Morgan's "Ancient Society" (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Gilmac.

The Report on the Press (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

Its Reception by the Press.

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

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

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

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

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

The Report of the Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stan Hampson

(To be continued)

Preparing for war again (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Floro.

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Daily Herald” Leaves Something Out

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

A Labour Minister on Nationalisation

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

And Another Labourite on Trade Unions

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

A Capitalist’s Viewpoint

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

London—Russian Version

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

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

— that is, London— .

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

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

Worthy of Record

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

Taunt from a Tory

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

Stan Hampson

Something for the troops (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stan Hampson

Twice-told tales (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. McGregor 

Pity the poor planners (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

And later:

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

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

Stan Hampson

Lest you forget (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

Knowledge is power; but only if you use it.

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

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

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

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

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

Gilmac.

Back to health—or back to work (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent announcement from the United States of a new and remarkable cure for rheumatoid arthritis has caused widespread interest, particularly to those unfortunately afflicted with this painful disease. A substance called cortisone is the agent used to effect the cure and its results are reported to be extremely successful. The new discovery has been subjected io the most rigorous tests and investigations which, in the opinion of the medical experts, have established it beyond doubt as one of the most important steps forward made in this field for some years. The more enthusiastic have already been comparing it with the discovery of insulin in the treatment of diabetes.

Whilst on the subject, we cannot resist giving everybody the opportunity to join with us in admiration for the warmth and humanity displayed towards it by that pillar of the capitalist system, the Economist. Referring to the discovery in its issue of the 30th July, 1949, it dug right to the bottom of its great big heart to produce this fine humanitarian comment:—

“For once it is a case where the expense can be demonstrably justified by the restoration of useless cripples as working members of the community.”

Not a word about the sufferings of these “useless cripples"; not a word on the possibilities of their being relieved of years of pain if this discovery lives up to the claims for it. The main thing that commends itself to this noble periodical is the prospect of getting more able-bodied bodies on to the labour market, and linked with this, of course, a nice, large cut in the numbers of “unemployables,” and, even nicer, such a big saving to the national Exchequer. 

Stan Hampson

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Debate at Edgware was held on Friday, July 22nd, between Mr. F. Martell, representing the Liberal Party, and Mr. J. D‘Arcy, representing the Socialist Party of Great Britain. D’Arcy opened the debate by pointing out that, although the Liberals now called themselves Liberal Radicals, they were in no way different from the old Liberal Party, and their policy was just as it had always been, a policy of Capitalist reform. The S.P.G.B. has Socialism as its object. It aims at the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of wealth production. The Socialist Party is opposed to all other parties. A member of the Liberal Party had recently said that Capital and Labour should get together. This was an old cry and it really meant that the working class should give up the struggle against the Capitalist class. There can be no such unity between the classes. The workers are in the position of having to sell their labour power to the capitalists, they have no claim to the wealth that they produce. The object of the workers must be to overthrow the system that keeps them in subjection— a system based on their exploitation. In capitalist society, the wealth that is produced by the workers becomes the property of the small minority, the capitalist class, which owns the means of production. Socialism will convert the means of production to social ownership. Wealth will then no longer be produced for profit, but solely for use. The sellers’ market, that we have heard so much about recently, is ending and the buyers’ market is commencing. As the sellers' market diminishes, so does the market for labour power. It is untrue that the more the workers produce the more they get. The more they produce the sooner they are out of work and the less they get. The only solution is Socialism and this the Liberal Party opposes.

Martell said that the Liberal Party claims that workers are in control in this country and no capitalist can have any effect on what the workers decide to do. It is not the working class that is ground down, but the workers who are doing the grinding. They do as they like regarding wages and working hours, they demand what they want and get it. 99½ per cent. of the population works to-day and we are all capitalists because we all give our energies and receive back wages, which are our profits, and with which we can do as we please. How can the S.P.G.B. alter this? They cannot lay down rules whereby we all get what we want because human nature makes us all different. This must be arranged to suit all sorts of people. Political liberty is one of the greatest possessions of this country. Will the S.P.G.B. allow the free vote to continue when Socialism is established? The world may be imperfect, and what happens in other countries affects us, even though we have no concern in those countries. How will Socialist England compete with other countries? Man should be allowed to do as he likes providing he does not interfere with others, but there must be some rules or a few will take advantage. Let there be floor space for everyone and a ceiling for all, each to make his own ceiling. The workers should have a fairer share of the wealth, hence the Liberal Party’s profit sharing schemes. The Liberals propose that a certain share of the profits should be set aside in case of a bad year and all the workers in the particular industry concerned should share the rest. Capitalism has made this country what it is—the finest in the world.

D’Arcy replied to the Liberal talk about political freedom and liberty by pointing out that it was the Liberals who opposed the Chartist movement. The Liberals confused human nature with the way in which people behave. There is no organic difference between capitalist and worker, only an economic difference. It is nonsense to say that if the capitalists did not use their brains the workers would suffer economically. Profit sharing schemes would only result in getting the workers to weaken their struggle, and in more surplus value for the employers. Socialism is as international as is Capitalism.

Martell claimed that Liberals stand for freedom. There could be no freedom under Socialism. Anyone with a house would have to stay with it. Every one would have the same, whether they needed it or not. With common ownership, those in control would be dictators. There is only one class on earth—the class of human beings—and there is no system that all will like. Would the S.P.G.B. be prepared to stand for re- election after five years in office?

D’Arcy explained that political parties are the expression of class interests. With the establishment of Socialism, class society will end and political parties will cease to exist. That includes the S.P.G.B. What will happen to the profit sharing schemes when the world’s markets are glutted and the workers are unemployed? The Liberals do not oppose Nationalisation, only the inefficiency of its operation. Socialists oppose Nationalisation. Socialism will result in every man standing in equal relationship with all others towards the wealth that is produced—free and unrestricted access.

Martell concluded by accusing the S.P.G.B. of being dictators because D’Arcy had said that all other political parties would be suppressed. D'Arcy had not told him what the S.P.G.B. would do when it took power—the S.P.G.B. had no solution. S.P.G.B.ers are idealists, they have never thought things out. Liberals take a middle course between Toryism and Labourism and take the best of both sides. The S.P.G.B. stands for Capitalist State ownership; it is idealist.

The Delegate Meeting will be held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.l, on Saturday and Sunday, September 24th and 25th. The following items of interest have been culled from the Executive Committee’s report to the meeting. Membership at the end of June was 1,051.

There has been an increase in the total number of meetings held during the first six months of the year amounting to 100 per cent. since 1947. This is also an increase of about 27 per cent. over 1948. But literature sales and collections have not increased in proportion, which indicates a drop in the average literature sales and collections per meeting.

The Socialist Standard has been increased in size from 12 pages to 16 pages, and commencing with the June issue there was an increase in the size of the type used. Also, commencing with the June issue, the number of Socialist Standards printed was increased by 500 copies to 6,500, but the increased sales that made this advisable have not been maintained. Although sales have increased since the war years, the total sold is still below pre-war level. The paper position has improved recently, but renewed restrictions on imports may cause it to worsen during coming months. The total pamphlet sales during the six months under review amounted to approximately 6,000 copies. There are still large stocks of many pamphlets available at Head Office.

A series of introductory classes were held during last Autumn and Winter. Four sessions, each of 12 weeks duration, were held and were attended by 50 students. Twenty of these students have since conducted classes themselves and others have prepared material for classes which will commence in October this year. As new tutors develop, the original ones will be free to conduct writers’ and speakers’ classes which are scheduled for the coming Autumn. Classes of a specialised nature have begun and, it is hoped, will develop in size and scope this year.

Only 50 copies of “Collected Socialist Pamphlets” are now available for public libraries.

During the first six months of the year there was a decrease in our financial receipts amounting to £506 compared with the corresponding months of 1948, due mainly to a falling off in literature sales and donations to funds. At the same time, expenditure has increased by £221. The General Account balance has fallen by £444 in six months. The Parliamentary fund has increased by £64 to £219 0s. Id. If the Parliamentary campaign is not to completely drain our financial resources we must have your donation now and regularly, until the end of the year at least. The financial position is the discordant note in an otherwise harmonious report. YOU can remedy that.

During the period under review a new companion Party for Socialism was formed in Ireland and the S.P.I. is now digging itself in.

A social and dance will be held at the Conway Hall on the Saturday evening following the first day of the delegate meeting. It promises to be as great a success as was the one at Easter. It certainly should not be missed. Once again. We need funds. R.S.V.P.

St. Pancras. The branch recently challenged all three local Labour M.P.s to debate. Mr. Robinson stated that he had too many other engagements and gave a courteous refusal. Dr. Jeger and Mr. Hadyn Davies, on the other hand, stated that they were too busy fighting Capitalism to find time to debate. Both were convinced that it was a waste of time. Dr. Jeger stated that it was “not his custom to provide audiences for opposing organisations.” The good Doctor evidently fancies himself as a star turn or box office attraction. “Blessed is he who bloweth his own trumpet.”

In any event we are still prepared to let him demonstrate his drawing capacity by accepting our challenge.

Mr. Davies, our other “hero,” is convinced that a debate with the S.P.G.B. is “purely a matter of academic interest.” He concludes his letter with, “In any case I am far too busy fighting the enemies of the workers, namely, the Conservative Party, to be able to waste my time on anything else.” Had Mr. Davies been an “academician,” he would not have inferred unconsciously that he is already wasting his time as his letter seems to indicate. We agree that he is wasting his time.

The truth is that both these “stalwarts” were so busy supporting the Emergency (Strike-breaking) Powers Acts against the Dockers, that they had little time for anything else, least of all Socialism.

Hackney Branch will commence a series of indoor meetings at Bethnal Green Town Hall on Wednesday, 5th October, at 8 p.m. and will continue on Wednesday evenings during the winter months. The branch has also applied to Poplar Borough Council for the use of Bromley Town Hall on Sunday evenings. They hope to commence here on October 2nd. All old and new supporters are invited and Hackney members hope that the East End meetings will be given wide publicity.  

W. Waters.

Blogger's Note:

On the SPGB Debates wiki page, the Socialist Party speaker listed for the debate with the Liberal Party was Harry Young. Jim D'Arcy was obviously parachuted in as a late replacement speaker. The Party — and Jim D'Arcy — debated Martell for a second time, in 1962 at Conway Hall. By that time, Martell was a right-wing libertarian and he was speaking on behalf of the National Fellowship, an organisation he had founded in the same year.

I'm a big fan of Bill Waters exhaustive Party News reports. They are a good source of information about the Party's history.

Books for sale (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I don't always post the Books for Sale notices on the blog, but it's worthwhile to occasionally do so. If only to get some sense of what books were being sold through Party channels that weren't the usual classics from Marx and Engels. 

Walter Citrine's A.B.C. of Chairmanship book was still being used 30 and 40 years later in instructing trade unionists how to conduct their meetings. J. F. Horrabin's book is an interesting pick as he was from a Labour Left/Communist background. A previous book of his, published by the N.C.L.C., was reviewed in the April 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard. An Outline of Man's History by G. Walker was new to me. It turns out it was another N.C.L.C. publication, dating from 1939, and the author, G. Walker, is better known nowadays as Patrick Gordon Walker. By the 1960s, Walker was a leading member of the Labour Party — the shadow Foreign Secretary in the run up to the 1964 General Election — but he lost his parliamentary seat in Smethwick, West Midlands at the 1964 election because of a racist election campaign run by his Conservative opponent, Peter Griffiths, locally. The unsigned article, 'Race in Smethwick', from the June 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard gives more background on that notorious election. 

SPGB Meetings (1949)

Party News from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Outdoor Speaking (1949)

Party News from the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Olympics? (2012)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Olympics?

Dear Editors

Isn’t the Olympic “Games” a bit of a misnomer?

In the midst of the festival of chauvinism dedicated to UK Capitalism plc, at least the BBC is honest enough to admit what it’s really all about in the article “Olympic success: How much does an Olympic gold medal cost?” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19144983).

So much for Pierre de Coubertin’s Olympic Creed “Le plus important aux Jeux olympiques n’est pas de gagner mais de participer, car l’important dans la vie ce n’est point le triomphe mais le combat; l’essentiel, ce n’est pas d’avoir vaincu mais de s’être bien battu.” [“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part, because the important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”]

It seems to have been replaced by the tenet “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”

Still, capitalism poisons everything, so why should sport be immune.

Martyn Dunmore, 

Brussels

Letter: Ken Smith (2012)

Letter to the Editors from the September 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ken Smith

Dear Editors

Thank you for the obituary of Ken Smith in the August Standard. Ken was a very lively presence at Bristol Branch meetings in the 1980s. He was a wonderful example of someone who knew that it wasn’t enough to be against capitalism but also necessary to be in favour of socialism. He and his wife Mavis held a number of memorable socialist discussion weekends at their self-built home in May Hill in Gloucestershire. Ken was fond of saying that their annual income had never been lower and their quality of life had never been higher – brought about by non-market exchanges with likeminded people in the surrounding area. There was always lively discussion, plenty to think about and plenty to eat and drink. Ken was one of the most life-affirming characters I’ve ever met and he was a force for socialism and for good. Those of us whose lives were touched by him were very lucky to have known him.

Keith Graham. 

Bristol