Full Employment (1945)

From the May 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Full Employment is one of the loudest catch cries being dimmed in oar ears, at the moment.

Another magic charm phrase of the day is “Planning." It occupies a considerable place in the Labour Party's stock of “ sloganberry'' jam for the Election.

In the sham fight between Tory and Labour about how to CONTROL Capitalism—which becomes meaningless everyday ; Labour Leaders will flog this decrepit old Soviet nag "Planning" to exhaustion.

Both sides are at pains to show that they stand for mixed State and private enterprise. Mr. Morrison’s speeches now deal mainly with this—pointing out that all sorts and degrees of State control will have to be applied to varying undertakings. In fact, reference to the‘Labour Party's “Socialism and Peace," as well as its war time statements on policy, shows that they have always held this view.

On the most generous estimate—all the lengthy rigmarole of re-planning. Industry, Transport and Trade, with the separate detailed “plans ” for the Coal Industry, the Banks, Electricity, Building, etc., etc. with their “Boards of Experts," “State Commissions for this Industry," and that, “with participation of the workers in the industry," etc. realty amounts to; is what we've got, now—only perhaps a little more so.

State Control exists everywhere—theoretically—in modern Capitalism—what is here at issue is how FAR and how MUCH—merely a difference in degree, not in kind, in quantity NOT quality.

On his side of the street Mr. Churchill has made it perfectly clear that Conservatives are only too well aware of the main tendency of modern capitalism to centralise in State hands. Whether Tory, Labour or any other (poor “Liberals"!) politicians like it or not, makes not the slightest difference. What both Tory and Labour spokesmen do, therefore, is to stalk up to Niagara, strike an attitude, and shout “ Fall"!

They then present an astonished electorate with “Plans," “Statements of Party policy," “Resolutions," etc., show how they are re-planning Society, which, in reality, is all the time re-planning them.

The present “controversies" naturally express the situation created by the War. It is the time, in modern society, where entire capitalist classes fight for their independent political (National State) existence.

For this reason, direct immediate control and supervision by the Capitalist State is inevitable in war time. The subsidiary interest of separate groups of capitalists have to go by the board. The representatives of the Class of capitalists are in exclusive charge. The separate groups—because Capitalism is a contradictory system—have to submit to the suppression of their immediate group interests to those of the class, as a whole.

These groups, through their spokesmen, naturally hanker after the “good old days " before the war-time control. Such a one is Sir John Wardlaw Milne, who has incurred the wrath of the Editor of the “Daily Herald" by demanding the "speedy removal of controls.”

In an editorial “Take your Choice," March 13th, 1945, the Editor of the “Herald" declares that:—

  “Without planning there can be no Full Employment and no High Wages. To pretend that the nation can have one without the other is madness. Full Employment has been secured during the war period for the first time since 1918. One of the results has been an increase in wages.

  “Why were we able to achieve in war what had never been obtainable in the days when private profit ruled as the arbiter in our society. The answer is that in war the community, working on a plan, was able to create a constant and increasing demand for all the goods which the nations labour and material resources were capable of producing.

  “This experience has confirmed the doctrine which Socialism has always preached.

  

  “A central plan for ensuring maximum production and the wisest use of the nation's most precious asset—its labour power—has achieved results which make the proudest boasts of private capitalism look puny."

If it were really true, as Mr. Michael Foot claims, that “the community, in war, working on a plan" creates “increasing demand," leading to full employment and higher wages then, logically, the “Daily Herald" and the Labour Party should desire to prolong this war as long as possible, and be in favour of war in general.

In point of fact, the community does not “create" demand—it's always there, insatiable. Socialism has never at any time, preached the doctrine that war time planning of production creates the community's demand. Mr. Foot's “Socialism" is actually good old (British) Militarism.

The Editor of the “Herald" cleverly mixes two entirely different things to confuse his working class readers. One thing is the demand of the community, which is limited merely by the current powers of production; the other is what economists call “effective demand," under capitalism, otherwise known as “purchasing power." This is what the worker can buy back from the owner of the means of production with his money-wages. It must always be a small proportion of what he produces, and tends, with evolution of the composition of capital, to get less.

