Socialism and anarchism (1982)

From the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

In so far as it can be said to exist at all. the anarchist movement is characterised by a conviction that the destruction of the state must be the principal aim of those who value individual freedom. When the ideas of its philosophers and adherents are closely examined, however, the phenomenon disintegrates into a jumble of competing tendencies, each marching resolutely in different directions. But then, by definition there can be no authority on anarchism, no authentic anarchist path.

The desire to abolish the state has a long history. Some anarchists claim certain ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers as their precursors. Anti-statism has been most popular among producers operating at a fairly low technological level, such as peasants, artisans and those working in “cottage industries"; in their individual and narrow lives they often failed to perceive the wider social relationships within which they laboured. To these small producers the state was an alien, exploitative and oppressive force — intruding into their lives in the form of police and tax collectors and maintaining large armies and swollen bureaucracies at their expense. It was supposed that the abolition of the state would leave a “natural" society governed only by natural laws, customs and agreements between free individuals.

The social conditions which gave rise to anarchist groupings in the nineteenth century were exactly those which stimulated the emergence of the Chartist and communist movements. The new capitalist class was squeezing the small producer, destroying the independence of artisans and homeworkers through mechanisation and creating a huge proletariat; the liberal and "modernising" state generally supported the accumulation of bourgeois property. In the struggle to overcome social problems thrown up by capitalism, several anarchist philosophies were developed, the most important of which were anarcho-syndicalism, Bakuninism, syndicalism and anarchist communism.

The liberal view of society as a mass of independent individuals was taken to its logical extreme by anarchists like Max Stirner, who evolved a philosophy in which the ego was conceived as the main force in the world. Each ego had to strive for as much personal satisfaction and independence of action as possible without regard to the interests of others. Many of the Young Hegelians held Feuerbach’s view that god was a symbol of alienated human powers; Marx extended this line of thought to show that the state and commodity exchange also exemplified human alienation. However, Stirner took the concept of alienation to absurd lengths by regarding society itself as oppressive of the human individual. Much of Marx and Engels’ materialist conception of history was clarified in opposition to Stirner’s egotism — as is testified by a reading of The German Ideology. Marx held that it was only in and through society, where the range of resources and cooperative talents facilitated the development of personalities, that individuals could fully exist; to a considerable extent we are the products of our social environment (though simultaneously helping to reproduce and transform it).

Stirner’s obsession with individualistic, anti-social revolt (which he assumed would eventually produce a “union of egotists”) could easily lead to political quiescence. In his literary guise as Mad Max, Stirner ranted and raved against society and all its forces, but in his everyday life, under his real name of Johann Caspar Schmidt, he was a mild-mannered teacher of young ladies. The practical application of his philosophy would result in the domination of society by those with the greater physical and economic power — in other words, it would merely preserve the present class divided society, changing only the rhetoric of its rulers and the labels attached to their instruments of power.

The term “anarchy" was first widely used to describe the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who introduced the term in his famous work, What is Property? (1840). While Proudhon declared that property is theft he was far from wanting to do away with property altogether. Coming from a peasant-cum-artisan background, he regarded petty proprietorship as the basis for any free society. What Proudhon objected to were large accumulations of capital by the ruling class and the existence of the dispossessed class of proletarians into which petty proprietors were increasingly being depressed. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes Proudhon as a “bourgeois socialist", one who seeks to abolish the proletariat but preserve the bourgeoisie. More accurately, we can say that Proudhon sought a society composed exclusively of petty bourgeois and peasant elements.

Two of Proudhon’s key ideas were federalism and “mutualism". The problem of federalism in a property based society is that, within the federation, different economic interests will invariably pull in different directions and consequently there will be a power struggle between the various members (individuals, regions, federal executives) for de facto political/economic advantage. Only in a society based on common ownership, where everyone has the same basic interests, can voluntary factions operate without degenerating into sordid politicking. However, as we havenoted, Proudhon remained firmly wedded to property ideas.

Similarly, Proudhon's “mutualism" is built on shaky foundations. His central economic idea was that there should be a national bank dispensing “free credit" (with only minimal interest to cover bank administration costs) so that everyone could acquire property and hence become “independent". However, the direct exchange of products that he assumed his bank would facilitate could only take place in a technologically underdeveloped society. Proudhon’s economic thought was essentially outdated; in an increasingly industrialised society it was impossible for everyone to be a petty proprietor, as the process of mechanisation required an accumulation of capital beyond the reach of small producers. His legalistic notion of fixing the value of commodities for all time was hopelessly naive, as the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour time socially necessary for its production and hence technical development constantly reduces cost.

Proudhon's ideas, therefore, were basically conservative. Not only did he stand out against the current of technological development and class polarisation, but his highly conservative notions of the family, the subordinate role of women, democracy and party politics (as well as more than a hint of national and racial prejudice) combined to make him posthumously popular among the fascists of Action Française. He opposed Marx’s attempts to organise a socialist political movement, preferring to combat capitalism on a purely individual basis. Likewise, Proudhon opposed trade union combination, as strikes appeared to him a distasteful form of coercion and he held that any rise in wages would instantly lead to a rise in prices — a view that Marx successfully debunked in The Poverty of Philosophy anti Value, Price and Profit.

In much of his thought, Proudhon was anticipated by other petty bourgeois theorists. In America Josiah Warren, who had participated in Owen's “New Harmony", established various schemes for the exchange of goods proportionate to their preconceived values; they all failed for the reasons already noted in the case of Proudhon’s "mutualism". Another school of North American anarchist individualism was founded by Benjamin Tucker, whose philosophy stands mid-way between Proudhonism and modern anarcho-capitalism. Believing that if everyone minded their “own business" a hidden hand would ensure social harmony. Tucker went on to justify individual and group violence, including capital punishment, in the enforcement of contracts between allegedly "free and equal” individuals and for the defence of egotistic pursuits.

Modern anarcho-capitalism, which has recently gained a tiny group of adherents in Britain, essentially continues the ideas of Tucker, though shorn of any Proudhonian notions. The anarcho-capitalists take one step further the Liberal view that the state should be prevented from “interfering" in the affairs of society by demanding its total abolition. In reality, of course, the state is an integral part of capitalism and uses its police and armed forces, judiciary and prisons, and its bureaucracy and “welfare” apparatus to maintain the capitalist class in its privileged position. If, under capitalism, the state were ever to be declared “abolished” it would immediately be reconstituted.

So long as private property continues the state, no matter what its form, will remain. Capitalism requires an authority to define property rights and employ, or sanction the use of, physical force to maintain them. Only when a socialist working class takes control of the whole of society, including the governmental machinery, will it be possible to dispense with the state. Then we will have a form of society in which, in the words of Marx, the free development of each will be the condition for the free development of all.

Brian Philips

In our next issue the relationship between anarchism and the workers' movement will be discussed.

Blogger's Note:

Sadly, there's no record of a follow up article in the Standard. I wonder what happened?

