Science, Capitalism and the New Order (1941)

From the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The British Association recently organised a meeting to “discuss plans for a new order in which science will play a leading part.”

Early in the conference Mr. Eden told the scientists that science had brought about inequalities, selfishness, and unfair division.

Here we have another instance of a professional champion of Capitalism selecting a scapegoat to bear the blame for the evils that Capitalism itself actully produces.

Unfortuntely, the view that science is wholly responsible for some of the grim and sordid features of modern life is held by many members of the working class.

How many workers, for instance, believe that science’s inventiveness has, without pressure from behind the scenes, created the ingenious machinery that has thrown many workers on the scrap heap ? How many believe that the inventing of planes and bombs, and the discovery of poison gases, are the things that actually create war ?

Let us see whether examination will throw light upon the question.

We live in a society wherein a comparatively small section, by virtue of its ownership of the mines, mills, factories, railways, warehouses, etc., is able to acquire a mass of commodities by exploiting the larger non-possessing section of society—i.e., the working class.

But unless each competing section of the Capitalist class can ensure a large and ready sale of their commodities by keeping down, and even lowering, their commodity prices, they will find themselves ousted by other competitors.

Capitalists, therefore, to keep up the sales that will ensure large profits, must undercut their rivals.

This can be done in two ways—by lowering wages, or by reducing the amount of labour spent on the production of their commodities.

The lowering of wages, however, has, from the Capitalist viewpoint, this disadvantage—wages cannot profitably be lowered below the level that will maintain a standard of satisfactory working fitness.

Therefore, in order to reduce the prices of their commodities, Capitalists find themselves mainly reliant upon reducing the amount of labour embodied in commodity production.

The only means of doing this is by displacing human labour by machinery.

Thus we find sections of the Capitalist class competing keenly against each other in the introduction of machinery, by which means alone they can appreciably lower their commodity prices and thus capture the trade of their rivals.

Only the introduction of such machinery will assist in retaining that essential in Capitalist competition—a rate of profit that will prevent being ousted from the competitive field.

Only such machinery, therefore, will be in great demand by the Capitalist class, and the competition to secure this machinery will send up its price and bring a rich reward to the owner of the invention. On the other hand, machinery that will bring benefits to mankind will not be in great demand unless it also aids the raising or maintaining of profits.

Inventors and scientists, therefore, faced by the fact that only the ideas that will fill a Capitalist need will bring ample payment, are, in the main, compelled to concentrate on such ideas. When the competition for trade, fields of exploitation, etc., can be divided by the border-lines of the competing countries, you will find the Capitalists of each country uniting against the menace of being ousted by a Capitalism from outside.

Diplomacy may for a time maintain a tolerating relationship between each country, but so urgent is the need for Capitalist countries to expand their markets, and secure new fields for trade that the strings of diplomacy are overstrained, and finally break, throwing the people of the opposing nations into the blood-drenched arenas of modern war.

When this happens the most urgent need of sectional Capitalism is for its own nationalistic entity to survive against the nations that threaten it. Thus the individualistic competition within the opposing countries is, temporarily, almost abandoned, and every muscle is strained to achieve a greater task for national Capitalism—i.e., winning the war.

In this manner the demand for labour-saving machinery is almost entirely displaced by the demand for machinery most effective in the prosecution of the war; machinery, in short, that would be most destructive against the opposing country.

Once more the demand for certain machinery sends up its price, and makes it the only mechanisation that will bring adequate recompence to its originators

Thus, although certain machinery will certainly throw many men out of work, or bring new horror into warfare, scientists, in order to live, are compelled by Capitalism to create such machinery. Not until Capitalism is ended and replaced by Socialism will there be a welcome for all mechanisation beneficial to society. Only then will inventors and scientists be unrestricted by the question, “Will it be profitable to the Capitalist class?”

Frank Hawkins

Notes by the Way: We Live in Strange Times (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

We Live in Strange Times

War is notoriously disrespectful to ancient prejudices and the present war seems to have produced more startling reverses of position than any. Who would have thought, a few years ago, that the time would come when M. Maisky, Bolshevist Ambassador, would be touring British factories urging the workers to work harder, while Lord Beaverbrook, on a visit to Moscow, promises that every tank produced in the week should go straight to the aid of the Russian army ?

The Daily Express (September 23rd, 1941) had the following two news items : —

“After M. Maisky had told workers at a tank factory yesterday, “We will go on fighting to the end until our enemy is crushed for ever,” the works manager mounted a tank and asked the men, “What is your answer?”

“More tanks,” they chorused. 

“Then go to it,” he replied, and they immediately swarmed back to their jobs.

An “Aid Russia” plea helped to settle a strike in Glasgow yesterday. Several hundred men at an engineering works, who came out on Saturday, listened to an appeal to return to work immediately to get aid-for-Russia production into full swing, and agreed to do so.”

The correspondent of the Daily Telegraph who visited the factory with M. Maisky reports that “in the factory he saw tanks chalked with slogans such as ‘Another for Joe,’ or with names like Marx, Lenin and Timoshenko,” while at the station when the official party arrived it inspected two tanks, “one flying the Union Jack and the other the Red Flag.”—(Daily Telegraph, September 23rd, 1941.)

Then a few months earlier there had been the little matter of playing the “Internationale” in B.B.C. broadcasts, neatly sidestepped by stopping all such broadcasts. While the argument was in progress the Times, in an editorial, committed itself and said “it was right and reasonable to expect that before long the appropriate addition would be made to the ceremonial array of national anthems.” —(Times, July 11th, 1941.)

* * * *

Religious Items from Moscow and elsewhere

Equally startling has been the news about religion from Moscow. Here are a few items:

A call to all Christians, Protestant and Catholic, to unite in a Holy Crusade against the anti-Christ, Hitler, was broadcast by Moscow last night.

Hitler has launched war against Christian civilisation, said the appeal. He has twisted the Holy Cross into an unholy crooked cross.

The call for a crusade was made particularly to the Christian peoples of Germany and the occupied territories.

“We appeal to all German Christians to fight the Godless regime of Nazism and Hitlerism,” said the announcer.

”That criminal Hitler is urging war against the hundreds of millions of Slav people, the people of those nations which have given the world great writers, thinkers, scientists, and religious martyrs.”-(Sunday Dispatch, August 17th, 1941.)

“The Moscow anti-religious paper, Besbozhnik, has ceased publication. A number of trade papers have been temporarily suspended owing to war conditions. —Reuter. (Manchester Guardian, September 11th, 1941.)

