Notes by the Way: Shades of 1931 (1947)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shades of 1931

 

It is interesting to note the similarities and differences of the present crisis and that of 1931, which split the Labour Government, and led to its Prime Minister, J. R. MacDonald, going over to a National Government while the present Labour Party leaders went into opposition. Both crises have been described as being largely due to the aftermath of war, for MacDonald’s manifesto to the nation for the October, 1931, elections referred to “some of the most fruitful causes of the economic misfortunes—like War Debts and Reparations—from which the whole world now suffers so grievously.” Both crises took the form of an “adverse balance of trade,” too many imports and too few exports, and then as now the Government was looking to the expansion of exports and restriction of imports as the way out.

There is a curious resemblance between the present Government’s appeal to Parliament for emergency powers, not for specific and known measures, but for measures of all kinds that may appear necessary from time to time, and MacDonald’s 1931 appeal .to the electors for a “doctor’s mandate”—”as it is impossible to foresee in the changing conditions of today what may arise, no one can set out a programme of detail . . . The Government must therefore be free to consider every proposal likely to help, such as tariffs, expansion of exports and contraction of imports, commercial treaties and mutual economic arrangements with the Dominions.”

Among the differences are the following. This time British capitalism’s troubles are attributed to the rise of food prices in U.S.A. and in the world generally. In 1931 it was the opposite, we were told that the trouble was due to the catastrophic fall of prices. Mr. G. D. H. Cole wrote in 1932: “The result of increased productive power has been … a great mass of unemployment in the manufacturing countries, and a fall in the prices of foodstuffs and raw materials which has more and more “impoverished the producers of these classes of goods. These impoverished producers cannot afford to buy as many manufactures as before, with the consequence that many businesses have gone bankrupt and many millions of industrial workers have been thrown out of work.” ( Economic Tracts for the Times,” 1932, page 12).

This time, says Mr. Douglas Jay, “the only final solution is a fall in the world price of food and raw materials.” (Daily Herald, 4/8/47). Of course, when the fall takes place we shall be back at 1931 !

Last time the trouble was said to be “over production,” this time it is “underproduction.” Last time the Government took the lead by reducing unemployment pay and the pay of civil servants, teachers, etc. This time it is an appeal to the workers to work longer hours and not press for higher wages.

Spivs and Hard-faced Men

It is an old story that what the parties of capitalism say when they are in opposition undergoes a remarkable change when they get into power. A straw which shows the way the wind is blowing is the way the Labour Party has set up an entirely new Aunt Sally in place of the old one. After World War I the Labour attack was directed against a cartoon-creature popularised by Will Dyson—the Hard-Faced business man, or war profiteer. We hear little of him now, his place having been taken by the “Spiv,” a term used for the individual who prefers to live by gambling, quick dealing or by “fiddling” in the black market, rather than by toiling in a mine or a factory.

The Labourites are not lacking in explanations for this, in the pretence that the idle rich are not with us any more. This is a droll story particularly favoured by Mr. Dalton.

Intoxicated with their own belief that capitalism would be all right if only it were “controlled” the idea is only very slowly creeping into the minds of the Labourites that black markets are the inevitable product of price controls and rationing. Where there is great wealth and poverty side by side the rich will always be able to get what they want, legally if they can, illegally if they must.

Political Secrecy

The Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons has condemned the practice of M.P.’s selling to the Press information about the proceedings at private Party meetings in the House of Commons. While not holding that Party meetings have the same privileges as sittings of the House of Commons the Committee, or a majority of them, hold that certain privileges attach to such meetings because the holding of private Party meetings is now a normal part of Parliamentary procedure.

Some M.P.’s differ from the majority of the Committee on this point but it does not appear to have occurred to anybody that the simplest, best, and only completely water-tight, remedy for the selling of information about private Party meetings is to cease to make them private.

And if anybody thinks that secrecy of Party meetings is necessary it is sufficient to point out that S.P.G.B. meetings, conferences, E.C. meetings, etc., are open to all members and to the public. But then, of course, the S.P.G.B. is a very different sort of political party, one that is really democratic.

The Communists and Censorship

The Catholic Universe criticised the Russian government on the ground that it had done everything to prevent Russians from taking an interest in Western civilisation. The Daily Worker (28/7/47) retorted by pointing out that Shakespeare and other English classics are widely read in Russian translations. Mentioning Marlowe. Smollett and Fielding the Daily Worker asked, “would, perchance, any of these works he found in the Vatican’s ‘Index’ of forbidden books?”

Quite a legitimate retort, except for the fact that in Bolshevik Russia, just as in Catholic Spain, there is suppression of organisations, news and views unpalatable to those in power. Besides, in view of the way the Communists and Catholics managed to work hand in hand to interfere with freedom, of the Press in Italy the former should keep quiet about the latter. According to the Rome Correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (14/5/47) they voted together on anti-democratic clauses of the new Constitution. When the Catholics moved “that in cases of emergency publications may be sequestrated by police officials, provided they give an account of their action within 24 hours” the Communists voted with them; as also when the Catholics moved for “the insertion in the new Constitution of the Lateran Pacts and Concordat which were signed by Mussolini and Pope Pius XI.” It was only a revolt of the Communist rank and file which prevented their M.P.’s from voting for the prohibition of divorce.

There is another aspect of the supply of information to the Russian workers. The Daily Worker thinks that its case is made good because Russian workers are permitted to read the works of long dead English novelists and playwrights. The Daily Worker mentions that “new translation of works by Dickens are to be published in the Soviet Union.” Now for an example of the use made of Dickens. Cabling from Moscow during what passes in Russia for an election, Alexander Werth told the following incident:

“Six young Communist girls wanted to know how candidates were chosen and campaigns conducted in ‘bourgeois’ countries. They wrote to the Young Communist paper . . . which promptly replied by referring them to the Eatanswill election in the ‘Pickwick Papers’.” (Manchester Guardian, 25/1/47).

Mr. Werth goes on to say that the Young Communist paper told its inquirers, “Eatanswill is an imaginary place, but what Dickens wrote correctly describes English reality.”

Of course the motive for this deception is obvious. If the Russian workers discovered that real electoral contests take place outside of that country they might the more quickly resent the continuance of their totalitarian regime which permits the existence of only one political party.

On the subject of the Russian censorship the Daily Worker (31/7/47) reported the complaint made by the Amalgamated Engineering Union delegation which visited Russia last year. The Daily Worker’s statement reads:

“In conclusion, however, the report says the delegation sometimes had a feeling ‘that we did not have real freedom of movement and action.’ ‘For example,’ it adds, ‘photography was discouraged and our letters home were censored.’ ”

Mr. Aneurin Bevan on the Export Drive

The Sunday Express (6/7/47) quotes from a speech made by Mr. Bevan in 1945:

“We are told by some people who ought to know better that we shall need to increase our exports after the war by 50 per cent. . . . Expanding exports are the will-o’-the-wisp private enterprise is compelled to pursue.”

All the countries are now (a) trying to increase their exports and (b) cutting down their imports. Now that Mr. Bevan is a member of a government engaged in trying to increase exports by 75 per cent. over the prewar level and at the same time preaching austerity and less imports perhaps he will explain what happens when all the countries export to the limit and import nothing.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Labour “fiddles” with the Cost of Living (1947)

Editorial from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we insist that the abolition of capitalism and introduction of Socialism is the only way out for the working-class, members of the Labour Party usually give the answer that Socialism is something for the future and what is needed is a practical policy for the present, a policy to deal with everyday things like prices and wages and rents and fares. Let us then take a look round and see just what the Labour Government has done about these things.

Between the wars the Labour Party denounced the official Cost of Living Index on the ground that it had long ceased to be reliable. Since 1939 the Index has moved further and further away from reality. Government policy, both in the war-time Coalition and since Labour came to power, was to juggle with the Index in order to prevent it from rising beyond the point it reached in 1942. Thus the pretence was kept up that the cost of living had increased since 1939 by only 31 per cent., or about 4d. in the 1s. This juggling was done by using subsidies to keep down the prices of certain articles that were included in the Index and ignoring the much bigger increases of prices not included. Of course almost everybody (except the Government) admits that the increase is much more than 31 per cent. As long ago as April, 1946, the Manchester Guardian concluded, on the basis of other official figures, that “the cost of living has increased by 55 per cent.” (Manchester Guardian, 15/4/46), and recently Mr. Bernard Harris, City Editor of the Sunday Express, summed the matter up with the remark, “That Index has apparently become incapable of movement, and no one pays any attention to it any more.” (Sunday Express, 1/6/47).

Now the Labour Government has thought up a new deception, A more accurate index is to replace the old one, but, and here is the snag, it is to relate only to future movements of the cost of living and will not indicate how large an increase has taken place already; and although the cost of living has been rising sharply during the past year the workers are now told by Mr. Attlee not to ask for wage increases. ”I appeal to all of you not to press at this time for increased wages.” (Daily Herald, 7/8/47).

So prices have risen and wages are not to rise, which is just the opposite of Labour promises. They promised to support higher wages, and what they said about prices was, “everybody knows that money and savings lose their value if prices rise so rents and the prices of the necessities of life will be controlled.” (Labour Party Programme at the General Election, 1945, “Let us Face the Future.”).

True the Labour Party kept that promise to continue rent control and indeed extended it by setting up Rent Tribunals for furnished rooms ; but here again there are several niggers in the woodpile. While net rents are controlled, actual rents are rising because of the increase of rates, landlords being able to pass it on owing to the acute shortage of accommodation; and everyone knows that the Tribunals have only touched the fringe of the problem for the unfortunate tenants of furnished rooms, many of whom are afraid to lodge a complaint for fear of being turned out a few months later.

Here are a few news items on the increase of rents. 

“Rents of many houses and flats are jumping because of stiff increases in rates. Uncontrolled flat and house prices are soaring.” (Sunday Express, 1/6/47).

“Six hundred homeless families applying for council houses at Maltby, South Yorkshire, have to answer a wages quiz to make sure they can pay the rents. Rents of pre-war council houses range from 9s. to 11s.; new houses between 14s. and 16s. a week.” (Daily Express, 25/6/47).

“The rents for council houses being built here [Tunbridge Wells] . . . are claimed by Labour Councillor John Hutchings to be so high that two-thirds of the 1,238 families on the Royal Borough’s waiting list will be unable to afford to live in them . . . The rents for two types of houses have been confirmed at 26s. 6d. and 27s. 6d., inclusive of rates. The rents for the 14 largest houses, worked out on the same basis, will be 32s. 9d. a week.” (News-Chronicle, 5/6/47).

Another item of expenditure is fares. In 1942 Mr. Bevin, at that time Minister of Labour and now Foreign Secretary, had something to say about the workers’ inability to afford both the rents and the fares, then being charged.

“It would be essential for the cost of habitation to be reduced. Rent and transport took too big a slice out of the wage income of our people.” (In a speech to the National Chamber of Trade News-Chronicle, 16/7/42).

That was the promise, now for the performance. After several war-time increases of fares by London Transport and the main line railways the Minister of Transport announced in Parliament on August 5th, “all railway charges will be raised to 55 per cent. above pre-war with effect from October 1st next.”

The moral of all this is that Labourism does not solve the workers’ problems. Socialism is the only hope.

Humour most foul (1947)

From the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

In these hard times of restrictions in nearly everything that makes life worth living humour is a precious relief from work and worry. We are, therefore, greatly indebted to the Labour Party for contributing a gleam of gaiety to the times. It has produced a large four-page sheet, printed on nice paper, entitled The Labour News Special, complete with jokes and pictures and selling for the modest sum of one penny. The following extracts from this sheet may provide our readers with a relish for their unappetising meals; they are taken from an article entitled “Nationalisation to the Rescue—The Epic Story of the Mines” :

“The Labour Government’s Socialist policy has been proved right. For years the enemies of progress have pilloried the word ‘ Socialism,’ held it up to ridicule, abused it, distorted it into unrecognisable forms in order to fend off the day when the common people should take their affairs into their own hands.

“That day has at last come, and now it is possible to know the truth about Socialism.

“Here is the truth.

“The first heavy industry to be socialised was coal-mining. On 1st January, 1947, the coal mines became the nation’s property.

“From that date the tempo of coal production began to increase with amazing swiftness and men began to flock back to the mines.”

After a reference to other basic industries in which “these same socialist principles apply,” such as the Bank of England, Civil Aviation, Cable and Wireless, etc., the article concludes :

“With control of these basic industries the nation will stand four-square to all the storms and uncertainties of present-day conditions and will be able to plan its economy for the good of all the people.”

Well! Well! Well! But what is the meaning of Mr. Attlee’s repeated doleful forecasts if impending economic disaster; Mr. Strachey’s forecasts of yet more severe food restrictions, and the vicious official outbursts on slacking and absenteeism in the mines for which severe penalties are threatened? But perhaps after all this is only another joke, maybe in rather bad taste !

“O Sweet Content, O Sweet, O Sweet Content.”

Gilmac.

 

Footnote

Inset into the article referred to above is a picture of a coal cutting machine, under which is the following information:

“This is the miracle machine—The Meco-Moore coal cutter and loader at work on the coal face. Fourteen men operating it can take 300 tons at a shift, the output of 30 men working by hand. One of Labour’s first jobs is the introduction of more of these machines into suitable mines and the modernisation of many old and neglected pits.”

It must be heartening to those invited and forced into the mining industry to know that some day they may be displaced by machines !

Gilmac.

Money Must Come In. Our Crisis (1947)

Party News from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Except for very special purposes, it is many years since we have had to appeal to Socialist Standard readers for donations to Party Funds. We have to do so now. Our financial position at the moment is not critical in the sense that party activity is slowing down for want of money. The Party is, in fact, more active than at any time since it was formed. And it is because the Party is so active that our income is beginning to show signs that it might fail to meet the cost of the work the Party is doing and wants to do in the very near future.

Here is the position. During the war, whilst we were able to keep going, war-time circumstances tended to slow down expansion of propaganda and the publication of literature. Funds tended to accumulate. Every pound “saved” measured opportunities unfortunately and unavoidably missed. But such opportunities were not lost. When the war came to an end we found that our membership was nearly double pre-war. And so it remains. New Groups and Branches began to be formed. More propaganda was undertaken and more pamphlets were published. Full-time speakers were sent out to help the new Groups. We entered two Parliamentary elections. As we expanded so financial reserves began to decline. We were spending money for purposes for which it had been donated. We could not have our cake and eat it; and nor would we have it so. More money means more socialist propaganda. At the moment we have two very important projects that must be fulfilled. A new pamphlet on The Racial Question, and a new edition of the Communist Manifesto annotated by the Party in commemoration of the centenary of its publication. We need your help.

We earnestly urge all who are sympathetic to increase their contributions to the Party. It will be wisely used. Never did the Party more deserve it. Never were there more young, promising new speakers striving to fit themselves as able propagandists. Never were there more debates or better meetings, never more interest and enthusiasm for our case than today. Never was socialist propaganda more desperately necessary. Comrades and friends! Send in your donations quickly and send them regularly.

Funds Organiser.

SPGB Meetings (1947)

Party News from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Home and Abroad . . . (1971)

The Home and Abroad Column from the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Home

 

The big question raised by the OZ trial is of course: what is pornography? What is it in society that depraves and corrupts to such an extent that those responsible need to be punished and shut away where they can do no more damage? Any adult who has ever been a child, remembering their own sexual fantasies and confusions, must wonder whether they would be corrupted by the kind stuff in OZ and the rest of the underground press. It might even be argued that such matter, by its very blatancy, is the very opposite of corruptive. But what about other forces in society whose pernicious influence is undeniable? We are not discussing here anything which even appears in any magazines, but the real, everyday experiences of life under capitalism. How else can we describe the men responsible for incidents like the My Lai, if not corrupted by the war? What effects does poverty and repression have on our lives, if not to deprave us? Is bad housing the kind of environment calculated to solidify or to destroy human relationships? What has happened to the ‘morals’ of a man who debases himself to the boss for the sake of a bit of promotion or a pettyfogging rise? Capitalist society is essentially depraved and it corrupts everything in it, including its people. No court with the wigged judge will ever try the system but it has been examined, found wanting and condemned. We should lose no more time in locking it away into the prison of unpleasant memories.

One of the great tragedies of capitalism is in the fact that, again and again, workers are misled into believing that they are doing something to end the system when in reality they are doing nothing of the kind. Faced with the reality, the incident usually becomes written into historical myth, which dies very hard. Such were the Spanish Civil War, the General Strike, the successive Labour Governments. The latest candidate in this dismal line is the so-called workers’ take over of the Upper Clyde. Part of the delusion here is that the shipyards collapsed as a result of a Government failure to subsidise them, when in fact they collapsed because they could not live up to the basic capitalist requirements of making a profit. Whoever runs them will be faced with that reality. And if the ‘take-over’ fails the workers will also face the greater bitterness stemming from the promise and the delusion. Yet we know from experience that failure will only strengthen the myth; It will be explained in terms of accident or treachery or the like. The ‘take-over’ of Upper Clyde is tailor-made for the fairy tale story books of the left wing.

 

Abroad

 

President Nixon, it is reported, is disappointing many of the people who backed him in 1968 for the presidency by his policy of negotiations with China. It is no new thing for a politician to win power on promises, both explicitly and implied, which he goes back on after he has won. Very often the promises are easily seen, at the time of making them, to be impermanent and impractical. In the nature of the thing, we are more accustomed to leaders of the left being involved in this sort of double cross, but there have been notable exceptions from the other side. In this country, there was Macmillan after Suez and with his policy on Africa. Abroad there was the classic case of de Gaulle, who so outraged the people who helped him to power that they tried several times to kill him. And now Nixon is upsetting his friends by fashioning his policy to meet the real demands of capitalism rather than political theories. There is some amusement to be had from observing the reaction of the disappointed supporters, who in each case thought about betrayal and turned for salvation to another leader. The left wing are of course well familiar with this tactic. Nixon’s angry followers are now thinking about supporting Ronald Reagan for president in 1972, as if he would be able to run American capitalism on assumptions other than those applied by Nixon—and as if he is any more consistent and had in any case not already been straightened by the President. The search by capitalism’s supporters for the honest, consistent leader who will never go against his word is never ending—until capitalism itself ends.

 

Politics

 

As the months go by the government of Edward Heath is increasingly shown up as equally bankrupt and impotent as its predecessors. As each successive blow falls — Ulster, Upper Clyde, Unemployment, Rising prices to name only a few — the Labour Party’s excitement heightens, with its hunger at approaching power. One report has it that constituency parties have been alerted to face a general election in the near future. This may be wishful thinking, a generous dose of which is essential to keep any capitalist party ticking over. What can be said now is that any general election will be presented to us in familiar, lying terms. The Labour Party will claim to be able to make capitalism work in our interests when they can’t. And we will be told that the issue of the election is something like the Common Market or law and order or nationalisation versus free enterprise when it fact it is, as always, capitalism or Socialism.

Let’s have common ownership, not Common Market (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

A pathetic spectacle provided by the reformist parties and their satellites as they work themselves into a lather over the issues thrown up by capitalism. They fall for it every time. Whether it be the balance of payments, export-chasing, or gold reserves, at the drop of a hat they form up into positions and start to do battle for the capitalist class, whose interests alone are involved.

Capitalism has always provided plenty of distractions to take working class attention away from the real issue, and every time the self-styled leaders of the workers have proclaimed them as vital issues that will lastingly effect the future course of history.

The Common Market is just another distraction. The arguments for and against joining are equally irrelevant. One thing is certain, that the real issue has not been and is not being debated by the pundits of the “left” and “right”.

Capitalism often produces strange bedfellows, but when the mutual commitment to capitalism of both “left” and “right” wing groups is understood, it is not surprising to find the so-called Communist Party and National Front in the same camp, and the Trotskyists trailing along as usual behind the Tribune set, with Enoch Powell thrown in for good measure. The Labour Party front bench, which maintained a precarious unity while in power, have gone their different ways. Wilson complains loudly about “knives” and “hatchets”, but is not listened to by Roy Jenkins, Michael Stewart or Lord George Brown. The petty demagogues line up in a power struggle inside the Labour Party, as Michael Foot seeks to purge pro-market members from the shadow cabinet.

The two sides bicker incessantly about the “terms”, about New Zealand, and the possibility of better pickings for British capitalism elsewhere. None of these things is of the least concern to the working class. And, by working class, we do not mean the wage-slaves of just Britain and Europe, but of the entire world. What then is the real issue?

Throughout the world the means of production are concentrated in the hands of an owning minority — the capitalist class. This means that the vast majority own nothing but their physical and mental abilities to work. They must sell these abilities for wages or salaries in order to live. This vast non-owning majority is the working class. There is an antagonism of interests between the capitalist class owners and the working class non-owners since the fundamental relationship of capitalism, that of employer to employee, rests upon exploitation. The interest of the capitalist class is to maximise their profits and accumulate capital through the exploitation of wage-labour. To serve this interest, the whole world has been turned into a market for the profitable disposal of commodities (or wealth produced by wage-labour under conditions of private property and exploitation). The entire globe is the hunting ground for minerals and other resources to feed the hungry machines of industry, to keep up the flood of commodities and expand profits. The rivalry between national and international capitalists promotes their military power and fashions their alliances. War, like poverty, unemployment, slums and hunger, is inseparable from capitalism.

Both the pro- and anti-marketeers work on the same false assumptions, namely, that the market economy is indispensable, and, that there, is a unified national or European interest which workers and capitalists have in common. Socialists totally reject these assumptions. The interest of the working class is to end the system that exploits them; to abolish the employer-to-employee relationship; to do away with commodity production and get rid of the markets profits mad-house. This will mean the abolition of the wages-system and of buying and selling. In short, the interest of the working class, is to get rid of capitalism. The real issue is one of ownership. The workers in the six countries which at present belong to the EEC own none of the vast industrial or other resources of those countries. They are wage-slaves, just like the workers in Britain.

The only market that awaits British workers, like their European fellow-workers, is the labour-market, and the dictum “hired when it pays, fired when it doesn’t” will remain in force.

Instead of accepting the bogus arguments being trotted out by both sides, for and against joining, workers should be asking questions like: In or out of the Common Market, will wealth continue to accumulate in the hands of a few and will food still be destroyed while people starve? In or out of the Common Market, will poverty and insecurity continue to blight the lives of many millions ,both here in Britain and throughout the world? In or out of the Common Market, will H-Bombs remain both within Europe and outside to threaten the existence of mankind? In or out of the Common Market, will the massive power blocs, America, Russia, China, Japan and Europe, continue to struggle for advantage with war as their last desperate card?

These are questions which put the Common Market in its real capitalist perspective.

There are those who oppose entry because they fear loss of national identity. The workers have always been taught to be proud of their master’s country. If the barriers of nationalism are weakened through the EEC, this would not be a harmful effect, though there is little sign of it happening. All that is taking place is a grouping together of States, which has happened before, in earlier stages of capitalism, in America, Germany and Italy except that the EEC has yet to go for full political union.

Modern capitalism operates with such massive plant and investment levels that grouping together is the only way to stay in the big league. The military strategy of modern capitalism, and the costly technology of modern warfare, also dictate the coming together of groups of nations. If nationalism on the old scale diminishes, a continental scale of nationalism will develop as the rivalry between the emerging groups grows hotter.

What is really relevant to the world context in which we live today, is not new groupings, but a society without frontiers. Not bigger markets and fatter profits, but an end to all markets and all profits. Not the concentration of ever greater wealth into fewer hands, but the common ownership of the Earth and all its resources. This is the real issue which faces the workers of the world.

Harry Baldwin

Common Market: The great debate — where we stand (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anyone who has recently been able to spare time from the test matches, television, pop music and so on may be aware that there is a new, rival attraction in the entertainment field. It is called the Great Debate on the Common Market, which makes it sound as if we have all been joining in, in every pub and bus queue and factory floor. At times, indeed, it has gone beyond mere entertainment, what with Harold Wilson walking about with a small forest of knives sticking out of his back and the Labour Party taking such fright at the public spectacle of its leader opposing something which his government tried to pull off, and then spending so much time in pious justification of his two contradictory attitudes, that they have suddenly started a Don’t Let’s Be Beastly to Harold campaign.

In fact, as Wilson (who has been known at times to tell the truth) says, there is a wide split of opinion on whether this country should join the Common Market. Both the big parties are split although the Tories, perhaps not yet completely recovered from their stunned delirium at the victory of June 1970, have been largely successful in stifling their dissenters. The public outside the parties are divided; soon, perhaps, marriages will be ruined and brother fall out with brother, swearing never to speak to each other again. And all because of the Great Debate on the Common Market.

One problem which the politicians have is in stimulating interest in something which has been an issue for about ten years. And such are the intricacies of capitalism’s trade — its agricultural support policies, its commodities agreements, its financial jugglings, that only an addict must now be able to stay awake when the thing is being discussed while the rest of us drop off in front of the telly set.

On the one hand the government case for going into Europe, while admitting that some food prices are going to rise (which, Common Market or no Common Market, is a pretty safe bet anyway) is that this is a tremendous opportunity for unheard of prosperity for us all. The official Factsheets on Britain and Europe talk about British industry having access to a market of more than 250 million people, of firms being able to plan their operations more adequately, of the “major benefits” resulting from the removal of tariffs between Britain and Europe.

It does not need a cynic to perceive a certain familiarity in those promises of a golden future. We can all remember similar prospects, held out over similar schemes of international unity or even international separatism, or some equally irrelevant proposal. The opponents of British entry seem to think that the golden future is here already. They argue that membership of the Six will mean abandoning, or weakening, the trading tie-ups with the Commonwealth, with no compensatory advantages. They mutter about upsetting the balance of payments, of losing that comforting trading surplus, which apparently stands between us and some unimaginable calamity. Some opposition may even be based upon xenophobic fears about the free movement of labour — about virile Frenchmen and Italians flooding over to steal all the best jobs and the most desirable women.

Now the Socialist Standard has always made it clear that such matters as the balance of trade, the exports of one capitalist state as against another, the exploitation of markets, are of interest to us only in as much as they illuminate the hopeless anarchies and inadequacies of capitalism. It is for this reason that we do not take a stand of opposing or supporting the efforts of the British capitalist class to get into Europe. This is not a matter of refusing to have any opinion or of imitating the feat of Wilson (and of Gaitskell before him) of sitting on the fence. In fact on this issue, as on all others, we have our own side. We are there, alone, but unlike the rest we know why.

At this point it is necessary to return to basics, however tiresome this may be to anyone who hungers for the excitement of the Great Debate. The first basic is that this is capitalism — if it were not, there would be no such thing as the Common Market. The attempt to join Europe, and the arguments about it, are all based upon the acceptance of capitalism, its needs and its priorities. We are invited to believe that these needs are of concern to workers, that the failure or success of the British application will make enough difference to our lives to be worth taking sides over. But the least which is needed to support this argument is evidence that the countries which are in the EEC are significantly different from those which are not in it.

So here is another basic. Capitalism divides its people into two classes — capitalist and worker, employer and employee, owner and non-owner, whichever term we choose to apply. These two classes are engaged in a struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production. This struggle takes the form of disputes over wages, which are the only method open to the working class of obtaining wealth, either as the basic necessities like food or the lesser needs such as holidays and so on.

What this means is that a permanent feature of capitalism is (need we say this, in 1971?) the industrial struggle. Sometimes a strike; sometimes a go-slow; sometimes a lock-out. But always a struggle, never ceasing because it is inherent within capitalism. It is not unfair to insist that, if all the hopes and promises about the prosperity of the Common Market were real, its record of strikes and other industrial disputes would be markedly different. Of course it is only necessary to state this to illuminate the absurdity of the idea; France in May 1968, for example, is too recent a memory. Since then there has been a more “normal” pattern of industrial struggle, of transport strikes paralysing Paris, of a one-day general strike throughout Italy and so on. But the point is made. The class division of capitalism is as evident, as divisive and as disruptive in Europe as elsewhere.

We have already said that the Common Market could exist only within capitalism. This is so, first, because capitalism is a market system; its wealth is produced for the market, for sale as distinct from for human need. Now this might be all very well except for the fact that there is no way of adjusting production and the market so that they meet each other’s demands. Capitalism goes to great lengths to find a way of doing this; we are swamped with economic experts and market forecasters and all sorts of other very clever men and most of them are confident, at some time or other, that they have solved the problem and are about to bring everlasting profitability to capitalist industry and trade.

But of course if they ever succeed in this we would never hear dread words like bankruptcy, redundancy, slump. There would never be spectacular collapses like Rolls Royce and Upper Clyde; there would never be unemployment and capitalism would sail along like a great clipper ship under full sail on a calm sea. What actually happens is that it is more like a coracle in the Bay of Biscay in a Force Nine gale. Even the politicians know this; did not the MacDonald government in the thirties blame their troubles onto an economic blizzard; did not Wilson’s lot moan that they had been “blown off course”?

Apply this yardstick again, how does the EEC measure up? Is all well economically across the Channel? All calm and under control? In truth, day by day the reports come in showing that the Market economy is as wild and uncontrollable as anywhere else. On July 27, for example, the West German Economics and Finance Ministry was worried that the “tensions” in the German economy were showing no signs of lessening, with industrial producer prices still rising. The next day the Paris Chamber of Commerce reported a slow-down in industrial production, with what they claimed as the annual growth rate at 4.5 per cent as against the 6 per cent prevailing since last autumn. On July 30 the French Minister of Finance was admitting that the rate of inflation for the first half of 1971 was “not satisfactory”; prices had risen at twice the rate hoped for by the government and a wave of strikes is expected after the summer holidays.

It may be argued that these are trivialities, were it not that they are symptomatic of the basic chaos of capitalism, all over the world. Another current problem of the capitalists of the Six is their “voluntary” limitation of steel exports to America. At present the annual growth of these exports is limited to 5 per cent; the Americans are reported to want to reduce this to 2.5 or 3 per cent, while the European steelmen are anxious that Japanese steel, limited already in its access to the American market, may seriously compete in Europe. Negotiations are, naturally, going on but it does not need a fortune teller to know that they will be a typically futile exercise, with no basic effect on the system nor on the interests of its people.

These are examples of the anarchy of capitalists. As far as Europe is concerned, the anarchy is such that even the “experts” are not united in their forecasts on the British application, nor even on what is happening in Europe at the present. A study published last December by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (described by The Guardian as “the main independent economic forecasting and analytical group in Britain”) contradicted many of the opinions and forecasts from the other “experts”. Compare these views, from the government’s Factsheets and the Institute’s report as it appeared in The Guardian (1 December 1970).:

“Factsheets: One of the striking facts about the Common Market is its rate of growth.

NIESR: The economic growth of the Six has slowed down since the EEC was formed while that of the industrialised countries outside has speeded up.

Factsheets: . . . the main industrial advantage to us would be direct access … to a market of more than 250 million people.

NIESR: So far as the larger market offers advantages, Britain is already getting these from the outside.

Factsheets: The fact that our share of the Community’s total imports of manufacturers is still only about 7 per cent indicates the potential for growth in exports to Europe.

NIESR: Britain’s competitive position inside the Community might suffer as a result of cost increases imposed by Community policies …”

It would be possible to fill up several issues of the Socialist Standard with this kind of analysis of the Common Market. When we have cleared away all the rubbish of politicians’ speeches and the contradictory ramblings of assorted economists we are left with some basic facts. The EEC is no more than yet another instalment in the theory of the larger market which assumes, with absolutely no justification, that the problems inherent in a small market disappear, or can be more easily tamed, in a large market. What, if anything, actually happens is that the problems may well get larger with the market and as the intensity of wage-labour exploitation increases.

The problems are not, and cannot be, solved because the market is itself basically uncontrollable. If it were any other way, capitalism would be a much saner and more peaceable society than it is. Through all the Great Debate on the Common Market none of this is being argued; the debate is pre-occupied with other, quite irrelevant, matters such as commodity agreements and budget contributions. And the working class, who are always being misled into taking their masters’ sides in the disputes of capitalism, are now persuaded once again that their interests are what is at stake in the Great Debate and that it is all happening so that their lives can be improved.

The facts show otherwise. Working class lives can be improved by the simple process of getting rid of the social system which divides people into worker and capitalist and which sets up the conflicting interests and the anarchy of the market economy. That is what socialists want, what we work and struggle for. We are not detached from the Great Debate; we are deeply involved in it because we see in it more evidence of the futility and impotence of capitalism and of the urgent need to replace it with a society of common ownership.

Ivan

Italy: The sour smell of success (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Economic miracle turns sour” was the headline of a recent Financial Times survey on Italy. Italian industry has come down with a bump from the “boom” of the last ten years.

Low cost-structures, the result of large-scale State takeover of industries, exploitation of previously untapped natural resources and plentiful supplies of cheap and unmilitant labour, allowed Italy to compete very favourably on international markets in the ’50s and ’60s. She benefited particularly from the Common Market removal of tariff barriers. However, rising costs and the appearance of cheaper competitors like Japan and South Korea have slowed down considerably her rate of economic growth, and brought other problems in their wake.

True Italy is no longer placed, as she was in the first years after the second World War, alongside Spain, Greece and Portugal as one of Western Europe’s backward countries. She is the tenth manufacturing nation in the world. But as an advanced capitalist country, Italy now suffers from all the same internal contradictions as her older, capitalist neighbours.

