Editorial: The Ungrateful Workers (1957)

Editorial from the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hannen Swaffer writing in the People (8/12/56) tells us that, following the Suez action, we are all in "for long years of hardship.”  This isn’t quite true as Mr. Swaffer should know. The rich will still do well as always, and the poor will go on enduring the hardship they have always had. But the interesting point about Swaffer’s article is his attack on the ungrateful workers who don’t properly appreciate what the Labour Party has done for them.

"Gaitskell, Bevan, Wilson, and the rest know that our standard of life must get infinitely worse, and that, by a stupid paradox, the masses of the workers always tolerate more hardship imposed by the Tories than they will from their own side—from whom they always expect too much. In opposition, Labour can soften the economic blows upon the poor. In power, it is expected not only to avert hardship, but should almost usher in a new millenium. Democracy, ungrateful and dissatisfied, is a hard taskmaster."

Really Mr. Swaffer! Who is responsible for the workers believing that Labour governments meant “anew millenium?” Nobody but Gaitskell, Bevan, Wilson and Co. If, as is the literal truth, these gentlemen never intended to do anything more than keep the poor poor but “soften” their hardships, why did they not disclose this in their vote-catching electioneering?

Apparently the idea is that the workers are right to be dissatisfied up to the point of electing a Labour Government but should then stop being dissatisfied and should accept such Labour Government policies as “wage restraint ” with a rising cost of living, without complaint.

" . . . live like Lords." (1957)

From the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “I am told that if I get a rise the goods I make will not sell, because Germany will make them more cheaply, and I shall be worse off.

   So if I want to keep my standards of living up, I have got to keep it down. If I work for less than my German counterpart, I shall be better off. Then he will want to work for even less, so that he can be better off than I am. Finally, we shall all work for nothing and live like Lords.” 

This letter from a reader was published in the Daily Mirror some three years ago.

Woe to the Vanquished! (1957)

From the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the early years of the Bolshevik régime Lenin and his associates constantly referred to the Commune of Paris of 1871. They eulogised the defeated Communards and pilloried the murderous victors as examples of Capitalist ferocity that will never be forgotten.

Recent events in Budapest bring the Paris Commune to mind again on account of the similariities between the two tragedies.

In September, 1870, after the defeat of the French armies and the capture of Napoleon, Paris was invested by the Germans and a four months siege commenced. In Paris a Republic was proclaimed and the National Assembly, headed by Thiers, appointed themselves as the Provisional Government and declared their intention of defending Paris to the end. Instead of doing so, however, they were privately parleying with the German Government, arranging for peace terms, including occupation of Paris by the Germans. 

As a new elected Government gave no practical sign of their claim to defend Paris the Parisians became restive and eventually an angry mob invaded the Town Hall, frightening the Government with their conflicting demands; some wanted a Committee of Public Safety, others a Revolutionary Commune similar to the Commune of 1793 in the first Revolution.

Eventually the Government left Paris and took up their residence at Versailles under the protection of the German Army. In Paris delegates were elected by universal suffrage and a Commune was formed in March, 1871, for the purpose of defending the city and bringing about a number of reforms in the administration of affairs.

The newly appointed Government at Versailles then arranged with the German Government for the release of a portion of the French Army to be used for the capitulation of Paris. The German Government was a willing party to the proposal of Versailles because, under the peace terms, Germany was to get a huge war indemnity and the rich provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Without the capitulation of Paris the peace terms could not be implemented. So the German Army were cynical onlookers, and held the side-lines, whilst the French Army, smouldering from recent defeats, was let loose upon its fellow countrymen.

The Communards, or as many called themselves, the Communalists, were a mixture of many outlooks; from simple nationalism to anarchism and the supporters of the International Working Men’s Association. The defence was badly organised, many mistakes were made, but the self sacrificing and heroic resistance of the people of Paris was almost unbelievable. When the ramparts were overwhelmed they fought from street to street in despairing heroism, sacrificing their lives for their beliefs.