An appeal to the entire Islamic world to rise in the name of Islam “to defend the Moslems and the peoples of Russia, their peaceful life and religion, from the devastation of Fascism,” was made to-day by the head of the Central Mohammedan Administration, the Mufti Abdur Akhman Rasulev.—Associated Press. (Manchester Guardian, September 20th, 1941.)

Religious misgivings over the British-Soviet Alliance are misplaced, writes the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Canterbury Diocesan Gazette.

The Primate gives reasons why Christians should wish “every success to the valiant Russian armies and people.”

Our essential aim is to overthrow the tyranny of evil embodied in the rulers of Germany.

It may well be that Russia’s defence of its own land may lead to religious tolerance by the Soviet Government and a new resurgence of religion always deep-seated in the hearts of the Russians.—(Daily Express, July 24th, 1941.

But while the Bolshevists are able at a gulp to swallow Protestantism, Catholicism, and Moslemism, and the Archbishop is able to remove misgivings about the Bolshevists, the British non-conformists are made of sterner stuff, and still won’t mix with other brands of Christianity: —

“After the lapse of three years the Free Churches have decided against the outline of a scheme for reunion with the Church of England. . . . Episcopacy is still a serious stumbling block . . . and even should an episcopate be agreed to as one organ of a United Church, the Free Churches definitely reject the doctrine of apostolic succession.”—(News-Chronicle, September 23th, 1941.)

* * * *

Men and Women Air-Raid Victims

The Old Technique of “Divide and Rule”

On Saturday, September 20th, a demonstration was held in Trafalgar Square to protest against the Government’s refusal to pay women injured in air-raids the same amount as men. One young woman was there who had lost the sight of both eyes and suffered other serious permanent injuries. She receives 24s. 2d. a week. Had she been a man the amount would have been 34s. 2d.

The demonstration was supported by Labour M.P.s, including Dr. Edith Summerskill, as well as by that persistent defender of capitalism, Lady Astor, M.P. According to the News-Chronicle, the latter said that the Minister of Pensions had expressed the hope that women would “not make this a sex war.” Lady Astor added: —

“We have not done that, but the trade unions and the employers’ organisations have, by giving us unequal compensation”.—(News-Chronicle, September 22nd.)

Mr. A. J. Cummings, writing in the News-Chronicle, backed up the demonstrators: —

“Widespread indignation has been aroused by this strange new injustice, by which the worth of a woman’s body is rated so much lower than that of a man’s.”—(News-Chronicle, September 19th, 1941.)

Before giving the matter any thought most people will allow their natural sympathy with the victims of air-raid injuries to sway them into approval of the sentiments expressed, but it is worth while looking more closely into it. It will be noticed that there was no protest against paying a disabled and blinded man the niggardly amount of 34s. 2d. a week. Common-sense would suggest that if the promoters of the demonstration really wanted to avoid a “sex war” they would have based their claim simply on the fact that the amounts in question are paltry either for a man or a woman and that no approach to a decent living is possible on them. Why was this not done ? Why did not the leading lights get together and decide what larger amount should be aimed at both for men and women ? Doubtless the answer would be that if they had they would have found a cold lack of interest on the part of some of the defenders of capitalism who were willing enough to lend themselves to a “sex war.”

Notice, too, how the wealthy Lady Astor associates herself with her working-class sisters when she condemns those alleged to be responsible for giving “us” unequal compensation. If she were to become a victim does anyone suppose that she would be expected to live on 24s. 2d. a week or 34s. 2d. a week? But then she sees no “injustice” in a system that enables a small number of men and women to have incomes hundreds of times as large as those of the great majority of both sexes.

Then Mr. Cummings is moved by the injustice which rates “the worth of a woman’s body” 10s. a week less than a man’s, but he too is more concerned with this than with the fact that a man’s is rated at only 34s. 2d.

Some of those who use this technique of setting one body of worker against another know exactly what they are doing. They know that capitalism will be safe enough while workers can be divided by nationality, colour, religion, sex, skill, craft or any other side-tracking characteristic. Others are the muddle-headed dupes who cannot see the use that is being made of them. They might start by asking themselves exactly what is the principle they think should underlie the claim they make. Is it the principle of equality for all? If so, they will find Lady Astor and others their bitter enemies. Or is it the principle that while it is most important to have equality between disabled men and disabled women, between men wage-earners and women wage-earners, between men surtax payers and women surtax payers, there is nothing wrong with a system which breeds vast inequality between the classes, between the wealthy property owners and the poverty-stricken workers !

* * * *

What is a Doctor?

Under a sanely ordered social system goods would be produced solely for use and transport and medical and other services would be organised to meet the needs of the population. Not so under capitalism. At least half the energies of those who work are demoted to financial and other activities, the purpose if which is to look after the interests of the propertied class. ‘Bus conductors are not employed primarily to help the passengers but in order to prevent them from travelling without paying fares. Postmen and sorters are largely engaged in preventing evasion of postage and in carrying bills, receipts, cheques, etc., instead of facilitating useful communication. So also with doctors, who are less and less engaged in a disinterested care for health. The following is taken from a report of a recent conference of the British Medical Association: —

“British doctors are to approach the Government with an urgent demand to “cut all the red tape and let us get on with the job.” They complain that they are being overwhelmed by the present system of industrial certification, and are being asked to give certificates outside the scope of their professional duties.

Complaints were fully aired at the British Medical Association Conference yesterday, when nine motions were tabled protesting against the system. The case made out by the doctors is as follows : —

1. Demands for certificates are growing every week. Certificates for munition workers saying that they are unfit for work; certificates entitling expectant mothers to obtain special food; certificates, as one doctor put it, “for everything under the sun, from corsets to oranges and lemons.”

2. Doctors spend so much time signing certificates that they have no time to attend to their ordinary practice.

3. Apart from recognised certificates, employers are inventing their own certificates for their work people “further to harry the overworked general practitioner.”—(Daily Mail, September 13th, 1941.)

* * * *

Have we seen the last Millionaire?

In a broadcast talk on September 7th, 1941, Professor T. Jones spoke of the high rate of taxation now imposed on large incomes and prophesied that “we are almost in sight of the last millionaire.” The professor is being unduly optimistic and perhaps he has not very clear ideas of the way in which millionaires are made. The big fish devour the little ones and each other, and always there is fresh accumulation from the exploitation of the workers. Even if under war conditions large incomes are heavily reduced, war, and the post-war ups and downs of industry lay the foundations for new fortunes and for the increase of old ones. While during the war the prices of shares on the Stock Exchange have generally fallen this has been accompanied by a big rise in the wealth of landowners. According to the agricultural reporter of the Daily Express (September 1st) since the war started there has been a 25 per cent. increase in prices of land. He mentioned a public auction in South Lincs, at which agricultural land was sold at £140 an acre and quoted an estate agent who said that he had a long list of people anxious to buy land “even if the places do not show a profit on the investment.” “All they want to do is to safeguard their capital, and they believe there is less risk attached to land than to any other form of investment.”