In industry short-time and redundancies are already becoming commonplace. Even during the boom period unemployment never fell below half a million. Now, together with prices, it is rising steeply. Rapid industrial advance, first without the Common Market and then inside it has clearly done nothing to solve working-class problems. Capitalist expansion is not a working-class issue. The benefits of it go largely to the ruling class. Decisions taken on such matters as nationalisation or the Common Market depend on ruling class interests. Their effects for good or bad on the working-class are quite marginal and quite incidental.

In Italy the worst signs of the anarchy of production for profit can be seen in the fields of housing, public transport, health and education. There has been no development in social services to match the rapid changeover since the war from a largely agricultural to a highly industrialised economy. When people flocked from the land into the industrial centres of Northern Italy to become wage workers, they found themselves the victims of uncontrolled building speculation, insufficient transport facilities, a primitive health structure and a hopelessly outdated and inefficient education system. Immigrants from the South (who formed the majority of the new wage slaves) were the worst hit. They were the least able to defend themselves from the conditions they found. Job rivalry with native northerners caused widespread discrimination of an almost racial character. Furthermore as the North prospered, the mainly agricultural South tended to decline relatively. Despite piecemeal attempts at establishing industry in the South, it is generally recognised that the gap in living standards between North and South is still actually on the increase.

Another point worth mentioning is the unlimited sacrifice of environmental to economic interests during the last twenty years. Rapid industrialisation has made Italy an ecological horror story. Eighty-five per cent of its coastline is at pollution danger level and the smog in Milan and Turin (caused largely by the massive increase in car population) is as bad as in Tokyo. The possible decline of the very lucrative tourist industry is just one small indication of the unplannability of capitalism.

Social protest lay dormant in the first part of Italy’s period of high economic growth. In the last five years, however, accumulated working-class grievances have come home to roost. The trade unions have not only concerned themselves with wage bargaining, but have also backed social reforms. Demands supported by strike action have been made for better and lower cost housing (there is a large “surplus” of accommodation on lease at £50 a month and over) and for improvements in the health services. Archaic educational structures have caused tremendous upheavals in Italy’s schools and universities. Furthermore spontaneous riots, especially in the impoverished South, have been touched off by the unemployment situation and by administrative inertia over local reforms.

The Italian Communist Party (PCI), opportunist as all so-called “communist” parties anywhere and here far stronger than elsewhere in Western Europe, has become the reforming party par excellence — while out of power that is. It is a past master at using working-class grievances and demands for reform to attract support. Kept out of “centre-right” and “centre-left” coalitions since 1947, the PCI, with up to 29 per cent of the national vote, would dearly love to have a respectable place in the Italian government. It points to the inefficiency and stop-gap nature of present and previous administrations, but fails to say how its own inclusion would lead to greater stability.

It is, in fact, quite true to say that Italian coalition governments, the caretakers of the Italian capitalist class, have spent most of their time in power since the war bickering and squabbling amongst themselves. They have proved most inefficient administrators of capitalism. The heavy strains and stresses which go hand in hand with commercial society everywhere have been vastly increased by the wheeling and dealing of the “political gangsters” at Rome. It will come as no surprise if in the near future the PCI, already in control of certain regions under Italy’s recent decentralisation programme, realises its dream of having a share in a Western capitalist government. A powerful weapon on its side is the Italian Social Movement (MSI); the strongest avowedly Fascist party in advanced Western Europe.

In reality capitalism’s deficiencies are to be explained by reference not to political incompetence but to the basic conflict of interests that exists in capitalism between employer and employee. The employer is all the time pushed by competitive market forces to produce as cheaply as possible. If he is to stay in business therefore, he must keep his costs down, which means getting as much work as possible out of his employee for the lowest possible wages. The worker, on the other hand, strives, as he must, to keep up his living standards and better his working conditions as much as he is able.

In Italy, as elsewhere, the mass of workers have never yet actually questioned the right of their employers to exploit them for wages. They limit themselves to bargaining for higher wages, using the threat or the weapon of strike action. Moreover, in recent years not only the traditional sectors have used these tactics to defend their interests. Doctors, civil servants and teachers now engage in traditionally working-class actions. The high peak of unrest was the end of 1969, when long-term collective contracts for six million workers were due for renewal. Prolonged strikes were followed by wage increases and improved fringe benefits. But this was not, as indeed it could not be, the end of the story. Since that time strikes have been endemic in Italian society. They will continue to be so. They are an unpleasant necessity of capitalism, but of course no lasting answer to basic working-class problems.

Street politics is the domain of rival groups of thugs calling themselves Maoists (or even “Socialists”) and Fascists. Pitched street battles between left, right and forces of “law and order” are what often faces the inhabitants of the big Italian cities. Apart from the political confusion this spreads among the working-class, it helps to create an atmosphere of fear and tension in which the majority of people would welcome undemocratic government action to outlaw political groups considered “extremist”. Too late then to cry wolf and fascism from the rooftops.

It is truly tragic that the many young people in these groups look no further than eastern state capitalist dictatorships for a solution to the problems of life under western capitalism. However, they do realise that the society in which they live is not run in working-class interests. That in itself is a step forward. We in the Socialist Party of Great Britain point to the fallacy of their ‘solution’, restate the immediate and pressing need for a world of free access and look forward to the day when a genuine Socialist Party is set up in Italy with the same aims and principles as the Companion Parties of Socialism.

Howard Moss

China and America (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

After more than twenty years of waging a propaganda war against each other and working up suspicions and hatred among their respective working classes, the American and Chinese mobster politicians are to seek some kind of reconciliation.

To those numbered in their millions all over the world, who mouthed and continue to mouth the slogans of Chinese capitalism denouncing “American imperialism”, and equally to all those who mouthed the phrases of American capitalism denouncing “Chinese expansionism”, it must seem as bewildering as were the Catholic church to suddenly get together with the League of Militant Atheists. After mountains of vitriolic propaganda, oceans of hate and the widespread belief that a real and unbridgeable ideological chasm separates the two sides, what explanation can there be for such a momentous reversal of attitudes?

Such about-faces are far from unheard of in the double dealing world of lies and hypocrisy which is capitalism. Stalin and the Bolshevik heads of Soviet capitalism got together with Nazi Germany and, after denouncing the war as imperialist, wound up on the side of British and American imperialism against their former Nazi friends. Conversely, Churchill who had spent twenty-five years denouncing the Soviet regime as a “cancerous growth”, wound up as head of British capitalism, supporting Soviet state-capitalism against Hitler and Mussolini (whom he had formerly admired).

Russia and China are capitalist countries, whose foreign policies, quests for world markets, world investments and military power only make sense when seen as part of the world-wide rivalry that characterises capitalism everywhere.

If the British capitalist class (or most of them) are jubilant at the prospect of multiplying their profits in the European market of 250 million people, large sections of the American capitalist class must have been biting their nails for years at the frustration of missing the pickings of the Chinese market.

During the years since 1948, trade, and even more so investment, has been rigidly restricted between Western capitalism and China. Successive American governments have pursued a policy of “containment”. For many years developing Chinese capitalism depended heavily on Russian equipment and technicians. But during the last ten years when the Russian and Chinese rulers have been embroiled in mutual abuse, technicians have been withdrawn. All this has forced capitalism in China to rely on its own resources and know-how. It has been found that containment and trade embargoes only meant less reliance on the outside world and a greater impetus for developing internal technology.

The priorities of capitalism in China are the same as in other powerful capitalist countries. They exploded their first A-bomb in October 1964 followed by their first H-bomb two years later. From then on it was only a matter of time before they mastered the rocket techniques for delivering them. This marked a significant turning point in how the West regarded the threat of China. When China put her first satellite into orbit in April 1970, Time magazine (11 May 1970) discussed the prospects of rockets and guidance systems and declared, “Peking beyond any doubt will, within weeks or months, possess at least the first elements of a nuclear missile force.” The article went on to review the likely impact on other countries and said “As Japan assumes a larger role in Asia, the country may feel the need for the superpower weapons to match its growing international status”. Which is all very ominous and shows how commercial struggles and military power go together.

During this period there was diminishing opposition to China’s entry into the so-called United Nations. It became known that despite all the mud-slinging, American and Chinese representatives had for years been meeting secretly in Warsaw.

True to their dedication to profits and military force, it took the possession of nuclear weapons to make American capitalism take Chinese capitalism seriously.

Nixon has pulled off the political coup of a life time—if things continue to go in a direction favourable to both sides. Which is not bad considering he does not officially recognise the existence of the Peking government. However, these get-togethers can burst into flame one moment and freeze over the next. But no doubt the masters of mass head-fixing on both sides will be ready to blame each other if it all turns sour. Just as Nixon and Chou-En-Lai will be seen on television smiling and embracing each other, having forgotten the threats of war and mutual destruction so the threats will be revived and the smiling forgotten, if after all it does not come off. An additional irony is that it should fall to Nixon to go sweet-talking in China, since it was he who first made his name as a red-baiter in the post-war years.

Peace is avowed as the heart-felt desire of both sides. And no doubt many millions of ordinary workers will welcome the prospect of diminished hostility. Any sign of hope will be grabbed at by a generation that has seen nothing but wars and military build-ups. But here again there is plenty of evidence to show how hollow these hopes are. There have been hundreds of conferences since the end of the Second World War and the major powers (America, Russia, France, China and Britain) have endlessly negotiated and yet there have been 73 wars including Korea and Vietnam, between 1945 and 1968. Many times hopes have been built up of reducing nuclear weapons, but despite negotiations they have steadily proliferated. After years of friendly relations, Russia and China came close to war in 1969. These two giants keep up the pretence of being different from imperialist America and Britain and used to heap admiration upon each other as “socialist” brothers. Yet they were driven to each other’s throats by the same sordid territorial ambitions as any openly capitalist countries.

What chance is there of China and America forming a relationship where commercial, strategic and territorial ambitions do not clash? It is precisely these interests which make capitalism what it is. The struggles for trade, investments, strategic positions and profits, make clashes inevitable.

The war in Vietnam has dragged on despite years of negotiations. All the suffering, death and destruction are as nothing to the negotiators who ruthlessly stick out for the interests they represent. China may now be expected to use her influence to pull American chestnuts out of the fire. Despite their support for North Vietnam and all the years of anti-American propaganda, such a service to American capitalism must now be regarded as a good bargaining lever. During 1966 China supplied the American air-force with steel for building air-bases in full knowledge of what this meant for their allies in the North. So both sides are well versed in the arts of cynicism and double-cross.

The Japanese government seems enthusiastic at the prospect of a new approach to China. Japan fought a long and bitter war to get her hands on the loot from China. What they failed to achieve by arms they now hope to achieve through the circulation of commodities. Japan is in an expansion frenzy and is hungry for raw-materials and markets.

There may be a period of mad scramble to get into China with capital investments to develop industry and extract minerals, but in the long-term, another massive rival for markets will emerge. Capitalism can operate in no other way. The smiles and frowns of politicians only reflect the prevailing situations presented to them by capitalism.

The final irony, to this latest stage of developments between China and America, might be Russian opposition to China’s entry into the UN. The Russian ruling class too have established “better relations” with Washington, so they may well play it cool. Their reaction will in any case be calculated to create whatever pressure is need to make Russian interests felt in what is going on.

Regardless of the public face they show, Russia, China and America will watch each other very closely. They are each in the same game for what they can get. The fact that friendly relations may exist for a time between each of them, should delude nobody. Trade does not mean trust. They will continue to spy on each other. Investments do not receive peace. They will each maintain their nuclear and other weapons.

Only the working class can get rid of this system of mutual suspicion, rivalry and war. This will involve establishing a world community where trade and investments and military force will have no place. Neither will the cynicism and hypocrisy of politicians.

Harry Baldwin

“Too much” food again (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under capitalism we are faced with a seemingly insoluble contradiction. Poverty and hunger exist in the midst of potential plenty. Within the private property relationships of capitalism the existence of means for ending this problem can itself appear to be a problem.

Take for example three reports in just one edition of The Guardian, that of July 12. In it we are informed on page 3 that:

“The world’s population will double by the year 2004 at the present growth rate, yet food production has already declined on a per capita basis, the UN reported today . . . agricultural production in 1969, the latest year for which comprehensive figures were compiled by UN statisticians, was 2 per cent lower than the previous year.”

A serious problem by any standard when one considers that the majority of the world’s people are inadequately fed at present. But here comes the contradiction . . . Turning over to page 4 we see an article by John Cunningham entitled quaintly “Scientists look into eggs”. He tells us that:

“Scientists are going to work on an egg — actually thousands of eggs — to try to find new uses for a surplus which is worrying the Eggs Authority so much that it is prepared to spend £40,000 on research and development this year.

‘We are not simply looking for food uses’, Mr. Bernard Mallett, the authority’s chief executive, said yesterday. ‘Frankly, anything could hold the key. It could be an industrial use, the manufacture of plastics, decorating materials, cosmetics . . . who knows? We hope research will find some profitable outlet for eggs surplus to even the food products market.'”

However the troubles of the Egg Marketing Board are nothing compared with the problems reported on page 12, in the Business Section, to be afflicting the Common Market Commission in Brussels.

“The record grain now ripening in the fields of Europe is causing grave concern . . . The crop is currently estimated at 174 million tons — four million tons more than the highest previous total. 

If such a crop is harvested, it could revive the nightmare of big surpluses in Europe.”

And their solution? “The Commission”, said The Guardian, “can only pray for rain”.

These contradictions are an inevitable outcome of the commodity system. Under capitalism food, together with other things we need in order to live, is private property. Wealth takes the form of commodities, that is, it is produced not primarily that people might eat, but to be sold on a market with a view to making a profit. If too much food is produced for the market system to deal with profitably then the owners and those who run capitalism are faced with a “problem”. But this is only a problem where the relationships of ownership exist.