When it was all over the Versailles Government entered upon an orgy of slaughter that had rarely been witnessed before. We will quote a description from a writer who was not favourably disposed to risings like the Commune, Godfrey Elton. This is what he writes in his book The Revolutionary Idea in France 1789-1871 (Edward Arnold and Co., 1923).

 “By the 28th [May] all was over: guns, cartridge boxes and uniforms littered the gutters of the poorer quarters, while in the doorways sad, stony-eyed women waited chin on hand for the men who would not come back: and elsewhere more elegant Parisiennes could be seen trilling with excited laughter as they raised the covering with the tips of their parasols and peered at the faces of the dead. The vengeance of the Party of Order was comprehensive and very dreadful, more dreadful than the vengeance of the Revolution had ever been, even in 1793; the shooting of men, women and children in hundreds and without trial was a massacre, not an execution, and not a few of the victims were buried before they were dead.

“All over Paris huge piles of corpses encumbered the streets and poisoned the air. The cemeteries of Paris could not receive a tithe of the butchered. Enormous ditches at Père Lachaise, Montmartre and Mont-Pamasse and the trenches of the first siege at Charonne and elsewhere absorbed the unhonoured corpses, while women, widows and mothers, peered hopelessly among them for the dead that had been theirs. When the task of burial became too onerous they were burnt in the open air. It seems probable that 20,000 were killed during the few weeks immediately following the victory. The figure is unparalleled; in modern European history almost unimaginable. And the martyrdom of the prisoners was more dreadful than that of the executed; there was probably between 40,000 and 50,000 of them; and among them more than a thousand women and seventy children under fourteen ; and the barbarity of their treatment can only be matched in the East; one must look to the Black Hole of Calcutta or to some of the Armenian massacres for an approach to the brutal savagery of the conquerers ” (pages 171-172).

There is much more, but we have quoted enough to give a picture of what happened during and after the Paris rising. Many of the Parisians made their escape, some to England.

Now let us come up to date, to what happened in Budapest. Here again the mass of the people rose in revolt against their Government and the presence of foreign troops—the Russians. Here also a people of mixed outlooks were united in demanding the overthrow of the existing Government. The Government called in the aid of the Russians but there was a difference this time owing to changed circumstances. Whereas the Germans in 1871 were content to hold the ring, for the time being at least, the Russians came in with massed tanks and engaged in an orgy of slaughter, instructed by the Government that had claimed unswerving sympathy for the Communards of old. At the time of writing the fighting appears to be almost over but the pursuit and hanging of the vanquished continues with unabated brutality, and the refugees are giving their pitiful stories to the world. How deeply the Hungarians felt is shown by their attitude “Victory or death, bloody struggle or extinction.”

In Karl Marx's book on the Commune, The Civil War in France, he concludes with these words:

 “Workingmen’s Paris, with its commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators, history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the prayers of their priests will not avail to redeem them."

The early Bolsheviks glorified the Commune but the wheel has turned full circle and the glorifiers are now the damned, painted with the same red brush as the exterminators of the Commune. We can also say of them that history has nailed them to an eternal pillory from which all their apologists will not avail to redeem them.

Working men and women who have mistakenly given their support to these false Communist Parties should take thought of this historical parallel and shake themselves free from their clay-footed idols. Stalin is dead but the brutal fake Communism continues.

Gilmac.

Classic Reprint: Can the workers understand Socialism? (1957)

A Classic Reprint from the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is the working class a wash-out?—that is the question. A correspondent, in a very interesting letter, has put it this way. Socialism is a highly intellectual conception, and its acceptance involves a critical examination of the whole of one’s ideas and beliefs. Now most people we meet are not highly intelligent, not critical, not very imaginative, and not even interested. Their conception of a better world is limited to the possibility of another pound a week in the present one. Sport and the daily newspaper give them all the romance they want. And yet, says the questioner, it is just these average, humdrum' people who must be convinced that Socialism is both practicable and necessary. That is the poser.

If a recent lecturer on psychology is to be believed, the case is even worse. He said that just as physical growth slackens down at about the age of puberty, and shortly after ceases altogether, so does the intelligence slacken down and cease to develop at about the same age. After that, a person can acquire knowledge, but no more intelligence. It may be worth quoting his exact words:

 “But with the average child, tests of innate intelligence show little appreciable improvement after the age of fourteen.