As soon as investors believe that the end of the war is in sight with a defeat of Germany the prices of shares on the Stock Exchange will leap ahead and new millionaires will be in process of creation. Already it only needs reports of moderate Russian successes to send up prices. Marshal Budenny’s successful withdrawal of his armies from Kiev was sufficient to send prices “sharply ahead.” (Daily Express, September 24th.)

It is only necessary to recall how vast fortunes were made in shipping, textiles and other industries after the last war. Yet then, too, there were people like Professor Jones who looked only at a high wartime taxation and consequently missed what was happening. Below, for example, is an extract from a speech by Lord Emmott on July 7th, 1920: —

“I will take next the large capitalist who, in many cases, is a benefactor and not an enemy of the nation. Mr. Chamberlain has stated during the course of the Budget debates that putting excess profits duty, income tax, sugar tax, and provision for death duties all together, the wealthy man to-day is taxed at the rate of 16s. for every £ which he receives in income. Taxation at that level is dangerous to the community at large, and again I say, particularly to the working classes. . . .”—(Liberal Magazine, August, 1920.)

But Lord Emmott’s fears for the workers were groundless, and there were, ten years later, 540 millionaires in the country.—(Daily Mail Year Book, 1933.)

* * * *

” War-time Socialism ” that is not Socialism

A writer who signs himself “Landor,” writing in the London News, organ of the London Labour Party, discusses those of his colleagues who think that war-time Government control is Socialistic. He himself thinks they can properly be described as “steps towards Socialism” (which they cannot), but he has learned something from the last war: —

“But history is full of steps towards goals which were never reached. We had a lot of Government control in the last war, followed by books explaining that this was a step towards Socialism, but we never got the socialism. What we did get was a lot of trade associations, and quite a number of commercial combines and one or two monopolies. That is where the steps and the tendencies led us.

The slow application of state control over industrial activity in the last war, and its more rapid application, on the whole, in this war merely proves that it is generally accepted by the country at large that some measure of collectivism is necessary at a time when there is simultaneously scarcity and danger. It is nonsense to think that because people want more state control now they will want state control when the happy days of peace are here again. Most people associate Government regulation and rationing with danger and scarcity, and in consequence they associate derationing and decontrol with plenty and safety.”

* * * *

Money for Nothing

A writer in the Daily Mail (September 13th, 1941) was shocked to discover some workers in a West of England factory who demanded pay for the time they had to spend travelling forty miles between their homes and the new site to which their factory had been moved on Government instructions. He worked it out and found that “the skilled man travelling two hours every day between the two factories would be paid a guinea a week for producing nothing.”

He did not make a comparison between these workers and their well-to-do betters who in peace time can afford to go on world tours and other lengthy pleasure-seeking journeys, but the injustice is glaring. Why should workers be paid for the pleasure of travelling when the rich have to pay for their own ?

Another case nearly as bad was reported in the Daily Express (September 25th). “Boys of 15,” it said, “are earning £3 a week for making tea.” But in the adjoining City column is another report that the discovery of oil in Venezuela had sent up the 10s. shares of an oil company from 18s., which was the price a fortnight earlier, to 24s., and then, in one day, to 27s. This latter news item is published without comment or criticism. It will, however, be noticed that an investor who had, say, 20,000 of those 10s. shares, would have been enriched by £9,000 in 14 days. This is at the highly satisfactory rate of £4,500 a week. Making whoopee on the Stock Exchange can often be more profitable than making tea on a building job. If the Express and Mail object to money without work they might turn their attention to the whole capitalist system which is based on incomes from rent, interest and profit for the privileged few; including the many thousands of people with incomes of over £200 a week, all for nothing.

Edgar Hardcastle

Poverty and Food (1941)

Book Review from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Englishman's food : a history of five centuries of English diet by J. C. Drummond and Anne Wilbraham (Jonathan Cape, 12s. 6d.)

Blessed be ye Poor (Luke vi. 20).

J. C. Drummond and Anne Wilbraham make a notable contribution to Social Science in their book “The Englishman’s Food” (Jonathan Cape, 12s. 6d.). The general reader will appreciate its vigorous and clear treatment and apt illustrations, the student its wealth of duly documented references, while the Socialist will find a rich mine to quarry. Its main theme is to be found on page 484: “Most of them (the poor) did not even get enough food to satisfy their hunger; in nine cases out of ten, sheer poverty was the cause.”

* * * *

Dives and Lazarus.

It is the same hideous tale throughout the ages, and on the whole the wage slave has suffered more than the chattel slave from under-nutrition; gluttony and guzzling have characterised sections of the governing class no less under modern Capitalism than under Roman Imperialism. The cartoon opposite page 259, “A Lord Mayor’s Banquet,” may remind readers of Herbert Morrison’s tears for a blitzed Guildhall, which our County Hall tribune associated with noble fights against tyranny ! The dietary given for workhouse inmates in the nineteenth century on page 264 is a fitting contrast, where “same” occurs with damning iteration, and the changes are rung on broth, dumplings, and treacle.

* * * *

Noblesse oblige !

Wholesale exploitation eked out by petty thievery is clearly indicated in Chapter 17; some of the facts recorded will be an eye-opener. “When his own stocks were short, the Lord of the Manor seldom hesitated to draw upon the poor man’s reserve. Usually this amounted to confiscation. Piers Plowman described the plight of one left with nothing but a worthless ‘tally’ in exchange for the goods removed.” They order these things better to-day, our Lords of the Manor, with their retinue of “economists.” The smaller thieves, it is true, occasionally had a slim time, as “The Fraudulent Baker,” reproduced from an early MSS., grimly portrays, but, be it noted, the Lord of the Manor was almost as nearly touched by the baker’s fraud as the serf or tenant farmer.

* * * *

Patriotism and Profit.

Petty thievery attained bigger and bigger stature, until, under fully fledged Capitalism, it assumed the rank of the Order of Minor Brigandage, and was officially recognised and blessed by the Liberal hero, John Bright, who recognised Adulteration as a form of Competition. Chapter 17 will repay careful reading.

“In 1852, the public was shocked to learn of the proportion of tins supplied to the Navy which, on being opened, were found to contain putrid meat . . . unprincipled manufacturers utilised all sorts of unsavoury materials in preparing their products” (page 555). Since the Crimean War, a huge number of attempted safeguards, extending to and amplified in the present war, have sought to protect the armed forces of the nation against patriots who grace boards of directors;—it is at least unfortunate that to-day the office of Government watch-dog and profit maker are not altogether dissevered.

* * * *

Benevolent Fagins.

The Boer War effected more than the compulsory union of Dutch and British exploitation of the unfortunate African native; it brought home to the governing class the necessity of conserving Labour Power to meet the exigencies both of industry and of war under modern conditions. As a result of Government enquiry, reluctantly undertaken, it was found that “the public which had rejoiced vicariously in the triumphs of the football field and cycle track were discouraged to learn that of those who wished to serve their country in the day of trial a startling number were found physically unfit to carry a rifle” (quoted on p. 484). The Commiittee “tended to give greater attention to such factors as overcrowding, bad sanitation, alcoholism, ignorance, etc., than to what was, in fact, by far the most important cause, SEMI-STARVATION DUE TO SHEER POVERTY.” Since that period, milk in schools, infant welfare, vitamins, carrot juice. The “expectant mother” was discovered— the working class father is still left in a blurr of uncomfortable and perplexed “expectancy.”

* * * *

Limping Reform.

Page 539 affords a striking example of how Capitalism, twist and turn how it may, is itself dogged and thwarted by inherent contradictions and nasty snags. Stockton-on-Tees removed a foul slum, and settled its inmates on a relatively decent estate. Surprisingly enough, the death-rate increased under the new conditions; enquiries made it clear that attempts to throw the products of poverty out of the windows will only result in them coming in at the doors in other guises. “The move to the new estate had involved the tenants in larger rents, which had been just sufficient to reduce their purchase of the most nutritious foods.” It is worth noting that one year on the estate recorded 3.2 per cent, as against an average slum percentage of 1.4 previously.

Exigencies of space forbid further references to the many good things in this highly interesting book, but the quaint picture reproduced on page 182 is too precious to pass by. A German artist of the 15th century presents a Madonna holding the hand of the Child whose limbs clearly betray Rickets. Hans Burgkmair took this then very prevalent infantile evidence of malnutrition for granted. Science to-day has made its complete abolition possible; children of the working-class alone to-day suffer from Rickets, a Poverty afflication. Lean Rickets and Swinish Gout mingle in the ghostly Dance of Death staged by Capitalism. The establishment of Socialism alone can ensure the utter and complete annihilation of Poverty, with its attendant horrors; Socialism alone can create the Carefree Madonna and the Happy Healthy Child.

Augustus Snellgrove

Editorial: News from New Zealand (1941)

Editorial from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

How the workers fare under Labour Government.

Mr. W. Holmes, General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, former President of the Trades Union Congress, has paid a visit to New Zealand, and contributes to the “Landworker” (October, 1941) an article on his impressions. He calls it “New Zealand: A Workers’ State. A Triumph of Labour and Democracy.” He is, of course, chiefly concerned with the economic and social changes that have taken place since the Labour Party took over the government in 1935.

An earlier account of New Zealand’s Labour Government was published in this country by the Labour Party in 1937. It was called “New Zealand’s Progress under Socialism.”

Both the article and the Labour Party pamphlet contain a description of the achievements of the Labour Government, and an indication of what else it aims to achieve, but neither the things done nor the things promised give any warrant for the use of the terms “Workers’ State” and “Socialism.” New Zealand is not a country in which the able-bodied non-worker has no place. Property incomes from the ownership of land or industrial capital are still the rule. Goods are still produced by the working class but owned by the capitalist class. Inequality of wealth may possibly have decreased; it has certainly not been abolished. Nor is it the intention of the Labour Party to abolish capitalism and introduce a system based on common ownership.

There is therefore no justification for claiming that Socialism is in being. That is the first quarrel the Socialist has with the supporters of Labourism; and it is not merely a dispute about words. Progress towards Socialism is not helped but hindered by propaganda which represents as Socialism what is no more than Labour Party administration of Capitalism.

The Other Side of the Picture.

Mr. Holmes, though he says, “Long life and increasing success” to the Labour Government of New Zealand, has not been swept off his feet by what he saw. He praises—but he also makes comparisons between life under Labour Government and life under frankly Capitalist Government. Sometimes his praises contain comparisons that he does not appreciate, and here we will help him out. Now for a few of his illuminating remarks. “The New Zealand Workers’ Union organises the country workers, and has already secured excellent arbitration awards for shearers, musterers, packers, and drovers; while the dairy workers are also covered by awards; but the ordinary farm and station workers are difficult to organise, and their conditions are not much better than those of the British farm workers.”

So it is obvious that in this “Workers’ State” the workers are not in ownership and control. They must still organise and struggle for livelihood, and the ordinary farm workers are not much better off than their brothers in this country agitating in vain for a wage of £3 a week !

Mr. Holmes searched for the reason for this state of affairs, and quotes a New Zealand Trade Union official as follows: —

“The present economic position of New Zealand farming could not support the introduction of trade union awards and conditions throughout the whole industry.”

Mr. Holmes, when he heard this plea about depressed industry and “the employers can’t afford to pay,” must have felt that he had made his journey of thousands of miles only to find things remarkably like they are at home.

Many Labour Party supporters have an answer to all such pleas. “Let the State take over the industry,” they say, “and then it will be run efficiently and will be able to pay higher wages.” Mr. Holmes probably shares this view, for he remarks: “I visited many workshops connected with railways, which belong to the nation, and saw the great strides they are making in war production. I also visited the State timber works and the State flax mills which have recently been established. There are also State mines and State forests.”

Again we shall have to recall the wanderer from the Antipodes and ask him to notice that here in Britain we have our State capitalist Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services, and they, too, are steadfast to resist when higher wages are demanded. Quite a number of the Post Office employees would like to get the £3 minimum which Mr. Holmes’ Union is trying to obtain for land-workers.

Mr. Holmes inspected housing schemes in New Zealand, for one of the Labour Party’s promises was good houses “at low rentals.” But he finds that “the housing of the country people is not very good” and “the rents are rather heavier than in England.” He notices, too, that the New Zealand Government, when it goes into the business of building houses and renting them to the workers, ”expects to get about 5 per cent. on its outlay.” Mr. Holmes apparently did not ask why they required any interest at all.

As regards the cost of living in general, “food seems to be about the same price as in England, but clothes and boots are dearer.” These are factors to be allowed for when making comparison between the higher levels of wages in New Zealand.

He gives an imposing list of social reforms introduced by the Labour Government, including old-age pensions of 30s. a week, children’s allowances, and free hospital treatment, but rather knocks the gilt off when he adds: “Of course, all these things have to be paid for, and there is a direct tax of 10 per cent. on all wages.”

