Editorial: The Friends of the Russian Government (1933)

Editorial from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some recent activities of the Russian Government which received little notice in the Press are of sufficient importance to be placed on record. They should be studied by those who believe that the friction between the Russian Government and some other governments is different in kind from the trade quarrels which are always taking place between national groups of capitalists and the governments they control. Socialists have long pointed out how the need to find markets abroad and to borrow money from foreign capitalists to pay for imports of raw materials and machinery, etc., overrides other considerations in the relationships between capitalist states, so that religion, patriotism and humanity all have to take second place when trade and profits are at stake. It does not surprise us, but it may come as a shock to Communists, that the requirements of expanding capitalist industry in Russia should have induced the Russian Government to adopt the same callous attitude as the rest of the powers.

We refer to agreements just made or renewed between Russia, on the one hand, and the three open dictatorships on the other—Italy, Poland and Germany. The following description of these agreements is taken from an official Russian publication, the Moscow Narodny Bank “Monthly Review ” (May, 1933).

First, Italy: —

   The Soviet-Italian Agreement signed on May 6th by Signor Mussolini . . . and M. Levenson, the Commercial Representative of the U.S.S.R. in Italy, though not the first to be concluded between the two countries, is of special importance at the present time.
    This Agreement has been welcomed in both countries as demonstrating the continued economic collaboration between the U.S.S.R. and Italy. . . .
    The Soviet-Italian Agreement is a new proof of the desire of the U.S.S.R. to maintain normal relations with the rest of the world and that some countries appreciate the need of such relations and are determined to utilise them for the good of both, countries.

Then Germany: —

   On May 5th the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., M. Litvinov, and the German Ambassador in Moscow, M. von Dirksen, exchanged Notes on the ratification of the Agreement concluded in Moscow on June 24th, 1931, which has now become operative. At the same time an exchange of Protocols took place for the continuation of the Berlin Treaty concerning neutrality and non-aggression of April 24th, 1926, and of the Convention concerning the Procedure of Conciliation of January 25th, 1929.
   The Protocol states that the two Governments, by prolonging the Treaty, intend to continue the existing friendly relations between the Soviet Union and Germany, and to further collaboration which is in the interests of both countries and contributes towards assuring the peace of the world.—(Italics ours.)

The Treaty of 1926:—

    Lays down the principle that the contracting parties are not only to observe neutrality if one of them is attacked by a third Power, but they undertake not to participate in any economic or financial boycott against the other party.

This last provision, incidentally, prevents Russia from-supporting the boycott of German goods, which the trade unions in various countries are organising as a protest against the Hitler Government's brutal treatment of Communists and others.

Mr. Fenner Brockway, who supported the move by the I.L.P. to form a United Front with the Communists, writes (New Leader, June 16th) that the Communist International, because of this agreement with Hitler, "has opposed an international working class economic boycott of Germany."

Lastly, there is Poland, where Pilsudski is dictator, often referred to by Communists as the "butcher” : —

    On May 2nd a delegation of six representatives of the Commissariat for Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R. arrived in Warsaw at the special invitation of the Polish Government and was accorded a very warm reception. . . .
     A satisfactory improvement has taken place in the past few months in the economic and political relations between the Soviet Union and Poland.
     The Non-Aggression Pact recently signed between the two countries is a very important symptom of this change, which is also reflected in the transactions between the two Governments. The recent visit of the Soviet Minister in Warsaw to Marshal Pilsudski, who very rarely receives foreign diplomats, is another indication of the welcome change that has taken place. The Governments seem determined to utilise the existing friendly relations to the best advantage of both countries.—(Italics ours.)’

So we have here a pretty picture of the Russian Government making agreements and seeking to cultivate “normal" and “friendly” relationships with Italy, Poland and Germany, while the Governments of Mussolini, Pilsudski and Hitler, carry on their normal brutal repression of all opposition, including Socialists and Communists. Are the Communists in the prisons and concentration camps of these countries expected to rejoice when they read that Russian envoys received “a very warm welcome," and that Pilsudski has graciously condescended to receive the Soviet Ambassador, and that Russia undertakes “not to participate in any economic or financial boycott ” of Hitler’s Germany?

This is in striking contrast with the generous declaration made by the Bolsheviks when first they seized power that they regarded Socialists all over the world as being under their special protection.

It is also an ironical commentary on the depths to which Socialism has been dragged by the well-meaning people who advocate the seizure of power before a majority is prepared to accept and work for Socialism, that the four principal dictatorships have as their figureheads men who have claimed to be Socialists and have learned how to be successful demagogues in the ranks of so-called Socialist parties—Hitler in Germany, who brazenly proclaims that his advent to power means the early triumph of Socialism; Pilsudski, who led the so-called Socialist Party of Poland into the bog of Polish nationalism; Mussolini, who did the same in Italy; and lastly, Stalin, who rose to eminence on the backs of the men who led the seizure of power in Russia in 1917, and who now cultivates friendly relations with his three fellow dictators.

The I.L.P. and Ourselves (1933)

From the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been asked to comment on a statement about the S.P.G.B. which appeared in the Paddington Socialist Pioneer (August 5th, 1932), published by the Paddington branch of the I.L.P.

The statement in the Pioneer is reproduced below: —

WAS Marx Wrong? 

  Workers who are confused by the three Revolutionary Workers’ Parties now in existence, all claiming their support, would do well to examine that educative monthly Socialist Standard. In the July issue there is an article on the “ Socialist attitude to reforms ” and (as the Socialist Party of Great Britain says that any Party which advocates the defence of the workers’ standard of living, and the demanding of something within the capitalist system as reforms and, therefore, wrong) is of some importance.
   We are told that Marx and Engels were prepared on occasions to compromise in order to secure agreement by which they thought would help the Socialist movement. Also that they never ceased to clarify views and change them whenever experience showed the need for change. The I.L.P. is in agreement with this and we suggest to the Comrades in the Socialist Party of Great Britain that the time has come for them to use a little more judgment and join hands with those who are getting on with the job of bringing about a Socialist Britain in our time and not in a thousand years hence. The need is too great and we cannot afford to waste time splitting hairs.

The writer of the above paragraph has misunderstood the attitude of the S.P.G.B. towards reforms and also the reference to Marx. The S.P.G.B. does not condemn the workers' attempts to defend their standard of living. On the contrary, we unreservedly support the intelligent use of Trade Union organisation and strike action to defend or improve standards of living (without, however, supporting the Communist perversion of this policy, which consists of advocating strikes on all occasions, irrespective of whether the time and circumstances are well chosen).

What we wholly condemn is “reformism," that is, the Labour Party-Communist-I.L.P. policy of building up a political party on a programme of reforms, and gaining seats in Parliament on such a programme. We say that the only party which can be of service to the Socialist movement is a party built up on the principles of Socialism and nothing else, a party composed only of Socialists.

It is correct that we said (see Socialist Standard, July, 1932) that Marx and Engels “were prepared on occasion to compromise in order to secure agreement which they thought would help on the Socialist movement." But we did not say that because Marx and Engels did this, that, therefore, it must be a sound policy. On the contrary, we pointed out in that article that subsequent events proved Marx and Engels to be completely wrong when they thought that a programme of immediate demands could be used as a means of building up a party for Socialism. Events have shown that every party which used that method has come to grief.

