Letter: From a feminist (1985)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

From a feminist

Dear Editors,

So the sixth Duke of Westminster is a "nondescript" because he has only two "O" levels (July issue) yet academic examinations are just a competitive game" (August)? Isn't this a bit of Intellectual Elitism? I have eleven O' levels and three A’ levels (and sundry other pieces of decorated paper), but that doesn't prove my innate intelligence (whatever that is) any more than it makes me a nice person to be with.

This said. I am writing partly to say how impressed I was by the standard of the articles in your magazine: good clear prose and not too much jargon. As a committed feminist. I've been reading Spare Rib for the last two years or so, and find the quality of the writing very depressing. Surely we raving lefties don't have to be semi-illiterate?

Keep up the good work.

Rebecca Laxton

Camberley, Surrey

Party News (1985)

Party News from the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Belfast Branch of the World Socialist Party (Ireland) recently held what must rank as one of its most successful public meetings to date. On 26 June, 50 people crowded into the main room of the party offices to hear the arguments for socialism put in a lucid fashion by a visiting London speaker Our monthly meetings are now advertised by widespread postering and leaflet distribution. with the result that each of our last six meetings has attracted more visitors than the previous one. Our literature stand is situated at Corn Market — a busy pedestrian thoroughfare in the heart of the city centre every Saturday afternoon and Thursday evening. From here we are able to distribute hundreds of copies of an Open Letter to the Workers of Northern Ireland—the party's response to the local council elections—and sell a wide range of socialist publications. So. in spite of our size we are certainly making our presence felt.

Nigel McCullough

Blogger's Note:

The visiting London speaker in June was Steve Coleman. More details below from the June 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Islington Branch (1985)

Party News from the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Clifford Slapper's 15th September meeting, 'Is Inequality Natural?' is available as an audio file on the SPGB's website:

IS INEQUALITY NATURAL?

Speaker: Clifford Slapper

Venue: Duke of York, Islington, London

Date: 15th September 1985

SPGB Meetings (1985)

Party News from the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

'I never thought it would be two.'

“You wait ages for a bus for a completed Socialist Standard month, and then two come along at once."

— Frank Snelling (allegedly)

Following on from this post, giving details of a blogging first, August suddenly came rushing in shouting "It should have been me! It should have been me  . . . "

And it should have been, but it'll have to settle for the consolation carriage clock. It will help with its future punctuality. With the completion of the August 1933 Socialist Standard, that's all the August Socialist Standards (1905 thru' 2026) now on the blog. I won't repeat myself here but if you're a fan of caveats, there's an abundance of them here.

So what now? I won't start on the November Standards until November kicks in. For the rest of October I could back to another month, but what month? July seems the easier bet but September is more seasonal. Sadly, no months are that near to completion. The figures as they currently stand are as follows:

• January - 29
• February - 29
• March - 30
• April - 14
• May - 24
• June - 19
• July -  8
• August - 0
• September - 22
• October - 0
• November - 30
• December -  17

I know that July looks like the obvious choice but those 22 September Socialist Standards will still be waiting for me ten months from now and that, frankly, sucks. September it is.

This Month's Quotation: Socialist (1933)

The Front Page quote from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The 

emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex"

                                                                                 From the SPGB's Declaration of Principles.

The Rise of Sir John Ellerman: The Rewards of Capitalism (1933)

From the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month the richest man in England, Sir John Ellerman, died. He was reputed to be worth about £30 million at the time of his death, and a few years ago he owned properties estimated at £55 million. His income was upwards of £1 million a year, about £20,000 a week, equal to the wages of eight or nine thousand workers.

Those who profess to believe that capitalism distributes rewards, according to ability, diligence, thrift and other so-called virtues, hastened to point out what a splendid example Sir John Ellerman set to all of us. Was he not abstemious, they said, spending only a small part of his income ? That is true. He was in the habit of spending on his own personal needs a mere 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the sums coming to him day by day from his investments, but that 5 per cent. meant £50,000 a year—a mere trifle of £1,000 a week.

It was inevitable that the slush-writers of the daily Press would tell us of a romantic rise from poverty to fabulous wealth; of how their hero started with nothing. He did indeed—if we can describe as “nothing” a bagatelle of £20,000 or so, which he inherited from his maternal grandfather.

The frenzied lunacy of modern capitalism can be illustrated in certain of its aspects from the life of Sir John Ellerman. We may believe that a sure £1,000 a week could provide a very pleasant existence, although in this case it included such eccentricities as frequent pleasure cruises on his own liners, Sir John Ellerman being the only occupant, travelling in magnificent solitude on a boat equipped to carry 250 or 350 passengers. Perhaps the journalistic apologists for capitalism will try their hand at discovering some ethical or economic justification for this appalling wastefulness when there are thousands of over-worked and undernourished working men and women, to whom such a cruise, which they cannot afford, might mean restored health and happiness.

Yet, in spite of his wealth, those who knew him said that he had no interest in life outside financial operations and the control of his wealth— “his work was his hobby and his hobby was his work."

We defy the capitalist economists and the capitalist Press to give a reasoned defence of a system which gives to one self-centred individual, obsessed with the single pleasure of exercising his financial skill, complete control over the means of life of tens of thousands of men and women. He controlled nearly 300 ships. He owned £3 million of house property. In Earl’s Court alone he recently sold an estate of 1,150 houses and nearly 200 blocks of flats. Yet he used only one house himself. He was ground landlord of a large part of Oxford Street. At one time he had a large interest in The Times and was proprietor of The Financial Times and several other papers. He took no interest in the journalistic side, but regarded them simply as means of piling up money. He had extensive brewing interests. At one period he had no less a sum than £10 million on deposit with London banks. In the last twelve months he made two separate loans of about £1 million to public companies.

On an occasion like this, the newspaper writers boast about the stupendous wealth of the multi-millionaires as if it belonged to them. Yet this will not prevent them in a few weeks' time from asserting that “we are all capitalists now," that “wealth is becoming more and more equally divided," that companies are owned by small shareholders only, and so on, ad nauseam. By coincidence the man who is particularly notorious for keeping these false notions in circulation by his speeches and letters to the Press (Mr. Walter Runciman) is himself interested in shipping and cannot be unaware of the great fortunes made by Sir John Ellerman and others in that industry.