Still a Capitalist World.

Some defenders of the Labour Party, faced with the above criticisms of Labour Government at work, will readily abandon the claim that New Zealand is a “Workers’ State” or has achieved Socialism. They will retort, however, that, apart from this, the criticism is unfair since it does not allow for the fact that in a capitalist world New Zealand must remain capitalist, and that capitalism places limits to the improvement of the workers’ standard of life. Socialists do not dispute this. We do not argue that Labour Governments fail in their task of administering capitalism through want of will or bad faith. They may be well-intentioned but the road to capitalist crises and capitalist war is paved with the good intentions of social reformers.

Work of National Importance (1941)

From the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In The Tatler and Bystander (October 1st, 1941), Bridget Chetwynd, in her “Social-Roundabout,” reported the following: “Mrs. Paul Willert (who was Brenda Pearson) gave a wonderful dinner party for Air Force people stationed in Regent’s Park. She has a darling little house in Chelsea, into which she fitted incredibly many people, and gave them glorious lobsters, with mayonnaise made by herself, cold chicken, fruit and cake, and there were big stone kegs of beer. Young women being amused by the chaps included Miss Duff, Mrs. Pamela Tiarks, Miss Jean Nicoll and Miss Eve Fayne.”

Contrast that irresponsible nonsense with statements made in the House of Commons during a debate on the food question. Mr. Griffiths, speaking of the conditions in the mines in South Wales, said (Daily Telegraph, October 4th): —

“Three hundred men were observed for a week during the investigation in a coal mine in his constituency. One hundred of them could only bring in their ‘tommy-boxes’ plain bread and cheese with unsugared tea to support them during eight hours’ work. Some of the remainder were able to bring jam, some butter and some vegetables from their gardens. Unless steps are taken to provide these men with more adequate food, it is not physically possible for them to perform the tasks the nation is demanding of them.”

Mr. Griffiths also championed the interests of the steel workers in South Wales. “… Investigation in steel works showed,” he said, “that many of the workers had lost weight during the summer months—some as much as two stone. What they need is cheese, butter, and, in particular, more sugar.”

Major Lloyd George, in reply to the modest demands of Mr. Griffiths, said: “As to the supplementary rations for industrial workers, the Government intended to maintain their policy of allowing the maximum rations for all consumers generally rather than give a supplementary ration to a particular class.”

Oh, quite! Oh, quite ! The miners and the steel workers are not, of course, rationed in the quantity of lobster, cold chicken and other delicacies. They could, of course, buy them just like Mrs. Paul Willert (who was Brenda Pearson). Mr. Griffiths also knows this too. But, like us, he knows that they cannot afford them.

We wonder whether the “Air Force people” purred their approval of the party at Regent’s Park so unctuously as the society gossip writer. Or did they wonder why in these days when even the very rich are reduced by income tax to a mere thousand or two a year . . . that there are still people who can throw a party which costs the equivalent of probably many workers’ wages.

J. Cuthbertson

Letters: Are Cheap Imports a Concern of the Workers? (1941)

Letters to the Editors from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from the Duke of Bedford criticising the article “A Few Words on the Atlantic Charter,” published in our October issue:

“Wigtownshire, Oct. 18th, 1941.

Sir,

In your October issue you raise the question of the threat to Agriculture provided by cheap foreign imports raised in a climate more favourable to agricultural production than our own. In view of the fact that we live in a labour-destroying age, I feel that we need to modify profoundly the whole of our thinking on the question of cheap imports, realising that the true purpose of both industry and commerce is not to provide work, but to provide real wealth in the form of desired goods and services. The close association of work with the right to receive an income has led us to attach too much importance to employment and far too little to the provision of adequate incomes for all citizens, whether they are employed, or, through no fault of their own, unemployed.

The policy of excluding cheap imports with the object of assisting a home industry inflicts an injury on three sets of people in the effort to help one, and is, therefore, not sound policy.

The restriction of imports of cheap goods is an injury to consumers; an injury to the men in our export trade whose goods indirectly “buy” the imports; and an injury to the foreigner who may need our exports but cannot obtain them if we refuse to buy his exports.

If imports are cheap, under a rational system which recognises that foreign trade should have the fundamental nature of barter, it simply means that the foreigner is able to send us a large quantity of goods in return for a comparatively small quantity of our own, and this, if we did not live under the economics of Bedlam, should be an advantage to us and not a drawback. Under the present system, the snag of course is that if cheap imports put people out of work in one of our home industries, the unemployed will not be able to buy the cheap imports— and other articles—low-priced though they be. But why should such a ridiculous state of affairs be tolerated ? If the goods are there for the unemployed to buy and the unemployed are out of work through no fault, or culpable indolence, of their own, why in the name of reason should new money not be created and given to them to enable them to buy the goods and enjoy a decent standard pf living ! Such money would not be inflationary because there would be the cheap imports behind it to back it and give it value and, seeing that it would be new money created not in the form of debt, and not existing money obtained by taxation, no one else’s standard of living would have been lowered in order to assist the unemployed.

Yours very truly,

Bedford.”

Reply.

It is obvious that our correspondent has not at all understood the article that he criticises. We are concerned with abolishing the Capitalist system and replacing it with Socialism, not with the question of solving the insoluble contradictions of Capitalism. The purpose of mentioning one of its contradictions, the conflict between the agricultural capitalist who wants protection and the industrial capitalist who wants cheap imported food because that means lower money wages, was to show the difficulty in which the Labour Party or any other party finds itself when it tries to administer capitalism.

There are many points in the letter deserving of reply. For reasons of space it is only possible to touch briefly on some of them.

Our correspondent writes of “the true purpose” of industry and commerce, implying that there is a true purpose which is not the actual purpose. This is a meaningless statement. The purpose that industry and commerce have can only be the purpose of those who own and control them, and as ownership and control are vested in a small part of the population, the owners of landed, industrial and commercial capital, their purpose is the only one and that purpose is not the provision of wealth for the population but the purpose of deriving an income from their ownership. Different sections of the propertied class have different interests in the question of cheap imported food, but the working class as a whole have no such interest. Broadly speaking, their money wages rise and fall with rises and falls in their cost of living. Their interest lies in abolishing the private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Our correspondent sees a “close association of work with the right to receive an income.” This is only true of the working class. The propertied class do not enjoy their incomes because they work but because they own the means of production and distribution and own the whcle of the products of industry. The reason why the workers, employed and unemployed, cannot have and consume more of the goods that are produced is not the one given by our correspondent, that “cheap imports put people out of work,” but that the owners of the means of production and distribution are the owners of the products and are not primarily interested in any other question than selling them at a profit.