 “During the war, tests of intelligence were applied to nearly 2,000,000 recruits for the American Army; it was then discovered that the average mental age of adults in the United States was barely fourteen. (Dr. Cyril Burt.)

This is rather staggering. Are you and I no more intelligent than our boys just leaving school? Are our apprentices, messengers and office boys to put us to shame and confusion by claiming intellectual equality? The eminent professor comes to our rescue, for he says:—

“The paradox, however, may be easily explained away. The puzzle arises from confusing inborn or natural ability with acquired knowledge and attainments. The former ceases to improve; the latter may continue improving to the end of our days."

We breathe again. We shall not be a mockery for schoolboys. But if the professor is right, there seems to emerge a very important truth. If the intelligence does not grow after the age of 14, just as the body ceases a year or so later, surely we are all on an average level again. We are all mentally 14, mathematicians and knife-grinders, university lecturers and booking-clerks. The great difference lies in “acquired knowledge and attainments.” So that the argument that Socialism is a system of thought that is only comprehensible by the highly intelligent, followed by the statement that the working-class is not more than five per cent. intelligent, is not in accord with facts.

It is not a lack of intelligence that is the stumbling block, it is something else. Consider these facts. This journal you are now perusing has a fairly steady circulation. Its very steadiness argues that the same people read it pretty regularly year after year. We can agree that the contents and character of this journal are such as to appeal to none but intelligent people. And yet the membership of the party is only about a tenth of the circulation. Surely intelligent people should take intelligent action, and if; as our questioner insisted, intelligence is to be the touchstone, the outlook is indeed gloomy. Fortunately, there appears to us to be other avenues of hope. First, there is die information given by Dr. Burt, quoted above: “acquired knowledge . . . may continue improving to the end of our days.” It should be the function of a Socialist movement to see that the working class acquires a knowledge of its position in society, its evolution, its problems and its destiny. This knowledge can only be propagated by the spoken or written word, possibly supplemented by the cinematograph. 

The case for Socialism can be put, and has been put, in language easily comprehensible by a normal boy of 14. It is possibly more easily apprehended then, for use and wont have not dulled the mind into the ruts of habit. According to the professor, he is as intelligent then as he will ever be. It is in acquired knowledge that he will progress if at all. It should be the peculiar task of our movement to provide that knowledge, not in the form of a small journal appearing at intervals of a calendar month, but in every form the genius of man can devise. Capitalists who sell wares have discovered that man is a lazy animal, who moves when prodded often enough, who is most responsive to massed attack, and when subjected to a continuous reiteration of the same story. They have found that the mere appearance of one word, like “Bovril,” on every railway station, every hoarding, and in every important periodical in the country, has a powerful psychological effect It becomes by sheer familiarity and persistence, part of the “acquired knowledge” encountered by the questing human mind. When we see every railway station in the country, every hoarding in the towns, every vehicle that carries advertisements, plastered with the word “Socialism"; when every bookstall and every bookshop is sprinkled with Socialist books and pamphlets; when Socialism is mentioned by every newspaper (even in detestation, as we should expect) every day, every week, every month, when the average man has Socialism thrust upon him, rammed at him, rained on him, insistently and persistently, in season and out of season, things will begin to move.

His intelligence may have ceased to grow at 14, but it will be sufficient We must take care of his acquired knowledge. He will be helped—if it is suitably drummed into him—by the obvious increasing bankruptcy of Capitalism, and the incessant attacks on the workers' standard of living. To take the course suggested lays a heavy burden upon the pioneers of a movement such as ours. That is the essential problem of the immediate present. How can the handful of enthusiasts who initiate the movement, get together sufficient funds to drench the working-class with its literature, to make its presence not only felt, but inescapable, to so familiarise them with its propaganda that misrepresentation becomes ludicrous? How can they, out of their poverty, engender this avalanche of publicity that is to overcome the workers' normal and natural inertia, and get them definitely on the move? Let every intelligent man, who has added to his stock of acquired knowledge by reading this article, answer for himself. Every reader a member, and every member a party worker, that is our object. We shall move in proportion to our effort.

W. T. Hopley

(Reproduced from “Socialist Standard," November, 1930.)

50 Years Ago: Happy New Year? (1957)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Happy New Year?

Another year with all its possibilities—gone.

Another year with all its possibilities—opening upon. us. And—“a Happy New Year” comes lightly from the tongue in conventional salutation: “A Happy New Year and doubtless behind the greeting there is still some measure of real concern for the materialisation of the wish in the person addressed “A Happy New Year”.—Why not? Why should not happiness be in the constant experience of all? Why should not happiness be the normal condition of everybody? Why should it not be as natural for everybody to exult in the joys of living as it is for them to breathe—why is it not?

Because—happiness is conditioned by the available supply of the necessities of life. Deny these to a man and he cannot be happy. And the barest of these necessities are unobtainable (upon Capitalist authority—unobtainable) by at least a third of the people of this, the most prosperous of nations, while the rest of its working population—the population that builds up the “national” prosperity—only just manage, with infinite labour and anxiety, to maintain themselves in a condition of working efficiency.

That is the reason why happiness is not the normal condition of the working population. That is why they have not been happy in the dead year. That is why they cannot be happy in the year just commenced. To wish them “A Happy New Year” which we know they will not get is therefore rather dreary humour and about as useful as wishing the moon were green cheese.

(From the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard.)

Notes by the Way: Fallen Idol Department (1957)

The Notes by the Way Column from the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Fallen Idol Department

Every crisis stimulates a brisk trade in fallen idols and models of new supermen. The cynical commentators, shedding a few crocodile tears as they hurry away the clay feet and big heads to the junk yard or the House of Lords, get on with the fascinating task of telling the public who will clean up the mess and lead them on and on and up and up to new crises. It is only a short while since the Tories were congratulating themselves on having got rid of the old war-horse, Churchill, and replacing him with the glamorous, virile, vote winning Eden. Now, if the Press reports are to be believed, they only don’t get rid of Eden because they can’t find anyone who even looks a likely candidate for supermanship. One commentator, Mr. Alistair Forbes, of the Sunday Dispatch (who was early in the demand to shelve Churchill and put in Eden) now does not know which way to turn. In his Column on December 9, he says that Eden only remains leader because, though considered “the worst Prime Minister we could now have”—except Gaitskell—the Tories can’t find a successor.

 “Sir Anthony no doubt hopes that the usual Tory difficulties about finding someone who can be all things to all Tories, if not all men, will keep him in office. Certainly many Tories must feel that if only Mr. Jo Grimond was a Conservative and not a Liberal, their troubles would be over.”

And before Labourites break out into derisive laughter about these troubles of the Tories they might recall that it is only a few years ago that many of them were wishing Eden would join the Labour Party.

Is it Inflation?

The answer, according to the “experts,” is yes, or no, or maybe. The Daily Telegraph had an editorial with the title “ Not Inflation.” (8/12/56).

Next day the City Editor of the Sunday Dispatch, writing under the heading, “Inflation Prospect Brings in Buyers,” explained why Stock Exchange prices had risen smartly:—

  "No doubt it was the realisation that we are at the beginning of another period of inflation which persuaded some of the big institutional buyers to come into the market” 

On the same day (December 9), another City Editor (Empire News) plumped for inflation, but the City Editor of the Sunday Times was cautiously non-committal. Under the heading "Inflation or Deflation” he posed the question “Are we in for a period of renewed inflation or deflation?” He quoted the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that “inflation was still the greatest danger,” but asked “ Is he right?”

His one really definite commitment was that the recent rumours of a further devaluation of the pound were "nonsense.” We shall see; remembering that while no Government absolutely has to devalue its currency—it is merely a choice of methods for dealing with a problem —the temptation to do so may prove irresistible as it did for the Labour Government in 1949. Faced with trade union pressure for higher wages on the one side and increased foreign trade competition on the other, the present Government, like Attlee’s in 1949, may decide for devaluation. It would solve nothing permanently, but it would give a fillip to exports and at the same time cause the cost of living to rise gradually and let wages rise with it.

In the meantime the Government goes on increasing the currency with another £50 million issue early in December. The Financial Times (7/12/56) expected that a further £50 million would be authorised before Xmas, which would constitute a highest ever, at £2,000 million, some four times the pre-war level.

Nehru’s Cyprus and Hungary

Nehru won’t discuss independence with the Naga tribesmen of Assam for the same reason that the British Government won’t discuss with Makarios the independence of Cyprus—they are two areas of great strategic importance and in both areas the resistance has proved more obstinate than was expected. From Delhi the Times reports:—

 "Mr. B. N. Datar, of the Home Ministry, replying to questions in Parliament, claimed that the movement for full independence in the Naga Hills district was 'fizzing out,' but he said that road convoys and outposts were still being sniped at, patrols ambushed, headmen and other loyal villagers kidnapped, and food and money extorted.. . . Some 686 malcontents had been killed since the beginning of operations and a further 146 were presumed killed.”—(Times, December 8, 1956.)

Nehru’s admirers have been embarrassed by his reluctance to condemn the Russian invasion of Hungary and his refusal to support a United Nation’s proposal for internationally supervised elections in that country. He has good reason for this attitude since the Russian excuse that they were asked to intervene by the Hungarian puppet government, is identical with the way Indian troops occupied large areas of Kashmir as a preliminary to the declaration that Kashmir is now part of India. As the Economist reports "to agitate in favour of Pakistan is to be guilty of sedition. A number of the leaders' of the opposition Plebiscite Front are under arrest. Above all, Sheikh Abdulla himself remains! in jail, where he has been for three years without trial.” (Economist, November 24,1956).

Now the Pakistani Foreign Minister accuses Nehru of wanting "to establish a brown imperialism.” (Daily Telegraph, December 8, 1956). Of course Pakistan wants Kashmir itself and thinks a Plebiscite would lead to that result. Nehru, having pledged himself to a Plebiscite, now repudiates it

Nehru has denied the charge that his preaching of principles that he won’t practice can be described as a “Holier than Thou ” attitude. One wonders why.

And what about Tito?

Some of the muddle-heads who, tired of Stalin worship, transferred their affections to that “good Democrat and Socialist Tito.” Now a Belgrade lawyer has been sentenced to three years’ hard labour “on a charge of spreading hostile propaganda by criticising the Yugoslav regime. The prosecutor in the district court . . . said that Djordjevic had declared, while in a barber’s shop in February, 1955, that there was no freedom in Yugoslavia now, but there had been before the war.” (Manchester Guardian, December 8, 1956).

That’ll teach him that there is freedom under Tito! 

The Black Inquisition and the Red

Cardinal Mindszenfy, Catholic Cardinal in Hungary, who was kept in jail for seven years, described to the Daily Mail (December 8) how he was tortured to make him confess to his "Communist” jailers. .

"For 29 full days it lasted—29 days and nights without sleep. The naked bulb in his cell was kept burning. When he collapsed from exhaustion he was promptly revived so that he would be deprived of even the rest of lost consciousness.”

A few days earlier two Americans, who had been in Spain checking up on the brutality of the Government of that Catholic gentleman Franco, reported in the People (2/12/56)), about a worker they called Eugenio.

“When he was taken to the Direccion General de Seguridad—Spain’s equivalent to Gestapo H.Q.—no specific charge was laid against him. Eugenio described this underground hell. Many of the cells measure only three feet by three feet. It is impossible to lie down. Eugenio spent weeks in one of them curled up like a dog.”

Are you Hungarian and under 18 ?

Last August when the Hungarian Government was making its first experiments with letting M.P.’s voice public criticisms of the way things were run, a woman deputy drew attention to the practice in textile factories of making young people under 18 work at night. The responsible Minister did not deny the charge that the law was being broken but said that workers under 18 could only be gradually exempted from night work. He made the point that a number of workers, including expectant mothers, had already been exempted and it would appear that he was defending the employment of some young workers at night on the ground of the difficulty of replacing them if the law were enforced fully and at once.