The reality of the contrast between the riches of the few and the poverty of the many was brought out in an advertisement issued last year by the Confederation Life Association as part of a campaign for popularising insurance. The Association claimed that carefully compiled statistics show that out of an average group of 100 men aged 25, 58 will be alive at 65. Of these 58, one will be wealthy, two fairly well off, five able to live on their savings, and 50 without enough to support them.

That is one side of a picture, the other side of which is the £30 million fortune of Sir John Ellerman.

In passing, it is worth while pointing out once more the absurdity of the assertion by Major Douglas, that all property belongs to the bankers. Sir John Ellerman was not a banker. The richest living man in England is the Methodist, Mr. Joseph Rank, who is also not a banker but has vast interests in flour milling. Other recent big fortunes disclosed at death have been Sir David Yule, £25 million—Anglo-Indian merchant; the Earl of Iveagh, £11 million—head of Guinness brewery; Sir George Wills, £10 million—tobacco; and Sir Joseph Robinson, £10 million—diamond magnate.

Facts, however, appear to matter little to the blind defenders of capitalism, or to the one-eyed critics of certain features of capitalism who belong to the Douglas school. 

Edgar Hardcastle

The London Money Market (1933)

From the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

If you take a walk through the streets of London you will not find the Money Market, as you would find, say, Leadenhall or Smithfield Markets if you searched for them. The Money Market, while it has a name, has no local habitation. The term must not be considered to indicate a particular place where a particular type of business is transacted, but the organised relationships that have grown up in connection with a certain class of financial dealings. What are those dealings, and between whom do these organised relationships exist? To answer those questions is to describe the London Money Market and that it is now proposed to do.

A Market, in the sense in which the word is used in the phrase “the money market,” means the organised bringing together on a payment basis of entities with complementary needs. Any market has two major features therefore, it can be considered firstly with regard to the thing dealt in, secondly with regard to those who deal.

The money market is concerned with “ short-term money ” and “short term paper.” Let me explain what is meant by these terms. First of all, short term money. To describe what is meant by short term money it is necessary to digress for a moment to give an account of how a bank works. What follows will seem heretical to the “credit creationists” and the followers of Major Douglas, but it is nevertheless a mere description of facts known to anyone who is familiar with banking practice.

The business of banking in its essentials is a very simple affair. It is only in certain uninstructed and perverse minds that the banker is regarded as a Cagliostro, who out of nothing creates something, who spends what he never had, and lends what he never received. In fact the banks are not magicians, but in the main plodding creatures of routine who borrow money with the one hand and lend or invest nearly all of it with the other. What the banker lends is determined by what he has of his own, and what he can borrow. The banker borrows by accepting deposits from customers. Those deposits he undertakes to repay either on demand, that is, when the deposits are on current account, or after some stipulated period of notice has been given, that is, when the deposits are “time” deposits. The banker, then, can be considered as starting out in business with the capital with which the bank was founded plus the funds lent to him in the form of deposits by depositors. Accumulated profits in the form of undistributed reserves will in the process of time add to the funds which he can employ in his business. Having acquired funds in this way the banker’s object is to employ them as profitably as he can, consistently with the safety of his business. It would not do for him to sink all the funds entrusted to him into, say, a gold mine, even if over a period of years it promised to yield huge profits, for he must hold himself prepared to repay his depositors at any time. His object is, therefore, to keep a “liquid” position, i.e., to invest the bulk of his funds in such a form that they can easily be converted into cash at any moment that may be necessary, without any, or at least only a small risk of loss.

A large portion of a banker’s assets will, therefore, be held in an easily realisable form. First of all, there will be his actual cash reserve consisting of notes and coin in his own till, and current account balances with other banks. The Clearing Banks hold their balances with the Bank of England, the private banks hold theirs with the Clearing Banks and the Bank of England. But cash in the till, and in a current account, earns nothing, and the banker’s object is to make profits, so that only a limited amount is held in this way. The next liquid item among the banker’s assets is his short-term money. This consists of his cash surplus which he does not want to keep in the till and which he is prepared to lend for short-term at a rate of interest. There exists a special class of borrowers—the discount brokers of whom I will have more to say later—who are in a position to utilise funds liable to be called from them at short notice. Short-term money, therefore, can be stated to be that part of a banker’s cash which he is willing to lend with the right to recall at a moment’s notice, or, in some instances, at a few days’ notice. It is the duty of The manager who "keeps the till” in each head office of a bank to make an estimate first thing each morning, of his probable incomings and outgoings. Suppose that on a particular day he estimates that he will receive £5,000,000 more than he will have to pay out, and that he has sufficient cash in the till, and a large enough balance in the Bank of England. He then decides that he can lend £5,000,000 of short-term money. On the other hand, if he estimates that his payments will exceed his receipts he will decide to demand repayment of some of the short-term money that he has lent. Not all the short-term money with which the money market works represents bankers' surpluses, but for present purposes this is a sufficient approximation to the truth. In passing, it might be pointed out that the banks in lending or demanding repayments of short-term money, in order to adjust their cash positions, throw a revealing light on modern financial controversies regarding the power of bankers to “create credit.” A bank regulates the amount of short-term money it lends in the light of the relationship between its daily receipts and daily outgoings. If it receives more than it pays out it lends money; if it pays out more than it receives, it demands repayment of money lent, in the language of the market it "calls.” No bank manager faced with an excess of payments over receipts has ever been known to say: “I won’t call in any of my short-term money. I’ll create some credit to fill in the gap,” even although that would be a simpler and much more profitable way in which to meet the situation if such a thing were possible. No! he does just what an ordinary individual does in similar circumstances, he realises part of his assets. He does not create new assets. The reason is simply that a bank like you or me, has not yet discovered the philosopher's stone and cannot “create” credit. The banker can only direct into certain channels the funds entrusted to him.