Like many other defenders of Capitalism who think they can solve Capitalism’s contradictions by currency juggling, our correspondent writes in amazement that his fellow property owners do not see what appears to him to be a solution. He is mistaken. They know at least a little better than he does what would be the consequences of his proposal of “creating” new money and giving it to the unemployed. If the penalty of semi-starvation through unemployment were to be removed, the workers would be in a position to wreck the wages system through which the propertied class are able to live on the backs of the wealth producers. Our correspondent may consider his fellow property owners are being ridiculous, but they know they are safeguarding their privileged position.

In conclusion, let us repeat that we are Socialists, and our purpose is to achieve Socialism, under which system goods will be produced solely for use and there will be no rent, interest or profit.

Editorial Committee.

Donations to General Fund (1941)

Party News from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I've not previously made a habit of posting these types of party funds columns from the war years on the blog, but I thought this time it was appropriate because of the bitter irony that the war economy brought full employment, and that trickled down into members and sympathizers pockets resulting in the Party being flush with donations for the first time in years. The sheer volume of donations was unprecedented and when you see the likes of Hamilton Branch donating to Party funds again and again, you know that for millions of workers war brought its financial benefits.

Hew to the Line (1941)

From the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The wage slaves of Britain are still packing their weary burden, and it is becoming increasingly plain that their exploiters have no intention of reducing the load the producers are called upon to carry. Indeed, all kinds of schemes are being devised to induce them to move at a more rapid pace; they are told they can do more than they are doing if they only try; the fate of the world depends upon the workers of this country making a supreme effort to increase output. This is what our masters would have us all believe, and they reiterate at every opportunity the necessity of working as we never worked before. The politicians on the platform and the parson in the pulpit harp incessantly on the same theme. Capitalism has at last got a market for all the goods that can be produced; the war has opened the flood-gates; production and more production is demanded. All wage slaves are graciously given the loan of a job and called upon by all those who live off surplus value to make work their ruling passion.

The ideas prevailing in capitalist society are the ideas of the ruling class; the moral code is that which preserves the master’s right to compel obedience, especially in war time.

The press nowadays makes interesting reading for those workers who understand their class position. Lord Halifax told some New York Republicans on the night of the 6th of October:

“We must put our aims higher. Don’t let either of us have to write across our records these tragic words, ‘Too late.’

For us both there is one dominant aim—production, more production, still more production.

We have got to put out every ounce of energy and power we have. Nothing else will do.”

Lord Halifax is even endeavouring to put all the wage slaves in the United States to work. It is interesting to speculate if he will be inspired by a like zeal should working men gather around the labour exchanges when the war is over. We did not notice any great effort being made to find employment for men and women who were out of work in the years preceding the war. The working men and their families were condescendingly allowed to exist on the miserable pittance known as the dole. Shipbuilders, mechanics, artisans and labourers of every description and of both sexes were then not wanted, and our masters apparently were unaware of their existence. Now these same individuals are told that their services are urgently needed; they must exert themselves and give of their best; the Empire is in danger, and those who were but recently despised and uncared for are called upon to slave unceasingly and even to risk making the supreme sacrifice for a system which heretofore has proved itself incapable of assuring a decent existence for large numbers of them.

Sometimes we see in the papers the report of a boy of seventeen or eighteen earning £4 or £5 a week; this is featured as something that should not be. He is not of those who live by exploitation.

We shall not hear anything mentioned about the way in which those who live by surplus value are safeguarding themselves and making plans which they hope will enable them to continue the system of exploitation after the war is over. Whilst the working class have their attention attracted to the struggle that is now raging, their masters are not neglecting future interests, but until the dove of peace again takes up its abode amongst us we may not be allowed to know what goes on in this connection behind the scenes.

Those who live by selling their labour power must judge the future their exploiters have mapped out for them by the past. The master class will not undergo a change of heart, and even if they did, such a change would not result in any great modification of the evils of the system. Capitalism has its own laws, and these work themselves out irrespective of the feelings of individuals. The war bids fair to last a long time, and will continue to affect every creature on the planet. All talk about the brave new world which is to come after the conflict is over is so much soothing syrup. There will be no improvement worth talking about unless the working class move in their own behalf.

This will come about when they grasp the nature of the job history has bequeathed to them. It is up to us to make them fully acquainted with the facts of their class position. The war is not the all-absorbing affair to us which the propagandists of our masters would make it out to be. Truly we have no use for the Swashbuckler of Berlin or the swollen bullfrog of the Pontine Marshes. We are opposed to dictatorship in any form, but the enemy of Labour is Capital, and we should be unfaithful to our class and our class interests if we allowed the war to cause us to forget this historic fact. Amidst the rationing system and the black-out, the clamour of work and the blitz, we take our stand for Socialism. Our cause is ours, the cause of those who live by selling their labour power, and no matter how chaotic the conditions or how eloquent the appeal of those who would divert us from our goal, we call upon the working class to make the means of life common property and establish a system of production solely for use. We are wholeheartedly in the fight for freedom—freedom from Capitalist bondage.

This is the only way in which a world worth living in can be brought into being: Socialism and Socialism alone guarantees permanent peace.

Socialism gives economic security and safety to all; Capitalism offers poverty, insecurity, war, and death. Choose ye!

Charles Lestor

From the “Socialist Standard,” November 1904 (1941)

From the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

(1)The Purpose of Capitalist Education

From a resolution passed by the Manufacturers’ Section of the London Chamber of Commerce : —

“That, in order to retain our industrial position and to introduce into this country such further industries as may be profitably developed, this section is of opinion that it is absolutely necessary to raise the standard, and, if possible, cheapen the cost of technical and higher technical education.”

From the programme of the Dutch Union of Socialist Teachers : —

“That the popular school, called into existence by the possessing class under the cry ‘cultivation of the people by teaching the people,’ has proved to be in their hands only the means of doling out to the children of the people that minimum of knowledge which has become necessary to supply the capitalist want of more or less educated labourers, besides being the means of impressing upon them so-called Christian and social virtues, which, in reality, are nothing but notions conducive to the maintenance of capitalism; that the non-possessing class, too, being insufficiently taught themselves, deprived of all influence on school education and therefore not inspired with genuine interest in it, see in the popular school only the way that enables their children to earn their bread afterwards ; that, moreover—partly in consequence of the causes given above all education which rises above the level of what capitalism demands, is doomed to sterility for the young proletarian because of the bad conditions.”