We pointed out also that Marx and Engels never ceased to clarify and change their views whenever experience showed the need for change. We fail to see, however, how this can be held to support a proposal that the S.P.G.B. should join hands with the I.L.P. and Communist Party. The writer of the paragraph in the I.L.P. paper forgets that the S.P.G.B. was itself the outcome of years of close study of the works and experience of Marx and Engels and other Socialist pioneers, and of years of personal experience of working class organisations. Profiting from that knowledge and experience, the founders of the S.P.G.B. drafted a Declaration of Principles, which has proved itself unassailable because it was, and is, in accord with the fundamental needs of the working class under capitalism.

The I.L.P. did not profit by that knowledge and experience, but chose the road of reformism. For nearly forty years the I.L.P. has led the workers up every conceivable blind alley, and has taught them every conceivable economic and political fallacy. Perhaps the Paddington I.L.P. will claim that this time they really have turned over a new leaf. We can see no evidence whatever that the new I.L.P. is different from the old one, except that it is chastened by the loss of the 200 seats in Parliament which its members held up to 1931. It has abandoned one error temporarily, the alliance with the Labour Party, only to take up a more or less new one which is even more dangerous, the doctrine of direct action by so-called “Workers' Councils."

If this departure gains support among the workers it will mean a useless bloody sacrifice, and one more crime against the working class to be added to the long list for which the I.L.P. is responsible.

Edgar Hardcastle

Review (1933)

Pamphlet Review from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"A Countryman Talks About Socialism," a pamphlet of 20 pages by H. B. Pointing and published by the Socialist League, 23, Abingdon Street, S.W.l. Price 2d.

This pamphlet is written in. the form of conversations between a ploughman and three villagers who are Socialists. Through their mouths is traced, for the benefit of the enquiring ploughman, the origin of private property in land and its changing form and developments through its various stages up to the breakdown of the feudal agricultural system and the growth of peasant holdings and capitalist farming. It is explained in a simple and clear way how a propertyless class of wage-earners, whose only means of living is the ability to sell their labour-power for wages, came into existence. There is, however, a vagueness about certain points. For example, on page 10 one character is made to say to the other: “ You've got some of the gild’s functions left in your trade union." What these functions are is left unsaid, and it is possible that readers would interpret such a statement as meaning that there is a common basis for, or connecting link between, the mediaeval craft gild and the modern trade union. It is impossible to accept that view in the light of modern researches.

The gilds, which were associations of masters and apprentices, died before the rise of the capitalist industrial conditions which gave birth to trade unions.

On the same page the same character says: “ The employer, as time went on, invented the idea of the factory." This credits the early capitalists with much more foresight than they possessed. Factory production was not an invention of the capitalists, but a growth which was forced upon them by the changing processes of production. In fact, in certain industries such as weaving, even after factories were fairly widely established in other trades, factory production lagged behind because the weaving process had not evolved beyond the domestic stage of production.

On page 14 capitalism is likened to an aged donkey which, being overladen with goods, might collapse under the strain. Anyhow, it is said, the donkey must die. Here, again, there is no explanation, and the reader could easily interpret from it what the author does not intend. The analogy is weak and rather dangerous.

Except for the points enumerated, the general historical analysis and. the conclusions are sound. Mr. Pointing should remember, however, that to represent the case for Socialism, as stated in his pamphlet as being identical with the policy of the Labour Party, is undoing what good effect such a pamphlet might otherwise have. It is significant that the publishers, the Socialist League, say that: "It must not be taken that all the views expressed by individual authors are necessarily those of the Socialist League."

The Socialist League is affiliated to the Labour Party and has taken the place which was, until recently, occupied by the I.L.P. This pamphlet gets nearer to a correct conception of Socialism than is usual with pamphlets published by the I.L.P., which, despite its eagerness to prove itself to be a real red (shirts and all) revolutionary party, never got beyond the conception that Socialism means State controlled butchers' shops undercutting private traders, as exemplified in their pamphlet; “Socialism at Work in Queensland."

Harry Waite

Who Dictates to the Dictators? (1933)

From the November 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The rise to power of Hitler’s party in Germany has again focussed attention on Fascism or dictatorship.

There are many who look upon dictatorship as a new departure in government, forgetting the dictatorships of ancient times and also those of pre-war capitalism. The government of Napoleon III in France during certain of its phases, and the suppression of the Social Democrats and Catholics by Bismarck are cases in point. In Liberal circles and in many of the alleged working class parties doubts have again arisen as to the practicability of political democracy. Many of the Liberals are quaking with fear at what appears to them to be its inevitable discarding, and the advent of dictatorship or Fascism. They see the ever-widening circle of countries that have gone over. Russia, Italy, Jugo-Slavia, Poland, Hungary, and now Germany and Austria. In England Sir Oswald Mosley, a former Labourite, would be a Mussolini, although so far his voting strength is apparently not great. But' there are many who recall that a short while ago Hitler’s followers were few in number, -

In the United States, the press reports a growing Fascist Movement, led by a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, which at a meeting recently held in Philadelphia, attended by some thousands, decked out in all the trappings of the European advocates of Dictatorship, not even omitting the raised arm salute, stated their intention of seizing power.

From far-off Chile and Argentina, we have reports of a growing Fascist Movement and sentiment.

The response of the alleged working class parties takes on many forms.

In the United States, the reformist Rev. Norman Thomas, standard bearer and one of the chief spokesmen of the reformist Socialist Party of America, is warning his followers, by speech and written word, of the imminent possibility of a triumphant Fascism in the United States. He points to the American Legion and the remnants of the Ku Klux Klan as the possible nucleus for a Fascist Movement.

From the Communist International comes forth a Ukase to all of its faithful throughout the world to cement a “United Front” with the parties affiliated to the Second International, in order to wage a war against Fascism, though never neglecting to brand those with whom they are to unite as “ Social Fascists.”

What basis is there for the fears of the Liberals and the Labour Parties that Dictatorship is to replace Political Democracy the whole world over?

Is Fascism or Dictatorship a possibility in highly developed Capitalist nations like England and the United States?

It is first of all necessary to examine the way in which the term dictatorship is used in its application to the political systems of Germany, Italy, Russia and other countries, for its use in more than one sense is a cause of confusion. Sometimes the term dictatorship is used in the sense of a minority which governs against the wishes of, or at any rate without formally consulting, the majority of the population. At other times it is used to mean the suppression of minorities by a government which owes its election to the votes of the majority. When we examine Russia, Italy and Germany, we find that in each case the dictatorship owed its position originally to the support of the majority of the voters. The Bolshevists were unable to overthrow Kerensky until they had been voted into control of the principal Soviets. Mussolini was placed in power by those whom the Italian electorate had voted into control of the machinery of government. Hitler and his party obtained 51 per cent, of the votes cast in the last election. In each of these three countries the dictatorships in their general policy, including the violent suppression of the opposition minorities, can count upon the support or the indifference of the majority. If, therefore, the term dictatorship were used only in the sense of usurpation of power by the representatives of a minority, it could not be applied to Italy, Russia and Germany.

The other use of the word still remains applicable to these countries, for in them—unlike political democracies—the minorities have no legal standing to organise or carry on agitation for a change of government or change of social system, and individuals and minorities are subjected to persecution which varies from something mild up to savage terrorism.

So-called “ Dictatorships ” are the outgrowth of definite material conditions. With the disappearance of these conditions “ Dictatorships ” will cease.

In Spain, during the last years of King Alfonso's reign, a “Dictatorship" was set up, headed by Primo De Rivera. It was the last attempt and the dying gesture of a semi-feudal class who, with the assistance of the Church, sought to stave off various groups who were discontented, among which was the peasantry clamouring for the partitioning of the large estates. The Capitalists were aligning with the peasants for the seizure of political power. The remnants of semi-feudalism were an obstacle to the development of Spanish Capitalism. Spain had remained neutral during the World War. Flooded with orders from the belligerent nations, she was carried well on the road to industrial development. The alliance of workers, the capitalists and peasants finally drove the dictatorship of the Dons and clericals from power. This is one form of dictatorship, used in the endeavour to prolong the power of a dying economic group.

One of the most important causes of the “dictatorships" in Italy, Jugo-Slavia and Poland was the breaking up of the big estates, and the general industrial impetus and growth resulting from the war. In order that the new ruling class might be firmly entrenched, and also in order to sweep away the semi-feudal debris, governments were set up which would brook no interference from minorities, whether representing the former ruling class, the working class, or hostile national minorities brought within the frontiers as a result of conquest in the war.

The peasantry constituting the majority were not as yet experienced in the running of the governmental machinery. The capitalists being in the minority, envisioned the peasantry running amok and seizing political power for themselves. But the peasants, elated with their new possessions and changed economic and social status, are for the time being content to permit the capitalists to retain political sway, the fear of counter revolution on the part of the former landowners being a contributing factor. In outlook the peasants are not far removed from the capitalists. It is not difficult for them to acquiesce in the rule of the capitalists, and thus another form of “dictatorship” arises. A temporary condition resulting from the changed social status of the peasantry, coupled with the expansion of the industrial capitalists, and a politically immature peasantry, indifferent as to who governs, so long as they are permitted to enjoy their newly-acquired possessions.

Numerous factors enter into the support of Hitler by a majority of the German population. Patriotism, the Reparations question, unemployment, fear of the Communists, extravagant promises of reforms for the workers and “Socialism in our time," and promises of help for the peasants; all these things were cleverly utilised by the Nazis to gain a majority. One factor was the support given to Hitler by big landowners who feared the land reforms which the Catholic Centre Party under Bruening was promising to its peasant supporters, who wanted the big estates broken up. Many of Hitler's forces received their training on the estates of big landowners, who also provided some financial assistance. Realising their danger these landowners hoped that they might make use of Hitler to fob off the peasants, even although vast numbers of the latter are among Hitler's keenest supporters. Now that Hitler is in the saddle he has stated that he is opposed to his own earlier promises to break up the big estates, but it still remains to be seen whether the pressure from his own supporters will be sufficiently strong to compel him to move some way in that direction.

In one of its aspects the German situation resembles the Spanish dictatorship in that a former agrarian ruling class supports it in the hope that it will protect their interests.

We can also find a resemblance to the situation in 1848. The German capitalists, in revolt against the feudal aristocratic ruling class, were on the verge of success, but turned and retraced their steps when they saw their allies, the workers, were not content merely to fight for capitalism, but were disposed to give the revolt something of a working class character. So the capitalists allowed the old ruling class to retain its position. The German capitalists in and since 1918 have shown the same characteristics. The awe with which they regarded the Junkers, particularly their representative Marshal von Hindenburg, would not permit them or their allies, the Social Democrats, to carry the 1918 upheaval beyond a certain stage. Once again, as in 1848, they sought comfort by compromising with their "social betters," the German Junkers.

As for the future of “ dictatorships,” one need not be a prophet to realise that they are but a temporary condition. The increase in the number of workers in the agrarian nations in which “dictatorships” exist, will necessitate the introduction of parliamentary and democratic forms of governments. This applies also to nations like Germany, where a large minority of the population are still dependent upon peasant farming for their existence.

Where capitalist production is highly developed, with the workers in the majority, the need for a fully-developed system of representative government becomes not just a sop to the workers, but a necessity for capitalism in the long run. To damp down the lid means unrest and riots and interferes too much with the orderly running of capitalism.

The fears of the Norman Thomas’s are not well grounded. Highly-developed industrial nations like the United States, England, etc., do not provide fertile ground for the establishment of “dictatorship.” Though we recognise the possibility of the establishment of a ”form of government minus its democratic features,” where the rights of minorities may be curtailed, this could only be done if the majority approve.

The danger lies in the noxious Social Reform and ”Great Man” theories expounded by alleged working class parties, preparing the way for the workers* acceptance of a repressive form of government. Let us not forget that practically since the formation of the Social Democratic Party in Germany the workers have been led to believe that the way out was through the medium of Social Reforms. With this outlook it was a simple matter for Hitler to win over the masses, with his large and extravagant list of social reforms, offering more in the way of “something now” than the Social Democrats, who were, moreover, discredited by having helped to administer capitalism for 14 years.

To meet the possibility of a “dictatorship,” there remains for us the great task of combating the Thomases and the alleged workers’ organisations they represent.

The so-called Socialist Party of America having carried on thirty-five years of propaganda for social reform, has helped to pave the way for an acceptance on the part of the workers of any form of government, repressive or otherwise, that promises still more reforms.

Socialists can only continue to point out that reforms of capitalism, whether enacted by Labour parties or by so-called dictators, cannot solve the problem, for the emancipation of the workers can only be achieved by the workers themselves.

We seek the abolition of capitalism whether its political system is monarchist or republican, fascist or democratic.

SAMO.

Workers Socialist Party (U.S.A.)

Death of Comrade F. Cudlip (1933)

Obituary from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce the death of our comrade Fred Cudlip, from blood poisoning, on November 8th, at the early age of 35. He was a member of the West Ham Branch of the S.P.G.B. for 15 years, and was ever ready to take part in the varied work towards making the organisation efficient. He was cremated at Ilford Cemetery in the presence of his wife (a comrade) and many party members and sympathisers, on Monday, November 13th.

He was a thorough and untiring worker, prepared to turn his hand to anything that would help on the work of the party. We will sadly miss his jolly face and unfailing good humour.

Spain Thirty Years Ago (1967)

From the January 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Spain once had a great empire but was left behind when the industrialisation of Europe began. The question thus arises: Why was Spain retarded? The answer given by Kautsky and others—which seems plausible enough—was that it was precisely because Spain once had a great empire. For with the constant flow of gold and silver into Spain from Mexico and Peru there was little incentive to develop industry and commerce. When, with the independence of the Latin American colonies in the first part of the 19th century, this source of wealth dried up Spain was left without much standing in a rapidly industrialising world. This retarded position showed itself in dynastic struggles and in the struggle of the bourgeoisie, in the form of Republicanism, to sweep away the relics of the past. But the Spanish bourgeoisie never had the zest or unity to make the necessary thorough structural changes.

At the turn of this century there was a wave of economic development in Spain and Spain was not involved in the first World War—which helped. However Spain was still left with the relics of an empire in North Africa. National servicemen were sent to Spanish Morocco to quell the Arab uprisings. There was not much of economic value in Spanish Morocco but the military establishment wished to have an empire to strut about in. Largely as a result of the unrest about conscription for this war the Monarchy fell in 1931. But because a Republic was set up is no reason to think that there was a widespread belief in political democracy. Not only were there the open opponents of democracy in Spain but there was also a strong anarchist movement which we can say was of disastrous significance for democracy. For the anarchists helped to spread among the working class the idea that democracy was a mere “facade” and they encouraged abstention from politics.

The Republic, set up to pave the way for modern capitalism, made mistakes from its own point of view. First and foremost it antagonised Catholic opinion. They should have known that you don’t get rid of religion by banning or ignoring it. By alienating almost the entire Church the Republic unnecessarily weakened itself for, as Gerald Brenan points out in his The Spanish Labyrinth, there was, for specific reasons in Spanish history, considerable scope for Catholics to have looked favourably upon the land-reform and agricultural development that were essential to capitalist development in the peninsular. The Republic also weakened itself by neglecting education, a necessary factor for further economic and social development. It seemed more concerned to close Catholic schools than to open new lay ones.

The deep divisions on the Republican side when war came are well known through the writings of people like George Orwell. But the other side was an odd alliance too. The Carlists, backward-looking believers in theocracy associated with a branch of the Bourbons, were unlikely associates of the Army, the orthodox Monarchists or the Falangists (or Fascists). This is one of the splits in the régime coming to the surface today.

The old forces, backed by Germany and Italy, won. They defeated in war those who wished to clear the way for capitalism. Ironically, however, this task fell to them. Since the war, economic development primed by American aid helped immensely by tourism, has gone on apace. This has led to considerable growth in the working class (including the so-called middle class) at the expense of the peasantry. The working class is making its presence felt through strikes though at one time illegal. As a result some types of strike have now been made legal by the proposed new Constitution.

The Spanish industrial élite has also been pressing for reforms. It has felt the need for a greater degree of discussion of policy and procedures. These capitalists, working to a large extent through the organisation known as Opus Dei, have been a “liberalising” element in the Franco regime.

The changes that have taken place are very limited but are still real. Granted under pressure mainly from the working class, they are hopeful as they provide increasing scope for dissent and discussion.

Eddie Grant

Class Society in Poland (1967)

From the February 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Gt. Britain holds to be false the claim that in Russia and East Europe have been established classless societies in which there is no exploitation of man by man. What exists there is a form of capitalism best called “state capitalism” in which a privileged minority exploit the wage-labour of the propertyless majority.

Despite years of propaganda, censorship and suppression the rulers have not been able to get everybody there to believe their claim. Milovan Djilas, as former Vice President of Yugoslavia himself once a member of the privileged class, is one of the best known demolishers of the myth. Expelled from the Communist Party in 1954 and jailed, he later wrote The New Class in which he argued that “a new class, previously unknown to history, had been formed”.

Now comes the news that there are a handful of people in Poland who also reject the claim that they live in a classless society. In 1966 they were expelled from the Communist Party and later tried and jailed. Their crime apparently was to circulate a document expressing their views. A summary of their views, written by two of them, appeared in the Polish émigré  journal Kultura at the end of August. Basing themselves on this, Solidarity (Vol. 4, No. 4) has been able to give a general account of their views.

They deny that Socialism exists in Poland, saying rather that what exists there is capitalism. State ownership there is “just another form of ownership” and the worker is no better off than in the avowedly capitalist countries. The real owners of the nationalized industries are, they argue, a group they call the “Central Political Bureaucracy . . . The worker is exploited because he is denied ownership rights. He’s got to sell his labour power in order to live". What he produces belongs to those who buy his labour power and exploit him, namely, the Central Political Bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is a new ruling class as it uses, for its own benefit, the workers' labour and product against them.

Although it is true that these people’s other political views are probably confused (after all the fact that Djilas declared himself a gradualist does not detract from his significance), what is important — and heartening — is to see that the Polish rulers have not been able to deceive everybody. It is also a sign of the awakening of the working class, so long subdued and intimidated. As time goes by the rulers in Russia and Bast Europe will find themselves increasingly under pressure, industrial and political, from the working class. We can expect to see the emergence of working class organisations which are independent of the bureaucracy. Of course these won't be socialist but, in the conditions of this part of the world, they would be a great step forward.

Adam Buick

Mattei: Italy's State Tycoon (1967)

From the March 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Expansion of trade since World War II has brought with it the so called "economic miracles." Italy's turn came in the late 1950’s and early 60’s, when the products of its industries were sold successfully on the World market for the first time. That this had not happened before was not due to any lack of ability of its working class but rather that its capitalist class did not have a cheap and plentiful supply of fuel at its disposal. This shortcoming was overcome by the discovery and bringing into production of a large natural gas field in the Po valley.

Mattei, late president of the Italian state hydrocarbon fuel corporation ENI (developers of the Po Valley deposits), has been credited by many as being the man behind the miracle.

Born in 1906, Mattei started working for a living in a furniture factory at the age of 14, progressing to the ownership of a small chemical factory in the late 1930’s. Towards the end of the war he was Christian Democratic representative on the military resistance committee for Northern Italy. This activity put him in line for a job in the administration that was to take over from the fascists.

He got what was considered the relatively unimportant post of vice-president of AGIP (state petroleum company) with instructions to wind up its prospecting projects in the Po valley. Among AGIP’s records was a pre-war survey reporting favourable conditions in that area. Company geologists persuaded Mattei to disobey orders. Prospecting continued and by 1949 large gas deposits were found.

The next task was to get the gas to the consumer. The technical problems involved in this were insignificant in comparison with the property disputes. At the time there were no provisions in Italian law for laying gas pipelines. The AGIP was faced with years of negotiations with thousands of property owners and municipal authorities.

This situation was dealt with by ignoring normal procedures and using more direct methods. Work was started at night and armed men were employed to stand guard over trenches and equipment, leaving property owners a partly completed job on their land. It is estimated that from two to three years was saved in this way.

The chaotic conditions in Italy at the time helped Mattei in taking this short cut So did his many influential friends in parliament, and the fact that the work was carried out by a state concern claiming to be acting in the interest of the nation. In this way the Northern industrialists got their fuel: it is certain that a private or foreign firm would not have got away with it.

In 1953 the government set up ENI (incorporating AGIP as a subsidiary) with Mattei as its boss. ENI was granted monopoly rights over the Po gas deposits and tried to exert pressure to extend this to the whole of Italy. These tactics brought it into conflict with the international oil companies, who felt their interests threatened by this newcomer.

ENI frequently clashed with the ‘Seven Sisters’ (as Mattei called his rivals) not only over trade in Italy, but also internationally. Its exclusion from the group to run Abadan, and the terms it offered for concessions in the Middle-East, are examples of this. ENI’s main problem was that it failed to find its own oil supply and efforts to bypass the ‘Seven Sisters’ caused diplomatic ructions.

The purchase of oil from Russia had Italy in trouble with its NATO partners. Negotiations with FLN leaders during Algeria’s struggle for independence threw French and Italian diplomats into conflict and earned Mattei a threat of assassination from the OAS.

Mattei gained the reputation of being a shrewd, hard working businessman devoting his energies to building up ENI. In doing this he showed that a state corporation can be as ruthless and efficient in the pursuit of trade as any private concern. ENI went in for takeovers and diversification which included petro-chemicals, engineering, motels and even textiles. II Giorno one of the leading Italian daily papers, belongs to ENI and when needed was used to further its interests.

Although Mattei was a Christian Democrat backed by the Roman Catholic church, he did not hesitate to drum up support from the so called Socialist and Communist parties. Disputes with foreign competitors were publicised in terms of anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist struggles. It is typical of the political confusion of these parties that they fell for this and took sides in their masters’ quarrels.


Mattei was a rebel of sorts, but his revolt was only directed against the established oil companies; its success could end only in making ENI one of them. His contribution was in helping to change Italy from an industrial backwater into a feared and respected competitor on the world market His terms of reference were those of the profit making system of capitalism.

Mattei died in 1962, in an air crash and it was expected that ENI would break up without him. To date it continues to prosper and is still involved in the commercial brawls of capitalism. At present ENI is in dispute with Russia over building a pipeline from Siberia to Italy, and with the new ruling class in Algeria over the price of their natural gas.

Mattei has been but one of thousands of “great" men thrown up by capitalism, with its rapid industrial advances, social upheaval and war. Unlike the capitalist heroes of the past—Rockefeller, Carnegie, Nuffield—Mattei was not the owner of the industrial empire he bossed. There are other men like him, in Russia and even in Britain, running state industry in the interests of a privileged few.

Joe Carter

United States Farm Policy (1967)

From the April 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist production is concerned with the realisation of a profit, not the satisfaction of human needs. No profit — no production, is the criterion, though millions of people are ill clad, ill housed and hungry. This is something we have said many times, and there are plenty of examples to support our claim. But perhaps one of the most outstanding in recent years has been the U.S. Government’s farm policy.

Attempts at ‘support’ for farmers in the States date back almost half a century with the first of the Farm Relief Acts just after the end of the first World War. But the foundations of modern policy were really laid in 1938, when the Agriculture Act was passed by Congress. It was an effort to ‘stabilise’ prices by a Commodity Credit Corporation, and involved loans to farmers at a specified rate. In return, the farmer had to store his grain for a fixed time, releasing it before the expiry of the period only if the market price rose above the ‘support rate’. He could then sell, repay the Corporation loan from the proceeds, and keep the remainder. If, on the other hand, the market price did not rise within the specified period, the grain was surrendered to the Corporation, who could store it or sell it at a loss, under Public Law 480 — a foreign aid measure.

Loans were made only to those farmers who planted within their allotted acreage. This system of ‘allotments’ was designed to restrict production of grain, and there was also a limitation on the range of crops a farmer could grow, to prevent him diverting to another crop and creating a surplus in that as well.

With modifications, this basic scheme has been in operation ever since, and it reflects the essential craziness of capitalist economics, and the inability of the ‘planners’ to make any sense out of it. For stripped of all jargon and verbiage, what does the U.S. Government’s policy amount to, other than the restriction of production during a slump and (as we shall see later) its increase during a boom? Perhaps the best that can be said is that they have tried to tidy up the process a bit. by eliminating some of its piecemeal aspects and pushing financial responsibility more onto the shoulders of the capitalist class as a whole. Memories of the severe depressions of earlier years, with agriculture deeply involved, have probably acted as an added spur to their efforts, and a similar attitude can be detected behind the farm subsidy programmes of other countries.

During the Eisenhower Administration, the policy was developed a stage further with the ‘soil bank’ provisions, enabling the government to lease land from farmers to save for future use. Which is just another way of saying that they were actually paying farmers to take land out of cultivation. At that time, you may remember, there was a gigantic surplus of unsold wheat which the U.S. Government had bought and was unable to release to the market for fear of depressing the price. It was stored, billions of bushels, in warehouses, ships and barges; in fact anywhere out of the way.

And millions of people starved, as usual. Some idea of the madcap state of affairs can be gained from a U.N. Food and Agricultural Organisation report, published at the beginning of October 1959:-

World surplus stocks in agricultural products are estimated to have risen by twelve per cent in the past twelve months, North America holding almost eighty per cent of the total. (Guardian 1.10.59.)

And so helpless were the planners in face of such conditions that by early 1965, some 57 million cropland acres had been taken out of cultivation in America. Against this background, the statements of capitalist politicians are noteworthy for their cynicism and hypocrisy. Thus, President Kennedy at the World Food Congress, in Washington on June 4th, 1963: —

  We have the ability, we have means, we have the capacity to eliminate hunger from the face of the earth. We need only the will . . .  The war against hunger is truly mankind’s war of liberation. For victory in this war will liberate the energies and the talents and the creative abilities of an entire half of mankind.

Since then, the world market for wheat and other crops has begun to revive, so that the U.S. stockpile had by the middle of last year been depleted by half, and the crisis had changed to one of underproduction. There was now a rush to bring land back into cultivation, and the upward trend of production was matched by a boost in incomes. Already in the first few months of 1966, farm cash receipts in some areas of the U.S. had risen by as much as twenty per cent. (Financial Times 22.6.66).

It is true that a lot of the produce will be sent abroad on a ‘non-commercial’ basis (as the newspapers so delicately put it) to countries like India, but this only illustrates the strong political factors also involved in the change. The American capitalist class are anxious to maintain their strategic advantages and spheres of influence in a world where they are threatened by yet another competitor in the shape of China. They will obviously consider the cost worthwhile if they can can thereby keep such areas in their pocket. Sympathy for the millions of starving Indians and other Asiatics, is not a very strong factor in their calculations.

All of which merely goes to reinforce our argument that home policies are always at the mercy of world capitalist conditions; this applies just as much to America as to any other country. It shows also the sheer unpredictability of capitalism and the inability of the planners to control it. They never planned for a wheat glut, but they got it nevertheless. Now they have been caught even more unawares by the rapidly mounting demand, and so it goes on . . .

Eddie Critchfield

In Defence of Unions (1967)

Book Review from the May 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Militant Trade Unionism by V. L. Allen, Merlin press, 12s. 6d.

Nearly ten million workers are in trade unions in Britain yet there is a pervading air of hostility to trade unionism. Trade unions, we are told, cause inflation and disrupt production by strikes and restrictive practices. These views are shared and spread by Labour and Tory governments alike. Very rarely is a reasoned case for trade unionism put. V. L. Allen (who spent some time in jail in Nigeria recently for helping unionists there organise a general strike) attempts to do this and does it well enough. His approach is basically Marxist: In present-day society the means of production are the property of a few so that the rest, owning little but their ability to work, must sell it to an employer to live. Trade unions arise out of this market relation between employers and employees, to bargain more effectively over the wages, hours and working conditions of the employees. Strikes are built-into the system and will last as long as it does, even if they are made illegal.

Some of Allen’s points are worth repeating:

   The strike then is implicit in a free market transaction and any attempt to interfere with it alters the course of the transaction in favour of employers by adding another disability to employees. Every limitation on the ability to strike adds an element of compulsion on workers to sell their labour-power at prices largely set by employers.
  Unofficial action is informal trade unionism occurring because formal unions are incapable of fulfilling their functions satisfactorily and have, for this reason, lost some control over their members.
  Strikes are a challenge to the power and authority of employers. They challenge the prices that employers pay for labour, the profits the employers accrue from production, and their prerogative of control over the means of production.