So much for short-term money. What of “short-term paper”? Short-term paper falls into two categories—“commercial” paper and ”government” paper. By paper is meant bills which fall due for payment at some future date. In London few bills run for more than three months (or 90 days), many only run for 30 or 60 days. Perhaps it will help to make the matter clear if I give a brief account of how commercial bills originate. The following is a typical example:—

A merchant in London may wish to buy hides from an exporter in Montevideo. The latter is willing to sell but wishes to be assured of payment. The merchant, therefore, goes to his bank and arranges for a “letter of credit ” to be opened in favour of the Montevideo exporter to cover the cost of the shipment. In other words, the merchant arranges for the bank to advise the exporter that he can “draw a bill” on them which they undertake to pay. This undertaking by the bank is sufficient guarantee for the exporter, who accordingly ships the hides and draws a bill on the bank for the cost. The bill will be made out in something like this form: “To such-and-such a bank in London please pay to X. ninety days after sight £1,000 in connection with shipment of hides per s.s. * Darien.* Signed —-."

This exporter’s bill is payable in sterling ninety days after being presented to the London bank. Now the exporter does not want English currency after ninety days but local currency immediately, so he sells the bill to an exchange bank in Montevideo. The latter send it to their London agents, who present it to the bank on which it is drawn. If it is in order the latter will then “accept" it, that is, they will write their name across the front of it. By so doing the bank definitely admits its liability to pay the bill on maturity.

This is known as accepting a bill, and. the bill, after acceptance, is known as a “first-class bank acceptance." If a bill is drawn not on a bank but on an importer, and accepted by him, it is not a bank acceptance, and its ranking in the world of bills will be dependent upon the standing of the acceptor. But to revert to the accepted bill which is in the hands of the London agents of the Montevideo exporter. This entitles them to receive its face value after 90 days. But they may want funds at once. They can obtain them by selling the bill now for something less than its face value. This is known as "discounting" the bill. It is the discount brokers whom I have mentioned already who specialise in discounting bills, i.e., in giving cash here and now in exchange for promises to pay cash at a later date. So much for commercial bills, which are bills arising out of ordinary trading transactions.

Now we come to Government short-term paper, i.e,, Treasury Bills. The Treasury’s collection of revenue from taxation does not coincide in point of time with its expenditure. Sometimes it is paying out faster than revenue is coming in. At other times, vice versa. To smooth out the flow of revenue and expenditure, therefore, the Treasury wants to borrow at “short-term." This it does by issuing Treasury Bills which are nothing more than promises by the Treasury (i.e., the Government) to pay the amount indicated on the face of them at a given date. Each week the Treasury announces the amount of Treasury Bills it proposes to issue, and they are tendered for by the banks and discount houses. The highest bidders, i.e., those who are willing to charge the least for lending cash to the Treasury, have the bills allotted to them.

Having considered the things dealt with in the money market, i.e., short-term money and short-term paper, let us turn to those who form the market. They form a hierarchy. First, we have the discount companies. These are mostly private and partnership concerns working with very little capital of their own. Their business is to borrow short-term money whenever they can and to utilise it by discounting bills. Their profit consists in the difference between the rate at which they borrow and the rate at which they discount. The margin will be very small, probably only 1/32 of one per cent., but this is calculated on their turnover during the year, and the sum may be very large in proportion to their own capital.

At the end of 1932 the three large discount houses, whose capitals total £3¼ millions, had discounted £177,000,000 of bills. If short-term money is scarce relative to the demand for it the price will rise, i.e., the rate of interest payable on loans will rise. This will lead the discount brokers to charge more for discounting bills.

Above the discount houses come the lenders of short-term money, the joint stock banks, the merchant banks, and accepting houses. They have already been referred to, and here it is only necessary to add that not only do they supply the discount houses with the funds with which they work, but they also buy bills from the discount houses if they wish to increase their own bill holdings. At the top of the money market hierarchy stands the Bank of England. It occupies its position of importance because it is to it that the market has to have recourse in times of stringency. If the banks are demanding repayment of their loans and the discount houses cannot otherwise obtain the means to carry all their bills, their only remedy is to seek assistance from the Bank of England. This can be done in one of two ways, either by discounting approved bills at the Bank at the official rate of discount, i.e., the Bank rate, or by borrowing at the Bank's rate for short-term loans, which is half per cent, above Bank rate. The Bank of England does not lend for less than a week. As the market rate of discount is normally below the Bank rate, the discount houses will not have recourse to the Bank of England unless they are compelled, as it involves them in loss on their bills. At a time, therefore, when short-term money is scarce, and the market has to have recourse to the Bank, the Bank rate will tend to rise and the open market rate to follow. In turn, short-term money rates will rise.

The Bank of England, therefore, in times when money is “tight," that is, when the supply of short money available at the lending thanks is insufficient to meet the market’s requirements, is able to determine money rates. At times of monetary ease the Bank of England cannot so easily control rates, and the gap between the official rate of discount and the open market rate will tend to widen. Unless the Bank of England then takes steps to draw off some of the excess of short-term funds by selling, in the open market, securities out of its holdings, the official rate will move downwards in sympathy with the open market rates.

This adjustment of rates throughout the market in response to changes in monetary conditions is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence available to show how delicate a mechanism the London Money Market is. The fact that it weathers storms such as those produced by the outbreak of War in 1914 and the slump of 1930 is evidence of its strength.

As long as Capitalism functions through instruments as finely attuned in their responses and as tough in their resistances to shock as the London Money Market, it is folly to believe that its walls will collapse at the blowing of trumpets by the Maxtons or Communists of the world. 

B. S.

"Socialism" in Queensland (1933)

Pamphlet Review from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Distant Pastures Look Green

[Since the following article was written by our Australian Comrade there have been certain changes in the Governments of the Australian States, but this does not invalidate the argument.]

When we were young and our mothers chased us to Sunday School to give the old man a chance to have his Sunday nap after his weary week’s toil, we were taught to sing the old ditty, “There is a happy land, far, far away." Whether or not we sang to help us forget the miserable land in which we dwelt we did not know, but it is amusing to learn that Labour politicians were serving up a political version of that old dirge to the workers in old England at that time in order to catch votes. Like the preachers, the politicians always seem to know of a better world somewhere, but it is never where we are. Therefore we are not surprised to hear that the I.L.P. .was telling the English workers that there is a happy land, way down south, where Labour Politicians have established Socialism—to wit, Queensland.

The I.L.P. for many years has sold a pamphlet entitled “Socialism in Queensland" by S. B. M. Potter, and to show English workers that our Australian pastures were not as green as they were painted in Britain we offer a brief report on the conditions in the I.L.P.'s distant paradise.

On page 3 we are told that a clean sweep had “been made of capitalist governments and that Labour was in office in five of the six Australian States. Since the pamphlet was written there have been elections and, at the present time of writing, there are Labour Governments in New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria. In Tasmania, Queensland, and Western Australia, the Labour Governments were kicked out. In the Federal Parliament the Labour Party held power, having been swept in on a wave of dissatisfaction against the Bruce-Page coalition Government in 1929. The distribution of the seats may be one factor, but political confusion and lack of understanding is the main cause of the contradictory vote casting. In many cases where a majority of electors send a majority of Labour candidates into the Lower House the same electors send a majority of Nationalist candidates into the Senate. The voting qualifications are the same and the result, consequently, reflects the confusion which exists among electors generally. It is with such an electorate that the I.L.P. claim that Socialism had been established.

The Ryan Government

Mr. Potter refers to the wonderful administration of the Ryan Government in Queensland and stresses the “anti-profiteering" policy embarked upon by Mr. Ryan. Sugar was reduced in price; meat was made cheaper; fish, food in general, and other commodities were reduced in price. When we know that wages are adjusted almost automatically in Australia in accordance with cost of living figures compiled by the Commonwealth Statisticians, all this talk about low price commodities sounds very cheap.

Besides, wherever the Labour Party has indulged in Nationalisation, especially in Queensland, there have been strong suspicions regarding the manner in which the transactions have been carried out. The findings in the Royal Commission on the Mungana Mines transactions confirmed these suspicions to such an extent that Mr. Theodore, ex-Premier of Queensland, was sued by the Nationalist Government for restitution and damages in connection with having enriched himself enormously by the sales of the mines to the State. So glaring were the charges against him that Mr. Theodore had to relinquish his post as Federal Treasurer. His returning to that position before the charges had been dealt with by a court provided an excuse for a section of the Australian Labour Party, who can see the writing on the wall, to get into the Nationalist Party.

But let us glance at a few matters concerning the Labour "Socialist” Government in Queensland which Mr. Potter does not mention. In 1919 the meat workers were on strike and a bitter fight ensued between the meat workers and the meat barons. Did Mr. Ryan help the meat workers during the struggle? When the meat workers began picketing to prevent the scabs from taking their jobs and breaking the strike, Mr. Ryan rushed police reinforcements to the strike centres and the most brutal attacks were made on meetings of strikers by the Labour Government's armed police. The following excerpts from the local Labour paper contain historical mementoes of the occurrences: —

Daily Standard, July 4th, 1919.

Resolution carried at the Returned Soldiers’ and Sailors’ League:—

That we protest against the Police firing into an unarmed crowd on Sunday night last and this meeting demands a public inquiry from the Minister of Justice.

Daily Standard, July 14th, 1919.

One could near small groups conversing about the arrest that afternoon of Messrs. Carney and Kelly, and the Police refused to furnish information or grant bail. Also the fact that Kelly had been taken from a sick bed and thrown into a cold cell.

Daily Standard, July 18th, 1919.

At a meeting of the Railway men last night 500 men were present. The position of the men suspended for refusing to scab was discussed. . . . Much resentment is felt in Union circles over the Government suspending the men for refusing to scab.

Mr. Carney moved

That this meeting of combined W.P.O.s protest against the Hunnish Police methods in the searching of houses and the examining of women and children, particularly regarding the gun raids, and the same be wired to the Premier at once.

It was also decided to take no action in selecting a Labour candidate until such time as an inquiry “be made at Townsville into the police action on ‘Bloody Sunday,' June 29th, 1919." The Daily Standard reports further that “Mr. Bolger considered that the State Government should be informed that its action in sending the police to fight Unionists was antagonistic to Labour interests in Townsville." The reply that the meat workers got from Mr. Ryan, the I.L.P.’s hero, was: “One thing is certain—that the authority of the Executive Government will be upheld." (D.S., July 9th, 1919.) However did Mr. Potter miss these “Socialistic" activities of the Labour Governments?

Let us leave the meat workers and take a trip to the Arbitration Court with the Railway men. In connection with the latter the Daily Standard published the following on September 13th, 1919: —

The Government yesterday made a protest in the Arbitration Court against Mr. Justice McCawley’s decision to fix the Basic Minimum Wage for Railway employees at £3 7s. 6d. . . . Mr. Madsen (for the Government) quoted Knibbs, to show that the cost of living in Brisbane was the lowest on the list with the exception of Perth. ... If the Basic Wage were increased 3s. per week it would cost the State an additional £122,000 per year. ...

Here we have a glaring example of the effect of the low prices on the wages of the workers in “Socialist" Queensland.

On page 6 Mr. Potter quotes the Crewe Chronicle, where it says: . . . “Turning to the railways, Socialistic management and control have proved disastrous." We are not siding with Mr. Potter in his opposition to the Chronicle, but we must point out the error of the latter here. The Daily Standard, October 28th, 1919, reported “Comrade" Fraser's speech thus: —

He said it was a fallacy to say that they could not have high wages and low prices, and quoted instances in the Railways of how men were being paid higher wages than formerly and were able to show lower production costs.

In 1913 the value of output was 1161,560,763.

In 1913 the wages paid were £33,606,087.

In 1914 the value of output was /166,450,508.

In 1914 the wages paid were £34,103,703.

In 1915 the value of output was £169,066,700.

In 1915 the wages paid were £33,210,654.

In 1916 the value of output was £172,574,845.

In 1916 the wages paid were £33,828,840.

In 1917 the value of output was £206,386,646.

In 1917 the wages paid were £36,618,218. 

While the value of the output from 1913 increased by nearly £45,000,000 the advance in wages or labour’s share was only £4,000,000. . . .  A strong Labour Party is the only hope in sight.

Notwithstanding these facts the railwaymen had to fight the Labour Government tooth and nail in an endeavour to protect their wages. Truly, as Mr. Potter says, the men who guided Queensland’s political destinies had an “eye to the future of the State,” but the Queensland workers were overlooked by these

"Socialistic” visionaries of the future.

Railway workers have probably suffered more than any other section of Queensland workers at the hands of the Labour Governments. Although it has been referred to in previous issues of the Socialist Standard we might mention, in passing, the incident of 1927, when the railway men refused to scab on the sugar workers, and Mr. McCormack, then Labour Premier, not only sacked about 11,000 of them, but refused to let them have their jobs back until they signed a declaration that they would not take any such action in future!

Mr. Potter devotes a good deal of his pamphlet to the success of State trading under Labour Governments. Nationalist politicians quote figures just as voluminously to show the reverse. Between Labour and Nationalist politicians figures are distorted for the purpose of bolstering up their cases or knocking down the case of the opponent. Results are what counts .with us, and the conditions of the Queensland workers speak volumes for the anti-working class character of the Labour Party.

The object of Labour administration, according to. Mr. Potter, is to cheapen foodstuffs. Whatever benefit this can be to workers whose wages are based upon cost of living figures compiled by the Government Statistician we have yet to learn. Comparison with New South Wales shows how the workers in the latter State would be in advance of the Queensland workers for seven adjustments out of nine from 1923 to 1928. The index numbers and wages were: —

The foregoing should be sufficient to convince even an I.L.P.'er that “Socialist" Queensland is not such a “happy” land after all.

We who have lived in sunny Queensland have had our minds seared, not by the tropical sun, but by the red-hot attacks of Labour Politicians. It might be alright to put this stuff across Mr. Churchill, who said that Labour was unfit to govern, but when Mr. Potter has had as much Labour rule as have had the Australian workers, he might write in a different strain.

As to the I.L.P., it is their business to find an election cry, and to them one is as good as another, as long as it gets the votes. As for the Socialist Party, we do not potter about with capitalism, we want to end it. All the fanciful pictures of distant pastures leaves us cold. As soon as the workers agree with us and act in accordance with the principles of the Socialist Party, all pseudo Socialism will be abolished along with the capitalist system, by the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.  

W. J. Clarke,

Socialist Party of Australia.

The Ethics of the Morality Muffs. (1933)

From the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Ethical Union” bears the mark of its own condemnation writ large in its forehead. Its name gives it away. The “ethics" which are to transform society are the “ethics" born of capitalism. “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class"—grasp this fact, first clearly enunciated, and proved by Marx and Engels, and the nauseating twaddle dished out by J. A. Hobson in his pamphlet “The Moral Challenge to the Economic System" will stand out for what it is worth.

The “Chief Object" of the Union is: “ . . .  To advocate a religion of human fellowship and service . . . and by purely human and natural means to help men to love, know, and to do the right in all relations of life."

The “purely human and natural means" touch is the feeble expression of a shamefaced agnosticism claiming to be “religious."

The “doing right" in “all relations of life" has an ancient and fish-like smell. The business end of the Christian knife has always carved deep in the body of the exploited class—chattel-slave, serf, wage-slave—the injunction to “do right" in the station of life to which the capitalist Mumbo-Jumbo has called him.

See content the humble gleaner 

   Take the scattered ears that fall,

God his children ever viewing,

   Kindly, bounteous cares for all.

But in a small collection of verse not favoured in choirs and places where they sing (“Nettles," D. H. Lawrence):

Almighty Mammon, make me rich!

Make me rich quickly, with never a hitch 

In my fine prosperity! Kick those in the ditch 

Who hinder me, Mammon, great son of a bitch 

Note well: the Ethical Union was founded in 1896. 1914-18 taught it nothing. Its Chief Object is, “The supreme aim of religion is the love of goodness." Let us call to witness Robert Graves (“Good-bye to all that," p. 295) for one sidelight on Christians at war.

The bayonet-fighting instructors’ faces were permanently set in a ghastly grin, “ Hurt him now! In at the belly! Tear his guts out! ” they would scream as the men charged the dummies. “Now that upper swing at his privates with the butt. No more little Fritzes. Naaoh! Anyone would think that you loved the bloody swine, patting and stroking ’em like that. Bite him I say 1 stick your teeth in him and worry him! Eat his heart out.’’

. . . Pass the Woodbine, Willy, to the gentle Nazarene.

J. A. Hobson talks of the “collapse of capitalism’’ (p. 4), and bases the alleged “collapse" upon the fact that “all the goods and services which this economic system could produce could not get consumed." Considering that the working class has never had “enough purchasing power to buy," the “collapse" is many hundred years overdue (read our penny pamphlet, “Why Capitalism will not Collapse").

The Macaulayesque twaddle is faithfully reproduced: “No reader of English history can fail to recognise that though much injustice and oppression of the weak exist to-day the callous indifference with which these evils were once regarded by the well-to-do has largely disappeared."

Marx and Engels (Communist Manifesto, 1848) supply the answer: “A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances . . .  to this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians . . . hole and corner reformers of every imaginable kind." The sentimental yearnings of Lady Bountiful towards Poor Jo are the holy water with which she consecrates the essential obscurity of her parasitism on the working class.

J. A. Hobson actually sees “many signs of what may be almost called a revolutionary spirit among abler business men" (p. 17)—a spirit which will, he thinks, induce the lion to lie down with the lamb (Erewhon Butler's thesis that “eating" is “loving" has pertinence here).

Fellow workers: the S.P.G.B. puts a straight issue to you. If your chains gall, if you dread the future for your children (your responsibility) seek a knowledge of the only path to emancipation. Discard your “leaders." Have faith in yourselves. Get knowledge, get understanding. Buy the SOCIALIST STANDARD, read its pamphlets (they will be historical documents of the first value), attend our meetings, bombard our speakers with questions. It is your business.

Augustus Snellgrove

The Socialist Forum: Socialists and Charity. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism and Charity.