In a Socialist society, where the means of life will be owned in common by the world community, food will be produced not for profit but to satisfy human need. With the removal of the artificial barrier of the profit-motive, producing sufficient food to feed all the people of the world would present very few problems. Yet today while men and women go hungry eggs are “fed to minks to improve the quality and sheen of the fur” and men in Brussels are hoping rain will destroy food : what a sad reflection on the values of a society where profit is the paramount motive for production.

Gwynn Thomas

Economic Theory (1971)

Book Review from the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

Economic Theory in Retrospect. M. Blaug, Heinmann Education. Second Edition £2.75.

This work by Blaug, who formerly taught economics at Yale University and is now Professor of the Economics of Education at the University of London Institute of Education, will be both useful and harmful, depending on how it is used. Students who treat it as a source for “potted” versions of economic theories and accept uncritically the author’s comments on those theories will often be misled. Those who take very careful note of the author’s warnings in his Preface to the Revised edition and use the book as he intended may find it useful. Blaug writes:

“In order to encourage students to doubt all commentators, including the author of this book, this edition like the first one contains detailed Reader’s Guides to cover major works in the history of economic thought. But as some reviewers of the first edition felt that these were more welcomed as heaven-sent cribs than as stimuli to consult the original writers, I should warn readers again that the Guides are neither summaries nor precis; they are running commentaries and more concerned with what the great economists might have meant than what they actually said. In short, they are especially designed to be provocative . . .”

When it comes to Marxian economics the reader should certainly challenge some of Blaug’s comments and interpretations. A few examples will illustrate this.

Discussing Marx’s description of the poverty and inequality of the early nineteenth century, Blaug writes that “it would be absurd to believe that the conditions described . . . reflect exploitation of labour rather than the low output per head of the working population”.

Blaug’s own explanation is that “the deplorable material standards of most working people . . . had more to do with the birth pangs of industrialization than with capitalist methods of organising production”, and that “living standards of the British working class could not have been raised significantly even by a perfectly egalitarian distribution of income”.

This was and still is the line of propaganda used by the defenders of capitalism. It would be interesting if Blaug “the commentator” (as distinct from Blaug the defender of capitalism) would explain what it was other than exploitation which enabled the rich, and in many cases idle, members of the capitalist class, to avoid sharing the poverty—after all the output of most of them wasn’t even low !

Blaug’s observations may also indicate that he thinks Marx aimed at egalitarian capitalism — which really is absurd. What Blaug has to meet is Marx’s proposition that in a Socialist system of society the output of useful articles will be greatly increased.

On page 279 Blaug has a fifteen line comment on Chapter 19 of Marx’s Capital Vol. I. (Chapter 17 in the Allen and Unwin translation).

Blaug writes:

“Chapter 19 plays hard and fast with the distinction between labour and labour-power. ‘Labour is the substance and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value’.”

Blaug’s comment on this is that Marx meant “that the worker has no value, it is only his services that are valuable”.

Marx didn’t say or mean what Blaug says he meant. He was dealing with the question whether what the worker sells is his labour or his labour-power, not, as Blaug seems to think, whether the worker sells himself. In that chapter Marx argued that it is labour-power that the worker sells and that is an embodiment of value (the quantity of labour necessary for its production). It is not his labour, or work, that the worker sells.

Blaug’s quotation is immediately preceded by the following which ought to have made Marx’s view clear.

“That which comes directly face to face with the possession of money on the market is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power. As soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can no longer be sold by him.”

Some of Blaug’s book deals with Volume II and Volume III of Marx’s Capital. Unlike Volume I, which was completed for publication in his lifetime, the later volumes (and other material published after his death) were left incomplete, some of it in the form of mere notes. Engels who edited Volumes II and III drew particular attention to this in his Prefaces. In the Preface to Vol. Ill Engels wrote, for example, “nothing was available but a first draft, and it was very incomplete”. Some of the chapters were so incomplete that Engels left them as they were being unable to take on the task of getting them in proper shape. It is therefore often difficult to decide how far Marx’s first notes were really considered judgments. Blaug is not unaware of this but seems not always to have made due allowance for it.

In his ten line comment on ten chapters of Volume III (Page 290) Blaug makes statements which, to the reader not familiar with the originals may seem to indicate that Marx in Volume III was repudiating what he wrote in Volume I about the effect of an overissue of inconvertible paper currency on the general price level.

Fortunately, in this case, Engels spotted the possibility of misunderstanding and inserted a note in Vol. III pointing out that the material in Chapter XXXIII dealt only with the position in Britain at a time when the currency was primarily gold coin and convertible Bank of England notes, and not with the different situation of an inconvertible paper currency, the latter being as stated in Volume I. The note reads a follows:

“Inconvertible bank notes are not taken into consideration at all here; inconvertible bank notes can become universal means of circulation only under conditions in which they are actually backed up by National credit, as is the case of Russia at present. In that case they fall under the laws of the inconvertible National paper money, which have been developed already in Vol. I, Chapter III 2‘ Coins and Symbols of Value‘.

The chapter of Volume I referred to set out Marx’s view that, in accordance with the labour theory of value, the doubling of an issue of inconvertible paper currency merely serves to double the price level.

Blaug deals with Keynes and the neo-Keynesians in Chapter 15 and here his method shows its weakness. In thirty pages he gives a running commentary on Keynes and his critics and commentators, indicating here and there his own reservations. It might have been more useful if he had separately provided his own considered views on Keynesian theory and its practical application in the past thirty years.

Edgar Hardcastle

SPGB Autumn Delegate Meeting (1971)

 Party News from the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1971)

Party News from the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

One tweak needed (2026)

From the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Societies in every part of the world are currently organised around the same, single feature – a system of production driven by the search for profit.

 

In other words, capitalist production, where most people work for wages while just a few scoop up the profit that the majority produces.

 

This system was progressive in the past – it promoted such a huge increase in industrial and agricultural productivity that every person in the world could now have access to all the goods and services needed for a reasonable life.

 

But a reasonable life for all is denied precisely because the system is driven by the profit motive. If there is no prospect of a profit, there is no question about it, there will be no production.   

 

At the same time, it’s a competitive system that inevitably forces individual capitals to expand or lose out to other capitals. But the competition is not (nor can be) subject to any overall planning, which results in the boom/bust pattern that has become a fact of life in the last 200 years, in which time capitalist production has come to predominate.

 

The need for expansion also results in war. Forget the rubbish about sovereignty and fighting for freedom. Modern war is all about markets, raw materials and transport routes.

 

And that inevitable expansion is becoming a major environmental threat too.

 

But hey! Don’t despair. That ‘one tweak’ in the headline? Take the world’s productive resources away from the minority and use those resources to produce for human need, not profit.

 

We know this sounds like a big ask, but remember, the world’s workers already run production from top to bottom. It makes sense for them to run it in their own interest.