Hoist with his own petard. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The concessions, such as they are, which have been made have been much less due to our agitation than to the pressure of circumstances. . . Would the agitation have been carried on, would there have been any need for either agitation or concessions, if normal agencies—private charity and soon—had effectually grappled with the unemployed difficulty, and unemployment had not, in spite of these agencies, grown and developed into a chronic social disorder? Again with free education. Neither the first compulsory Education Act of 1870 nor the abolition of fees in elementary schools was the work of people who believed in the justice of either measure as an abstract principle ; and neither would have been adopted except that in no other way was it possible to remove that ignorance of even the bare elements of education which had come to be a national danger.

The same too with old age pensions and municipal trading. . . The trade unions are now, with practical unanimity, demanding old age pensions, and many of the great friendly societies are joining in the demand. Why ? Partly, let us modestly admit because of our agitation ; but mainly because of the impossibility of securing decent maintenance for old and incapacitated toilers in any other way. Why, in spite of the avowed hostility of the people in power to the principle of municipal ownership and municipal trading, have municipal ownership and municipal trading grown ? Partly, we may once more admit as a result of the persistent and active propaganda of our energetic minority, but very much more as a result of the utter failure of private enterprise. . . The latest case in point is the report of the Select Committee on the Bill for Providing Meals for School Children. That is a poor half-hearted report on a poor half-hearted measure ; but it does at least recognise the need for giving hungry children one meal a day. That is something; a concession made in the hope of winning over the Socialists, says Sir George Livesey. Partly perhaps. But the chief factor in bringing about this concession lies not in Socialist agitation, but in the circumstances that private enterprise has not been able, in this land of plenty, to prevent the horror and disgrace of the starvation of little children.”

H. Quelch.

And that is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. We reproduce it, despite its length because it may stand as a strong justification of our attitude in relation to reform agitation. We urge the danger and the stupidity of hitching working-class energies on to palliative propaganda. We emphasise the futility of anything less than Socialism and the necessity therefore for concentration upon Socialism alone knowing quite well that all other things will be added unto us either under stress of economic pressure, or because a growing working-class determination to be satisfied with nothing short of the whole product of their labour has struck fear for their safety deep into the hearts of the capitalist class and impelled them to offer anything, everything, but their power to rob, in an endeavour to turn the workers from their purpose. And we are sneered at therefore and are, if you please, “Impossiblists” on the word of Mr. Quelch himself and the Party he partly leads ! Mr. Quelch’s party has practically abandoned the revolutionary position of which we claim to be exponents, and become, largely under the direction of Mr. Quelch himself, a mere reform organisation. Yet Mr. Quelch and his friends continue to utter (on special occasions) the sentiments of revolution as though they had not strayed one hair’s breadth from the straight but narrow way and continue to pose (when it is good business to do so) as the stern relentless champions of the uncompromising policy. Mr. Quelch has framed a strong indictment of his own party’s methods—not to mention his own and as such we commend the article to the attention of our readers.

The Clarion on its defence. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Clarion has been “hit in the place where it lives” by the protest against its unfairness which was printed in the last issue of the Socialist Standard. At any rate it devotes quite a space to a rather ill-humoured repudiation of the charge, in the course of which it says:

1) That my letter would have occupied a column and therefore was virtually in the waste paper basket before it arrived.

2) That my article contained “spiteful abuse” of the Clarion’s “poor old Editor” who knew nothing of the matter in dispute.

3) That I stated the Clarion was filled with “piffle.”

To which I beg leave to make rejoinder as follows:—

(1) My letter was intended to outline and justify the position of the S.P.G.B. which had been criticised in two previous numbers of the Clarion. I thought this was a rather important matter. If a Party is contributing to working-class confusion, maintaining working-class ignorance and therefore delaying working-class emancipation, it is, I submit, an important thing from a Socialist point of view, to combat the work of that Party. I thought so, anyhow, and the Clarion says it thinks so too—sometimes.

The S.P.G.B. came into existence to combat the confusing effect of the work of professing Socialist organisations and to preach Socialism. The Clarion, which says it agrees with the position the S.P.G.B. alone upholds, refuses to print a letter from the S.P.G.B. because it would occupy a column. Mark. The case of the S.P.G.B., whose position the Clarion says it agrees with, has never been stated through the Clarion. We haven’t had a line. All the other Parties which,—if our contention is upheld as we say we can uphold it—the Clarion is supposed to be against, have pages !

This, however, may not be taken as a sign of a wonderful magnanimity on the part of the Clarion toward those with whom it is in disagreement. It agrees with our position all right, but it also agrees with the position of those we are fighting ! Rum? Not at all ! Just Clarionese.

Now accepting this basis, Clarion’s, it may not unnaturally be expected, I think, that as we are agreed with as much as the other chaps who are opposed to us, we should get as good a show in the Clarion as they. They have had pages. We have had the exact equivalent of nothing. We didn’t ask for pages. I only asked, it appears, so great was my moderation, for a column, and I only asked for that because we had been dragged into the Clarion without our knowledge or consent. I confess I expected to get the space necessary in the circumstances, particularly as it is an infraction of one of the few canons of honour journalism can boast of to print an attack and exclude the reply.

But—dear me ! no, says the Clarionesi Dangle. No code of honour of any newspaper in the world and certainly not the Clarion’ would stand the strain of any reply of over 250 words unless—-ah ! unless your reply will sell Clarions. If you are “Tess of the Suffragettes” for example, well,—”come and welcome, sinner, come.” even though the Clarion’s editor thinks the women’s agitation childish and silly. Or if you are an ecclesiastical dignitary, (Bishops preferred)—come again, even though your arguments are ”piffle” in three column efforts capable of being “smashed like an egg” by the Clarion’s fighting editor. Come one, come all—-if you can sell Clarions. But don’t expect to get in against the sellers of Clarions. You may be the very embodiment of all the virtues ; you may have the message that will set the people free, but if you are obscure and insignificant or if you are useless as a seller of Clarions—outside ! Perish everything—bar Clarions.

Well. I don’t sell Clarion. The Party on whose behalf I write don’t sell Clarion. My letter wouldn’t have sold any. Beside, it hit against the men of the Parties that do sell Clarion. It might have had a bad effect upon sales. Therefore, and so far as I can see only therefore, I am a “stodge-spinner” and am waste-papered.

All right. I don’t mind but—oh ! what a fall is here, my countrymen. What a descent from Olympian profession to Stygian practice. Poor old Clarion. Poor old Dangle.

(2) Wherein did my article contain “spiteful abuse” of Blatchford or anybody else ? Answer Dangle or withdraw. And please—I couldn’t help it if Blatchford didn’t see or hear of my letter. He is still Editor, isn’t he ? And—Dangle ! It occurs to me, speaking of Blatchford, that if he had had the same cause for writing that I had, and particularly if he had had the same case that I have, he would have run his article in weekly 4 column instalments over a period of six months at least, and yes, and then published it in book form ! You know he would.

(3) I stated the Clarion was filled with “piffle”? I? I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that Blatchford would have called columns of what appeared “piffle.” If Dangle doesn’t believe it he should ask Blatchford himself.

Just another word. My friend Dangle appears to be absorbing some of the methods of the Yellow Editors whom he delights to pillory. He publishes sufficient of my statement to convey a false impression. He inferentially imputes certain beliefs to me which I do not hold, in order that he may have excuse for pouring out the vials of his strongest mixture of caustic and iron upon my head. His references to the flatulency of his correspondents, while doubtless intended to be scathing, are in exceedingly poor taste and if Dangle had been less hasty would probably never have been passed.

In short, my dear Dangle, you have in this matter adopted the methods that are cheap and nasty. And I am astonished !

A. J. M.Gray

Correspondence in brief. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

H. C. (Plaistow) asks if A. Hayday, whose name appears on the Concert Program of the S. West Ham Liberal and Radical Club, as President of the Club, is the S.D.F. Councillor. He is. W. Thorne is also a member, but we are not sure about J. Jones.

W. S. (Stratford.) asks why leaders of the S.D.F. have been glorifying J. J. Terrett at a complimentary banquet when on the 26th Oct., 1905, H. W. Lee, sent round a recommendation from the Sub E. C. to S.D.F. branches not to invite J. J. Terrett to speak for them, in view of the attacks which he had recently made upon the S.D.F. in West Ham. Perhaps “Joe” could explain.

Blogger's Note:

More on J. J. Terrett from the November 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Answers to Correspondents. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

R. B. (Goodmayes.) — The matter stands thus—A number of members of the Islington Branch were found guilty by a party vote, of action detrimental to the interests of the organisation and injurious to the cause of Socialism, and they were expelled therefore. They now refuse, we understand, to accept the Party’s decision, and still pose as.members of the Islington Branch. This is ludicrous enough, but when at the same time that they are asserting their membership, they proclaim to the world that the Party is rotten and corrupt, the matter becomes sheer farce. We regret exceedingly that our late comrades should place themselves in so deplorably ridiculous a position, but that is their business, not ours. Our business is to warn everybody concerned against the false pretence they make of membership of the S.P.G.B.

G. Geis (Peckham.) —Thanks. But we cannot make ourselves responsible for all the irrelevant and unimportant communications we receive, and we will not undertake to return them to their blushing authors unless stamped addressed envelopes are enclosed for the purpose.

FlL. POP. (Herts.)—We have seen the article in the Weekly People, and recognise the fine Roman hand. The statement that our “Handicraft to Capitalism” pamphlet is the “first and only” is, of course, untrue. But it is true that our translation of Kautsky’s work is a translation only. We prefer our Kautsky pure and undefiled. In this connection we may observe that the interpolation of one’s own ideas into a translation of another man’s work without permission is not regarded as decent, while to foist the result upon an unsuspecting public, without making quite clear where the author leaves off and the translator commences, is just fraudulent. The statement that our largest branch has gone on strike, and that we are in a “bad mix,” is fathered by the wish. There’s nothing seriously mixed with the S.P.G.B., and our largest branch has not gone on strike. A number of members of one of our largest branches gave indication of being in a “bad mix” and the Party dealt with them promptly. The rest of the article requires no comment from us.

W. McT. (Edinburgh.)—You must learn to make some little allowance when perusing comic journals of the type of that you mention. As a matter of fact there is no Ilford Branch of the I.L.P. in existence. The statement, like so much of the light reading of our esteemed contemporary, was founded on fiction.

Pathetic scenes. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Cleveland (Ohio) branch Y.M.C.A. has decided by vote that a millionaire cannot be an honest man. Punch says pathetic scenes were witnessed when the news was broken to the millionaires who had been trying their hardest.

Socialist Sonnet No. 149: Water’s Utility (2024)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Water’s Utility

‘Water, water, everywhere, nor any

Drop to drink.’ Rain falls freely to earth,

Yet water is not free; so what is it worth?

A fortune to a water company,

Feeling free to pollute rivers and lakes

With sewage in all its variety,

Product of our effluent society.

Consumers pay the bill, while capital takes

The dividends. So, what nature provides

Becomes a commodity by and by,

To profit those who’ll control the supply

As long as capitalism abides.

‘Nor any drop to drink’ safe to say

Unless the drinker can afford to pay.

 D. A.

Letter to the Islington Tribune (2024)

From the SPGB Discussion Forum

The below letter has been sent to the local freesheet in Islington:

Dear Friend,

It is impressive that within two days of Jeremy Corbyn announcing he is standing as an independent candidate his campaign volunteers have put a leaflet through my letter box.

Freed from the shackles of putting the Labour Party line, he has been free to put his true self and programme forward.

Yet, in his election address there is no mention of socialism, nor any discussion of the common ownership of the means of creating wealth.

Taxing the rich means you have to let the rich earn the money to be taxed, relying on the capitalist drive to profit. Common ownership instead means democratically directing wealth to match human needs.

At this election, then, Socialist Party members will not be supporting Mr. Corybn’s campaign. As we can’t vote for a socialist candidate in this constituency this time, we will be carrying out a write in vote, with our members writing “World Socialism” across their ballot papers. We urge anyone who supports our case to do likewise.

Pik Smeet

Editorial: A budget secret revealed (1949)

Editorial from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tories praised Sir Stafford Cripps for his “honest and courageous" budget. Loyal Labour M.P.’s rallied round but sadly thought of the awkward questions they would have to answer when next they addressed their constituents. Some blamed him and his budget for causing the Labour Party to lose control of Middlesex and London in the County Council elections. Other aggrieved Trade Union M.P’s, and of course the Communists, raged against Sir Stafford and demanded what they call a "Socialist” budget. Practically everyone assumed that Cripps is the man solely responsible for what the budget contained and it falls to us to reveal that this is far from the truth. But before we divulge our secret and lay the blame where it justly belongs let us glance at what the Cripps budget did. and at the critics who demand a “Socialist” one in its place.

The principal budget changes are the increased prices the workers will have to pay for butter, meat, cheese and margarine because the government will not increase the subsidies on these articles; a reduction of 1d. a pint on beer that the workers drink, and of 2s. a bottle on light wines that the workers don’t drink; an increase of telephone charges; an increase of death duties on the estates of the wealthy; a concession to companies that allows them an increase of the initial tax free amount they may set aside for the depreciation of plant and machinery. .

What particularly shocked the Labour Party rank and hie was that "their own government," while insisting still that workers ought to refrain from wage claims except on special grounds, should itself raise the cost of food by £70 million a year and add insult to injury by the 1d. a pint oil beer and by various concessions to companies in the matter of taxation; and all of this in face of the urgent pre-budget plea by the trade unions for the cost of living to be lowered by abolition of some of the purchase taxes.

Guns before butter.

Now why did the budget contain these things, and not others more to the liking of Sir Stafford Cripps’ critics in his own Party? His own explanation ran on familiar lines. The government, he says, has to meet increased expenditure on the social services (the National Health scheme, etc.), and on expanding armaments to meet the new threats to world peace, and it cannot do this if at the same time it reduces the workers’ cost of living. Or to put it another way, you cannot devote more men and materials to the production of food, and of exports to buy food, if you have decided to take more men and materials for the armed forces and the manufacture of armaments (as a deceased foreign politician once said, "Guns before butter”). Cripps forestalled another line of attack by insisting that it is not possible for his government to go any further in the direction of soaking the rich to help the poor. The rich must be left more or less with what they have and the poor must be patient until such time as they have greatly increased the amount of wealth produced and then some of it will come to them.

This argument fails to satisfy the critics;.they feel there is a catch in it Arithmetically considered, the critics obviously have an unanswerable case. If the rich were brought down to a common level the poor could have more. If armies and armaments were reduced or abolished more food, clothing and houses could be produced. If rent, interest and profits were reduced or eliminated wages could be raised. But we are not dealing with an arithmetical problem. What we are dealing with is the working of a social system—capitalism—and nobody has yet done these things with capitalism or shown how they can be. done.

There have been many Labour governments in different parts of the world but not one of them has ever done these things. They have all put forward the same excuses as Sir Stafford Cripps for not doing them.

Cant from the Communists.

The clearest example of all is that of Russia where a Communist government has had power uninterruptedly for over thirty years. Lenin promised that immediately they got power all managers, officials, etc., would be brought to approximately the workers’ wage. It has never been done. Instead there is the greatest inequality between the masses and the wealthy minority. The British Communists demand of the Labour government in Britain something that the Russian communist government has not done and has no intention of doing. Let the Communists explain why there are rich and poor in Russia—why not soak the Russian millionaires to help the Russian poor? And why not abolish the turnover tax (like the British purchase tax) so that prices paid by the Russian workers could be reduced? Russian State concerns have to make a profit and pay over part of it to the government; and the State concerns and the government pay out vast sums as interest to the bondholders. Why then does not the Russian government abolish profit and bondholding and use the proceeds to raise wages or reduce prices?

The answer to all these questions is that where you have production of commodities for sale and profit-making, where you have the wages system and property incomes, you have capitalism, and those who administer capitalism are forced within very narrow limits to do those things that capitalism requires, those things and no others. Where you have capitalism you nave rich and poor. Where you have capitalist competition for markets you have international tension and must maintain armaments.

It is not our purpose in this article to argue the practicability of Socialism but merely to hammer home the lesson that at present we (and the Russian and all other workers) live under capitalism and from that all else flows. Budgets are the financial arrangements made for the conduct of the Capitalist State and it is childish muddle-headedness to ask that they be transformed in “Socialist” budgets. It is equally unreal to ask that the British Labour government or the Russian Communist government should transform their respective forms of capitalism into Socialism. The great majority of the workers so far do not understand and therefore do not want Socialism and it cannot be imposed upon them against their will and understanding. 

Now we can reveal why the budget is as it is. Sir Stafford Cripps it was who put pen to paper after studying the problems before him, but capitalism and its forces dictated to him what the problems were and the shape his budget had to take. Beside him and backing him stand his fellow ministers, and behind them and sharing the responsibility are all those Labour Party propagandists, delegates and rank and file members who thought that they could run capitalism in a non-capitalist way. They are learning the hard way that they can’t, and are wasting precious years to do it. Any member of the S.P.G.B. could have told them what would happen to their attempt to run capitalism, as indeed we shall remind them again when eventually a disgruntled working class rejects them and they retire to hold a sad and angry inquest into the causes of their failure. They will probably blame Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps as last time they blamed MacDonald and Snowden but the blame and responsibility will equally be their own.

Letter: Housing, Crises and the S.P.G.B. (1949)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hampstead, N.W.3.

24th March, 1949.

To the Editor,

Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

Taking a little time off from my joyous Capitalistic task of enslaving the Working Classes, I read for the first time, and with great interest, The Socialist Standard of March.

Confronted with a Declaration of Principles and with view points so startlingly original I quite naturally failed to absorb the feast in one sitting. I would like, however, to comment on some of your articles and to ask a few questions.

The opening page consists of a skirmish with Sir Will Lawther and it would seem that this gentleman differs in opinion from the S.P.G.B. In fact I notice that he has had the temerity to “challenge the position taken up by the S.P.G.B.”, and strangely enough, also in your own words, he is by no means the first T.U. Official to do so. Could not these poor benighted dissidents possibly be right and the Party be wrong? Of course not, because we immediately find Mr. J. R. Clynes quoted in Reynolds Newspaper of 1919 and in the short space of eighteen months he is shown to have made a bloomer. This game of pulling pieces out of ancient quotations is a jolly one with the dice loaded heavily in favour of the Editor.

I don’t suppose that any member of your Party has ever been wrong on any subject—although I do seem to remember having a most enlightening conversation with one or two of your members during which I was assured that none of the so called War Criminals would ever be executed because the ruling clique of this country would undoubtedly prevent such an unpleasantness occurring in the ranks of the privileged class, "aristocratic and plutocratic.”

On the second page I find the opponents of Socialism neatly divided into two classes and with no great effort I find myself falling snugly into class A. Human nature being what it is I find bitterness and enmity pervading even The Socialist Standard. "R.H.” writes on workers’ houses being stacked and barrack-like blocks of buildings without gardens. Not one house well made and properly erected? Not one fine block of flats? Not one teeny weeny little garden? This distortion of facts ill-becomes a Party so proud of its honesty and sincerity.

"Abolish Capitalism, overthrow privilege, etc., be hostile to every other Party.” In carrying out this happy programme a lot of people are going to be hurt one way or another, and what are you going to do with the "overthrown”? Is the World to exist only for the S.P.G.B.? And when all this is comfortably arranged, who is to decide the measure of the contribution according to the ability of each, and the measure of the needs of each?

Let us imagine that Human Nature changes, suddenly or otherwise, and that all Peoples feel and think exactly as the Party does and are agreed on carrying out its Principles. How do you start next Monday morning? Does the dustman continue his job, the coalminer, the black-coat worker, the shop assistant, the rent collector, etc., etc.? What about Bill Smith in two rooms in Bermondsey and Ivan Ivanovitch in Moscow? When do they move and where? Who is to arrange for the new accommodation, the new demands for the needs of each? Again, what of the “overthrown”? Who re-educates them and in what tasks? To what use will you put the "abilities" of the languid gentry?

These and a few thousand other details will have to be settled pretty quickly because there are quite a number of lads and lasses everywhere ready to change some onerous and/or dirty job for a nice pleasant one, such as arranging all these things for the other fellow.

If there is a book or pamphlet in existence showing the "How to do it" by the S.P.G.B. I would be delighted to read it because as Mr. Waters points out in the S.S. there are many who see the evils of the present system and want to remedy them. He actually says many "workers" but I hope he will permit even a Capitalist to hold such a view.

Your Principles are clear enough, your declaration of war plain enough, but I feel that I ought to withhold my application for membership until I am reasonably sure that you have a plan to put into operation on the glad day when all other Political Parties are overthrown.

Yours faithfully,

Sidney Bolsom.

Reply.

Mr. Bolsom clearly does not approve of what he read in the March issue of the Socialist Standard. If he had contented himself with saying so in general terms there would be nothing more to say. He has, however, chosen to go into details and we shall naturally expect him to justify himself.

His first move is to come to the defence of Sir W. Lawther, J. R. Clynes and other trade union officials who have claimed at different times that there would not again be a capitalist crisis of "overproduction" and consequent mass unemployment. We say that those who did so in the past were wrong and were proved to be wrong by events, and that the same fate will befall those who do so now. Mr. Bolsom says: “Could not these poor benighted dissidents possibly be right. . .?", All that is now needed is for Mr. Bolsom to prove that they were right How he will prove that Mr. Clynes was right when he claimed in 1919 that there was no risk of "overproduction, causing unemployment" for at least a dozen years, we do not know. What Mr. Bolsom has taken on is the task of disproving the Ministry of Labour's declaration that in the early part of 1921 there were over 2,000,000 unemployed. He will find the figures in the Ministry’s "Abstract of Labour Statistics" (18th Issue, 1926, Page 51). We await Mr. Bolsom’s disproof.

Then there was the similar experience of the late J. H. Thomas. In the Labour government which came into office in 1929 he took on the post of Lord Privy Seal with the special function of dealing with unemployment. Unemployment then stood at just over a million and Mr. Thomas explained that he and his colleagues in the government "were going to do what they could to reduce unemployment while accepting the present order of society." (Daily Herald, 6th July. 1929). He was as unlucky as Clynes had been, for by the middle of 1931 when the government fell the figure had risen to over 2,800.000—again these are Ministry of Labour figures. Mr. Thomas’s own story, admittedly related in a jocular way, was that on taking office he had consulted the late Josiah Stamp, believing that as an economist Stamp could give him the real expert view. Stamp is alleged to have told his friend Thomas that trade was on the mend whereas it was actually on the verge of another crisis.

We now await Mr. Bolsom’s proof that Thomas was right and that unemployment did not nearly treble within two years of Mr. Thomas’s undertaking to reduce it.

We should perhaps explain to Mr. Bolsom that this is not a guessing game. What is at issue is the reasoned case put forward by Socialists that capitalism, because it is a system based on private ownership of the means of production and because it functions through the sale of commodities for profit, necessarily follows a cycle of expansion and contraction, boom and slump. Against this innumerable 19th century economists, followed more recently by Labour Party politicians, have argued that governments, by following certain trade and financial policies can extricate capitalism from the trade cycle. They have been proved wrong at every succeeding crisis for 100 years or more. Still, if Mr. Bolsom feels able to prove that this time they really will succeed we shall be interested to know how he thinks they will do it.

We note that one or two of the members of the S.P.G.B. are alleged to have disbelieved that the "war criminals" of the second world war would be executed —at least they had a reason, they remembered that the Kaiser and his fellow war criminals, despite the threats and pledges to bring them to trial, succeeded in living to a ripe and honoured old age.

On the question of the article on housing Mr. Bolsom is guilty of a piece of distortion himself. He implies that our contributor declared that there has not been built a single well made and properly erected house, not a single house with a garden, not one fine block of flats. Of course he did nothing of the kind. He claimed that one can see around London "uniform barrack-like blocks of buildings, without gardens for children to play in." He also expressed his opinion that these blocks of flats are "loathsome" and are not the kind of dwellings the workers would like to live in and that the rich can live in. Our contributor did not say that no houses at all except these blocks of working class flats have been built. We would, however, add that the kind of houses the workers can live in is determined by their wages and though better houses and luxury flats do exist (as our contributor pointed out) the mass of workers cannot afford to pay the rent demanded.

Incidentally if Mr. Bolsom thinks that the standard of new working class houses is quite satisfactory can we take it that he lives in one himself or would like to?

Then Mr. Bolsom asks us to take note that if capitalism is overthrown and Socialism is established in its place a lot of people are going to be hurt one way or another. He does not tell us how or why this will happen nor who the people are. Perhaps because he does not at all understand what Socialism is and how it will be achieved. He imagines, for example, that we claim that this will all be done by the S.P.G.B. As this is the reverse of what the S.P.G.B. has been claiming for 45 years perhaps Mr. Bolsom will tell us where in our literature he thinks he picked up that nonsensical idea so completely at variance with the S.P.G.B.’s case. Is it not ironical too, for a defender of capitalism, with its periodical wars and preparations for another war. to tell us that lots of people will be hurt? We can assure him, if he needs assuring, that quite a lot of people will certainly be hurt if capitalism is allowed to continue and produce its next world war.

The rest of Mr. .Bolsom’s questions about how Socialism will be administered after it has been established arise entirely out of his absurd caricature of the S.P;G.B.'s case. If we had ever suggested that Socialism will be achieved by the S.P.G.B. overthrowing other political parties (Mr. Bolsom’s description, not ours) and that than the S.P.G.B. will proceed to plan and impose Socialism, then his questions would be relevant. Our actual case is, of course, that until the majority have become Socialists and have democratically gained political control to establish Socialism, there will be no Socialism. But when these necessary preliminary conditions have been fulfilled these questions will take on a very different character from the one assumed by Mr. Bolsom, who in effect asks us to believe that Socialists who have worked to establish a new system of society on a basis they understand and desire will then proceed to wreck it over who shall do this or that particular job. If on reflection Mr. Bolsom still thinks this is a reasonable proposition and will give reasons we will deal with them.

The broad principle of distribution accepted by Socialists is “From each according to capacity: to each according to need.”

In conclusion we cannot resist pointing to a seeming discrepancy in Mr. Bolsom’s argument. He asks us what Socialist society at its inception will do about the workers who lack proper housing accommodation (poor Mr. Bill Smith “ in two rooms in Bermondsey ”); but did we not gather from the earlier part of Mr. Bolsom’s letter that Bill Smith is already being provided with proper accommodation under Labour Party administration of capitalism? Can it be that on second thoughts Mr. Bolsom does agree that the housing problem is not going .to be solved under capitalism?

Ed. Comm.

Letter: A Critic of the Busmen (1949)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

East Ham, E.6.

Dear Sir,

I am not a member of your party, or any other party, so perhaps it is not quite in order that I as a very ordinary individual, should write you.

Somehow or other your Socialist Standard booklet has found itself inside my letter box, and I commenced to read the Busmen’s Case.

The Busmen’s behaviour on that Saturday afternoon was the meanest rotten trick they could play on the long suffering public and it certainly earned them the public’s disgust, not its sympathy. Many people had to walk home in the drizzling rain and the ordinary worker was debarred his Saturday sport.

These strikes don't affect people with cars, it only causes them amusement; and after all, these men know all the facts having to work on Saturday and accept them as a condition of employment. They don’t work any longer hours than the average man and have a rest day thrown in.

Supposing the surgeon of a hospital was doing a vital operation and it was past one o'clock midday, would he down tools unless he was paid time and a half The ambulance man, the nurses, postmen. Everybody who is a public servant.

Yours seems to be a one-sided policy, take all, give nothing. If men want to strike let them strike for their suffering wives, who for nearly ten years have had to put up with a ration book and pay the prices what's asked, because it means going without, if you don't

Be men and strike to bring down prices and better food.

They certainly would earn the women’s praise and uphold them in their convictions.

Yours truly,

Margery Anderson.

Reply.

Our correspondent states that she commenced to read the article on the London Busmens’ half-day strike in our February issue. It is a pity that she did not complete the reading. Had she done so she would have found the answer to most of the points that she mentions.

We have not sufficient space to repeat the article in detail, but we will briefly touch on a few points. Before giving vent to her "disgust” at strikers, we suggest that our correspondent considers the fact that a strike is the expression of a struggle between opposing interests and the responsibility for any inconvenience caused is as much, if not more, with the employer as with the workers. But despite her disgust she urges men to strike for their "long suffering wives" and to “strike to bring down prices.” Would a strike to bring prices down to the limits of the wage packet cause less inconvenience than a strike to bring wages up to the level of prices?

The statement that “these strikes don’t affect people with cars” is meaningless. Neither do they affect people with pedal cycles. If our correspondent means that the capitalist is not affected, we already said that in the article.

She says that the busmen know the facts of Saturday work and accept them as conditions of employment. Sure they do. They also know the rates of pay that the job carries. But we venture to suggest, that if busmen, or any other workers, accepted rates of pay that were agreed upon at the times when they took their jobs years ago, their "long suffering wives” would be more disgusted than is our correspondent. Conditions change and workers must continuously struggle to adjust their wages and conditions of employment to the changed conditions in their industries and the world around them. The busmen did not protest at Saturday work. They asked for more pay for more work done.

The supposition about a surgeon proves nothing. Surgeons, like other workers, strive to get the best price for the energies that they sell. If they are not prepared to accept the price currently obtainable, they do not do the job. Like anyone else they must live, and that factor may force them to accept lower rates than they would wish, but they have their union and their means of struggle. The following extract from The Star 29/3/49) proves that. Referring to a meeting of the "Doctors’ Parliament” in London to discuss amongst other things, insufficient pay, The Star says: “Buckinghamshire delegates agreed to urge the meeting to call for mass resignations from the Health Service unless adequate fees were granted.” Where a section of the workers are poorly organised or do not wage a determined struggle, their working conditions are also poorer. That is one reason why the nursing profession that our correspondent uses as an illustration, has been notorious for its low pay and bad conditions of employment.

Is our policy one-sided? There was no reference to our policy in the article under discussion. Our Declaration of Principles will be found on the back page of each issue of this journal.

"If men want to strike” begins a sentence. They don’t want to do anything of the sort. If wives are to pay the prices that our correspondent complains about, then men are forced to strike to get the necessary wage or, as she correctly puts it, "it means going without if you don't.”

W. Waters.

Debate with Labour Party (1949)

Party News from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate with Mr. A. Blenkinsop, M.P., at Kensington Town Hall on March 21st attracted another large audience. The subject was, “Which Party should the Working Class support, the Labour Party or the Socialist Party of Great Britain?” The debate was opened by Mr. Blenkinsop, for the Labour Party, who claimed that a more appropriate title would have been "Why does the Working Class support the Labour Party?” He said that there are people who live in a rarified atmosphere who think that their own interpretation of Socialism should be accepted by all. He preferred to get down to the practical job of getting it started and not to wait. He was from the North and he knew of the horrors and shocking conditions that once prevailed in the distressed areas, where those who do the most useful work get the least pay. But the workers on the Clydeside were pulling themselves out of those conditions. For the maximum production of wealth it is necessary to change the ownership, and the Labour Party had done that. Workers in London and its suburbs had a comfortable time in comparison with the iron and steelworker of the North country, and they were removed from them. They did not understand how the miner and the iron worker felt about these things. It is to the credit of the Government that there is less unemployment now than there has ever been before during peace time. That is better than any intellectual exercise by a small clique. The wealth of this country lies in the degree to which, in the future, we can get the most from our productive efforts. First essentials must be first. We must take primary industries and ensure greater production in order to improve our standards of living.

The position of the Agricultural worker is higher than ever before. New elements of Democratic Freedom are springing up in our countryside. These are factors that make it certain that the Labour Government is worthy of support. The S.P.G.B. has theory but it has not put forward any practicable proposition. The Labour Government not only desires more production but sees that distribution is on a better basis. This is accomplished partly by controls and rationing and partly by financial policy. Those who can afford to bear the burden should bear it; those who have the largest incomes must make the maximum contribution to the welfare of the country as a whole. We are proud of our social services, we have the best health service in the world. It stands as a beacon to workers in all lands showing what a Labour Government can do. It is true that today, this country offers a new hope to people all over the world.

Our representative Harry Young commenced by claiming that the subject matter of this debate was the most important that can be discussed. It was a matter of life and death for many workers. No one, he said, denies Mr. Blenkinsop's statement that the workers now support the Labour Party, but that did not mean that the Labour Party was functioning in the workers' interests. His opponent had given a good statement of the orthodox Labour Party outlook, but it had nothing to do with Socialism. Industry is still owned by the Capitalist class whilst the vast majority of people are non-owners. Being non-owners means that they are wage workers, dependent upon and conscribed by the owners. The wages that the workers received were the price of the labour-power that they sold. They must work part of their time for the owners of industry in order that there may be a surplus of wealth for these owners. All increases in production mean a relative increase in the share appropriated by the owners. The poverty of the workers grows, not in relation to the wages of fifty years ago, but in relation to the wealth produced today. The cause of this poverty was private ownership and the removal of private ownership was the only solution. Reforms such as Nationalisation and social services are futile. Easing poverty does not remove it. After three and a half years of Labour Government there are now wage claims from millions of workers, claims which the Labour Government must refuse. When workers come out on strike, the Labour Government issues notices, “Go back to work or be sacked.” A socialist party must refuse admission to reformers into its ranks or the reformers would swamp the socialist objective. Socialism is common ownership and organisation for the benefit of all. Not state or public ownership. Socialism must be international, democratic and equalitarian. It means no government, no state, no shops, no market, no wages, no privileges or titles. Money, in the words of William Morris, “will become items of curiosity.” All people will work amicably for all. If it was agreed that capitalism was the cause of the workers' ills, then its abolition must be the cure. The views expressed by each party to this debate were as far apart as the poles. The social services that the Labour Party lauded were a backhand way of reducing wages, they are a means of ensuring that the efficiency of the workers is not impaired. Mr. Blenkinsop had told the audience how well the workers were getting on under a Labour Government, it was also interesting to see how the privileged few were faring after three and a half years. Young then quoted from the Daily Telegraph and from ‘‘Economic Survey for 1949 ” to show that the gross profits of companies in 1948 are estimated to have increased by over £300 million and gross dividends distributed to have increased by an estimate of £25 million. He quoted from other sources to show that firms like the Hawker Siddeley Group through Philip Hill and Partners invited subscriptions for £3,000,000 in four per cent. debentures at a price of £101 per cent. and that the issue attracted some £28,000,000, or more than nine times over subscribed. He also instanced the Decca Company and others.

Mr. Blenkinsop opened his second address by confessing that he had been of the impression that the S.P.G.B. was going to wait till the workers in this country were prepared for Socialism, but he now was informed that we must wait till workers all over the world were ready for it. There must be some alternative for working men and women to support. We need practical measures for the relief of working people. The enthusiasm of this meeting reminded him of a Jehovah’s Witness meeting. It was very good and interesting to have cloudy ideals like those of the S.P.G.B. but not if you are expected to live by them. They were nice dreams but we could not rely on them for our bread and butter. It is a good job that there is a party prepared to tackle the task of practical government. The Labour Party had never pretended that it was establishing Socialism. Nationalisation is a step to that end. It extends opportunities to the people of this country. In regard to his opponent's remarks about the wage demands of the railway workers, it was good that they should make such demands. Workers will always press for increased standards. We, in this country depend, in part, on the work of people in other parts of the world. The Labour Government is freeing subjects who have, in the past, been forced to work for certain sections of our community. This means that we must pay more for our tea, etc., but the people of India will move, in years to come, to a wider form of government and their own form of Socialism. Today, the people of this country must live by their own exertions and not, as before, by the tribute from colonies. Mr. Blenkinsop said that he preferred to represent a movement that stands for high ideals that are practical. Social services are not just palliatives but a means of transferring wealth to the people as a whole. His opponent had given some gross figures but not the nett ones alter the deduction of taxes. Nationalisation takes from the private owners the determination over production and places the management in the hands of the people as a whole. The Labour Government has achieved a higher standard for the people.

Comrade Young categorically denied that nationalisation will lead to Socialism. The Labour Party had embarked on a tortuous route but had got stuck in the swing doors of the House of Lords. It was fallacious to think that you can deny the capitalist control over industry whilst leaving him the ownership. Young quoted Mr. Attlee: "Socialism means the common ownership of land and capital . . ." You cannot commonly own capital. Capital, by definition, is wealth used for the production of more wealth with a view to profit. Socialism does not own capital, it abolishes it by taking it out of the hands of the owners. When commonly owned it ceases to be capital. It becomes wealth. Nationalisation does not do that. Tories will not repeal the nationalisation laws. His opponent had said that the workers should demand increased wages, then why not grant them? The social services reminded him of the ants which used the aphis and extracted a milk from them and then put the aphis back on to a juicy leaf or stalk for it to recuperate in preparation for a further milking. The idea that the workers benefit from the tribute wrung from colonials arises from a lack of knowledge of what makes Capitalism tick. In the days of Ramsay MacDonald the Labour Party said that Socialism was just round the comer. Now they say a lot of steps have to be taken. All these steps are building up capitalism. If this debate was just a matter of slow idealists versus careful, practical politicians we might as well all have gone to the pictures. But this was going on in a world with an international situation, in a competitive system. In times of slump the capitalists herd together as do wolves when they are hungry. The one-time conscientious objectors and pacifists of the Labour Party are now saying "get back into uniform." They call it defence. In all parts of the world they call it defence. Comrade Young quoted from a daily paper:

"A machine for producing invisible mists loaded with germs of pneumonic plague has been designed at the Government’s Germ Warfare research station at Porton, on Salisbury Plain. The disease is more terrible than bubonic plague." 

We are hurtling at a breakneck speed to a "practical" massacre. All this results from a mistaken idea of achieving Socialism one step at a time. Young produced two election addresses, one Tory, one Labour. They were both alike in most respects. We of the S.P.G.B. do not want merely attempts at the relief of poverty we want to abolish the system of poverty. He concluded with a quotation from the New Statesman and Nation:

“A very substantial employer of labour was discussing the political situation the other day. 'Of course,’ he said, 'we had difficulty in settling down after the war, but the men are working well now. Everything is going smoothly now. You understand that I am a staunch Conservative. I always have been one. But 1 don’t like to think what would happen if the Conservatives got into power now. I really don’t think that we dare swop horses in the middle of the stream.’ ’’

Mr. Blenkinsop accused his opponent of being a rhetorical speaker. He asked, "If the S.P.G.B. is going to offer itself to the electorate to usher in the new society, what are the practical steps it proposes?" It wants some mythical form of representatives to gather together to usher in a new society. It wants to continue as a little group preaching to itself. If the Labour Party has produced nothing in 45 years, what has the S.P.G.B. produced in 48? It is the working class itself that is moving inside the Labour Party. It is not true that there is no sign of improvement That is an isolated view. His opponent would not dare to express it to the miners. The miners know the advantages of a new and better system of living which the S.P.G.B. has not dared to attempt to achieve.

Comrade Young concluded. The fact that millions believe something does not make it correct. The S.P.G.B. claims that the establishment of Socialism requires the conscious organisation of the working class. The Labour Party denies this, it is a reformist party. Capitalism is rotten ripe for the change, the only hindrance and stumbling block is the political ignorance and the mists of confusion created by the Labour Party. If there had been no Labour Party to do the job, the Capitalists would have created one.

W. Waters.

Labour Government in New Zealand (1949)

From the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The case for an all round wage increase is unanswerable. During the war years much was said of the golden age for workers that would ensue with the defeat of Fascism and the birth of the "New Order." This "New Order" has faded as the morning mist before a summer sun. The workers’ primary and immediate need is for a substantial wage increase. Union advocates can present cases but in the final analysis results are obtained only by the strength of the rank and file. The quality of that strength will determine the success of the wage struggle." 

                                                                   "Jock" Barnes,

National President of the
 New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union. 

(Quoted in "Caught in the Act," a pamphlet issued by the National Executive of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union, November, 1948.)

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are the Tories going Syndicalist?

From the Debate on a Conservative Clause to the Coal Industry Bill. (Hansard, 28/3/1949).

Mr. J. G. Foster (Conservative, Northwich). “I should like now to allude to the point of view taken up by the Hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). He says that the House of Commons need not be bothered because there is the miners union and the Government owns the mines, and that therefore everything is quite happy as between the miners’ union and the Government. I do not think the hon. Member has quite appreciated the fact that although things may be all right between the miners’ union and the Government—and of course the top union officials have jobs in the Government and represent the unions in Parliament—things are not all right between the members of the union in the nationalised industry and their union officials in the Government. Things are not all right, as one can see, because there are unofficial strikes and it takes months for disputes and grievances to come up even to the men’s own union officials.

“It is no answer for an hon. Member to get up in this House and say ‘It is all right, the union has said nothing.’ Of course the union have not said anything. They work hand in glove with the Government and disregard the interests of the men. That is the trouble, and we get the same trouble in civil aviation and in the transport industry. That is why some breakaway unions are popular and why there are unofficial strikes; it is because the men are dissatisfied with their own union officials. There is great disquiet among many trade unionists who remember the glorious record of trade unionism that is being thrown away because top union officials prefer to work in harmony with the the Government instead of putting the interests of their men first . . .”

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): “I am anxious to confine my remarks as far as possible to the Bill and to the new Clause, but I cannot let tho comments of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) pass without making some reply to what seemed to me to be a disgraceful attack on the leaders of the trade union movement. He appeared to be criticising them for the moderating influence which they exercise upon their members, so as to help the country through its present economic difficulties. I am astonished that a prominent member of the Conservative Party should now be descending to a syndicalist policy. 1 should hope that if any Member on the Front Bench opposite is to speak he will repudiate the hon. Member for Northwich, because he made a most scandalous suggestion.”

#    #    #    #

Mr. Shinwell among the Brass-hats.

“ . . . I have had experience of working with the so-called brass hats for the past eighteen months and I had some experience of working with them in 1929. I have also had the experience of working with other people, and I would rather work with the brass hats at the War Office than with some of the brass faces in other spheres of life.”

(Hansard, 29/3/1949.)

#    #    #    #

And another one-time “ Revolutionary.”

"Is the Prime Minister aware that forty years ago the Oath of Allegiance was even exacted from junior civil servants, the lower ranges of civil servants; and can he say why it has fallen into disuse since then? Does he not think it would be a good plan to re-impose it?”

(Mr. W. J. Brown, Hansard, 29/3/1949) 

#    #    #    #

We Wonder.

"Private enterprise has been aided more by this Government than by any Tory Government, and the result of the General Election will show that the people like it”

(Mr. A. Robens, Parliamentary Secretary to the Min. of Fuel and Power. Hansard, 29/3/1949.)

#    #    #    #

Troubles of a Labour Leader.

Captain Hewitson (Labour M.P. for Hull, Central) in the Debate on the Budget proposals. (Hansard, 7/4/1949).

"I have in my hand a list of industries numbering 151; in 122 of these 95s. or less is the average weekly basic wage. During last year trade union leaders, in spite of all the things that have been said against them about lost leadership, not being able to control their members, and so on, have been able to persuade their followers to increase production. At the same time they have prevented inuation by holding back demands for increased wages. We have accomplished that during the last year. We have reached the stage today when we cannot hold that safety valve any longer."

"I want to strike a note of warning . . . Can I go to my membership, who have a wage of 95s. or less, and justify to them and convince them that that wage is adequate to keep body and soul within them and their homes, and to give them decent shelter? We cannot do it any longer. If the Chancellor or the Government in the Budget which was issued yesterday had given concessions in Purchase Tax, and concessions that would have made life for the ordinary working class home easier, we trade union leaders could have held that safety valve for months and months ahead and so helped the country to get through its economic crisis . . .”

"There was a cartoon in the Evening Standard on the subject of the 'Old white horse, Old Faithful, the old T.U.C.' Let me say this to the Government. Their pace is determined by that old white horse. The last straw can break that old white horse's back, but, so far as we are concerned, we are not going to allow the old white horse’s back to be broken. If it comes to a last final resort, we shall fight. We say to this Government, or to any other, 'You can’t afford to fight against us who represent the organised workers in the country . . .”

Stan Hampson

Letter: Defender of Children's Allowances (1949)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Buxton, Derbyshire. 

To the Socialist Party of Gt. Britain.

Dear Sirs,

Thanks for renewal form of subscription to your Socialist Standard. I won't trouble to renew it, however, as I have had reluctantly to come to the conclusion you can never do very much good with your present line of propaganda despite the fact that few are more keenly anxious for the objects towards which you strive than I am.

I was first utterly disgusted with you for your pamphlet against Family Allowances, which on a generous scale of about 10s. a week for each child till school leaving age and 20s. a week for every wife who spends her time at home looking after it, is perhaps the thing which the working classes are most in need of and which would do them more good than anything else which can be easily imagined or applied.

Hunger, or semi-hunger, rags, dirt, squalor, privation, and misery, have been the unfair lot of the children and the hard working wives and mothers and children of the lower paid of the working class men ever since the Industrial Revolution. And you must know it as well as I do.

It has largely been, not inevitable, but due to the wages policy of the Trade Unions and the mental attitude of so many working class men towards their wives and families. How many of them love to talk about “A MAN, and his dependents” as if the latter were very much inferior animals to his noble self.

All through your pamphlet there was hardly a glimmer of an idea that a man’s wife and children were of any more consequence than so many back yard domestic animals which he, as a “worker” “chose” to go in for keeping—and which was nobody else’s business but his own.

You opposed family allowances because they would depress wages.

But they want depressing and in some cases fairly heavily. It is a crying scandal that young sons in their twenties, living at home, and with no family responsibilities at all, can, in some skilled trades, be bringing in about £10 a week at present which they are not in any position to spend in any sensible way. And there may be two or three such sons in one working class household, as well as the father’s similar earnings.

Against this, family men of 40 who are called ”unskilled labourers,” may have to keep themselves, their wife and half a dozen children on a mere £4 10s. a week. (1 have omitted the inadequate 5s. children’s allowances since October, 1946.)

This excess money these young unmarried men are given is a crippling load on our industrial life; and the problem they feel to get rid of it somehow is the chief cause of the scandalous amount of money spent in betting and gambling—not to mention smoking and drinking of which the young men probably don’t do more than their share. The money they have which they can’t get rid of is the chief cause of so much of their absenteeism from work; for while they stick tamely at work they haven't any opportunities to fling their money about,

The system is all wrong. Wages, as negotiated by Trade Unions, and as paid by employers, should be on the assumption that the "worker” has no one except himself (or herself) to keep. Support for his wife and children should come directly from the State like his (or her) old age pensions.

So you can understand a bit why I don’t think your line of propaganda is any good or worth supporting.

I am,

Yours faithfully,

Albert Eagle.

P.S.—It seems hard to have to conclude that the chief enemies of the welfare of the wives and children of the lower paid members of the working classes are not capitalists at all but the men of the working classes who through their Trade Unions and various other Labour and Socialist societies (like the S.P.G.B.) to which they belong have long opposed Family Allowances. Chief, of course, are the young unmarried men themselves who "don’t see why a married man should be paid more merely because he has a family.”

These young men want showing that the wages they are enjoying were negotiated on their behalf on the assumption that they had a wife and children to keep; and that they are enjoying money that has been obtained on their behalf by open deception. To put it bluntly these young men are simply enjoying stolen loot. It can hardly be described otherwise.

If you would do something to remedy this evil your propaganda would be doing some good. A.E.

Reply.

In the pamphlet ”Family Allowances: A Socialist Analysis” (S.P.G.B., 2d.) it was argued that the grant of children’s allowances would not solve the poverty problem for the reason that the poverty of the working class is not caused by the cost of maintaining children out by the exploitation of the working class that necessarily goes with capitalism. It was pointed out that children’s allowances in practice are not a clear addition to wages but tend to be given in place of wage increases. Evidence was given in the pamphlet that prominent advocates of children’s allowances admitted this and were in favour of reducing the wages of the unmarried in order to meet the cost of paying the allowances.

We can add to this now by pointing to the fact that since the present government introduced the allowances the same government, in face of rising costs of living, has been using all its influence to discourage claims for wage increases.

The above letter from a supporter of children’s allowances dots the i’s and crosses the t’s of our argument by telling us that ”wages want depressing and in some cases fairly heavily.” He also tells us that "the chief enemies of the welfare of the wives and children of the lower paid members of the working classes are not capitalists at all but the men of the working classes.”

It is understandable when the spokesmen of the capitalist class advocate children’s allowances on the ground that it costs the capitalists less to give allowances to families with more than one child than to give a wage increase to the whole working-class, thus in effect lowering the standard of living of one section of the working class. But what are we to think when a member of the working class uses the same argument? He thinks it a crying scandal ”that some young workers in skilled trades should actually be able to earn £10 a week, but says not a word about the members of the propertied class who, married or single, can receive £10, £20 or £100 a week without working at all!

Blind in one eye he directs his attack against unmarried men in his own class but says nothing about the robbery of the working class by the capitalist class.

When we are told that the S.P.G.B. pamphlet shows ”hardly a glimmer of an idea that a man’s wife and children were of any more consequence than so many backyard domestic animals” he shows that he has not at all appreciated our case that the only solution for the poverty problem is the abolition of capitalism and with it the abolition of the wages system. Under Socialism, on the principle of ”From each according to his capacity: to each according to his need,” wives and children who are now dependent on the inadequate wages of working-class husbands will for the first time have free access to the products of society and really will enjoy as human beings all that social production has to offer. Capitalism never will do this whether the workers fight for children’s allowances or for general wage increases—though as we have shown in the pamphlet the latter is the better method under capitalism.

We must add that our correspondent is clearly mistaken when he claims that few are more keenly anxious than himself “for the objects towards which you strive." He obviously has not understood what is the Socialist objective of the S.P.G.B. 

Ed. Comm.

Alice in Topsyturveydom (1949)

A Short Story from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Quite unaccountably Alice found herself walking along, without the least idea where she was going or why. Coming towards her, however, was a little man in black with neat pinstripe trousers, who seemed to be in a great hurry and looked very important.

"Please sir," said Alice timidly addressing him, “where am I?" His eyebrows shot up under his hat in surprise. ‘‘This," said he in a pompous voice that made Alice want to giggle, "is Topsyturveydom, and there," (pointing down the road) “is Boom Town. I’m just going there so if you’ll come along with me I'll explain things to you since you seem to be a stranger."

“You’ll see," he went on as they started off together, “that we have a most perfect system in this Topsyturveydom of ours. Nothing like it for keeping folk on their toes. There’s a niche for everyone with brains and initiative, and with plenty of hard work a man can get to the top."

By this time they were in the town, and Alice noticed that like the little man in black, everyone seemed to be in a great hurry. Alice and the little man, whom we will call Mr. Pinstripe, watched the little folk for some time.

They came rushing out of their houses, and incredible numbers of them crammed into the street cars and trains which carried them to factories and mills, etc., where they were emptied out, to enter and start working; and Alice marvelled at the wonderful things they made. Large shining cars that purred smoothly along on thick rubber tyres, gowns that lent added grace and enchantment to the female form, and all manner of things to delight the hearts of humans. Then they all rushed out for a brief period, and snatched a meal at crowded eating places, where they were served with “sausage and mashed" and leathery apple pudding wearing thin custard like an inadequate disguise. Then, another general rush back to work, until whistles and hooters shrilling out seemed to be the signal for another rush for the street cars and trains to carry them back home again. The older folk then sat with feet resting up to recuperate from the day’s work, while the younger section went out for a few hours to satisfy the craving for fun and play, before going to bed

“Well, what do you thing of it all, child?" asked Mr. Pinstripe, with obvious pride in his voice.

“I’ve never seen so many beautiful things all at once in my life," replied Alice, “but it all seems rather stupid somehow, because they never seem to stop working long enough to enjoy all the things they’ve made."

“Stop working! Good gracious, they can’t do that —besides they don’t even want to. In any case they don’t make these things for themselves."

“Then why do they make them?" asked Alice in bewilderment.

“To earn enough to keep them alive to work another day.” And Mr. Pinstripe chuckled heartily, as if he had made a very fine joke indeed.

Then suddenly, the way things do happen in dreams, (for of course Alice was dreaming) she found herself in a place as different from Boom Town as chalk is from cheese.

No longer did she feel dizzy from the hustle and bustle: these people were hollow-cheeked and listless.

While the men lounged on street corners, the women queued up for food tickets. The little sad-eyed children, who should have been so merry, touched Alice to the heart

“This of course is Slump Town." Alice turned to find Mr. Pinstripe still at her elbow.

“Once you wouldn’t have seen any difference at all between this and Boom Town," he said, "but at the moment they’re suffering from 'Over Production.’ You see all those warehouses over there? Full up with all sorts of things; wheat clothing—oh almost anything you can think of."

"Why then, the solution is simple!" exclaimed Alice, clapping her hands excitedly. All they have to do is to use those things and have a jolly good time until stocks have been sufficiently reduced, and then they can start work again. Oh think! What a difference you would see in those children if they had a good meal and some nice clothes to wear, and then let them loose among all those toys in that old warehouse!"

Mr. Pinstripe smiled pityingly at Alice’s simplicity. “Quite impracticable: why the whole business world would collapse! But come along, I want you to meet some of the people at the top of the scale, who by reason of hard work and not forgetting hard cash (ha! ha!) can now relax and enjoy the fruits of the others’ labours.”

Well they at least, thought Alice, should be happy.

"Ah here we are, the most exclusive club in Boss-town," said Mr. Pinstripe guiding Alice over thick pile carpets to a room filled with talk and cigar smoke.

"But my dear chap!" exclaimed one, puffing out a huge cloud of smoke, "what is the world coming to? Bad enough with all the labour troubles in Boom Town with their damned insolent demands for less work and more money, and now Income Tax going higher than it’s ever been before!"

"All the big nobs get here," said Mr. Pinstripe, "but perhaps you’d like to meet the Duchess." And Alice quitted the smoky atmosphere with relief.

The Duchess was large and round and arrayed in costly fabrics.

"Oh dear!’’ sighed the Duchess.

"She’s always like that, stupid old thing," whispered Pinstripe (rather callously thought Alice) for the poor old thing really did seem awfully distressed about something.

"What is the matter?" asked Alice anxiously.

"Well you see it’s my waistline, I never know where it's going to be next. One minute Fashion declares it to be an inch above my hipbone, and just as I’m getting used to that—whoosh ! Fashion says it’s up round my neck somewhere. It’s all so very confusing."

"Well," said Alice turning round indignantly on Mr. Pinstripe, "I don’t see why you should be so puffed up with pride about your old system, nobody seems to be enjoying it very much!" And at that began to feel just a little scared, because, Alice after all was a well brought up child and not used to being rude to pompous old gentlemen, especially when they go red in the face and begin to shake you by the shoulders.

"Bless me if the child hasn’t fallen asleep. Come on Alice, wake up!"

Alice opened her eyes and found to her immense relief that it was after all only a bad dream. 

E.S.