A correspondent writes as follows: —

The opening paragraph in the article on Charity, in the May Socialist Standard, conveys sentiments with which I heartily concur, and emphasises a state of affairs that unfortunately does universally prevail. The argument advanced throughout the succeeding paragraphs sketches the tragedy of the working-class in lurid colours, but I think it is a reasonable statement to make that the condition which obtains is largely contributed to by the workers themselves. I am convinced that, although hardships under any social system are inevitable, a great many, owing primarily to careless and irresponsible spending, are avoidable. There are thousands of disciplined-minded workers with limited wages throughout the country who manage quite well to maintain a self-respecting and healthy existence by their economy, avoiding habits of excess and intemperance, which really are the dominant causes for most of the misery and destitution which exists. It is a shameful cry on the part of the advocates of Socialism to taunt charity workers, and to associate with these ideal efforts such terms as “Lies, Cant and Humbug." Charitable efforts are actuated almost entirely by human kindliness. The voluntary system of maintaining hospitals in this country is a shining example to the rest of the world of the sense of responsibility which actuates the minds of those in the community who are able and willing to help their neighbours. Hospitals succour thousands of grateful patients throughout the year, and I fail to find in the vague programme styled “Socialism” with all its empty platitudes any better system to take the place of that grand voluntary scheme of charitable effort upon which the community is able to rely.

Reply.

Had our correspondent contented himself with saying that some workers are thriftless and intemperate he would have been on safe ground, but even then he should ask himself what are the causes of these characteristics. He would find, if he pursued his inquiries, that the conditions of capitalist employment and the devices adopted by capitalist Governments to patch up the evils produced by their system are direct causes of thriftlessness and intemperance. It should be obvious to any observer that excessive hours of work and excessively laborious work, the worry of unemployment, undernourishment due to insufficient wages, bad housing conditions and the adulteration of food, are factors which drive the workers to seek relief in stimulants, including alcohol, and are factors over which the individual worker has little or no control. Even then it is his poverty which often compels him to buy the cheaper and more harmful stimulants.

To charge any number of the workers with careless and irresponsible spending is ludicrous. How can workers go in for careless and irresponsible spending when the average wage of industrial workers is in the neighbourhood of £2 10s. 0d. a week?

To say that hardship is inevitable under any social system may be true (although, obviously, the hardships due to scarcity of the necessaries of life could now be abolished), but what is not inevitable is that such hardships should fall on only part of the population. There is nothing inevitable about the kind of hardship we see every day under capitalism, of workers dismissed in order to cheapen production by means of labour-saving devices, which serve to enhance the profits of shareholders.

With regard to charity, our correspondent is living in a world which is largely one of make-believe. Behind charitable donations there is some spontaneous sympathy for the victims of capitalism; often, however, from people who will not raise a finger to prevent the need for such charity. They would be doing something of greater practical utility if they helped to abolish the cause of the hardship—the capitalist system.

On the other hand, a vast amount of so-called charity is simply a highly organised capitalist business. Under cover of permits granted by the Government and the police, but only to certain influential and favoured organisations, men and women whose living depends on it, conduct gigantic campaigns of mass advertising and mass intimidation in the form of “flag days" to extract money from the public. The collecting organisations themselves, and the distributing organisations (charities, hospitals, etc.), are often conducted on lines which are as far removed from human kindness and sympathy as anything could be.

It is a common practice nowadays for the victim of a street accident, who lands in a “voluntary" hospital, to be questioned almost immediately by a businesslike official as to whether he or she holds an insurance as a registered reader of a newspaper. The whole or part of the proceeds are, of course, appropriated by the hospital. Next, the hospital authorities press the victim to bring an action if there is the slightest chance of getting damages—in which also the “voluntary” hospital, dips its rapacious hand.

At the Conference of the National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies in Edinburgh, on June 15th, 1933, a resolution was passed protesting against the growing practice on the part of hospitals of making non-paying patients wait for beds, and giving preference to paying patients. The General Secretary, Mr. Ernest Corbey, said (Daily Herald, June 16th) that there is a general move all over the country to reserve more beds for paying patients. So little does Mr. Corbey regard the “voluntary” hospitals as charitable institutions that he expressly concentrated his complaint mainly on the rate-supported hospitals. He said: “We may not be able to grouse very much about voluntary hospitals, on which our claim is less legitimate . . . ."

Our correspondent concludes with some extravagant and misplaced praise for that grand voluntary scheme of charitable effort upon which the community is able to rely. It is misplaced because the community, as capitalist Governments have everywhere been forced to recognise, has not been able to rely on charity.

One country after another has had to institute unemployment insurance and work-houses and poor law relief, because the thin trickle of charity was not enough. One country after another has had to institute state and municipal hospitals, because charity would not provide sufficient voluntary ones. Taking the industrial capitalist countries as a whole, dependence on voluntary hospitals is becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Charity is sometimes the spontaneous expression of fellow feeling by people who do not understand why the need exists. It is more often a salve to the conscience of the exploiter; a cheap insurance against the discontent of the dispossessed; and the insult which the exploiting class adds to the injury wrought by it on the workers. 

Ed. Comm.

The Socialist Forum: Parliament and Local Government. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Parliament and Local Government.

To the Editor.

Please accept thanks for publication and reply to my letter under above heading, Socialist Standard, June, 1933. It is not my intention to enter into a hair-splitting competition. Yet, if you ask me to define what I mean by Reforms, I should say that they are such “measures” which deal with effects, while leaving untouched the fundamental principles of Capitalism. If I allow myself to be dragged into this game of parsing and analysing every word I use, you can keep me at it for everlasting, just as the working class are, generation after generation, dissipating their political activity chasing the chimera of Reform. Of course it would be absurd for a Socialist to put forward the class position on each and every occasion. Nothing is so boring and tiresome as to hear some so-called Socialists and Communists airing their views by dragging in the class struggle when, say, for instance, that spectrum analysis, bee-keeping, vegetable blight, or something of that nature, is the subject under discussion. From your remarks I gather that the S.P.G.B., per the exalted personages known to the readers of The Socialist Standard as the Ed. Comm, will tell the M.P. delegate what to do. Apparently the people who voted for the man who is supposed to be the personification of a definite set of principles are not in the act. I am beginning to see what is meant by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. To use your own language, the thing boils down to this: By your own admission there is nothing that divides the S.P.G.B. from the Labour Party, I.L.P. or C.P. There is no reason why they should not present an united front of varying degrees of Reforms. I will quote from your own words : “May we instance measures (of course they are not “Reforms” when you call them “Measures") for stopping or avoiding a war, for reducing hours of work, or for raising unemployment pay?” But why stop short of that? What about milk for starving babies, or Hitler’s marriage dowries ?