Taking his cue from the “Herald," Mr. Attlee informed his audience at Nottingham, on March 24th, that:—

   “creation of the artificial harbours in Normandy was an example of how a number of men, working not for profit, but for the community can show unexampled enterprise, boldness and creativeness. I do not believe it is impossible in peace to bring to the service of the community the same qualities."—(“Daily Sketch", March 20th, 1945).

We are going to get a lot of this. Briefly the idea is “We did it in war time—we can do it in peace "—if only we slash into it in the spirit of the battlefields." Exactly as in 1918, in fact.

Then the “Daily Mirror" quotes the New York newspaper, “P.M." as saying:—

  “We in America observe the plans of the British business imperialists to secure domination of smaller countries for the purpose of exploitation, and it shocks our moral sense. But what of ourselves? We observe the plans of American business men to seize British trade and reduce British working men to penury."

The "Mirror" December 28th, continues:—

   "This comment makes it clear that a responsible American journal anticipates a trade war to take the place of the other war when "peace" is declared. . . .

  “If would be interesting to know on what facts "P.M." bases its opinions. If there is truth in what the newspaper says, someone in Great Britain must know about it, and that someone ought to be the President of the Board of Trade. Presumably the Government has an economic policy, and now is the time to declare it. The nation has performed a great industrial feat during the war. State Control blended with Private Enterprise has ' delivered the goods.' Are, then, all the proved advantages of that great dual effort to be thrown away simply because a handful of powerful individualists in each country want to go on with the old game with its wild alternation of boom and slump?"

The City Editor of the ‘‘News Chronicle “ states that:

  "Some of my friends who have a knowledge of conditions both here and in the United States assert roundly that to no more small extent American's advantage in P.M.H. (Production per Man Hour) is due, not to better mechanisation, but to the fact that the American worker does a much better days work than the British."

‘‘News Chronicle,” February 2nd, 1945. 

First, Mr. Attlee: everything that is produced under capitalism, including the amazing and wonderful artificial harbour (Mulberry), is produced for profit—State ownership or control of. productive apparatus does NOT mean that they work for the community.

The wartime Government production is financed by State Bonds and War Loans, which pay Interest taken from Profit. Neither, despite Mr. Foot, does the fact that the State PLANS war production make it Socialist. The reason the Government PLANS war production is because it is WAR production. It is a simple incontrovertible economic fact— that you cannot superimpose or transplant the economic conditions of WAR to peacetime production, as suggested by the “New Leader” for houses, “The Forward," and a host of others. In WARtime there is insatiable military demands, war weapons are consumed in inconceivable quantities, so long as the enemy is unbeaten. In peacetime— the main consumer is the wage-working class—its effective demand limited by its meagre wages. In wartime, the main consumer is the capitalist class—of war weapons. Although each individual capitalist with armaments investments draws his dividends; he, in common with his fellow capitalists, pays in taxes. The war is paid for by, and a dead loss to the capitalists—NOT the workers.. THAT is the reason they are so anxious for the workers to work hard after the war, to make up the deficit

The ‘‘Daily Herald" and Labour Party publications are full of references these days to the failure of “private ownership "; of production for “private profit" of the failure of private enterprise. They talk largely of “public" control leading to “public” ownership.

They jabber about the pre-1939 system, “When no incentive existed in society apart from that of the PRIVATE owner to make a profit" and publish cartoons showing the failure of “private" Capitalism.

All that they actually mean is STATE profit (Bonds) STATE production. Government ownership or control; and STATE enterprise. Socialism is NOT the “public" ownership of productive forces but the COMMON ownership—by the community as a whole. When the whole community own the means of production, the State disappears—is superannuated.

By “public" ownership. Labour leaders mean public Corporations or Boards, in which people with money, invest. Socialism abolishes money, because it abolishes Exchange-Values.

The Labour Party, and all its satellites from Commonwealth to Trotskyites, without exception; stand FOR Public Capitalism in preference to Private Capitalism.

Socialists stand for a change in quality; NOT quantity. Neither Old nor New Capitalism—but Socialism.

Finally, if all the State Control which the Labour Party wants were imposed tomorrow—the question of the Editor of the "Mirror," with reference to international economic policy demands its answer. The consolidation of the State in control of national economies is—willingly or otherwise—preparation for the challenge of competing States, and the terms "boom " and “slump" become synonyms for “war" and “peace."

Horatio.