Part of the book is devoted to discussing the series of “crises” and consequent appeals to consume less and work harder we’ve had to put up with since the war—from Cripps with his wage restraint in 1947 and wage freeze in 1949, through Gaitskell, Butler, Thomycroft, Selwyn Lloyd, (and his “pay pause”) to George Brown’s so-called incomes policy. Since Allen wrote things have got worse with the wage freeze imposed by the Prices and Incomes Act.

Allen argues that workers have been asked to make sacrifices to preserve Britain’s role as an international banker. To play this role government’s must keep the confidence of foreign investors. So, in effect, says Allen, workers are asked to make sacrifices for these foreign investors who tend to be hostile to Labour governments. Which means, we might add, that Labour governments have to be more harsh on workers to overcome this prejudice.

This is the weakest part of Allen’s book. He seems to be suggesting his own solution for British capitalism’s problems: end Britain’s international banking role; have a fluctuating exchange rate; and, in the long run, nationalisation and planning. In other words, the old state capitalism that used to be the vision of Labour leaders. What is significant is that it is now the view only of a minority of Labourites. Needless to say, none of these measures will end the commodity status of labour power (which gives rise to unions, protective practices and strikes) or help solve the many problems workers face because we are propertyless in a property society.

Despite this limitation the book is useful to defend trade unionism and refute the lies spread against it.

Adam Buick

Letter: Administration in Socialism (1967)

Letter to Editors in the June 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir:

I was interested to read A. C. Ben-Yosef’s query in the February issue about how you expect Socialism to come about, and your outline reply.

I gather you expect production and other important functions to be administered by gigantic corporations, rather on the lines of the present-day General Motors, Shell etc., except that they will be socialistic and ‘democratically controlled.' Could you please tell me how you expect this democratic control to operate?

For example, to take an analogy with a present-day capitalist problem, supposing that a new source of gas or oil is found and the relevant corporation wishes to develop it for use, and for this purpose to build a refinery. If there is objection to this refinery being built at all the feasible sites by small numbers of local residents, do you envisage that it will nevertheless be built?

To put the matter more generally: in the society you want, will ‘the public will’ be sometimes used to force compliance on uncooperative (as opposed to any sick and socially harmful) individuals ?

G. Boardman,

Todmorden, Lancs.

REPLY: 

Perhaps we did not make ourselves quite clear in our reply to A. C. Ben-Yosef. Our reference to giant corporations was merely to try to show that even under capitalism, some international organisation can operate; but these corporations would not exist in a Socialist world. Instead, the world would operate as one productive unit, with the means of life owned and controlled by the whole of society.

There would then be harmony of interests and full cooperation between people everywhere, for the sole criterion of production would be the satisfaction of human needs. Society would apply this acid test when considering productive resources, whether these were fields, factories, or gas and oil plants.

In talking of local objections, our correspondent has projected capitalism's conditions and outlook into Socialist society. Today, yes, there are many conflicting interests which push for elbow room when a plant is sited. Capitalists' concern for maximum profits and lowest costs, householders fearing devaluation of their property, workers hoping for jobs, and so on, all of which would not be relevant to Socialism. True, there could be differences of technical opinion, but these could be resolved by further research and the fullest discussion, before reaching a decision. And with man's architectural and engineering skills given full rein, there’s no earthly reason to fear that industrial buildings need mar the landscape or pollute the atmosphere.

Perhaps there will be some who still disagree with the rest, even after all the views have been aired. Well, they will be expected to (and we think that they will) accept and implement the majority decision, while reserving the right to argue against it at any time. Even remotely assuming they were still not prepared to cooperate, the majority project would still go ahead.

Editorial Committee.

Middle East War—The Aftermath (1967)

Editorial from the July 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

For Socialists the war in the Middle East has no rights or wrongs except the over-riding fact that capitalist wars are not waged for the benefit of the working class or impoverished peasants. In the opening phases the Israeli armies were everywhere victorious but the outcome no matter which armies had won on the battlefield would solve no working-class problem and would bring Socialism no nearer. As in previous wars the Socialist Party of Great Britain takes the opportunity to proclaim its abhorrence of the sordid, callous and mercenary nature of the International, capitalist class and its loyalty to. Socialism. 

Having no quarrel with the working-class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.

An extract from the SPGB Statement on the Israeli Arab Conflict published as a special leaflet on June 7th 1967.

The war last month in the Middle East aroused, as war often does, many deep emotions. This was more, perhaps, than an old, familiar theme for the propagandists — poor little Belgium in 1914, poor little Poland in 1939, poor little Israel in 1967. The emotions ran deeper; they were connected with the fact that Israel was established as a refuge for the Jews after centuries of persecution culminating in the mania of the Nazis. One of Israel's basic laws is the Law of Return, which allows any Jew freely to enter the country. It was predictable that Israel under attack would find a lot of sympathy, and not only from Jews living outside Israel.

But there was emotion on the other side as well. Israel was not established out of nothing; large numbers of Arabs had to be expelled to make room for the new state, many of them from settled, fertile places. From this followed the creation of about 700,000 refugees, who have remained as a source of dispute and provocation, who find no sympathy with any of the warring nations and who are in fact cynically used to poison relationships between Israel and her Arab neighbours.

That is why the Arabs also regard the whole situation as one of offended pride and outraged morality. From its inception, Israel has been under attack but in spite of this it has steadily expanded, from the conquest of Galilee and the Negev in 1949 to the latest victory in the Sinai Desert and on the west bank of the Jordan. To the Arabs, this is nothing less than imperialism; Israel is a threat in their midst which cannot be allowed to stay there.

But emotion is only on the surface; the Middle East War must be seen in perspective. Firstly, it is only the latest in a long line of comparatively minor wars since the world was carved up anew by the victorious Allies in 1945. It has been a common feature of most of the so-called settlements which followed the Second World War, that they succeeded only in making new trouble spots, new tensions, new provocations. The creation of Israel is no exception to this.

A war in the Middle East is more, of course, than a number of minor powers in conflict. Always behind the scenes the big power blocs are operating, supporting one side or the other with arms and military advice, with aid and loans, as part of a larger and more menacing clash of interests. Thus the Egyptian army in the latest war was equipped largely with Russian weapons, the Israeli with British and French.

The reasons for this interest by the world powers in the Middle East is clear. The area is vital to them, for its oilfields and its strategic position astride the trade routes to Australia and the Far East. The complexities of the mass feudal sheikdoms which rule over a large part of the area, complicated by the building of modem capitalism in Israel and Egypt have made the task of keeping a diplomatic balance there a very delicate one.

Russia is clearly determined to exploit this situation, both for what she can get out of it and to cause the greatest possible embarrassment to the Western powers. When Israel was established, it was Russian policy (faithfully followed by Communist Parties everywhere) to support it; in the fighting in 1948, the Jewish forces had considerable help from Czechoslovakia. Now, Moscow’s line is exactly the opposite; Russian spokesmen denounce Israel as an aggressor.

One thing that is sure is that the Middle East’s unhappy history of tension and conflict will continue. So will the hypocrisy with which it is all supported. In the recent war, for example, all the big powers expressed their regret at the opening of hostilities, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was their arms shipments which had made the whole thing possible.

Britain, France and America all swore that they would not stand by and see Israel obliterated, conveniently forgetting that all three of them have done their share of obliterating smaller nations, when it suited their interests to do so.

And of course many British newspapers went to great lengths to picture the Israelis as the embodiment of national virtues—a people strong, but tolerant and peace-loving. Little publicity was given to the fact that the Israeli Cabinet included the one-time leader of Irgun Zwei Leumi, the movement which those same newspapers once condemned as “terrorist".

Now that the fighting is over, it is time for yet another round of “peace” talks, in which frontiers, resources and strategic points can be reallocated—and the ground prepared for the next conflict Israel has said that it wants to negotiate alone with the Arabs, but this is unlikely. The world power blocs are already too much involved and will want to impose their wishes.

These talks will have to face certain facts, one of which is that Israel is now the most powerful state in the Middle East This is what Zionism has come to: a nation founded by Jewish refugees fleeing from the memories of pogroms and the horrors of the concentration camps, is the latest exponent of tactics of the blitzkrieg, its people have become virulently nationalistic. Another irony has been written into history.

The Israeli working class were convinced that their interests lay in taking up arms against the Arabs, and in this they were supported by countless Jewish workers abroad. Some of them went even further, attaching great importance to the capture of the ancient shrines and religious symbols of Jerusalem. Here is evidence that the Israeli working class have all the delusions which are so necessary to the continuance of capitalism.

Experience, and a knowledge of capitalism, should have taught them differently. The wars of capitalism are fought to settle the disputes of its ruling classes; no working class interests are at stake in them. The problems of the Israeli workers are the same as those of workers all over the world, and they will not be solved in a war. Their interests are the same as those of the workers of Egypt, and of every other capitalist country—to unite for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism. 

Africa (1967)

Book Review from the August 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Study of Africa Editors: Peter J. M. McEwan & Robert B. Sutcliffe (University Paperbacks 21s.)

Subject for a student’s essay: Compare the confusion caused among working class political opinion by the claim that Socialism was being established in Russia in 1917 with the effect of the same claim which has been made by the nationalist movements which have come to power in Africa.

Alright, so it will never happen; but there are some interesting parallels. In both cases, we have areas with a largely rural population and a backward society —in Africa expressing itself as a powerful and complex tribalism. In both cases we have the rise of a new ruling class, going back on their promises and offering the superficial differences between their countries and the older states as evidence that they had established Socialism. In both cases we have states being hurried into modem world capitalism, hungry for heavy industrialisation, power plant, expanding industries.

We have the imposition of dictatorship, the development of leader-worship. And we have in both cases the fact that Socialism has not happened, for the plain reason that the conditions for it were not there.

McEwan and Sutcliffe have edited a collection of papers which give a broad view of the new Africa socially, politically, economically. Here, in brief, is the background to show that at the end of the last war Africa may have been ready to take a slow and painful step towards capitalism, but no more.

In the light of this evidence of the essentially undeveloped nature of African society, we can fairly judge the claims quoted by Colin Legum:

  These aims (of the C.C.P.) embrace the creation of a welfare state based upon African socialist principles, adapted to suit Ghanian conditions... (Dr. Nkrumah). 
   The (Egyptian) Revolution laid down for itself six principles, declared in the name of the people to achieve Arab socialism. (Aly Sabry, U.A.R. Minister for Presidential Affairs.)

The Study of Africa is not a history and, apart from some tables of statistics, it gives little concrete information. It claims to be an "introduction to the study of the continent of Africa” but much of it is written in the style of a discussion, on the assumption that the reader is familiar with the subject. It does show up the intimidating complexity of African society, and some of the many problems facing the new rulers there, as they strive to drag their countries into twentieth century capitalism.

Ivan.

A World of Plenty (1967)

Editorial from the September 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

The material and technological resources exist now to allow production of plenty on a world scale. There is no need for any man, woman or child to go without adequate food or shelter. People are today deprived of plenty because the means for producing wealth are monopolised by a few and because wealth is produced for profitable sale. This artificial scarcity is maintained by force, deception and ignorance.

A society of abundance can be created just as soon as working people are prepared to make the means for producing wealth the common property of a democratic world community.

The Socialist Party exists to help the emergence of a conscious movement to create a society of abundance. We aim to convince people that such a society is possible; to expose the lies by which the present economy of scarcity is justified; and to oppose those organisations which help to maintain this artificial scarcity. We are opposed to all governments, all other political parties, to all nationalism, racialism and religion, to all wars and preparations for war, to all restrictions on the free expression of ideas.

Wealth is not produced in the abundance it could be. Much is wasted on weapons of war. Much is of low quality. Some is even deliberately destroyed. Wealth is not owned or consumed on any fair basis: a privileged few enjoy the best of everything while most have about enough to keep them alive and working; some don't get even that. Why?

The bar to the rational use of the world's resources to meet human needs is production for profit. As wealth is produced for profitable sale on a market production is geared to the market and not to human needs. Only so much wealth is produced as is thought can be profitably sold. To keep up prices and profits production is held back and wealth destroyed.

Production for profit on a world scale means universal competition: competition for markets, for trade routes, for sources of raw materials. For most of the time this competition is economic and peaceful. Every so often it involves the scientific killing and wounding of human beings and destruction of wealth that is called war. Always it means that states must devote a part of their resources to having the best armed forces and weapons they can afford.

People depend for a living on the few who monopolise the means for producing wealth. Their share of the wealth they alone produce is limited by the price they can get from selling their ability to work, a price that can never be much more than enough to keep a man and his family in efficient working order.

This scarcity, waste and want is not decreed by some supernatural being. Nor does it arise from nature. It is man-made and can be ended as soon as man wills.

It is said that there will always be scarcity as men’s wants will always outstrip the capacity to meet them. Men are greedy and compete against each other for the scarce resources. If social chaos is to be avoided men must be restrained by instruction (religion and morality) and by force (government and law). As some give more to society than others they should be rewarded with wealth and power. So runs the defence of oppression, inequality and privilege that has been used throughout the ages.

This argument is based on the myth than men have some unchanging nature that compels them to act in certain ways. But men are social animals. How they behave depends on the society in which they live. Throughout history and pre-history human behaviour, motives and wants have varied from society to society. There is no fixed human nature, only human behaviour in society. The argument that it is human nature that demands the oppression and exploitation of man by man stands exposed as a defence of the existing unnecessary oppression, inequality and privilege.

There is nothing in the make-up of men that would prevent their rational co-operation, without coercion and as social equals, to meet their needs. Men no longer need a social organ for governing and coercing people. For the smooth running of social affairs all that is needed is an unarmed, democratic administrative centre.

Poor Kids (1967)

From the October 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

The new Minister of State at the Department of Economic Affairs, Peter Shore, is reported to be the author of one of the most embarrassing documents ever written—the 1964 Labour Party election manifesto The New Britain. For his own good we may hope that Shore’s work at the DEA will be sufficiently taxing to take his mind off the many promises made in that programme which have not been kept.

There was, for example, a lot about the alleged failures and cynicism of the Conservatives. Take a look at this:

 . . .  the nagging problems the Tories stupidly (in some cases callously) brushed aside . . .  Social Security benefits which have fallen below the minimum levels of human need . . .

Labour, we were told, would run things differently. They had, after all, come up the hard way; Harold Wilson could remember the kids without any boots, the late Nye Bevan had once made a speech about social priorities and there were even still a few miners among the Labour M.P.s, if they could be sorted out among the keen, smooth, ambitious university graduates.

The first thing to say about what are called—perhaps in jest—social security benefits is that it is nothing new for them to be falling below the minimum levels of human need. Sometimes, indeed, they have been deliberately designed that way. However outraged the tone of Labour’s manifesto, the fact is that no government ever anticipates this situation and actually pays out benefits so far above the minimum levels that they remove the danger of them falling below the level, at least for a very long time.

Instead, governments spend a lot of time investigating the fact that the benefits have fallen in value, producing recommendations to bring them up again and in arguing about whether they can afford to carry out their own recommendations.

This has been the background to every enquiry into social security. But whatever patching up a government may do they never complete the repair—as fast as one hole is plugged another opens up, and then another. No matter how they attempt to distribute the overall poverty of the working class, some section of workers is always in dire need, in conditions which are themselves a problem demanding immediate action.

So it was when Beveridge (assisted by a much younger Harold Wilson) came to the unsurprising conclusion that the scheme which had been operating before the war would be hopelessly inadequate in post-war conditions. So it was as each successive government increased one or other social security payment, hailing each rise as a permanent solution to the poverty problem. So it is now, in Harold Wilson’s heaven.

Today, about one million children in this country are living at a level below the basic National Assistance rates. Over half of these are in homes where the father is in full time employment but has a wage which is too low, or a family which is too big, or both. Many social reformers have been shocked to find out that these conditions exist, because they were supposed to have been abolished by family allowances and the other provisions of the “Welfare State”.

But apart from anything else, the buying power of the allowances has been worn away by the continuous rise in prices. On 13 March last Margaret Herbison (who was then Minister of Social Security) said that to restore the purchasing power of the ten shilling family allowance, for third and subsequent children, to the level it stood at when it was introduced would need an increase to 13/7d.

The government’s answer to this is to increase family allowances—again—by seven shillings for second and subsequent children. This will happen next April; meanwhile a part payment of an extra five shillings is being made for fourth and subsequent children. This is part of what the newspapers like to call a package deal; also in next April, school meals will go up by 6d. a day and welfare milk by 2d. a pint. The government are also considering decreasing the income tax allowance which can be claimed for children; when he announced the higher family allowances in the Commons last July Patrick Gordon Walker said:

  . . . it would be logical, in considering how it should be paid for, to consider, among other things, some adjustment of the income tax allowances which affect families.

The widespread reaction to this package deal was dissatisfaction, especially among those who had assumed that only a Tory government would stoop to imposing increases in the price of welfare foods, cutting education and so on. Margaret Herbison left the government over it, thus removing one of those useful Ministers who build for themselves a reputation for protecting the poor and underprivileged—and who have been known to use this reputation to soothe indignant and disappointed delegates at Labour conferences. Herbison’s colours, however tattered, had been nailed to the mast:

   There is no doubt that children of the low-wage earners are suffering serious deprivation at the present time and we have got to do something about it. (21 November 1966).
   .  .  . every child born should have as its very birthright the opportunity to develop to its full capacity, enjoying the benefits of a good home, education and culture. Where poverty exists, these things are not possible .  .  . (20 April 1967).

It was clear that the protesters were beating themselves against the usual brick wall and we do not have to look far to find the reason. The key to a great deal of Labour’s policy in government is their concern over the level and the direction of investment in industry. This was the motive behind the setting up of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, it is the motive behind much current taxation policy and it is the motive behind the Bill which is now being prepared, which will extend the government’s powers beyond those of the IRC and will give it a stronger hand in allocating and controlling industrial investment. All this will be done in co-operation with private industry. According to The Times of 29 August, over £100 million is likely to be spent when the Bill is passed, including “tens of millions of pounds" towards building an aluminium plant in this country. As good a description of this policy as any was given by Tory leader Edward Heath, in a statement he issued on 2 September, when he advised private industry not to kowtow to the government ".  .  . in order to get money for investment which the Labour government’s taxation makes it impossible to get inside the firm or on the open market.”

What this means is that, no matter what the theories, the desires, the hopes, of Labour supporters, there is only a strictly limited amount of money available for education, welfare foods, family allowances and so on. Within that amount the government have shuffled the figures about — increasing here, cutting there, trying to justify the imposition of a new-style means test—to try to convince everyone that they are doing something about working class problems.

Since most of the participants in the argument over family allowances have made free use of the word poverty, it is as well if we decide what we mean by it. Poverty is simply depending on a wage for a living. When a worker is in employment he may get enough to keep him at a level of poverty at which he can run a car, have a washing machine and hang those abominable strips of plastic curtaining in his doorway. But if for any reason he cannot work, or if his personal circumstances are such that his wage is stretched until it snaps, he finds himself among the statistics, under the eye of the sociologists and perhaps eventually of a Ministry.

The Child Poverty Action Group is one of the organisations which make it their business to uncover examples of this:

   A woman of 30, suffering from multiple sclerosis, with two boys of 8 and 5, writes: “We are in debt because over the last few years my husband has lost a lot of time off work to see to the children when I have been too ill to manage.”
   This year with my husband off work with his accident, I really dread Christmas. I have to try not to think of it.
  A 36-year-old man confined to a wheel chair due to polio, married with 5 children, was made redundant through the cancellation of TSR 2. Now, on sickness benefit, his financial problems are acute.

The whole point—which is missed by organisations like Child Poverty Action—is that these privations afflict only one section of the population—those who depend on their wage for a living. The other section—the capitalist class—have no money problems if they are ill or have large families and being out of work is not something which worries them because they don’t depend on working for their living. Miss Mervyn Pike, although she is the Tory Shadow Minister of Social Security, showed the Commons last December that she also knows this: “We all recognise that all large families, except those who are very rich, have greater difficulties than smaller families.”

It follows from this (although of course Miss Pike was not interested in where her opinions were leading her) that working class poverty, which sometimes becomes working class destitution, is an unavoidable product of the class division of capitalist society and there can be no cure for it as long as capitalism lasts.

This is the root reason for the failure of the Labour government, which has shocked so many of its supporters. Last April two of these—Professors Brian Abel-Smith and Peter Townsend — signed a letter sent to all members of the Cabinet which appealed to them to “. . .  restore the Government’s sense of social priorities ” and ended “. . .  it is doubtful whether our aim can be achieved unless members of the Cabinet are prepared to consider people with problems, rather than departments with traditional responsibilities.”

There could be no more bitter condemnation than this. The Wilson government has disappointed many of its friends, it has broken its promises. Its policies have been exposed as futile, it has a long list of failures, even by its own standards, to its name; it bids fair to go down as one of the most cynical governments for a very long time. What holds it together? In The Times of 31 July there was an interesting pointed article by David Wood which ended with this passage

   By his wits Harold Wilson put Labour in power, and they know that it is only by his wits that they can stay there. That is the covenant between the Prime Minister and his troubled party, and in party politics there is none more binding.

Is this, after three years of power, what Labour has come to? If Wood is right the party which boasted they were going to build the new Britain has the same sort of “unity” as a gang of hunted criminals. Meanwhile there are still those million children, who do not understand about political infighting, or financial juggling, but who are hungry and suffering.

Ivan.

(Some of the information in this article was supplied by the Child Poverty Action Group. We thank them) .