(2) Nothing could beat your woolly word spinning under the heading of what the S.P.G.B. would do with their delegate returned by a majority on a Local Body. The electors, we are told, will have voted for a “purpose," expecting nothing else. That “purpose,'’ according to your reply, cannot deceive, disappoint, confuse or disillusion the electors, as we are led to understand that their contentment will arise from the fact that they know that “the conquest of the powers, National and Local” is a necessary step towards Socialism, and so is reading, writing and arithmetic. As far as I can see, you have admitted every point that I raised, and if it pleases the members of the S.P.G.B., it is no one else's affair.

Yours,

"PRECISION.”

Reply.

Our reply will be brief and will be confined almost entirely to corrections of misstatements made by our correspondent.

We did not say that the Editorial Committee would give instructions to Party M.P.s in Parliament or delegates on Local Councils. What we said was: “The Socialist will take his instructions from the S.P.G.B.," i.e., from the Party.

Secondly, our correspondent is simply imagining something which nowhere appears in the reply to his last letter, when he writes: "To use your own language, the thing boils down to this: By your own admission, there is nothing that divides the S.P.G.B. from the Labour Party, I.L.P. or C.P."

Neither in that language nor in any other language did we make such an admission or anything even faintly resembling it. S.P.G.B. candidates at every election stand and will always stand for Socialism, and nothing else. Unless our correspondent thinks that the candidates of the Labour Party, I.L.P. and C.P. fight elections on the issue of Socialism and nothing else, he knows that there is this fundamental difference which divides those parties from the S.P.G.B.

Our correspondent is contemptuous of the notion that Socialist delegates in Parliament would be instructed by the S.P.G.B. to use their votes against war, or for measures reducing hours of work or raising unemployment pay. This same correspondent, two-and-a-half years ago (see Socialist Standard, November, 1930), wrote telling us that we ought to organise public meetings of protest against the L.C.C. bye-law which forbids us selling literature and taking collections in the parks, get the meetings to show by means of a vote that they disapproved, and send the result of the votes to the L.C.C. Thus he would have us canvass support and votes on a minor reform but would not have Socialist delegates in Parliament vote on it.

As our correspondent raises the question of reading and writing, etc., as an intended parallel with the necessity of gaining control of the local machinery of Government, may we point out an obvious difference. The Capitalists do supply the reading and writing, compulsorily, but they do not put Socialists in control of the machinery of Government. For our correspondent's further information, if the capitalists were to introduce a measure into Parliament, having for its object the abolition of education in reading and writing, etc., Socialist delegates would doubtless be instructed to vote against it, as also against measures for the limitation of the franchise, or the prohibition of public meetings and the sale of

literature.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Some Questions on Parliament and Local Government. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Some Questions on Parliament 
and Local Government.

 

To the Editor.

(1) It is doubtful if any body of men could gather together who are agreed upon every detail of policy, but it is essential that there should be unanimity as regards general principles if they are going to make any headway. History records the fatal consequences of dissension at critical moments, hence it is advisable that the S.P.G.B. should analyse its position before the time arrives in which it secures Parliamentary representation. Obviously the return of a single member will not alter the character of the legislation, all that it will convey is the fact that the majority of a certain constituency have registered their disapproval of the capitalist system and a desire to replace it with Socialism. Yet this stage would mark a grave step as regards the rôle that the S.P.G.B. would play in the advancement of Socialism. To say exactly what should be the attitude of the first Socialist Member of Parliament towards the questions of the day almost amounts to Utopianism, and how far we are justified in anticipating the event it is difficult to say, but such a situation is likely to arise, otherwise the S.P.G.B. might as well abandon its programme and become a mass of non-effective units. We are all familiar with the process of capturing the ear of the working class. The Reformist Parties achieve their object by promises of immediate Reforms under the heading of a meantime policy. The S.P.G.B. denounces the Reformist Parties for the reason that their policy, instead of realising Socialism, merely perpetuates Capitalism. But at the same time, Reformist Parties, representing as they do a certain section of the community, are acting quite logically in formulating and supporting reforms in the House of Parliament. The pseudo Revolutionist who makes the excuse that he associates with the Reformists so that he can push forward his revolutionary theories is either a conscious fraud or politically superficial. In any case the results are the same. If, as a Member of Parliament, he ceased to support Reforms, he would not be re-elected, and there is no reason to suppose that a M.P. elected on a Revolutionary policy and who yet supported Reforms would survive another election. It should be apparent by now that Reformism is a failure, but the pity of it is that the working class are often inclined to listen to the men who have advocated this policy. These artful fellows suggest that the Parliamentary system has broken down, whereas it is the economic consequences of their policy which is the root of the trouble. Such being the case the lesson should be driven home upon the working class that all Reforms are but the reflection of capitalist interests intent upon preserving the economic status quo, that it is not only a waste of time but actually playing the capitalist game to support any Reform however pretty it may appear. The best analogy that I can think of is the story of the travellers in a sleigh in the arctic regions pursued by a pack of wolves. Driven to extremities they abandon provisions, crippled dogs, and even members of the crew to appease the hunger of the pack, that the remainder may reach safety. Hence it need not worry the Revolutionist. The stricter in his adherence to his policy the more frantic becomes the desire of the capitalist class and their supporters, the Reformist Parties, to avoid the consequences of their system. The Revolutionist’s attitude toward these Reforms should be that of scorn and derision, never supporting the most far-reaching Reform that can be conceived, for none of them can solve the social problem, as to be associated with them in any shape or form must of a necessity bring discredit, as they can at best but spread out the misery.

(2) Arising out of this attitude comes the delicate position of the S.P.G.B. and participation in Local politics. How the S.P.G.B. can administer a capitalist institution and avoid that economic miracle of serving all classes in society baffles me. What surprises me more is that the members of the S.P.G.B. have not realised the absurdity of their position in this matter. It was the illogical loose-thinking “Glasgow Greenism” that wrecked the S.L.P. more than anything. To transfer the venue to Poplar, etc., does not alter the principle that a Local body under Capitalism cannot function other than within the ambit of Capitalism, but a national assembly such as the Parliament can with a majority transform the economic structure of society.

Yours,

PRECISION.

Reply.

The criticisms made by our correspondent in his letter have been put and answered on several occasions in these columns. Part of the ground was covered in the issue for September, 1932. For convenience we have numbered the separate parts of our correspondent's letter.