If there happen to be any Hungarian refugees under age 18 who find employment on British railways they may find that in one respect things are just the same as at home.

The following is from the Manchester Guardian (December 8, 1956):

“The British Transport Commission was fined a total of £92 on 23 summonses, and ordered to pay 10 guineas costs at Bristol yesterday for employing fifteen junior railway firemen, aged under 18, on night work. It was convicted of five similar offences in March, when it was fined £10.

“Mr. P. C. Wreay, prosecuting, said that the evidence showed “a deliberate and continuous flouting” of the law. It was admitted that there were considerable staffing difficulties.

“Mr. M. Corkery, for the Commission, said that it was deeply concerned about the matter. .In spite of difficulties, it was doing everything possible to avoid using young men on night work.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Is there State Capitalism in Russia? (1957)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a reader who thinks we have erred in describing Russia and China as State Capitalist. Our reply follows.

Greenford, Mddx.,

9/12/56.

Dear Friend,

In the December issue of the Socialist Standard you class the system in Russia and China as State-Capitalism. Now if Capitalism is an exploiting system under which the workers produce profits for the owners of the means of production while they themselves merely get a subsistence allowance, what happens under State-Capitalism? When did Bulganin or Chou-En-Lie last declare a dividend to their fellow shareholders? And if they do not declare dividends, what are their motives? What is it that drives them along? And why do the Capitalists hate them so much—while they have nothing against the Capitalists of—say Germany—who went all out in the last war to pinch their markets and colonies from them?

Yours,

Tom Forde.

Reply:

Our correspondent’s first point is that if there is State Capitalism it must show itself in the form of “a dividend . . . to shareholders.” This is his first misconception. The British Post Office, the Coal Board, British Transport, and the other nationalised industries are State Capitalism and they never declare a dividend to share-holders. The essence of State Capitalism is that the payment of dividends to shareholders is replaced by the payment of interest to bondholders, who, unlike shareholders, are divorced from the control of the undertaking. The former shareholders in the railways, etc., and the investors who hold the government securities that make up the national debt receive the interest on their bonds from the Government, or under Government guarantee. And this is the arrangement that exists in Russia and China. Every State concern in Russia is legally under obligation to make a profit and to pay to the State interest on capital advanced by the Government or the State banks. The Government in turn pays interest to the bondholders or (as is now the dominant arrangement) pays out the equivalent of the interest in the form of lottery prizes—the system just borrowed from Russia by the British Government in their Premium Bonds. The Russian national debt held by the Russian bondholders totals something over £9,000 million. It is frequently added to by the raising of new loans.

Quite apart from this, the individual political leaders, industrial managers, popular writers and dramatists and other favoured groups, are able to receive large incomes in salaries, fees, and royalties, which enable them to live on a standard far beyond the condition of the mass of workers and accumulate property—incidentally in cynical disregard of Lenin’s dictum that Russia would be run on the lines that all functionaries were to receive wages on the level of the ordinary workers.

Our correspondent’s last point is really fantastic. He asks us to accept the view that because the Western Capitalists hate the Russian rulers this proves that Russia is not State Capitalist and is, presumably. Socialism. Yet our correspondent himself shows the absurdity of his own reasoning by his reference to Germany. In 1914-18 and again in 1939-45 the British and German Capitalists were at war and violently “hated” each other. Are we then to deduce from this that the British Capitalists hated the Germans because Germany was Socialist? (Incidentally the British and Russian rulers were on the same side and were declaring their mutual love in the common struggle against the Axis Powers). Capitalist groups come into conflict over markets, trade routes and strategic points and this applies as between the Western Powers and Russia as between all Powers. And has our correspondent forgotten the Pact of Friendship between Russia and Hitlerite Germany? And did he notice that on the Suez issue Russia and America joined together on United Nations to oppose Britain and France. There is no impossibility about a line-up between Russia and any other Capitalist Power in the jungle war of world Capitalism. And what is said above about Russia applies also to China.