(2) The Inevitable Growth of Unemployment 

“We contend then, that so long as the machinery of production is owned by a class which uses the growing power, of the machine to throw men out of work rather than to reduce the duration of the day’s work, so long shall we have an unemployed problem. . . . We must, then, look forward in the near future to a constant increase in the number of the permanent unemployed. What are we to think, then, of those who, knowing these things, are yet to be found in brotherly harmony with the capitalistic sections of the community seeking for means for dealing adequately with the unemployed problem and yet afraid to say that they think the only solution of the unemployed problem is to be found in the establishment of a Socialist system of society. This is what we find at the present moment. Men styling themselves Socialists . . . putting forward as means for solving the unemployed problem, farm colonies and such like nostrums."

Copies of pamphlet wanted (1941)

Notice from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades in Boston, U.S.A., are anxious to obtain copies of the pamphlet “Socialism and Religion,” now out of print. Members who have spare copies are asked to sent them to H.G. Holt, 33, Gloucester Place, W.1.

The Western Socialist (1941)

Notice from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a result of the article in the September issue of the Socialist Standard, “News from the U.S.A.,” we have received a considerable number of subscriptions for the Western Socialist. Subscribers are requested to note that any delay experienced in receiving their copies is due solely to the fact that deliveries from the U.S.A. take longer to reach us than in normal times.

Every care will be taken to ensure that each subscriber receives the number of copies paid for, and these will be posted immediately they are received by us.

The Workers’ Socialist Party of the U.S.A. have advised us that another consignment is on its way to Great Britain. The W.S.P. also ask us to make it known that they will send a free specimen copy of the Western Socialist to anyone, anywhere. The S.P.G.B. recommends this offer to its overseas readers in particular. Please address your request for a free copy to:

The Western Socialist, 12, Hayward Place, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.

Straws: Brummagen Ware. (1941)

The Straws Column from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Brummagen Ware.

The Bishop of Birmingham, on Sunday, September 28th, opened his mouth and taught them, saying: “The destruction of wealth would make the whole community poorer.” If the last war is any guide, there will still be an ample share of surplus value produced to provide high living (not in the “spiritual” sense, My Lord) for the privileged few. The dear Bishop then solemnly announced that in the present war “workers were becoming small capitalists.”

* * * *

Cant and Cantor.

Dr. E. W. Barnes often manages to be merely silly; he should take a refresher course from the Archbishop of Canterbury to learn the ignoble art of bowing in the House of Rimmon, and apologising for it in specious phrases. “We may well be proud of our new Ally. . . . We have something to learn from Russia . . . they have something to learn from us” (6.10.41). How does he square this with the “orthodox” religious view that the present conflict is essentially to fight for Christian ideals ?

* * * *

Soviet “Equality”

The reverend dodger must be well aware that Soviet “planning of economic resources for the good of the whole community” has not obviated the great gulf in material conditions between peasant and proletarian on the one hand and “high-ups” of the Communist Party ruling caste on the other. The S.P.G.B. will be pleased to furnish irreproachable evidence on the point should His Grace desire information. Sez you !

* * * *

Oliver and Bumble.

Compare the following statements occurring in the same issue of the Daily Herald (17.10.41): “Beaverbrook cannot make the tanks himself. That only the workers can do; it is on the workers and their constant eagerness of toil that he relies.”

“Almost impossible to contemplate.” Sir Walter Womersley’s reply to demand for flat rate increase in Service men’s allowances. “Impossible even to contemplate,” when the worker in field, factory, or ghastly battle area asks (all too modestly, alas) for an extra allowance of the skilly ladled out to him by National Bums and Bumbles.

* * * *

War Tipsters.

Lord Acton’s historical essays are always worth reading; they are studded with common sense remarks, as, for instance, “there is an undefinable quantity in military genius which makes the event uncertain.” An excellent piece of implied advice to war tipsters of all shades and all parties.

* * * *

Golden Nobs and Clay Feet.

Harold Laski is a knowing card; his eulogy of our “beloved leader” in Reynold’s of October 19th beats the ordinary method of “damning with faint praise” by sizable lengths. “Of Mr. Churchill’s immense popularity there can be no question.” He has paid tribute to the Prime Minister’s “eloquence,” etc., etc. But “the conviction is growing that he does not grasp the economic and social issues of the time,” and much more in the same key.

Augustus Snellgrove

Sting in the Tail: Jobs for the boys (1993)

The Sting in the Tail column from the June 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jobs for the boys

When capitalism's economy is booming then some sections of the working class can make considerable gains. This, reformists assure us, is proof that their strategy of “getting something now” is more rewarding than our insistence on the need for socialism.

But what happens when the economic climate changes? Then many of the gains inevitably come under attack and will be completely lost.

An example of this is happening in Sweden now. For decades women there benefitted from the job opportunities in the growing public sector and had the highest level of workplace equality in the world:

They entered the labour market in such numbers that the term hemmafru (housewife) became a virtual anachronism within a decade. (Guardian, 13 April).

Now a huge government economy drive means tens of thousands of women are to lose their jobs and there are plans to introduce financial incentives for mothers to stay home and look after the children.

“Getting something now" is difficult enough in capitalism but hanging on to it is the really tricky bit.

Monet and Money

Alfred Barnes was a rich American who was heavily into modern art. His collection, which includes many paintings by Matisse, Cezanne, Renoir and others, is unequalled and is valued at $6 billion.

Late Again (BBC2, 17 April) revealed how Barnes only allowed a select few to see his collection. When he died in 1951 his will instructed the Barnes Foundation that the collection must never be sold, loaned or even moved.

Now, those who control the foundation want to raise money to repair the building where the collection is housed and they have won the courts' permission to take part of the collection on tour.

Even this outraged much of the art establishment. “The integrity of the collection is threatened, it will never come together again", they moaned, but their big argument was that “a dead man's wishes were being flouted".

All of this art was only possible because society provided the artists with the food, clothing, shelter, materials, education and, often, the inspiration they required. Art is a social product and should he freely available to all and not just to an elitist bunch of ’’art lovers" backed by the whim of a man long-since dead.

Cause and effect

Under headlines such as “Italians dance for joy after huge poll victory on reforms”, the newspapers have reported that the anti-Mafia movement are claiming that a new electoral system will stop “decades of waste, corruption and Mafia outrage".

What are these miraculous changes? In future 75 percent of the 315-seat Senate, or upper house, will be decided by the same first-past-the-post system as applies to Britain's House of Commons.

It is interesting to note that reformers in the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties favour some form of proportional representation in Britain. They decry the first-past-the-post system as undemocratic.