First, there are some general observations to be made by way of introduction. Our correspondent confines his remarks about action in Parliament to the question of the attitude of Socialists towards "Reforms," but nowhere does he say what he means by a “Reform." In order to explain our attitude in full, and in order to avoid the criticism that we have dealt with only part of the questions that may arise, we prefer to use the broader term “measures." So that we are setting out to explain what attitude a minority of Socialists in Parliament should adopt towards measures introduced by non-Socialists.

The next point which needs some clarification is the relationship of future Socialist delegates in Parliament to the other members of the S.P.G.B., and to the non-Socialist workers outside the S.P.G.B. The Socialist will take his instructions from the S.P.G.B., he will not be a free agent but an instructed delegate. What he does will be what we tell him to do. And what we tell him to do will be what we, as Socialists, regard as the sound attitude to adopt in any particular set of circumstances, based on the principles of the S.P.G.B., and our knowledge of the interest of the working class. We know and accept the principles on which the Party is based, and those non-members of the Party who vote for Socialism at elections in preference to reformist parties will also know exactly what line of action to expect from the S.P.G.B., whether expressed through delegates in Parliament, or in any other field.

All of this leads up to the point which our correspondent's letter appears to overlook, that is, the important point that if a body of Socialists with their eyes open and in full knowledge instruct their delegate in Parliament to take a certain line of action there is no room whatever for any deception, any misleading of members by the delegate, or any disillusionment on account of the results of that action. (Even if we committed an error of judgment the position would be just the same, the error would be ours, not the delegate's.)

This clearly marks off the Socialist delegate in Parliament from the Reformist. The one is sent there by Socialists only, by men and women who understand where they are going and what use they can make of Parliament both as a minority and as a majority. The other is elected by people who are expecting their representative to do something for them; and who will be disillusioned and will turn on him when they find that he does not deliver the goods. The Socialist electorate knows precisely what are the limits of action while the capitalists are in control of the political machinery. The reformist electorate does not know the limits and is expecting something which is unattainable.

Now for answers to the two questions.

(1) The first question boils down to this: What should Socialists tell their minority group of M.P.s to do in regard to measures introduced by non-Socialists ?

Our correspondent says that "it is not only a waste of time but actually playing the capitalist game to support any Reform, however pretty it may appear."

We reply that this sweeping statement cannot be justified. We say that certain measures introduced by non-Socialists may incidentally possess a value for the working class or for the Socialist movement, and we would accordingly instruct our delegates to vote for such measures, but of course not to make any alliances or compacts with other bodies or individuals. Voting for these problematical measures, however, would not prevent the delegates from criticising them in the same way as our speakers and writers in the Socialist Standard deal with them. May we instance measures for stopping or avoiding a war, for reducing hours of work, or for raising unemployment pay.

The danger feared by our correspondent appears to be that reforms will appease the discontented workers (like the wolves) and prevent the growth of the Socialist movement. It should surely be obvious that if reforms could prevent the growth of Socialism then Socialism will never be achieved, and indeed no Socialist movement could ever have arisen. Another danger sometimes alleged is that to vote on a particular measure will confuse the workers in the constituencies. As regards the Socialist voters (as pointed out in the introductory paragraphs) no confusion can arise because the instructions to the delegate are in line with the known principles on which the Socialist electors vote, and emanate from the S.P.G.B. As regards non-Socialist workers, the position after such a vote will be neither better nor worse than it was before, 'or than it is now. The problem of the non-Socialist is the problem of getting him to understand Socialist principles. The non-Socialist voter may or may not approve of Socialist M.P.s voting for or against some measure in which he is interested, but it is by definition impossible for Socialists' actions to please the non-Socialist; nor should we allow our conduct to be influenced by that consideration. It is the duty of the Socialist to act in line with the interest of the working class and of the Socialist movement, irrespective .of what non-Socialist workers may think about it.

(2) Our correspondent’s second question differs from die first in that' we are now asked to consider the action of a Socialist majority on a local council while Parliament is still controlled by the capitalists.

Again our correspondent ignores the vital difference between Socialists elected by Socialists, and representatives elected by reformists. If a Socialist majority of electors decides to put Socialist delegates on to a local council it will not be because they want “Poplarism” or expect something which cannot be obtained, or because they want the delegates to “serve all classes.” If there is a Socialist majority among the electors then the instructions given by the S.P.G.B. to its delegates on the Councils in accordance with the principles of the S.P.G.B. cannot deceive, disappoint, confuse or disillusion the electors. They will have voted for a purpose, expecting nothing else. They will get exactly what they voted for, that is, control of the machinery of Local Government. They will want that control, not for the purpose of “Poplarism” or "administering capitalism,” but because they know that “the conquest of the powers of government, national and local,” is a necessary step towards achieving Socialism.

When our correspondent expresses surprise “that the members of the S.P.G.B. have not realised the absurdity of their position in this matter,” he is in reality only disclosing his own lack of understanding of what the S.P.G.B. stands for and does.

To imply that it was a similar view which wrecked the Socialist Labour Party is entirely misleading. The S.L.P., far from holding our view of the paramount need of conquering the powers of government, national or local, held views completely incompatible with ours.

In case anyone should be misled by our correspondent’s concluding remarks, we may as well explain that the S.P.G.B. never on any occasion engaged in or gave its support to what our correspondent calls “Poplarism ” ! 

Ed. Comm.

Literature sellers wanted. (1933)

Party News from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

In order to increase our circulation and make the Party more widely known literature sellers are wanted to sell the “Socialist Standard” In busy London thoroughfares, at railway termini, etc. For this purpose Party members can be supplied with the "S.S.” at trade rates. Will all members wishing to co-operate get in touch with the Literature Secretary at 42, Great Dover Street, S.E.1.

Answers to correspondents. (1933)

Letters to the Editors from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard 

 

Julius Kaplan (Massachusetts).—We regret that pressure on space prevents publication at present of an article dealing with your questions on the vote. See forthcoming re-issue of pamphlet "Socialism." An article will appear shortly.— Ed. Comm. 

 

"Puzzled Socialist."—If you will give your name and address, not necessarily for publication, we will reply to your questions. —Ed. Comm.