Letter: ". . . a helluva lot of grey in between" (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

The sentiments of Mike Scott (Letters. June) are broadly mine. Your reply shows that we differ only about means. You support my trade union efforts to improve my position as a wage earner but not my efforts to (say) improve local housing and health care for my neighbours at the expense of (say) bigger and better bombs.

Maybe the only consistent action for socialism is work to persuade fellow workers to agree with us about our final goal but in the meantime, for some of us, there is an obligation to house the homeless, feed the hungry and care for the sick.

I am not advocating a form of modified capitalism by trying to alleviate some of its effects on me and my fellows. Politics is like religion — black and white at the ends and a helluva lot of grey in between.

Having read your excellent journal for some time now I feel the SPGB is about as effective as "Captain Anarchy”, whose story was ironically on the same page as the letter referred to above.

Reg Holmes 

Hounslow, Middlesex

Reply:

Many of the Socialist Party’s permanent sympathisers believe that working for "something now" is the only course of action for politically committed workers since socialism, desirable as it is. remains a distant prospect. While they get stuck into feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, fighting for jobs, banning the bomb, expanding health services and improving everything else in sight socialists, it is said, spend their time merely talking about social change. When we get up front our armchairs, knock on the table and ask "Is anybody there?", thousands of voices reply: "Yes, Reg Holmes. I'm with you in spirit but tied up in the day-to-day struggle".

In reality, of course, these people generally display about as much understanding of the workings of capitalism as does Mr. Holmes. Far from differing with us only about means, they singularly fail to grasp the essence of our case: that any real diminution of the worst effects of capitalism cannot be achieved while the system itself remains intact. They prefer to believe, in face of their experience and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that resources set aside for destruction can somehow be channelled into areas of human need and major social problems successfully tackled piecemeal.

Socialists are not impervious to the sufferings of workers under capitalism or dismissive of their attempts to alleviate it by individual action. We simply point out that this will leave the cause of the problems untouched and socialism no nearer. The irony of Mr. Holmes’ letter is that it is precisely because so many workers share his approach to politics that capitalism continues and socialist propaganda is comparatively ineffective. If, at the end of his life. Mr. Holmes looks back at his endeavours and sees that nothing much has changed it will be no comfort to us. We will still have to convince workers of the urgent need to deal now with causes rather than effects.

Editors.

SPGB Meetings (1982)

Party News from the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

On the subject of Robert Barltrop and the Cockney language (see the West London branch meeting), Barltrop and Jim Wolveridge wrote a book entitled The Muvver Tongue, which was published by the Journeyman Press in 1980. Barltrop was considered a bit of an expert on the subject.

Here's footage of him speaking on the subject back in 1988. (He appears 2 minutes 43 seconds in.)

Having a Pop at Poppies (2026)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

October, so poppies are blooming in shopping centres, superstores and pubs. “Lest we forget” runs an accompanying motto. However, seemingly martial amnesia is widespread. With the budget looming a continuing theme in the news is the apparently vital need for the government to increase military spending.

That there is a threat of war is not news for socialists who fully understand this is and will remain the case for as long as capitalism continues to exist. How many more cenotaphs bearing the endlessly added to lists of young people’s names who didn’t (never have and never will) die for king and country. They are those slaughtered when market competition becomes too acute.

There can be no war to end all wars, the First World War claim was confounded just twenty years or so after it ended. The only way to end war is to end capitalism.

D. A.

 

 

Blogger's Note:

From the archives:

• Nov 1971: The Muted Mockery of Poppy (Cock) Day by James Boyle
• Nov 1973: Day of Remembrance For What? by Ivan
• Nov 2009: Joining the killing machine by Jim Lawrie
• Nov 2018: Remembering What? by John Critchfield

Editorial: Slimmer shop assistants (1949)

Editorial from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the war, when the Labour Party was in opposition, socialists were saying that a Labour Government would have to behave very much like any other government trying to make Capitalism work. Members of the Labour Party did not believe this, and said so. They told us that the idea was absurd and a wicked slander on the Labour Party. They simply could not imagine that a government of their own admired leaders would one day declare itself against wage increases, knowingly create unemployment, introduce peace-time conscription and use troops in strikes. But now all these things have happened.

On July 28th of this year, Mr. Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, announced that the prices that shops are permitted to charge for utility clothes, boots, sheets, curtains, etc., would be reduced by 5 per cent. It doubtless pleased the majority of workers and displeased the shopkeepers, but in the uproar that it caused among the latter, one of its consequences received little attention. Mr. Wilson explained that it was expected to lead to “smaller staffs,” and added: —

“If the effect of this measure is some slight reduction of staff in distribution, I think it will be useful. (“Hansard,” 28/7/49, Col. 2694.)

The same day, in an interview with the Press, he used a different phrase which the Daily Herald (29/7/49) reported as: —

“This reduction in prices may lead to some slimming of staffs.”

We may guess why he did not want to call it creating unemployment, but elderly shop assistants pushed out of work may not see the point of Mr. Wilson’s remark that the loss of their jobs is useful.

We are not accusing Mr. Wilson of wanting to create unemployment for its own sake, and no doubt he dismisses any twinge of conscience with the thought that these unemployed can get some sort of work in some other trade. What we are doing, however, is to remind Labour Party supporters that this is one of the things that goes with the attempt to run capitalism and they are just as much responsible as Mr. Wilson. At the same time that the President of the Board of Trade is cutting prices and “slimming” the shop assistants his colleague, the Minister of Labour, has refused to ratify Wages Council decisions in favour of increased wages for shop assistants.

Increases of about 5 per cent, had been recommended by Wages Councils for the distributive trades and sent to the Minister for ratification. Instead, according to reports in the Press (Daily Mail, 8th and 23rd July and Daily Worker, 23rd July) he has sent them back and asked that the proposed increases be modified before he will again consider them.

To German-speaking readers (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

[At the request of a comrade who is trying to make the Party’s case known among German-speaking workers, we publish below a German translation of the S.P.G.B.’s Object and Declaration of Principles. Other comrades who are in touch with workers in Germany or Austria may be able to make use of it.—Ed. Comm.] 

ZWECK DER S.P.G.B.

Die Gründung einer Gesellschaftsordnung, welche auf Gemeingut und demokratischer Verwaltung der zur Erzeugung und Verteilung der Lebensguter dienenden Produktionsmittel durch und für das gesamte Volk beruht.

