of making Socialists. Attacking the Labour Party, he declared in his pamphlet “The Choice for Britain," “ We must . . . firmly and definitely abandon any idea of working in association with any other political group or party that denies the absolute necessity of Socialism." In particular, he rejected as dangerous the idea that some temporary alliance of pro-democratic forces should be brought about not based on the achievement of Socialism."

From then till now is not a very long period, but long enough for Sir Stafford to have abandoned most of his ideas. As a member of a Coalition Government facing the problem of post-war reconstruction he now quite frankly accepts the fact that capitalism will continue after the war, and that reconstruction will be strictly within the limits imposed by capitalism. In a speech at Belfast (reported in the Times, August 19, ), 1944), he forecast a fall in the standard of living after the war “unless we could get back all our pre-war export trade and add something like another 50 per cent. pretty quickly . . . " This, though he may have forgotten the fact, has been in the line of Conservative and Liberal propaganda for upwards of a century, as also was his further plea for increased efficiency. Finally, he let the cat out of the bag entirely when he admitted that it is to be the same old capitalism—"we shall embark upon the solution of our post-war difficulties largely under the aegis of private enterprise in this country, and that system will have to justify its own continuance by showing that it has the enterprise to meet the new circumstances and to overcome them."

This last pronouncement about capitalism justifying its continued existence comes strangely from one who ten years ago was proclaiming from the housetop that capitalism had long proved its own failure and unfitness to survive. In the same speech Sir Stafford thought that this country might fail to handle post-war problems satisfactorily “because of our innate conservatism.” "What was good enough for my father is good enough for me" is, he said, a “fatal slogan for industry."

The only serious conservatism from which the workers suffer is their habit of clinging to capitalism when Socialism is within their reach if they would have it, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who is now saying in effect, “Capitalism which was good enough for my father is good enough for me," is aiding the capitalist class to keep the workers conservative.

In the post-war years there will be many more self styled saviours of the working class seeking votes and support, shouting urgently for speedy action while they are climbing and then, when they have arrived, imploring the workers to go slow and be content with capitalism. These men are the successors of a long line stretching back to the earliest days of the reformist movement. No matter what their good intentions may be, they will not and cannot do anything for the emancipation of the working class.

The Coming Slump: Does the Gold Standard Matter? (1944)

From the October 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The correct answer to the question, "Why are the workers poor?" is: "They are poor because the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the capitalist class instead of by the whole community, and consequently so is the wealth produced by the workers." This is the starting point from which the working class should view all schemes for improving capitalist trade, currency systems, etc. It is naturally not the starting point for the defenders of capitalism. They take private ownership for granted and leave out of their enquiries any possibility of ending it. As a result, their attempts to find out why poverty, trade depression, unemployment and crises exist, and how to end them, are sterile and fruitless.

The workers are poor because over and above the period of their work in which they are producing the equivalent of their wages they are working further to produce surplus value (rent, interest and profit) for the propertied class. They suffer unemployment because the capitalists, in the limitless search for profits and accumulation of capital which the system imposes on each of them if they are to survive in the competitive struggle, are always seeking new methods and new machinery which will save labour and cheapen the product the capitalist owns and must sell. Every wage increase the workers are able to obtain when conditions favour their struggle gives the employers a new incentive to instal labour-displacing machinery, add to the army of the unemployed, and thus create conditions in which the existence of large unemployment tends again to depress wages. In times of "good" trade and expansion capitalism floods the market with commodities for sale at a rate which increases far beyond the capacity of the workers in employment to purchase the goods they need but cannot afford.

In this is to be found the reason why "overproduction" occurs, with its ensuing crises and slumps, and the efforts of capitalists to remedy their own financial problems by driving down wages, by putting up tariffs to stop foreign competition, and by juggling with the currency only make the situation more acute.

When Mr. George Bell, Secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions, says (Daily Express, September 7,1944) that a return to the gold standard after the war would inevitably bring depression and poverty, he is ignoring facts easily ascertainable. The workers have always suffered poverty, whatever the arrangements about gold. The version of the facts offered by the Daily Express in its year-long campaign against the pound sterling being formally linked to gold on the basis that existed before 1914 is that the unemployment and trade difficulties that existed from 1925 (when that basis was resumed) to the crisis of 1931, when it was again suspended, were all due to gold. A variation of this propaganda is that announced in a letter to the Prime Minister by Mr. Craven-Ellis, M.P., that “America’s almost complete cornering of gold since 1929 was the basic cause of the world slump and mass unemployment" (Daily Express, September 12. 1944). “We went to hell," he says. "on a gold standard in 1931 and we do not want to repeat the journey."

To answer this line of propaganda it is only necessary to point out that crises have been occurring intermittently for over 100 years, at a time when neither America nor any other country had cornered gold; and that the periods before 1925 and after 1931 were not different from other periods as far as the workers were concerned. Their poverty continued as before, capitalists then as before complained of trade depression, and unemployment during these periods followed much the same course as at other times. In the years after 1931 unemployment was mostly well above the 2,000,000 level, and just before the outbreak of war was still well above 1,000,000. Likewise, from 1919 to 1925 (the year in which the return to the pre-1914 gold basis was made) unemployment was nearly always well above 1,000,000. It is true that in 1930-31 it reached 2,500,000 or more; but so it did in 1921.

The representatives of the Allied Nations in their recent conference in U.S.A. have been divided, according to the City Editor of the Manchester Guardian (September 7, 1944), about the problem whether the Governments should first settle the currency question and the exchange relationship between the currencies of the different countries or whether they should first deal with trade problems and remove tariffs and embargoes by which Governments seek to protect home industries by keeping out foreign products. A similar division existed at the World Conference of 1933, with the interesting difference that the President of the U.S.A. now takes a changed attitude from the one he took in 1933. But both attitudes ignore the fact that "over-production" and trade depression necessarily arise out of capitalism, and the erection of tariffs and the schemes to give a fillip to the exports of certain countries by lowering the gold content of their currency and thus cheapening their exports in terms of currencies of countries that had not devalued, are alike symptoms of the exiting depression, not its prime causes.

A better view of capitalist trade problems is given by war, which is the one time when there is an unlimited sale for all the goods that the capitalists can put on the market. The capitalist newspapers have been commenting on the slump in share values that has recently occurred because of the approach of peace. The City Editor of the News-Chronicle (September 13, 1944) writes: —

   The stock market slump—it is scarcely too strong a word—continued and if anything gained momentum yesterday . . .

He goes-on to say that some of the “experts” are of opinion that “the proper money-making course" for stock exchange speculators is to sell out their shares now and be prepared to stay out for two years “presumably until the immediate post-war chaos period is over." The Daily Mail City Editor (September 12, 1944) asks the question, “Has the slump come?" and says that the investor “has been depressed by references of industrialists to the difficulties of the transition period from war to peace."

What is, however, most instructive is the explanation given by the News-Chronicle. The City Editor says that for three years or more the minds of investors "have been attuned to a war-time economic system in which profits are more or less stabilised and full production is assured over a particular range of commodities."

This is an inherent defect of capitalism. Except in war it can never guarantee continued full production. Periodically the flood of goods on the market will come up against the problem of finding buyers who can pay the price necessary to provide the profit which alone is the aim of capitalist production.

While we are not in a position to prophecy exactly when the next slump and trade crisis will come, come it will despite all the plans and conferences of capitalist Governments and Labour Parties. The only remedy for the poverty and crises of capitalism is to abolish capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle