Full Employment? Another Labour Party Fallacy (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is full employment for the working class possible? What exactly does it mean? By whom is it desirable? Or is it a stunt to inspire the workers with hope and trust in our so-called Socialist Government?

 

These are not some of the questions asked in Parliament, or other public places. On the contrary, there seems to be general agreement, especially in the press, to keep up the fiction that full employment is possible, not merely for the repair of war damage, but indefinitely.

According to a leading article in the Daily Telegraph for November 16th, the Government's plan for full employment is much the same as that of the Coalition Government's in 1944. They say :—

“It differs little but in omissions and change of emphasis from the policy for maintaining 'a high and stable level of employment' which the Coalition Government set forth in 1944. That policy commanded general support as a well devised means of smoothing out booms and slumps, the main obstacles to full employment." 

Neither the Coalition Government, nor the present Labour Government, have so far explained how, by smoothing out the booms and slumps, fuller employment is obtained. Neither do they, or the Daily Telegraph, show how, when one dead level of employment has been reached, it is possible to achieve a condition of full employment. The plan is to spend on public works during the slump, leaving the booms to keep the workers busy during the few years—or months—they last. The Daily Telegraph, while hopeful of the results, is dubious of the ability of the Government and its experts to forecast the slumps, and adjust, their spending on public works accordingly.

Having once made the assertion that ''booms and slumps are the main obstacles to full employment," which is false, any deductions they make on that premise will undoubtedly be wrong. If, instead of eating all my cake to-day, I save a portion for to-morrow, obviously, nothing is added to the total.

In the same way, if a capitalist Government postpones its public works schemes to provide work during a slump, it creates no new employment. All it does is to arrange a levelling out, with little or no fluctuations.

If the unemployment figures during a boom are one million, and during a slump three million, cut out spending on public works during the boom and spread it over the slump and you get approximately two millions throughout both periods. The new arrangement is of no benefit to the workers. On the contrary, the advantage is on the side of Big Business, which has a well stocked labour market on which to draw at the very time world markets are expanding.

The Labour Government, in taking over the Capitalist bag of tricks, have taken with it its superstitions. Ever since the "South Sea bubble" there has been profound dread among capitalists of trade crises. "There's a slump on the way," or "a boom is just round the corner" were common expressions, generally spoken with superstitious awe, as though it were some great convulsion of nature. This dread impotence before the economic blizzard is still prevalent. According to the Daily Sketch (Nov. 23rd, 1945)), Mr. Dalton had said:—

"We must also arm ourselves with anti-slump powers, so that never again, as in past years, shall prices and productivity and employment all fall away through the failure of private enterprise."

The Daily Sketch leader commented as follows : —

"Even Mr. Dalton's Fabian audience must have caught their breath at the sheer ineptitude of that pronouncement, for there is no means within the capacity of man which would leave us an exception to the general experience in the event of a world slump. That will prove to be true Whether this country is run under state control or private enterprise."

For the last 30 years the workers have been unable to see much difference in the amount of unemployment during booms and slumps. They certainly do not become more prosperous during the booms. Big business, even when it gets really busy, cannot absorb more than part of the unemployed millions left over from the previous slump, Booms and slumps are no longer a mystery to all capitalists. This fact is made clear in a book by Roy Glenday, "Economic adviser to the Federation of British Industries," and entitled, "The Future of Economic Society" (Macmillan & Co., 1944).

Mr. Glenday gives facts and figures that shed much light on the subject of trade, both internal and international. In the production and marketing of motor cars, for instance, he says: The huge and complex plant necessary for standardisation and cheapness would be uneconomic without assurance of an ever expanding market. When saturation level has been reached with the ready money section, hire purchase methods are resorted to; which only puts off the evil day of partial, or even total collapse. When it is remembered that this is the normal process of big business in the production and sale of such things as radio sets, cycles and electric appliances of many kinds we can readily understand how this mad race for profits leads to crises.

Mr. Glenday has a convincing array of facts and evidence, from which he argues that Capitalism cannot survive its present crisis without some kind of adjustment in its environment. But contrary to what we should expect from an adviser to the Federation of British Industries, he envisages some form of “communism" the next step in human progress being what he calls the service state. Where, in return for security and a retiring pension, the individual will have to give up the right to choose his job, and must be prepared, not only to move from one locality to another, but also to change his job; undergoing a period of training, if necessary, to fit him for his new job. According to the Conservative press, something like this “service state” is contemplated for this country by the present Government, and already exists in Russia. They (the Conservatives) call it the servile state. But capitalism, whether British, Russian or American, means servility for the working-class always and everywhere. The right to choose his own job is of little value to the individual worker, the majority of whom consider themselves fortunate when they can find any sort of job and hold it down. Booms and slumps mean little to them.

Much depends on the point of view. From the capitalist viewpoint, it is eminently desirable that the workers should be kept busy; though not too busy in case they get independent. And not only because they are a source of profit; but also because many unemployed workers are a menace to a smoothly running system, and they have to be fed anyway.

The worker's point of view is different. He knows that the overstocked condition of the world's markets is the result of working-class energy. Of working-class efficiency combined with modern methods and machinery. The machinery itself being the result of working-class effort. In short, all the ingredients that go to make up overstocked markets are included in the phrase "human energy and the nature-given material," capitalists being excluded.

Under a rational system of society the machines would not belong to the capitalist, but to the people, and the people, while participating in the work of production and distribution, would arrange the conditions for themselves. They would do so through a real democracy worked out by themselves. The idea of finding or making work would be illogical and absurd. Under Socialism only the work necessary for the satisfaction of human needs according to an agreed standard of life and culture, would be performed. Booms and slumps would disappear along with the poverty and unemployment that spring from the wild scramble for profits.

F. E.

The trouble in dockland By a Dock Worker (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

A state of "armed truce" exists between the dockers and their employers with the Government concerned only with the smooth running of the system.

Waging a struggle against their masters, and faced with the undisguised hostility of the Labour Government, the misrepresentation and distortion of the press, and the general apathetic misunderstanding of the bulk of the working class, the dockers of Britain have exhibited a high measure of solidarity and determination.

From the first few days in October to the end of the dispute in the first week-end in November, with all the hardships and suffering necessarily involved in a prolonged strike, and without any official backing, guidance or organisation, a developed sense of discipline and organisation was shown by this section of the working class that bodes ill for the master class and their interests when reinforced by political understanding.

All strikes have their basis in the class struggle, and this dispute was the culmination of years of overwork under war conditions, working and living in bombed areas and the inevitable inadequacy of working class diet aggravated by the exigencies of war.

The normal nominal wages of dockers have increased from 14s. per day in October, 1940, to 16s. at the present time. And the cost of living has increased disproportionately, which reveals a reduction in real wages. In order to meet with this the men had to work long hours of overtime under the most harassing conditions imaginable, particularly in the "target" ports. Their efforts in this direction met with the applause of Government and Press. Coupled with this, on the insidious plea of assisting the war effort "to end Fascism," most of their hard-won trade union practices and restrictions were surrendered, and large scale mechanisation and speed-ups introduced. Now, on the equally anti-working class plea of "building up Britain's export trade," the Government and the employers are seeing to it that these speed-ups and mechanisations shall remain.

In the period 1939-1945, the dockers’ real wages having been reduced, what happened to their relative wages, i.e., what they received considered in relation to the profits of their employers?

All the large shipping companies increased their profits handsomely. Even in the worst years for shipping losses, the Cunard Line's profits improved on the previous year's.

In short, the wages of the dockers, considered as real, decreased; as relative, decreased.

For years, especially during the War, the official organisations of the Transport and General Workers' Union were out of touch with the rank and file of dockland, due primarily to the neglect of the members in looking after their Union affairs, rendered worse by overtime and Sunday work, precluding attendance at Union meetings.

Other factors have been the fusion of the Union organisation with the "war effort," and the acceptance by Union officials of administrative jobs in the large dock labour "schemes," and subsequent collision with the men; also the general structure of the official Unions which failed to expedite the claims of the men and to control the full-time officials.

With these facts as a domestic background, when shipping requirements slackened off after May, 1945, and the corresponding diminution in overtime was reflected in smaller pay packets, the dockers were faced with the problem now before the industrial workers of Britain and the other victors of the recent war, that of forcing their wages up to subsistence level.

The dock strike started in the last week of September on a local issue at Birkenhead involving some sixty men, and grew in proportion and changed in quality so that by the middle of October a large proportion of dockers in the country were involved on a national issue of a claim for 25s. a day and a forty-hour week. The full-time officials of the Dockers' Unions attacked the whole movement from the outset. Mr. Deakin, Mr. Donovan, of the Transport Union, and Mr. Barrett, of the Stevedores' Union, made themselves notable in this respect.

At monster meetings, sometimes of 17,000 men, unanimous votes of "no confidence" were passed in the officials of the Unions.

The reply to this, given by the officials, by the employers and the Government, was the gibe "unconstitutional" and a refusal to recognise the democratically elected strike committee.

A fierce barrage of spiteful, and in some cases, stupid propaganda was directed against the strikers. The Minister of Education brought even the derision of the Beaverbrook Press upon her head with her rash and unfounded speculations concerning bread rationing.

The Minister of Labour, forgetting years of Labour propaganda about the need for a "more equitable distribution of wealth," threw his weight in against the striking dockers.

The more sober capitalist press such as the Manchester Guardian, Observer, etc., while decrying the "unconstitutional" nature of the effort, nevertheless admitted on occasion the possibility of the reality of the men's grievances.

Mr. Emrys Hughes, of the Forward, indicated quite clearly his views during the dispute by the time-worn device of treating it as non-existent. One can only conclude that he didn't wish to embarrass the Labour Government. The Daily Worker was strangely reticent about the whole affair The Communist Party printed a small leaflet consisting of excerpts from a speech made by Harry Pollitt on October 13th entitled: "Danger if the Government does not make wage policy clear," in which Pollitt "stressed that economic conflict was not in workers' interests and they must use to the full the T.U. negotiating machinery." In short, don't strike. And to "carry forward the gains made during the war!" The working class should be informed at the earliest of .the nature of these gains, The dockers, at least, have another word for the changes in their position as a result of the war. The "New Leader,” the journal of the I.L.P., rallied to the defence of the strikers with the singularly inept slogans of “Sack the Dock Bosses" and "Nationalise the dock industry with Workers' Control."

The R.C.P. "Socialist Appeal" somewhat softly rebutted the silly stories of the Daily Mail regarding "Trotskyist agitation fomenting the strike.'' With their typically futile and romantic conceptions of "revolutionary upsurges," they urged the dockers to elect a "really revolutionary and militant leadership.”

On the whole, the dockers suffered as much from the attentions of their "friends” as they did from their open enemies.

The strike committees' spokesmen in Liverpool and London expressed finely on occasion the resolution of the men. and with a dignity that put their opponents to shame; but at other times indicated quite clearly their lack of knowledge of the forces arrayed in opposition.

They were, too, possessed of a naive confidence in the present Government.

It is a matter of little doubt, however, that the decision taken latterly by the Unofficial Committees to recommend a general resumption of work was prompted by the strategically sound desire to keep the men together with an unbroken organisation, and to indicate to all concerned that they retained the democratic support of the men.

Had the strike lasted any longer, there might have been the danger of a section of the strike movement weakening and resultant confusion. It is a truism that the working class learn as much from their defeats as from their victories. What, then, are the lessons to be gained from this strike, the first national dispute since the end of the war?

The first, that the dockers as a hitherto relatively backward section of the working class, are "growing up,'' and can display discipline and solidarity of a high order. Their unofficial organisation thrown up by the strike did in some respects match all that is best in working class industrial history. The second, that the employing class with their united hostility and the impudent counter proposal of an actual wage reduction in some ports, combined with the demand for a continuation of the war-time restrictions of Trade Union conditions, are determined to fight bitterly any attempted inroads into their profits. Well they know that a wage increase can only be granted at the expense of their profits.

The third, that the Labour Government does not, in fact can not, encourage workers to improve their status at the expense of their masters. And that the smooth running of the wages system comes first, as it must, in their calculations.

The fourth, the dockers must realise that a change in leadership is not the solution to their industrial and union problems. Given the same degree of apathy and rank and file inattention to their industrial problems, given the same naive confidence in a reformist Government attempting to run capitalism more efficiently than their masters, then the new officials will become like the old.

The fifth, the dockers must, like all other workers throughout the world, recognise and understand the class structure of society and the commodity character of their labour-power. That their wages are based, in the long run, on the cost of living and that the operation of the economic laws of Capitalism will defeat all their efforts to materially improve their lot.

And that the solution lies in an intelligent political movement to replace the private ownership of the means of life by common ownership and democratic control, and that in the Socialist Party there is to hand a fitting instrument for the task.

Tony Mulheron

[This article, received too late for our December issue, was written before the offer of an increase to 19/- a day. Ed. Comm.]

The "Transition Period" (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are many people who cannot shake themselves clear of the Labour Party because they believe that Socialism cannot be established as a complete and revolutionary revolution change. They believe that between Capitalism and Socialism lies a period of State ownership which, they contend, will be neither Capitalism nor Socialism. Consequently they pin their faith to the Labour Party as the party which will inaugurate this “transition period”.

The idea of a transition period, during which some fundamental features of capitalism would still remain, is old, and was taken for granted by the reform parties that sprang up during the second half of the last century and the idea has persisted until to-day.

The Utopian Socialists of the early part of last century proposed a complete break with capitalism by building a new society upon an entirely different basis. But this society, instead of growing out of the old, was to be built within present society but without having any connection with it at all. They were to be communistic oases in the desert of capitalism that would serve as an example and an inspiration to the world at large. This was Robert Owen’s early idea. When, later, it was found impossible to build these groups inside highly developed Western civilisation, attempts were made to set them up upon the relatively virgin soil of America and Australia. But even there they were failures; capitalism was too strong for them. Co-operative societies still remain a pale and stunted reflections of those grand old fantasies.

When the Utopian approach to the abolition of capitalism gave place to the scientific, and it became generally accepted that Socialism was a system that must grow out of capitalism and not be imposed upon it, the new attitude took three different forms, for which the low standard of education of the workers was partly responsible. One form was that capitalism must be subjected to repeated reforms until finally it was reformed out of existence and Socialism introduced without the mass of the people being aware of what was happening. The second form consisted of building up small, vigorous groups which would lead the workers into Socialism by a frontal attack upon capitalism. This was later the basis of the Russian Bolshevik movement and its early popularity as the Blanquist movement in France. The third and final form was one propagated by Marx and Engels in which the Socialist revolution was to be accomplished by a working class that realised the source and nature of the antagonisms within capitalism, and also the nature of the new social order they intended to build out of the ruins of the old.

From the beginning the two earlier methods were afflicted with the same old disease; an acceptance of the idea that the mass of the people are incapable of properly understanding the meaning of Socialism and therefore, in its early days, Socialism would be fraught with difficulties to solve which some forms of organisation similar to what we have to-day would persist for some time after the accomplishment of the revolution. The principal, and almost overwhelming, difficulty anticipated was how to get people to produce and distribute the needful things when private ownership of the means of production, and therefore wages, no longer existed. How would an equal share of work be performed and a fair share of needful things be provided without some principle analogous to what exists under capitalism? It was agreed that when Socialism had been firmly established and a new generation had grown up under free social conditions then no such arbitrary principle would be necessary, but until that time this hangover from capitalism must  remain.

This period between the overthrow of capitalism and the final establishment of a fully developed Socialist society has been called “the transition period”. Limited space will only permit us to discuss one aspect of the question here.

The troubles of the early Bolsheviks, who were endeavouring to build Socialism out of an undeveloped capitalist base, led them to exaggerate the nature and the importance of this transition period and their followers have given to State capitalism the unwarranted distinction of being the transition period. In defending their claims the early Bolsheviks—Lenin, Trotzky and their associates—appealed to the writings of Marx and Engels, and particularly to Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875.

In his criticism Marx argues that during the transition period between capitalism and Communism a worker will withdraw from the common pool a value in hours of labour equal to the hours of labour he has worked minus the contribution to the reserve for the aged, the sick, future production and repair. Whether this period will be long or short Marx does not say; in fact, it is not even clear that he accepted more than there will be a period of difficulty to be met by temporary expedients, as his statements are arguments against erroneous assumptions in the Gotha Programme, and he is showing that where there is unequal distribution their phrase “just distribution of the proceeds of labour” in that programme is meaningless wind. We may add that taking the most extreme view of what Marx says it certainly could not produce conditions that would give rise to anything approximating to Soviet millionaires!

Let us now consider what are likely to be the conditions existing, as far as the distribution of products is concerned, at the time when the new society is being born out of the present, as far as we can envisage it to-day. We must bear in mind that the change will not come “like a thief in the night”, but in full daylight with the understanding and agreement of nearly the whole of society.

First of all, people will be accustomed to receiving wages with which to buy what they produce.

Secondly, the means of production and distribution will have been converted into Social ownership by an immediate act. This must be so as there cannot be any gradual or partial transformation.

The problem, then, is how will production be arranged when people will not receive any wages for working, and how will distribution be arranged when people will have no money to buy?

Finally, what will be the position of those who work in unnecessary occupations that will be abolished, and also of those who have never worked at all?

Before answering these questions let us first clear some of the ground.

We have absorbed what Marx and his co-workers gave to the world from their painstaking studies and we have added a good deal ourselves from our own studies since Marx, seventy years ago, criticised the Gotha Programme. We have profited from the development that has gone on since his day. One of the most important things we have learned is that the mass of people are essentially reasonable, once they understand a problem. For instance, workers will put up with considerable hardship and privation during strikes if they are convinced that the strike is necessary.

Our appeal is to all types of workers and our ranks include people from all occupations. In our propaganda we make it clear that the abolition of capitalism means the common ownership of the means of production which in turns involves from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs. We point out that the workers must capture political power for the immediate purpose of introducing Socialism; and we further insist that there must be a majority of people understanding and desiring Socialism before it can be established.

Our propaganda, therefore, solves the problems of the transition period. From the outset the majority of workers will be satisfied with the meeting of their elementary needs; they will not expect everything at once. Furthermore workers inspired with the desire for Socialism will not be worried whether they are doing more work than somebody else. The enthusiasm for the change will spur many to work harder than they have ever done for capitalism. If for a time the tradition of capitalism weighs so heavily upon some that they shirk doing their best, what will it matter? Time itself will soon iron out this problem. At the worst there are very few people thick-skinned enough to be content to remain permanently objects of scorn.

When the movement reaches the point when Socialism is imminent it will contain within itself the organisation and the people capable of assessing the various needs of the population and how and where to organise production to meet those needs. At first the road may be rough, but it will be rapidly smoothed with the powers of production society will have at its disposal.

It is the nature of production, or the productive form, that determines the nature of the distribution. A freely associated productive form will involve a free distribution.

At first some occupations that are unpleasant may have to continue until there is time to remould the whole of production from top to bottom and eliminate what is burdensome and unpleasant. Thus some people may have unpleasant jobs for a while and others pleasant. But our propaganda will have made the necessity of this clear before the change takes place.

Thus the transition period will not be another social form but only the difficult time of reorganising production and distribution on a Socialist basis; settling down to Socialism. There will be no need for labour tickets or anything of that kind, as the workers as a whole are intelligent people.

The progress of Socialist understanding in the advanced countries proceeds at about the same pace. A revolutionary change in one of them will inspire a similar change in the others. Consequently there need be no lack of essential products or break in international supplies.

The Socialist movement is a working class movement, a movement in the interests of the great majority. Workers support each other internationally on the industrial field during strikes. There will be no lack of mutual assistance when the greatest working class movement of all, the movement to free the toilers for ever from the domination of a master class, reaches the point that it can call upon them for international solidarity in striking the final blow.

Gilmac.

Answers to a correspondent: Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

A reader of the Socialist Standard (W.D.B., Cardiff) criticises the S.P.G.B.'s attitude to Dictatorship and to the problem of distribution immediately after the abolition of capitalism. On dictatorship he writes:—

"I find that the S.P.G.B. does not attempt to deal with Marx’s and Engels’ repeated references to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (see Marx-Engels correspondence, pages 57, 337, 484, and 'Critique of the Gotha Programme' p. 28), nor does it attempt to reconcile this conception with its own conception of 'democracy.’ " 

Our critic, who says he has been a reader for two years, is correct to the extent that this question has not been dealt with during that period, but in earlier years it has been dealt with repeatedly. For example, it was dealt with in the following issues: June and September, 1932; December, 1936; August, 1937 and January, 1938.

Limitations of space prevent us from dealing with it again at length, but our position can be made sufficiently clear by the following points.

While we are opposed to the Communist Party's distortion of the term dictatorship of the proletariat, we are in agreement with Marx’s and Engels' view. Engels in his 1891 introduction to the German edition of "Civil War in France," wrote: —

"The German philistine has lately been thrown once again into wholesome paroxisms by the expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Well, gentle sirs, would you like to know how this dictatorship looks? Then look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat."

(See translation published by the New York Labour News Co. in a pamphlet called "The Paris Commune.") 

The Commune was an instance of majority control based upon democratic elections. There was no suppression of newspapers or of the propaganda of the minority, and no denial of their right to vote. This is markedly different from the Communist Party dictatorship in Russia to-day, where opposition political parties and newspapers are forbidden. The Communist Party is the only political party that may nominate candidates. For what it is worth non-political organisations, trade unions, co-operatives, cultural Societies, etc., are allowed to nominate candidates under the Election Regulations, but the same regulations provide that the nominations have to be approved by the election commissions. (See "Regulations Governing Elections," published by Soviet News, 23rd October, 1945.) The Central Election Commission, which has the final decision if appeal is made against the rejection of nominees by lower commissions (see article 67), is appointed from above by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and of its membership of 15, five are from Communist organisations pnd five from trade unions. All, of course, are from officially approved bodies only.

Distribution immediately after the abolition of capitalism. 

Our critic’s second point is:—

"The S.P.G.B. totally ignores the passages in the 'Critique of Gotha Programme' wherein Marx states, 'What we have to deal with is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it has emerged. Accordingly the individual producer receives back from society exactly what he gives to it. . . . He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common fund), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as costs the same amount of labour.' "

Our critic goes on to quote from Marx's "Critique on the Gotha Programme" that passage in which Marx says that it will be later on, "in a higher phase of communist society," that society will inscribe on its banners, "From each according to his needs," and adds: "The contrast between Marx's views on the nature of Socialism (or Communism) and those expressed in the Socialist Standard is so glaring that I am quite unable to reconcile them.”

Again our critic is in error. The question which, according to him, the S.P.G.B. totally ignores, was dealt with fully in the issue for August, 1936, to which he and other interested readers are referred. The article dealt with Marx's views, the distortion of those views by the Communists, and their applicability under the altered conditions of to-day. 70 years after Marx wrote.

It is not clear from our critic’s letter exactly in what respects he thinks that the S.P.G.B.'s attitude on this point glaringly contrasts with the attitude of Marx. If he will be more explicit his criticism will be dealt with.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: The compensation of Bank of England stockholders (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received from a correspondent the following letter, which we consider will be of interest to our readers.— Ed. Comm.)

Sir,—A few facts regarding the compensation terms given to Bank of England stockholders might be of interest to your readers. The unit of Bank of England stock is £100. It was quoted on the Stock Exchange recently at £382. Stockholders have been receiving 12 per cent during the past 20 years. The Labour Government proposes to give stockholders, in exchange for their Bank stock, four £100 units of Government stock, equal to £400 for each unit of Bank stock. This new stock will have the guarantee of the State behind it. At 3 per cent. the Government stock will give the same return as Bank of England stock, namely, 12 per cent. The new stock is redeemable in 1966 at the option of the Government. I have found; Mr. Editor, that many Labour Party supporters conclude that at the end of 20 years the stock will be cancelled without the stockholders receiving anything in return. This, of course, is not the case. It is not surprising that such a misconception should have arisen. Several Labour journals did not appear over anxious to explain the details of the compensation terms. Journals devoted to the interests of investors appear to have been more liberal in giving details of the compensation terms. For example, the following appeared in the "Investors' Chronicle," 13th October, 1945, page 444: "So far as holders of Bank stock are concerned, in the circumstances of the case the provisions are satisfactory. They will receive £400 of 3 per cent. Government stock for each £100 of Bank stock. They will have the same gross income as they had before. . . . But the new Government security is not redeemable till 1966, and then the redemption is optional. . . . In other words, present Bank stock looks as though it is worth little short of £400 on the compensation terms. On news of the terms. Bank stock rose to a record level of 390-395."

It seems clear that the redemption terms mean that in 20 years' time, if the stock is redeemed, the stockholders receive roughly £400 for each unit of Bank stock formerly held. Should redemption not take place in 1966, then the stockholders continue to draw their usual 12 per cent, until the stock is redeemed.

Hoping the above facts will be given wide publicity, and thereby help to remove a misconception from the minds of many well-meaning supporters of the Labour Party.

Yours, etc.,

D. A. (Glasgow).

The crime wave (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

New York.

"The long-predicted post-war crime wave is beginning to make itself felt throughout America. Not only have murders increased, but there has been a sharp increase in bank robberies for the first time in almost 12 years."—(Report from New York. Evening Standard, 4th December, 1945.)

London.

" C.I.D. to round up 9,000 deserters. Biggest crime wave since 1919."—(Headlines in Daily Telegraph, 10th December, 1945.)

Moscow.

“Armed military police are patrolling the Moscow streets as part of the action taken by the Soviet authorities to stamp out a post-war crime wave in the capital. Additional police are on duty at night."—(Report from Moscow. News Chronicle, 28th November, 1945.)

The nationalisation of mining royalties (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another Great Labour Party Victory

"Six property owners have been paid more than £1,000,000 each by the State for the coal which lies beneath their estates The long campaign to nationalise these coal royalties ended yesterday with the report of the Coal Commissioners. . . . . At the time of the Sankey Commission . . . the most extensive royalty owners . . . were the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Bate, Lord Tredegar, the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Ellesmere." "In addition to the four unnamed owners who got more than a million, six received from £500,000 to £1,000,000 each and twenty-eight between £250,000 and £499,000. More than 11,000 claimants had less than £1,000 each. More than 2,400 got nothing."—(Daily Express, October 31st, 1945.)

Which shows that nationalisation with compensation does not even change the personnel—the individual relationships of the capitalist class.

Nationalisation without compensation would still not be in the "public service"; it would merely transfer ownership from its previous owners to the investors in Government (State) Bonds.

Socialism is a change in social relationships; the abolition of the rich, and therefore, its counterpart, the poor—the workers. It transforms relationships by changing ownership. Private ownership becomes common ownership.

Socialism does not haggle about compensation or confiscation; both terms imply some injury is done the capitalists.

Socialism stands for restoration of the wealth produced to the producers—the workers; about nine-tenths of the people.

Horatio.

Work directions to stay (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

In reply to a question in the House of Commons, Mr. Isaacs, Minister of Labour, stated that he could not accept the suggestion that the Essential Work Order had outlived its usefulness. "While there may be one or two isolated instances of difficulty, in the main it is still very valuable to industry, too valuable to abandon." (Evening Standard, November 27th, 1945.)

As industry is still owned by the capitalists, what this amounts to is that direction of the workers is being continued for the time being in order to benefit the capitalists.

What an admission from a "Labour" Government. But not surprising to Socialists, who have consistently pointed out the anti-working-class policies to which the Labour Party commits itself through accepting the responsibility of running capitalism.

R. M.

"Socialism" for the City (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Little did I ever dream that I should live to see the City Fathers cheer a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had recently introduced a Budget on behalf of a Socialist Government that had achieved Power!

"Yet this happened yesterday when, before the Mansion House luncheon, the new Lord Mayor of London greeted, one after another, Morrison, Dalton,, Bevin and Bevan, Shinwell, Jowitt, Lawson, and the rest, and, finally, Attlee and his wife.

"None had a better reception that did Hugh Dalton!

" 'A Socialist Budget would ruin the City,' we have always been told. Actually, the City applauded it!"

— (Hannen Swaffer, Daily Herald, 10th November, 1945.)

Donations to Party Funds (1946)

Party News from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1946)

Party News from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fan mail

I was tempted to approve this comment . . . if only because of their cut and paste commitment . . . but, on balance, it's probably best not to encourage them.

I'm not saying there is a definite connection but I do get a lot of people finding the blog via this 2022 Socialist Standard article, and I'm sure it's the case that some are a tad disappointed when they discover that the article is not written in approval of online fascists.