Leitsätze:

Die S.P.G.B. steht auf dem Standpunkt:

1. Dass die Verfassung der heutigen Gesellschaft auf dem Privateigentum der Lebensmittel (d.s. Land, Fabriken, Transportmittel, etc.) seitens der Kapitalisten-oder herrschenden Klasse und der zur Folge habenden Versklavung der Arbeiterklasse, deren Arbeit allein Reichtum erzeugt, beruht.
2. Dass in der Gesellschaft daher ein Interessen-Gegensatz zwischen jenen welche besitzen aber nicht erzeugen und jenen welche erzeugen aber nicht besitzen, besteht, welcher Gegensatz in einem Klassenkampf seinen Ausdruck findet. 
3. Dass dieser Gegensatz nur durch die Befreiung der Arbeiterklasse vom Joch der herrschenden Klasse abgeschafft werden kan und zwar durch Umwandlung der Produktions-und Verteilungsmittel in Gemeingut und deren demokratische Kontrolle durch das gesamte Volk.
4. Dass, nachdem in der Reihenfolge sozialer Entwicklung die Arbeiterklasse die letzte Klasse ist, die ihre Befreiung noch zu vollbringen hat, die Emanzipierung der Arbeiterklasse gleichzeiteig die Befreiung der ganzen Menschheit, ohne Unterschied der Rasse oder des Geschlecht mit such bringen wird.
5. Dass diese Befreiung das Werk der Arbeiter-klasse selbst sein muss.
6. Dass, nachdem die Einrichtung der Regierung, einschliesslich der bewaflfneten Macht der Nation, nur zu dem Zwecke besteht, um das Monopol und Eigentumsrecht der Kapitalistenklasse auf die von den Arbeitem genommenen Reichtumer aufrecht zu erhalten, die Arbeiterklasse zielbewusst und politisch zur Eroberung der Regierungsgewalten (national und lokal) organisieren muss, um diese Staatseinrichtung einschliesslich jener Gewalten, von einem Werkzeug der Unterdrückung in ein Instrument zur Befreiung und zum Sturze von Privilegien (aristokratisch und plutokratisch) umzugestalten.
7. Dass, nachdem alle politischen Parteien nur der Ausdruck von Klassen-Interessen sind und das Interesse der Arbeiterklasse den Interessen aller Glieder der herrschenden Klasse diametral entgegensteht, die die Befreiung der Arbeiterklasse anstrebende Partei jeder anderen Partei feindlich gegenuberstehen muss.
8. Die Sozialistische Partei tritt daher auf das Feld polifischer Tätigkeit, entschlossen zur Bekamp- fung aller anderen politischen Parteien, gleichviel ob angeblich Arbeiterparteien Oder ausgesprochen kapital- istisch, und ruft die Mitglieder der Arbeiterklasse dieses Landes auf, sich unter ihr Banner zu scharen, damit dem System, welches sie um die Früchte ihrer Arbeit beraubt, ein rasches Ende bereitet werde, damit Wohlstand an die Stelle von Armut trete, Gleichberechtigung an die Stelle von Privilegien, und Freiheit an die Stelle von Sklaverei.

Notes by the Way: More Millionaires (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

More Millionaires

The Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for the year ended 31st March, 1948, gives the usual figures showing ranges of income. As reported in the Press (Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, 29/7/49) there were in 1947-8, 70 people who, after paying income tax and surtax, were left with over £6,000 a year, 3,430 between £4,000 and £6,000, 58,500 between £2,000 and £4,000, and 320,000 between £1,000 and £2,000.

The Daily Mail (29/7/49) makes an estimate of the number of millionaires based on the assumption that those people whose income during the year was £50,000 or more (before paying tax) are in the millionaire group. The Mail's comment is that “millionaires . . . have increased since the war." It will, however, be seen from the figures that they arc fewer than before the war: —

1938-9 374

1944-5 251

1945-6 242

1946-7 282

The Mail also brings out that during 1947-8 there were 15,597 estates passing at death whose net value was between £10,000 and £100,000 and that this was an increase of more than 6,000 since 1938-9.

Cotton Workers Stood Off

The News Chronicle (13/8/49)-published the following : —

“Two Lancashire cotton mills in the Bolton area closed down yesterday and a third partially closed because of a shortage of orders.

“Managements said this was due to foreign buyers holding back their orders until after the Washington conference in September to see if the £ was going to be devalued.

“The mills are Wallwork and Sussum (1918), Ltd., of Famworth, employing 70 workers, and Ashworth, Hadwen and Co., Ltd., Grecian Mills, Farnworth, employing 25. Forty workers in the reeling department of Elliott and Pyatt, Ltd., Horwich, have also been stopped.

“It is expected that the closings will be only temporary, but it is feared that other mills in the district might lay off operations during the next few weeks. A Cotton Board statement points out that the sellers’ market under which the industry has been working for so long is being modified in various parts of the world.”

The Daily Worker (13/8/49) reported Mr. R. Gregson, secretary of the Bolton Operative Cotton Spinners' Association, as saying that efforts were to be made to appeal to the Cotton Board in the matter. He added: —

“Their appeals for production are likely to lose weight if firms are going to close down, leaving workers to walk the streets.”

What Capitalism does to Planning

Under the heading “Bob Cole Starts Big Oil Hustle,” the City Editor of the Daily Express (15/8/49) reports that Mr. Cole is busy on the big Anglo-American Oil Co.’s refining plant at Fawley on Southampton Water. It is to cost £37 million and should be finished by 1952, and Mr. Cole says he means “ to be on time.”

In the same column is another news item about oil.

“Another 250,000 tons of U.S. oil tankers were laid up last month, making 1½ million tons now idle there. Reasons are the dollar shortage and a 40 per cent. drop in freights since January."

At the end of the war we were told that the world was short of oil, short of oil tankers and short of refineries (a film on the subject is still going the rounds). Recently American oil production has been cut because demand had been overtaken and prices were falling. Now the busy shipyard workers have produced too many tankers for present traffic. Mr. Cole may know all about building refineries, but neither he nor his employers can be certain that 1952 will not find the world too well supplied with refineries if that happens to coincide with a major slump.

Nicer Wars

All through the history of civilisation there have been well-meaning people trying to limit the horrors of war by securing the agreement of both sides to outlaw certain new weapons or practices regarded as particularly inhuman. They did not have much success. While the badly armed Powers would agree, the Powers which thought themselves strongest in the possession of the latest weapons naturally would not give up their advantage. Russia at the Geneva Red Cross Conference has been following the historically familiar tactic. Their delegation moved a resolution to ban atom bombs and chemical warfare on the ground that they are “incompatible with the elementary principles of international law and contrary to the honour and conscience of peoples.” (Manchester Guardian, 10/8/49.)

In the meantime Russia, like the rest of the capitalist Powers, is busy perfecting atom bombs and methods of chemical warfare, and if they succeed in getting ahead of their rivals it will be the latter which will be moving similar resolutions.

The whole idea of humanising war is ludicrous. It means in effect—“Wc don’t mind being killed or maimed or starved, but for heaven’s sake let it be done decently according to the rules.”

The aim of the working class should be the abolition of war, but that requires the abolition of Capitalism, in Russia no less than in Britain and U.S.A.

The Dockers’ Defence Committee

According to the Press the unofficial committee that handled recent strikes of dockers has renamed itself “The London Port Workers’ Defence Committee,” with the aim among others of getting rid of Lord Ammon from the Dock Labour Board. It is certain that some, probably most, of those who support the Committee voted to put the Labour Government in power, believe in nationalisation, and cherished the notion that Capitalism with Labour Government nominees replacing capitalist boards of directors, would bring about a fundamental change in the position of the workers. There is therefore something instructive in the name “Defence Committee.” Against whom are the dockers seeking to defend themselves? Answer: against the monster of State Capitalism. Who helped to create the monster? Answer: the dockers. And what should they now do about it? The first step is to recognise that Socialism is the only hope of the working class and nationalisation has nothing in common with Socialism.

And to make the Socialist position perfectly clear let us add for the benefit of any Communists who may also be interested in the Defence Committee that if they were in Russia and tried to form such a Committee to defend themselves against the Russian version of State Capitalism, they would get short shrift. 

What the “ Daily Worker ” Suppresses

Following the publication by the British Government of documents on the forced labour camps in Russia, the Daily Worker (25/7/49) published an evasive denial under the heading “The ‘Forced Labour' Myth,” mainly based on the argument that “corrective labour” is the punishment in the Soviet Union “which corresponds to imprisonment in this country.”

To start with, this line of defence tells us a lot about the mentality of the British Communists. Their lying claim is that there is Socialism in Russia, but as soon as they are met with charges about the Russian Paradise that they cannot entirely ignore, their defence is to assure us that Russia is no worse than capitalist Britain or capitalist U.S.A.!

Secondly when they quote the regulation that forbids the infliction of physical suffering on the inmates of the prison camps they should look up the Webb’s “Soviet Communism” for a description of some of the brutalities perpetrated in these camps in the years before the war. The book is one they sell themselves.

Thirdly the Communists avoid the very important aspect of what constitutes a “law breaker” in Russia. Under Russian law anyone who tried to form a party corresponding to the S.P.G.B. or the Labour Party or the Liberal Party or any other Party opposed to the Communist Party is a law breaker, and according to the Russian criminal code can find himself despatched to such a camp, with or without trial.

The Holidays of Ministers and Miners

The Sunday Express (31/7/49) put over a piece of typical opposition propaganda by publishing a list of Ministers going abroad for their holidays and suggesting that they should not do this at a time when “the most serious economic crisis in our history will be developing steadily in gravity.” It is only necessary to note the heading “Ministers go where the going is good” and to see how the list was compiled to guess that the Sunday Express also hoped to stir up some resentment in the minds of those less fortunate. Here is the list: —

• The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, is resting in the best suite in a luxury hotel at Evian, in France, where, by the courtesy of the management on request from London, he has been granted a cut rate on the usual terms.
• The Health Minister, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, is enjoying the sunshine and good food of Italy, with his wife, as a guest of the Italian Government.
• The Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, is leaving on a yachting cruise down the French coast. The Lord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison, is reported to be planning a three weeks’ holiday in the South of France.
• The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Harold Wilson, is beginning a motor-car tour of France.
• The Secretary for Overseas Trade, Mr. A. G. Bottom- ley, is off in a few days to Switzerland.
• The Minister of Pensions, Mr. H. A. Marquand, is bound for France via the Channel Islands.
• The Minister of Civil Aviation, Lord Pakenham, goes to Eire as guest of Eire’s Air Lines.

Ministers have shown on occasion that they resent attacks on them of the kind here used by the Sunday Express and it is indeed a piece of cheek for one defender of capitalist inequality to attack others. But Socialists certainly are entitled to ask the Labour Ministers how, at a time when they urge austerity on the workers on the ground of the serious condition of the country, they defend their own relatively privileged position. What has happened to their ancient propaganda in favour of equality and fair shares for all?

Many workers now have a week’s paid holiday a year, some have two weeks, and a smaller number more than two weeks. But in 1946 the T.U.C. put in a plea for three weeks for everybody, and Mr. Bevin in 1943 said he “ could foresee a time when industry will benefit by giving workers four weeks’ holiday with pay each year.” (Daily Herald, 22/7/43.)

But at the present time the miners who have a week want more, and their claim has so far been refused. And the Industrial Coal Consumers’ Council has just reported to the Minister of Fuel: “We should view with dismay any decision in regard to hours of work or holidays which would have the effect of restricting further the barely sufficient supply of coal available.” (Daily Express, 29/7/49.)

As we hear so often from Labour Ministers the argument that the undermanned industries must be made more attractive in order to get more workers, and as there is a shortage of miners, but certainly no shortage of people wanting to be Ministers, why doesn’t the Cabinet set a really persuasive example by cutting its own pay and holidays in order to spare a bit more for the miners?

An Admission by Mr. Shinwell

Mr. Shinwell, Minister for War, has been forecasting the result of the next election.

“I am convinced that Labour will be returned to power at the next election, with a smaller majority perhaps, but with a working majority. Then we shall be all right for another five years, and the country will never be governed by the Tories.” (Daily Herald, 1/8/49.)

Mr. Shinwell has involved himself here in something of a tangle. If the Labour Government is returned, he says, “we shall be all right for another five years.” Whom does he mean by that “we”? Is it the Ministers who will be all right? Obviously Mr. Shinwell did not mean to say that. Is it then the workers who will be all right for another five years? Are we then asked to believe that the workers are all right now? If so why the unofficial strikes? And above all, if the workers are all right now, why does Mr. Shinwell expect the Labour Party to get fewer votes at the next election? And if one five years makes some voters turn against the Labour Government surely another five years would make more turn against Labour Government? Why then does he think that the Labour Government will go on for ever?

Before we leave Mr. Shinwell’s speech, a Herald summary of another part of it deserves notice. The Herald reports:

“Tories do not want power, but would like a coalition so that Labour could handle the trade unions and do the job they cannot manage themselves.”

We suggest a disturbing thought for Mr. Shinwell to contemplate. Some day the workers will wake up and refuse to be “managed” by the Labour Party managers of Capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Morgan's "Ancient Society" (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Civilization is only a tiny fraction of man’s long span of life on this earth. It commenced when man had settled down in agricultural communities and had discovered the art of writing. Civilization is called historic society because we learn about it from written records. Prehistoric society we learn about from the archaeologist, who digs up the past, the anthropologist, who examines the skeletal remains of early man, and the ethnologist, who examines the way of life of what remains of tribal man. From the records accumulated by investigators we learn that historic society is based upon territory—property ownership, whilst prehistoric society was based upon the family— kinship. That is to say, the bond that knit social groups together in early times was the blood tie; after the advent of civilization it was the property tie.

The man who brought order into “our knowledge of early society was an American ethnologist, Lewis Henry Morgan, who spent many years amongst the Iroquois Indians of North America and was admitted into their group as a blood brother. The result of his studies among these Indians profoundly affected his general view of early development, and, with the assistance of the American Smithsonian Society (a society formed to further knowledge of the American Aborigines), he was put in touch with other ethnologists all over the world. After many years of sorting and tabulating the material he had gathered himself and what he had received from others, he wrote his book “Ancient Society,” which was an attempt to explain early society as an organised growth and not the haphazard results of accident or of "great men.”

When Morgan’s book was published it was seized upon by Marx and Engels as containing the real explanation of early social development and the logical forerunner of later history. It explained social development as the result of man’s works; of his discoveries and adaptation to natural forces; of the growing artificial barrier he built between himself and raw nature. In other words, that civilized man was the product of the discoveries and inventions of countless ages.

Whatever modifications in detail were afterwards necessary, Morgan’s main outline still holds the field, and later material has helped to fill it out. But Morgan suffered the same fate as Darwin and Marx had suffered from the leading writers of his day. His ideas were too revolutionary; they challenged the inviolability of private property and hence the most valuable part of his work has been largely ignored by professors, although it is claimed that scientific men are concerned solely with truth and take no sides. Even to-day. when Morgan is quoted, it is nearly always from other books that he wrote; very rarely is “Ancient Society” referred to. In recent years, however, at least one ethnologist of note has given Morgan his due. A. C. Haddon, in a little book on “Anthropology” says this of Morgan’s achievement: —

“Morgan was undoubtedly the greatest sociologist of the past century, and in his monumental work (1877) laid a solid foundation for the study of the family and kinship systems; he formulated a scheme of the evolution of the family based on a study of the classificatory system of relationships, of which he was the discoverer” (“History of Anthropology.”)

The following quotations from “Ancient Society” shed some light upon the reason why his book was not warmly received: —

"It is impossible to overestimate the influence of property in the civilization of mankind. It was the power that brought the Aryan and Semitic nations out of barbarism into civilization. The growth of the idea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness and ended in becoming its master passion. Governments and laws are instituted with primary reference to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It introduced human slavery as an instrument in its production; and, after the experience of several thousand years, it caused the abolition of slavery upon the discovery that a freeman was a better property-making machine.” (Page 505, “Ancient Society,” Macmillan, 1877.)

“Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its management so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it has become, on the part of the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation. The time will come, nevertheless, when human intelligence will rise to the mastery over property, and define the relations of the state to the property it protects, as well as the obligations and the limits of the right of its owners. The interests of society are paramount to individual interests, and the two must be brought into just and harmonious relations. A mere property career is not the final destiny of mankind, if progress is to be the law of the future as it has been of the past. The time which has passed away since civilization began is but a fragment of the past duration of man’s existence; and but a fragment of the ages yet to come. The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience. intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival in a higher form of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.” (Page 552.)

It is a tribute to Morgan’s scientific sincerity that he faced the logical inferences of his studies of the family and property in spite of the fact that be belonged to the privileged section of society, believed privileged classes had been abolished in the United States, and still clung to supernatural ideas.

Morgan divided prehistoric society into two main sections and six subsections or ethnological periods. The two main sections are savagery and barbarism— roughly the old and the new stone age. The three subsections of savagery and of barbarism he marked off by the principal discoveries of the period—fire, the bow and arrow, pottery making, the domestication of animals, the smelting of iron and the art of writing. There is a further general division that can be made. In the early period man was a food gatherer, later he became a food producer. The production of the bow and arrow was a revolution that made him predominantly a hunter and was the link between food gathering and food producing.

Morgan traces the development of the family from original promiscuity through the development of the gens, with its restrictions upon those who were rightful husbands and wives, up to the time when the development of property introduced the monogamic (or single husband and wife) form. He traces the development of the state from the elected war chief to the establishment of hereditary military leaders and kings; from the tribal council to the government. He traces the development of property from its probable beginning after the domestication of animals up to its fully fledged form in Greek and Roman times. He showed how the intrusion of property destroyed the old primitive communities based upon the family and established in their place private property society with its constant class struggles. He also showed that the development of society was an evolutionary process which could not stop with the establishment of Capitalism. He made it clear that just as in the past different forms of the state, the family and private property had come into existence and passed away so likewise the present forms were doomed and would give place to a higher form from which the state and private property would be absent.

Morgan’s work has completely disposed of the myth that property, the family and the state, as we know them to-day, are eternal. He showed that they only appeared very late in man’s history and must inevitably disappear. He was not a socialist and evidently knew little, if anything, about Socialism, but, unintentionally, he did remarkable work to help forward the socialist movement.

Engels, in his “Origin of the Family,” summarises Morgan’s work and enriches it with additions and corrections of his own. He makes clear that Morgan had independently discovered and applied the materialist conception of history; Engels also showed how Morgan, by solving the puzzle of ancient society, had supplied the prehistoric prelude to Marx’s work and explained how class society had come into existence. 

 Gilmac.

The Report on the Press (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the Annual Delegate Meeting of the National Union of Journalists, held in 1944, a report by a sub-committee dealing with the post-war policy of the Union, was referred back by the delegates on the grounds that it did not deal with "the basic question of the trend towards monopoly in the industry.” From this molehill developed a mountain —the Royal Commission on the Press. The question of whether its labour brought forth a mouse—as the Conservatives would prefer to think, or a much larger animal—as the Labourites say, we must leave until later in the article.

To get back to the National Union of Journalists. Its first report having been referred back, the committee concerned made a second attempt and submitted a further report the following year; its conclusion this time was that the information required could only be obtained by means of an independent enquiry. This was accepted by the Union and a further committee was set up to investigate the slightly different question of the effects of monopolies upon the development of the Press.

So far, all these events had taken place within the Union itself, but at the 1946 Delegate Meeting a resolution was passed (with only one vote against) recommending that the Government should take the step of appointing a Royal Commission. In line with this, two Labour M.P.s (both journalists and members of the Union) raised the matter in Parliament and a resolution giving the necessary authority for the appointment of a Commission was carried by a large majority. The resolution was carried on a free vote, the Labour Party generally voting in favour and the Conservatives against. Seven Labour M.P.s also opposed the motion; and though most Ministers voted in favour, Attlee, Alexander, Cripps, Wilmot, Barnes, Griffiths and Silkin abstained. This was in October, 1946. The Commission held its first meeting in April, 1947, proceeded to take a vast mass of evidence from all kinds of organisations and individuals connected with the Press, and published its findings in June of this year.

The above summarises briefly the main events leading up to the issue of the Report.

Its Reception by the Press.

The reception that the Press gave to the Report makes interesting and amusing reading. The Conservatives had generally been hostile to the idea of a Press Commission and this hostility had been reflected all along in most of their newspapers. When the Report (in their own opinion, of course) turned out to be not as bad as they had feared, their Press was openly jubilant, a typical headline being the Daily Graphic's “British Press is Vindicated.” On the other hand, the Daily Herald, which had. enthusiastically echoed the Labour Party’s demand for an enquiry, found the Report very little to its taste, and its lack of enthusiasm was most marked. The best it could do was a five-inch single-column write-up under the timid headline “Press Council Urged.” True, the reference managed to get itself placed on the front page, but it was not among the top headlines; rather did it show all the signs of having been tucked quietly out of the way. Most significant feature of all, there was a complete absence of editorial comment.

With a few exceptions, the line taken by the Press on the Report served, ironically enough, to heavily underline one of the Commissions own findings—that “ Their treatment of public affairs is . . . . frankly partisan” (p. 150). On this question the Observer, which had itself come under heavy fire from the Commission for a breach of accuracy, said (3/7/49): —

“That newspapers are capable of inaccurate reporting was nicely demonstrated last Thursday, when almost every popular newspaper summarised the findings of the Royal Commission on the Press in a manner favourable to themselves. No one who relied on these papers for his information could have guessed that much of the Commission’s Report was unfavourable to our industry or profession. The Commission proves, with example after example, that personal and political bias often dictate the way in which an event is reported.” 

But the most damning comment of all came from one of the members of the Commission itself. Sir George Waters, who spoke to the Institute of Journalists on the 12th July, and was quoted in the House of Commons by Mr. Oliver Stanley, M.P., as follows:— 

“I have been seriously disturbed by the selective treatment which the Commission’s Report has received from the editorials of newspapers. I can assure you that the Commission never intended this to be a white-washing report; nor is it. It has been hailed as a complete vindication of the Press, or, in any case, as a vindication. It is nothing of the kind. Those who say so cannot have read the Report or cannot have understood it. It is, in fact, severely critical of the performance of the Press; it is a vindication of the organisation, not the performance of the Press. I still feel that there is more in the Report than is good for the health of our profession or any profession. Some of my colleagues thought the Press very inefficient in the medium of self-criticism . . . Yet the case against the general council, as stated in one newspaper after another, rests on the assertion that the Commission found little or nothing wrong with the Press. This unwillingness to face the facts, this wanton neglect of the plain conclusions of the Report, shows the Press, I am sorry to say, in a very poor light.” (“Hansard,” Col. 2703, 28.7.49.)

The Report of the Commission.

Of what value is the Report to Socialists? Primarily as a useful and comprehensive source of information about the Press—about its ownership, its organisation, its control, and its standards of reporting. The wrangles of the Labour Party and the Conservatives over monopolies and concentrations of ownership quite frankly leave us cold. The attitude of the Tories is naturally that there is little wrong with things as they are, and they obviously would not weep great salt tears if ownership became more concentrated. This was expected and nobody should be surprised. But what of the Labour Party? All kinds of motives have been read into their hue and cry for a Press Commission; but with them we are not concerned. We judge die Labour Party, not by their motives, but by their actions, and their actions over this question demonstrate quite clearly to us that they are once more pre-occupied with chasing the shadow instead of laying hold of the substance. They are chasing the will-of-the-wisp of newspaper monopoly whilst leaving the marsh of Capitalism undrained, just as a few months ago they tried to lay hold of six other will-of-the-wisps by appointing a Monopoly Commission. They are once again trying to reform Capitalism whilst leaving its basis untouched.

Our position on this issue is quite clear, as it is on other attempts to reform Capitalism. Our concern is not to reform it, but to abolish it. To do this we need the conscious understanding of the majority of the working class, which in turn requires political democracy and the ability to speak and write freely, together with access to information which, even if it is not accurate, can be checked in the light of other information and its inaccuracy confirmed. That democracy, making all allowances for shortcomings in certain directions, exists in this country now, and we are able to propagate our ideas as a result. But it is important to remember why it exists and upon what factors it depends. It is not made by Press Barons, nor is it dependent upon them. It is dependent upon two things—first that British Capitalism finds it more efficient and useful to have democracy, and, secondly and most important, the working class have fought for it and desire to retain it.

The task of getting Socialist knowledge across to the working class is a difficult and arduous one. That is one reason why the enthusiasms of Labourites for this Press Commission make us smile. What is their case? First, that there is a danger of monopoly in the industry. Newspapers, they argue (and with some truth), are being concentrated into fewer hands, into “chains.” Let us take this argument, as it affects the S.P.G.B. Imagine the most extreme situation, where all the Conservative Press is concentrated in the Daily Express, the Liberal Press in the News Chronicle, the Labour Press in the Daily Herald, and the Communist Press in the Daily Worker. What would be changed as far as we are concerned? Only this—that anti-Socialist propaganda would be put out by four newspapers instead of a dozen or more. Our job would still be to push our own Press, the Socialist Standard. Our task of trying to get workers to understand Socialism would still be unchanged.

As for inaccuracy, misreporting, deliberate distortion, these make us smile still more. The S.P.G.B. has suffered from the distortions and omissions of the Press for years, and we have received no better treatment from the Daily Herald than we have from the others. On these matters it is tarred with the same brush as the others, as the Commission’s report amply proves. But the whole game is given away as far as we are concerned when we find that one of the most severe rebukes administered by the Commission was given to the National Union of Journalists and certain journalist M.P.s. Dealing with the evidence they submitted, it said: —

“We called before us several of the journalists who spoke in favour of the motion demanding the appointment of the Commission, but neither they nor the National Union of Journalists produced much positive evidence in support of their criticism, and some of what was produced did not stand up to examination. The Memorandum submitted to us by the Union was not a survey of the Press as a whole, but rather an attack on the right wing portion of it. In the light of what follows in this chapter, the fact that the Daily Worker and the Daily Mirror were the only national daily papers not characterised by name, while the Daily Herald was scarcely mentioned, is some indication of the selective nature of the document. The Memorandum gave us no coherent and comprehensive picture and no means of reaching general conclusions about the extent and character of the abuses which had been said to exist.” (Page 107.) 

The Daily Herald, the Daily Worker, and the Daily Mirror! What a noble trio of examples to the Press! And what a fine comment upon these crusaders after truth, accuracy, and impartial reporting.

Stan Hampson

(To be continued)

Preparing for war again (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The world is in a pretty mess, and our newspapers are full of the news that the various nations are getting ready, rearming, for yet another, a third, world war.

No one can view this position with equanimity. Two world wars in one generation, with colossal destruction everywhere. Our masters, the capitalist class, have no solution or alternative, but to prepare for a third world war. The socialist is the only alternative policy, that is why we persist in advocating it to you. Look where you will, you will find no other solution.

We read a statement by Lord Boyd Orr, reported in Reynolds (7/8/49). He thinks we would be idle but for war work. He said:—

“ If the Great Powers were not spending more than one-third of their national revenues preparing for the third world war, the unemployment position would be far worse.

“If by some miracle peace descended on the earth and men were released from the Forces and from making bombers and other weapons, the strain would be too great for our economic structure.”

Yet there is still a housing shortage; we still have to exist on short rations. Surely this labour, wasted in producing war goods, could be more usefully employed.

But, No, say our capitalist masters, the workers must not get higher wages, must still exist on rationed food, so that our capitalist order may prepare for another war, destroying once more on a wholesale scale. Where does all this work and production for war get us? After yet another war, we shall surely return to what we are experiencing now. It gets us nowhere, poverty and starvation and worry for the masses, more and more wealth for the master class.

No, fellow-worker, this is all wasted effort; it perpetuates the system of Capitalism, the system which exploits us.

We ask you to seriously examine our attitude, and if you agree, as you surely must agree, we ask you to help us in our propaganda, to spread the knowledge of Socialism among our fellow-workers, by joining the S.P.G.B., and so do your share towards making this a better world. Help us to ABOLISH the capitalist system which prepares for wars and then indulges in an orgy of destruction. 

 Floro.

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Daily Herald” Leaves Something Out

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Conservative, Bristol West): ” . . .  I do not know whether hon. Members noticed a very curious omission only the other day. They will remember, I expect, as it is not very long ago, a little incident which took place on 20th July, when Lord Ammon, who had had a little difference with the Government the day before, made a statement in which he said that the Government had gone crazy. That was on the morning of the 20th. I should have thought that was of considerable news value. It is unusual for a Chief Whip to say things like that, whatever he may think. I am sure the Patronage Secretary will agree with me. It was not unimportant. It was important enough to ensure Lord Ammon the sack within 24 hours. Yet, if we look at the issue of the Daily Herald for 21st July, we shall not find any reference whatsoever to the statement by Lord Ammon.” (Royal Commission on the Press, 28/7/49.)

A Labour Minister on Nationalisation

Mr. Gaitskell (Minister of Fuel and Power): “ . . . First of all, the principle is perfectly clear: nationalised boards must be non-party in character and behaviour. We are all agreed about that, on all sides of the House. They must not take sides for or against any political party, whether it is the Government or the Opposition or, indeed, any other party. That has always been recognised by the Government and by the National Coal Board.” (Debate on Fuel and Power, 26/7/49.)

And Another Labourite on Trade Unions

Mr. Awbery (Labour, Bristol Central): ” . . . The trade union movement and its machinery was established 50 or 60 years ago to deal with circumstances and conditions which existed at that time. I feel that it has outgrown these circumstances and conditions, and that it is necessary for the movement to re-design its organisation to provide for the rapid changes that have taken place during the past few years. There is need for the men in the trade union movement to exercise self-discipline; that is one of the things which must be learned. Discipline shown by men themselves is more powerful than when it is imposed from outside. I appeal to the dockers and other members of the trade unions to exercise this self-discipline. (London Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

A Capitalist’s Viewpoint

Sir A. Gridley (Conservative, Stockport): “ . . .  I and others like me, as I have said, are very much concerned with the amount of unrest which exists in so many industries of this country at the present time. Not only are Ministers gravely concerned, but I believe that leaders in the T.U.C. are as anxious about it, and I am quite sure that many representative employers are equally concerned. What we want in the grave crisis which confronts us is peace in our time, if I may use that old phrase. We do not want a kind of disturbance like that of the London dockers going on, which is such a disaster to the nation, to employees and to managements. Those of us who have had materials lying in ships in London docks in these last few weeks know full well the consequences of that, because we have not been able to send our products to dollar and other countries. It is in the national interest that we should get together if we can.” (London Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

London—Russian Version

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): ". . . First, I would quote this broadcast by Moscow Radio of an article which appeared in Pravda on 13th July by the well-known commentator, M. Zaslavsky. He commented upon a speech by the Prime Minister in which Fascist and Communist disturbances in London were mentioned. He said:

“In Britain, the Fascist cut-throats, hooligans and bandits, the adherents of Hitler, organised a demonstration against democracy. . . . They were well guarded by the police, but the honest workers who came out into the streets to protest against the instigators of a new war and the revival of Fascism were beaten up, thrown into police torture chambers, tried and imprisoned. Such all-powerful, arbitrary police action is impossible and unthinkable in a true democratic State. The workers were making preparations for the peaceful celebration of international May Day, but the Government said ‘ No ' and the police transformed the town ”

— that is, London— .

“into an armed camp. Armoured cars assembled in front of the workers’ districts. Lines of police waited in full military preparedness. Mothers hid their children so that they should not fall before the merciless bullets of the police of the enemies.” (Jamming of B.B.C. Broadcasts by Russians, 30/7/49.)

[Incidentally, not one word of reference to this Debate appeared in the columns of the Daily Worker.]

Worthy of Record

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): ”. . .  I think I ought first to express the thanks of the community, and those of the Government and the House also, to the troops for the way in which they undertook the duties imposed upon them, not only for their actual service but for the cheerfulness with which they undertook it.” (The Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

Taunt from a Tory

Earl Winterton (Conservative, Horsham): “In view of the difficulty of training the Army at the present time and of the frequency with which troops have been used in the last year or so in this and similar strikes, will the right hon. Gentleman consider in future adopting the alternative method of calling for civilian volunteers, after a clarion call by the Minister of Labour, singing, for example, ‘ The Red Flag ' ”? (Question Time, 26/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Something for the troops (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The overrunning of further large areas of China by so-called “Communists” has been causing increasing worry to the British capitalist class, particularly to those with economic interests in the Far East. The Labour Government, acting in precisely the same way as a Conservative Government would have done, has taken steps to deal with the situation, one of which has been to send troop reinforcements to Hong-Kong.

We do not know what oratory the troops were treated to before they embarked for the other side of the world, nor, apart from a natural reluctance to leave home, what they themselves thought of the business. However, whether they were regaled with high-sounding speeches or not, the Hong-Kong Government decided to give them a message all its own.

“Why are we here? ” asks the message (the “we” refers to the troops), and proceeds to give an answer taking up 4,000 words. It need not have lasted anything like so long—it says it all in one paragraph.

“There are two main reasons why you have been called upon to defend Hong-Kong in the present disturbed times. The first is that we have obligations which cannot honourably be overlooked or renounced. The second, and this is perhaps of immediate concern to the people of Britain, is because it is very much to our economic interest to do so. . . . The change which is beginning now in Asia is so immense that it is difficult to appreciate what it will mean to us commercially.” (Manchester Guardian, 16/8/49.)

This sort of talk, of course, does not appeal to the Manchester Guardian at all. “Soldiers,” it says with truth, “do not respond to the kind of appeal in the second part of this ‘message.' ” Warming to its theme of trying to undo the damage caused by the over-honesty of the Hong-Kong Government, though with not much success, it continues: —

“Actually our reason for defending it is not chiefly economic. We cannot abandon Hong-Kong because to do so would mean a great increase in the swelling Communist pressure on South-east Asia. The defence of Hong-Kong at this stage is part of the move to form a line behind which there can be built up a free world of national States in South Asia.”

Whether the Guardian prefers to argue that the importance of Hong-Kong is strategic as well as economic does not really matter. It is most probably right. What either statement shows conclusively is that British workers have been sent to Hong-Kong to defend the interests of British capitalism, whether expressed locally in Hong-Kong, or, more generally, throughout the whole of the Far East.

Stan Hampson

Twice-told tales (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the worker has “responded magnificently” to Government appeals for greater production. Since the start of the drive in 1945, production has increased so much that a few weeks ago Sir Stafford Cripps was pleased to tell us we are now creating more wealth than at any time in our history.

As always, under Capitalism, however, there is a “but” attached to the “good news.” It is this: In order to reach the “era of prosperity,” we must now produce at lower cost and compete successfully in a buyer’s market. We must “go easy” on wage claims, work harder and leave everything else to the wisdom of our “leaders.”

That story has an old familiar ring. After the 1914-18 war, the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Parties were spinning the same yarn—you needn’t “ask your Dad,” the information is in any history book.

The situation in 1945 differed slightly, of course, as at that time the Communist Party was also contributing to the clarion call for “More production, “ Export or Die,” etc., etc. Indeed, it continued to do so until the line-up of British with American Capitalism, instead of Russian Capitalism, necessitated one of those lightning reversals in policy that have made the Communist Party an example to every political turncoat.

Although the antics of political opportunists may change, the economics of Capitalism remain the same. Like “Old Father Thames,” Capitalism “keeps rolling along” from boom to slump and back again, with a few world wars thrown in for good measure.

Just as the sequel to the production drive after the first World War was mass unemployment, the dole queue, the means test and malnutrition, so, in a short while, when world markets are again filled, those conditions of squalor and misery will once more greet the working class.

In America, already there are over four millions unemployed, with an estimated eight millions within twelve months (see Sunday Express, 26/6/49). That situation symbolises the “Era of prosperity’ and the “Century of the common man” Capitalism has to offer. “Planned” or otherwise Capitalism cannot operate in the interests of us—the working class.

The solution to our problems lies in the abolition of class society, and the establishment of a form of social organisation in which things are produced solely in order to satisfy human needs—not to be exchanged or offered for sale.

In short what we need is Socialism. A system of society in which poverty and insecurity will be remembered only as a feature of Capitalism. Socialism cannot be produced, by the wizardry of politicians, out of a hat (even an Anthony Eden). Knowledge forms the basis of revolutionary action! We must understand what we want, and organise politically as a class in order to bring Socialism about. The promises of would-be “leaders” notwithstanding, that is the only solution to working-class problems.

J. McGregor 

Pity the poor planners (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this capitalist world, where so many things are going on at the same time, it becomes very difficult sometimes to keep pace with them all. All the fuss and excitement over the dollar situation, for example, has served to push into the background another very important part of the Marshall Aid programme which seems to be heading for breakdown. Though there have recently been numerous references in the Press about it, its significance does not yet appear to have sunk into the minds of the politicians. If it has done, then they are doing their desperate best to pretend that it does not exist.

In September, 1947, the representatives of sixteen European nations came together in Paris and agreed to the European Recovery Programme (E.R.P.), since called the Marshall Plan. Throughout the proceedings it was the magic word “production” that was most frequently on the lips of the delegates, “everything possible to increase production” was the keynote of the conference. To this end production programmes were drawn up for all the so-called vital commodities, and targets were set for every year up to 1951. Thus, to give an instance, overall oil-production was scheduled to rise from 55 million tons in 1947, to 75 millions in 1948, and to 114 millions in 1951. Similar targets were set for other commodities like foodstuffs, coal, ships, iron and steel, motor vehicles, etc. Everything perfect and precise—on paper. Hardly a "hint that such a thing as the capitalist system could turn all their wonderful plans into just so many exercises in arithmetic.

Not two years have passed since these plans were made, and 1951 is still quite a long time off, yet already the targets are looking silly. Today, the emphasis is not upon production, production, production, but upon the fears of overproduction—this, by the way, not at the end of the programme in 1951, but in 1949. Take, as one example, oil. The Conference report said:

“The world market for petroleum and its products is at present very tight. The U.S.A., outstandingly the largest producers and consumers of oil, from being large exporters to Europe and elsewhere, have become net importers. It will, therefore, not be easy to cover the rising needs of the participating countries and W. Germany.”

About eighteen months later we get the City Editor of the News Chronicle saying:

“. . . very shortly it looks as though there will be oil going begging for purchasers in any currency that they chose to offer for it.”

And later:

“On the face of it we have here a situation fraught with remarkable possibilities — on the economic side great price falls for all oil products, but on the other hand big financial losses and mis- employment of resources; a struggle between rival oil interests in America and Europe for inadequate markets; and on the political side a struggle between American taxpayers with a case for their pockets and American oil interests preferring that Marshall Aid or some successor should pay them to send oil to Europe which Europe could not pay for and might not want to. For Europe the obviously proper course is to slow down at once on refining and pipe-line projects.” (News Chronicle, 9/7/49.) 

What applies to oil, applies to almost every other commodity mentioned in the programme—to foodstuffs like wheat, to coal, to iron and steel, to ships, to motor vehicles; in nearly every case the buyers' market is making nonsense of the targets. Objectives which in 1947 seemed fine and reasonable now seem stupid. The planners have once again underestimated capitalism’s powers of recovery, even after six years of war devastation; they have sadly miscalculated its capacity to produce; they have ignored the inevitability of slump; and they have no answer to a situation where there is a struggle, not to produce goods, but to dispose of them on the world’s markets. Their plans are reduced to meaningless, useless mathematical calculations, with no application to the real world, the world of capitalism. Capitalism will always defeat the efforts of the planners, however sincere, however thorough, however clever— for they try to plan the unplannable. 

Stan Hampson

Lest you forget (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

No omnipotent power decreed that Capitalism should come into existence; it just growed. No omnipotent power has decreed that Capitalism will not pass away; it is already decaying.

You were not designed by nature to produce wealth so that parasites might thrive; although you chose your parents badly, the power to rectify the error rests in your own hands.

Knowledge is power; but only if you use it.

No revolutionary movement thrives on apathy; “Those who would be free themselves must strike the blow.”

While you remain on your knees, and accept the figment that the wealthy are wealthy because they have more intelligence than you have, you will continue to carry the burdens of wage slavery. Why not recognise the truth, that it is you and not they who exhibit the most intelligence by the work you do; get upon your feet and throw the useless incubus off your backs.

The socialist movement is not just a movement to replace one group at the top by another; it is a movement to abolish the group idea altogether and replace it by the idea of humanity as an undivided whole, the world one vast harmonious and undiversified family knit together by one object—the comfort and happiness of all.

You have been prepared to fight and die for a world of insecurity and misery; why not enjoy the pleasure of change and fight and live for a world of comfort and security?

When you arrive at periods of exceptional misery the parson says to you “Let us pray”; can’t you see that what he is really saying is “Let us bray”? To use a metaphor: while your hands and eyes are turned skywards, the capitalist can go through your pockets.

Gilmac.