Our correspondent is referred to our pamphlet Russia Since 1917 for further explanation of the State Capitalist nature of Russia.

Editorial Committee.

Party News Briefs (1957)

Party News from the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Socialist Standard” Subscription. Readers are reminded that a subscription form is included in this issue. To ensure that the Standard is delivered regularly, why not send a subscription for 1957?

Lewisham Branch is holding an extensive propaganda drive during January when a by-election is taking place in Lewisham. An indoor meeting is being held on Thursday, January 10th, at Davenport Co-op Hall, Davenport Road, Rushey Green, Catford  Comrades Bryan and Wilmott are the speakers. The meeting starts at 7.30 p.m. —all are
 welcome. There will be time for questions and discussion.


Lunch Hour Meetings are again being held in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on Tuesdays and Fridays and at Finsbury Pavement on Tuesdays. The meetings at Tower Hill on Thursdays are continuing most successfully. At each meeting place the meetings commence at 1 p.m. If members will, whenever possible, support these meetings, there is every chance that we will re-establish these previously very successful propaganda stations.

Film Lectures at Head Office. These Sunday evening meetings have got off to a very good start—details of the January films are given in this issue. An interesting evening is ensured and there is always time after the lecture for a get together and a cup of tea.

Study Classes are commencing again at Head Office on Sunday afternoon, January 6th, at 3.30 p.m. An excellent syllabus has been prepared and the Classes Organiser is anxious that as many Comrades attend as possible. In the past the classes have proved of great benefit to speakers, writers and members generally, particularly young Comrades.

Head Office Social. A “free and easy” social has been arranged for Saturday, 5th January at 7.30 p.m. at Head Office.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Note:

There is a strong indication that the Lewisham meeting at Davenport Co-op Hall was canceled.

Day-to-Day Runners of Capitalism - Part 2 (1957)

From the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Part 1

The complete lack of grasp of the general political situation from a Socialist point of view, screams from every line of Driberg’s reports. Kruschev, having taken the Labour Party to task for being “reformist” and failing to educate the masses in the “revolutionary spirit,” Driberg enters the defence by saying “though Britain had certainly not been transformed into a Socialist State, the Labour Government had taken substantial steps towards Socialism—taking basic industries into public ownership, introducing comprehensive social security measures, and so on.”

The only “revolutionary spirit" in which workers need educating will come from a knowledge of their class position under the wages system and a realisation on their part of the need to use that knowledge to vote for the abolition of this system. Far from drawing attention to the real nature of Capitalism, at every election the so-called Communist Party uses exactly the same stunts as the rest of them, promising houses, jobs and peace, etc.

As we stated earlier, to the Labour Party nationalisation means Socialism, but perhaps workers are beginning to see that the so-called “public ownership” is two steps forward, three steps back and does not mean that they OWN any more of the means of living than they ever have.

The term “social security” has a nice sound but only INSECURE people need it. No reform can give workers security because their insecurity does not arise from lack of reforms but is basic to their wage slave position under Capitalism.

Krushchev's idea is clearly that of an ignorant mass of people having their interests looked after and their problems solved for them by the right kind of Government. If workers had understood Socialism in 1945 they would not have voted for the Labour Party yet Kruschev assumes the existence of an electorate which wanted Socialism and because the Labour Government did not bring it about, thought they would try the Tories. His actual words were “Yet the Labour Government lost the next elections. Why? Because they did not use their power in the interests of the working-class, and the working-class therefore became indifferent to the Labour Party. The workers' conditions in those nationalised industries you speak of didn't change greatly. Therefore the workers saw no difference between the Labour and Tory parties.” He then added “the Labour Government did not change the State institutions set up by previous Governments, or create conditions in which the social structure could be changed. Therefore, the working-class was not interested.”

It would be interesting to hear from Mr. Kruschev, in what respect “the State institutions" of Russia differ from those which typify Capitalism everywhere. Except for the fact that there is only one Party which exercises dictatorial control, the nature of the institutions, i.e., private property, inheritance, law making and enforcing bodies such as law courts, prisons, police and judges, also a monetary system, army, navy, and air force, etc., remain the same.

The Labour Government did not take office to change the State institutions of Capitalism, but simply to use these institutions to run Capitalism and to make what adjustments they found necessary to run it more efficiently. The one remaining necessary condition for changing “the social structure” is an understanding of why this change is necessary on the part of the majority of the working-class. Living under Capitalism and coming into contact with Socialists' ideas will bring this condition about, but no Government can “create” it.

After the erection and demolition of a few more Aunt Sallies in connection with the Labour Party, Kruschev switched to the so-called Communist Party, saying “the Communist Party is not a mass Party in Britain at present because of certain historical conditions. But times are changing: a revolutionary situation will arise; and the Communist Party will use this situation to educate the mass of the workers and lead them to the victory of Socialism.” Far from their being able to educate anyone the British Communist Party would not know a “revolutionary situation" if they saw one. 

Hypocrisy-Enshrined

This next quotation from Mr. Krushchev will sicken any worker who seriously reflects on it. “Being revolutionaries and Communists, we are interested in the international solidarity of the workers; but we DO NO MORE than GIVE GOOD ADVICE to parties that need it. Every country has its own way. We stick to the principle of strict NON-INTERVENTION. Our work is based on the slogan of PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP. There are various ways of transition. Let us be patient.” (Our emphasis).

The rulers of Soviet Capitalism stand condemned out of their own mouths. The bloody butchery of workers in Hungary since Kruschev made this statement, and on a smaller scale in East Berlin before it, demonstrates how utterly meaningless words are to these henchmen of Capitalism.

Contrasts in Capitalism

The remainder of the interview was largely devoted to comparing methods of running this system. The advantages of two parties as opposed to one, crime and punishment, propaganda technique, and so on. Kruschev had explained that Russia is composed of a number of “ sovereign republics ” and when Driberg asked “could there be capital punishment for murder in one republic, and not in another?” Kruschev replied “it is quite possible. Every national republic has its own criminal code. Even now, there are some differences, but there is some co-ordination.” This to Socialists is a very telling statement, for Socialism and national republics are contradictory terms. Socialism cannot exist in one country only, because it involves a WORLD class-struggle, and a world solution to problems arising from this world system. Socialism is the direct opposite of everything national. Krushchev’s reply poses a contradiction within a contradiction—Socialism in one country itself divided into separate national bodies, each with “criminal” codes and legislature of its own.

Another degree in which British Capitalism varies from Russian is that in the House of Commons there is time for questions and in the supreme Soviet there is not. Russian workers, we are told, can ask questions at Party and trade union meetings. For an exploited class to be allowed to ask questions indeed sounds a good thing but in neither country do workers have any real redress within Capitalism because the problems are such that they cannot be solved little by little. In fact although a lot of questions have been asked, the problems housing, jobs, security, and peace, etc., will last as long as the system which generates them.

One question Mr. Kruschev was called on to answer came from an old woman who lived on a collective farm and had lost a plot of land because her sons who had worked on the farm had gone to work in a factory. This is a private property question and clearly has nothing to do with land being held in common. The woman had asked other officials and after looking into it Kruschev decided “she’d been given the correct answer first time.” Another example was that of a mining engineer sent to jail for three years “for negligent supervision” after “ a worker in a pit that he was in charge of had fallen and died.” Mr. Kruschev asked the “ higher judicial authorities to investigate it.”

We are assured at the end that the Press in Russia can now criticise top Party Leaders and the crimes of the Stalin era have been “put right again by the twentieth Congress.” Said Kruschev “our aim is to prevent any repetition of the cult of the individual and to return to the Leninist position and methods.” Any change that has taken place in Russia since Stalin is more apparent than real, still the H-bomb race goes on, still the struggle for world trade and, like all ruling classes, the Russian State Capitalists show no mercy to weaker powers that oppose them. The horror witnessed in Hungary gives the workers there little cause to rejoice at whatever “cult” persists in Russia, individual or otherwise.

While most workers all over the world have no understanding of Socialism they will tragically toy with alternative parties to run Capitalism and suffer the INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES.

Harry Baldwin

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.