John Prescott: a Labour man through and through (2025)

John Prescott in 1966.

From the January 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many of the obituarists of the late Lord Prescott quoted him as saying that despite all his achievements, he’d be known for that one punch on a protestor on the campaign trail in Rhyl. The more serious obituaries covered his career as a politician, achieving the high office of Deputy Prime Minister, and alluding to the Jaguars and the affair. Tony Blair himself came out and was full of praise for Prescott, and acknowledged how much his premiership needed its deputy. Corbynites remembered the time he defended their man on Question Time. Above all, though, his Lordship was a man of the Labour Party through and through, and it is worth going back behind the Punch and Judy of high office to the thing that first brought him to prominence: the 1966 seamen’s strike.

The seamen’s strike

Prescott was one of the co-authors of a pamphlet Not Wanted on Voyage: The Seaman’s Reply published by the National Union of Seamen, Hull Dispute Committee, in June 1966. It was written because ‘owing to the biased nature of the Pearson Inquiry Report recently published it is vitally necessary that a counter-balance is put out to put the seamen’s fight into perspective’. They alleged that ‘so biased is the Pearson Report against the seamen’s case that one cannot but feel that it was simply set up to capture public opinion, including trade union and Labour Party opinion – which so far has supported the seamen – and marshal it against us’.

Much of the pamphlet deals with the minutiae of overtime and pay rates, but the core claim for the seamen was for a 40-hour week at £14. As the historian EP Thompson described the strike: ‘The British seamen, after decades of near company unionism had accomplished that most difficult of industrial actions (in an industry whose members may at any point be scattered across the seven seas), a national strike with high morale and solidarity’ (Writings by Candelight, p. 53). The Wilson government infamously alleged that the strike was prompted by Communist Party agitators, claiming ‘The moderate members of the seamen’s executive were terrorized by a small professional group of Communists or near Communists.’ As Thompson notes, there were no Communists on the seamen’s executive.

The authors alleged ‘Our case has not been treated on its merits. Social justice has been overridden by political expediency.’ They claimed that ‘the Government’s obsession with the incomes policy has been evident throughout the strike. We had to be beaten, because our claim was a “breach in the dyke of the incomes policy”’. Hence, although the powers were never used, the Wilson government declared a state of emergency over the strike. ‘There is a wealth of evidence we could produce to show that behind the Government, in its resistance to our just demands, stand the International Banks, the financial powers that really direct the Government’s anti-wage policy.’

Prescott and his co-author went into detail as to how the make-up of the Pearson Commission indicated that the fix was on, in particular, how the appointment of Joe O’Hagan (General Secretary of the furnace maker’s union) to the commission was intended to neutralise any opposition in the TUC, as he held the chair of the General Purposes committee. This is indicative of their approach of looking at the personnel involved in the structures of power. They went into great detail over the personal connexions between shipping owners and the press barons.

They noted of the shipping industry:

‘In the past, British shipping contributed on a major scale to the earning of foreign exchange, but in this field too, its recent record is one of consistent decline. Between 1952 and 1962 shipping’s contribution to Britain’s earnings abroad fell by over £111 million, or by an average of 3½% per year.’

Likewise: ‘Most of our major competitors developed the bulk container transport method during the 1950’s, whilst our shipowners […] did nothing’. This, they alleged, was down to the ‘shipowners’ incompetence’. Their complaint, essentially, was that the wrong people were in charge.

‘This backward, selfish group of owners, through their spokesman, arrogantly claim (ignoring the whole miserable record we have described) that “the national interest” so often thrown at the seamen by Press, TV and Government, IS THE SAME THING AS THE SHIP OWNERS’ INTERESTS’ [emphasis in original].

They urged the nationalisation of the industry but clearly envisaged that as being a mere change in the personnel at the top, and still cast the question of how shipping serves ‘the national interest’ in a world of competing states.

Poacher turns gamekeeper

Prescott and his co-author also alluded to Labour’s previous record, stating:

‘The goodwill of the bankers, the ill-will of the working class. How familiar a story that is of Labour Governments, when we cast our minds back to Ramsay MacDonald and the 1929-31 government.’

Nowadays, we could add a few more Labour governments to that list.

Prescott had first stood for Parliament the same year as the strike. In 1970 he got elected MP for Hull East. By the 1990s, he was the shadow transport spokesman, extolling ‘public private partnerships’ as an alternative to nationalisation and a way of getting the industry to serve the national interest. He would later be part of the Blair government that institutionalised PFI as the default way of funding government projects.

By 2002 he was standing in the House of Commons, updating MPs on the situation with regard to the firefighters’ strike:

‘This Government cannot be asked to find additional money outside the agreed Government spending limits. To do so would risk fundamental and lasting damage to the economy. An inflationary pay rise for the firefighters would lead to inflationary pay rises elsewhere in the public sector, and that in turn would lead to job losses, inflation and mortgage rises.’ (tinyurl.com/PrescottHOC20022226)

He affirmed that ‘The Bain review has proposed a way forward. That is the basis for discussion.’ He clearly learned the lessons of the Wilson government. ‘The goodwill of the bankers. The ill-will of the workers’. An epitaph for Prescott and the Labour Party.

Pik Smeet

Working class China (2025)

Pamphlet Review from the January 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist China and Socialist Revolution. By Simon Hannah. Resistance Books, 2023. 67pp.

This pamphlet begins with some indisputable truths: ‘The working class in China is massive – the largest in the world. But they often work in terrible conditions with few effective rights and no independent trade unions. They labour under an authoritarian government calling itself “socialist with Chinese characteristics”.’ Its author then goes on to further characterise modern China as a country run by a ‘pro-business’ party, which, while calling itself ‘communist’, is so only in name. Nor is he impressed by those on the political left who defend China simply on the grounds that its government has massively developed the country’s productive forces and in so doing has lifted millions out of absolute poverty. He points out that this process has not been a prerogative of China and that globally capitalism has ‘lifted millions of people out of abject poverty, whilst condemning millions of others to live in misery’. He goes on to say that ‘the Chinese state corresponds to all the definitions of a capitalist state’, in which ‘both the state sector and the private sector follow capitalist imperatives of growth’.

Nothing here at all that socialists would disagree with. But disagreement does start when he asserts that this state of affairs (ie, China being capitalist) only began in 1976 ‘with the economic and political reforms after the death of Chairman Mao’. The author does recognise that things weren’t great under Mao and that the various schemes adopted by his regime such as the ‘five-year plan’ and ‘the Great Leap Forward’ were abject failures that heaped suffering on the people and led to, among other things, mass famine. Yet, at the same time he definitely soft-peddles that disastrous rule, even referring to it at one point as ‘a new course towards socialism’, albeit one that didn’t go to plan. But little is said about that overall, with the main criticism reserved for what happened after Mao’s death when Deng Xiaoping took over leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and, as quite rightly observed here, opened up the economy to the world market, something he described, in a supreme exercise of smoke and mirrors, as ‘using capitalism to develop socialism’. The writer then goes into significant detail to show how this process of integration into the world market continued and intensified in the decades that followed continuing to the present day and how it was coupled with increasingly authoritarian political control by the CCP, which has managed, sometimes by brute force, to keep the lid on protest, as, for example, in the slaughter of students and workers at the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989. As for the current situation in China under the leadership of Xi Jinping, he quotes the words of a recent Hong Kong opposition activist: ‘Today’s CCP, with its fusion of both political and economic power, its hostility towards people enjoying basic rights of association and free speech, its xenophobia, nationalism, Social Darwinism, cult of a corporate state, “unification” of thought, etc., is now comparable to a fascist state’. And he points to the fact that China, in its mix of state and private ownership, has more billionaires than any other country in the world, while workers are largely denied independent trade unions and, if they protest, are likely to be arrested or battered into submission by the police.

None of this can be denied, but what is hard to understand is how the author can see redeeming features in what happened previously (ie, under Mao) and can somehow see what is happening now as fundamentally different from – and worse than – the repressive and tyrannical state capitalism that existed then. He correctly points to the fact that ‘state ownership does not equate to socialism’, but it did not under Mao either. Mao’s journey was just as much down ‘the capitalist road’ as that of his successors.

As to how China will develop in the future, the author rightly sees this as unpredictable, but avers that the ruling party may not be ’as homogenous and united as it pretends to be’ and its leader, Xi Jinping, not quite so impregnable as he may seem. So he does not see it as impossible that China may develop into ‘a liberal democratic capitalist state on the model of Western democracy’ or into ‘a Russian style capitalism controlled by a small and powerful aristocracy’. But, as he makes clear, any such arrangement would still be capitalism. As an alternative to this, he calls for a society ‘not based on profit but on need, social development and human capacity’. As to whether this can happen in a single country or whether it must be global, there appears to be some contradiction in his mind. The fact that he sometimes makes reference to ‘socialist countries’ suggests that he does not necessarily see socialism as a world system, as we insist it must be. At the same time he does talk about the need for ‘an international working class movement’, and the ‘Anti-Capitalist Resistance’ group under whose aegis this pamphlet is published states its aim as ‘social transformation, based on mass participatory democracy’. Whatever the case, it is clear that socialism, meaning a system of free access to all goods and services based solely on human need, cannot exist in just one country. It must, by definition, be a world society and one that has to be consciously brought into being and then organised cooperatively by a majority of workers who have taken democratic action to opt for it.

Howard Moss

SPGB Meetings (2025)

Party News from the January 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our general discussion meetings are held on Zoom. To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/wc/join/7421974305 in your browser. Then follow instructions on screen and wait to be admitted to the meeting.