The electoral system makes no difference. No matter which system is favoured, capitalism is a social system that will always cause “waste, corruption and outrage". What is needed is not a change in the electoral system, but a change in the social system from capitalism to socialism.

Royal bricklayers

Amidst universal rejoicing, the government has announced that the Queen's private chapel, which was badly damaged in the Windsor Castle fire last year, is to be rebuilt in a contemporary style. One can hear the shouts of joy ringing out from cardboard city at the news.

Of course, such a prestigious venture must have a steady hand on the tiller. But we can sleep easy in this one too. “The Duke of Edinhurgh will take the lead for the Royal Household in the rebuilding programme. (Independent on Sunday, 25 April).

We hope no naive reader imagines that the Duke will actually be doing any work. No hod carrier he. No, the rebuilding by the Duke of Edinburgh will be like all the “building" that kings, queens, dukes, duchesses and plain old millionaires carry out. They may lay a ceremonial foundation stone or unveil a plaque, but you can be sure all the useful toil will be carried out by members of the working class.

Another patriot

What do the Labour Party really think about military matters? When the Royal Air Force's offer to fly over Bosnia was rejected, we found out.

Commentary on the decision not to deploy UK Tornado fighters, Mr George Foulkes, Labour defence spokesman, said : “I am surprised that, if offered, they were not to he included. We have got probably one of the best strike records of anyone, anywhere, as exemplified by our record in the Gulf. I would have thought it was essential that if there was to be an effective deployment to ensure the no-fly zone that there was a strong British presence. It sounds to me a bit like a snub if British aircraft have been offered and not included. ” (Glasgow Herald, 8 April).

So there you have it. The Labour Party are upset that British workers' lives are not be to risked. It has been said before, but it is worth repeating: “A patriot is someone that wants you to die for his country".

Modern times

Great interest has been expressed by the military about a new heat-resistant plastic that can withstand the heat of a nuclear explosion. Discussing various possibilities of its use the Observer (11 April) mentioned in passing some of the other things that the military are researching at present:

In this sci-fi world, generals are testing the efficacy of frying soldiers’ blood and brains with lasers.

Exploitation goes up (1993)

From the June 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Everybody has heard of VAT—Value Added Tax. It is ironic that the tax authorities should have recourse to a concept—"value added"—that sounds as if it might have come from Marxian economics. But when you deal with the real world, as the tax authorities do in a way that academic economists don't, you do have to take account of facts such as new value being added to the previously existing value of materials by labour in the course of production.

Value-added, as used by the tax authorities and also by those who compile the National Income statistics, is the difference between the monetary value of the materials and services a firm buys and the monetary value of the output it sells. The Penguin Dictionary of Economics defines it as follows:

The difference between total revenue of a firm, and the cost of bought-in raw materials, services and components. It thus measures the value which the firm has “added" to these bought-in materials and components by its processes of production. Since the total revenue of the firm will be divided among capital charges (including depreciation), rent, dividend payments, wages and the costs of materials, services and components, value added can also be calculated by summing the relevant types of cost and subtracting that total from total revenue.

In other words, value-added is the monetary value of the new wealth produced in a firm, which is divided into the property income of the firm’s owners (profits and the various charges upon it such as rent, interest and taxes) and the wages and salaries of the firm’s employees whose labour produced that new wealth. (Strictly speaking, depreciation, which is a measure of the fixed capital used up in the process of production, should be excluded but as this can't be calculated so easily and so quickly as the other costs this is not always done; value-added including depreciation is known as “gross value added".)

Unpaid labour

This division of value-added into property income and labour income provides a way to measure the exploitation of the workers in a particular firm or industry. This can be expressed in a number of different ways: as the percentage share of wages and salaries (or of profits) in value-added; as the ratio between the amount of profits and the amount of wages and salaries (roughly the equivalent of Marx’s “rate of exploitation"); as the amount of working time spent producing profits (unpaid labour time); and. if the number of workers are known, as the amount of profit per worker.

The Annual Abstract Statistics, published in January each year by the Central Statistical Office, very obligingly provides a set of statistics (Table 8.1) which allows us to calculate what these all are and so the extent of the exploitation of workers in various sectors of industry.

The 1993 edition gives the latest figures, those for 1990, relating to “manufacturing", which covers most of the sectors of the economy where wealth is actually produced. In 1990 the “gross value added" (output) in this sector was £111,051m; the total paid out as wages and salaries was £59,712m; the average number of employees was 4,840,000. This, the Table records, gives a figure for “gross value added per person employed” of £22,945.

The Table stops here but we can use the figures to calculate the extent of exploitation. A figure for profits can be got by deducting “wages and salaries" from “gross value added", which gives £51,339m, so a profit (what might be called “surplus-value added") of £10,607 per worker. The share of wages and salaries in gross value added, as the workers' share in the product of their labour, was 53.8 percent. This meant that in every hour they worked 32 minutes to reproduce the value of their wages and 28 minutes working unpaid to produce profits for their employers. The ratio of profits to wages was 86.0 percent.

More for profits

The Table, together that in previous editions, gives figures going back to 1981 and, once these have been converted into 1990 prices (so as to be comparable), it is possible to see what happened over the ten-year period 1981-90.

Between 1981 and 1990 output (“gross value added") increased in real terms from £97.704m to £111,051m, an increase of £13,347m, or 13.7 percent. Of this increase, £2,051m (15 percent) went to the workers as wages and salaries and £11,296m (85 percent) to the owners as profits. Over the same period the average number of workers fell from 5,778,000 to 4,840,000.

It is clear at a glance that this must mean that exploitation increased, even though the workers’ real wages also went up. A detailed analysis confirms this. Output per worker increased from £16,910 in 1981 to £22,945 in 1990 (36 percent); wages per worker, however, went up by much less, 24 percent, from £9,980 to £12,337, the balance going to profits. So all the measures of the rate of exploitation went up. Profit per worker increased from £6,930 to £10,608; the ratio of profits to wages went up from 69.4 percent to 86.0 percent; and the workers’ share in their product fell from 59.0 percent to 53.8 percent.

1990, it should be noted, as the year the current slump broke out, was not the best year for profits and, as the following table shows, exploitation increased steadily with the recovery from the previous slump in 1982. reaching a peak in 1988.

In any event, what the official government figures confirm is what the workers involved will have known already from personal experience: that in the 1980s the reduced workforce was forced to work harder to produce both more output and bigger profits for their employers. In concrete terms, at the end of the period the employers were extracting an extra £3,677 in profit from each worker left and, for a 40-hour week, had increased the period of unpaid labour time by 2 hours and 5 minutes.

Adam Buick

"I got rich through hard work — YOURS!"

From the June 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard