Planning for After the War (1940)

From the October 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Class Co-operation or the Abolition of Classes? 

Mr. Hannen Swaffer, writing in the Daily Herald (August 23rd, 1940), tells of a conversation he had in the house of “a member of the War Cabinet,” with “a Tory high in the counsels of the Premier,” “a Liberal M.P.,” and “a key man in the Civil Service.” The four of them were engaged in what is always a popular pastime during wars; they were discussing the after-war “reconstruction.” They had dealt with ” the inequalities of our educational system, the slums of Tyneside, the plight of Merthyr, the need for health services, a score of evils.” Then the Civil Servant spoke as follows : —

“You three are all politicians, or, at least, interested in politics. I am not. You all agree. People do agree nowadays. Why cannot you, after the war, insist on a plan, work it out, preach it as a gospel and combine to ensure its acceptance ?”

Pause for a moment to observe the smug conceit of the “Civil Servant,” doubtless some highly placed and high salaried official in whose ranks this self-satisfied ignorance is very common. Content with his safe, interesting job and comfortable income, puffed up with his authority over the lower ranks of the civil service, he “isn’t interested in politics.” What he means, of course, is that it is expected of him to kow-tow to whatever politicians happen to be in power at the moment, and so long as his world is kept safe under the shelter of capitalist politics he isn’t interested in any other kind of politics.

He can safely be marked down as a type of those who will put up the most blind and obstinate resistance to the introduction of a better social system.

Mr. Swaffer went on to remind the other three that formulating plans does not solve any problems: —

“I pointed out that it was not as easy as that. I had accepted a plan. In theory, the other two might agree with most of it. But the devil of it was that most of the people I sided with wanted a little more food, more regular work—just a little more immediately—and that, however benevolent-minded the other two of us might be, they would be checked in their desire to obtain this for the masses by interests from which they would find it almost impossible to escape.”

Here, of course, is the crux of the matter: “Interests” will stand in the way of “just a little more of everything for the workers.” But it is well-nigh certain that Mr. Hannen Swaffer does not really understand more than half of the problem. He is prepared to concede to his political opponents a certain benevolent-mindedness. If benevolent-mindedness is the key to the situation, how is it that 40 years or more of Labour Party requests for a little more have produced little or no result? Only the Socialist can explain the mystery and solve the problem, yet the explanation is simplicity itself. Swaffer, along with a host of religious and political advocates of social reforms, accepts class divisions in society. Socialists want the classes abolished. Swaffer wants the propertied class to be more benevolent, socialists see that there is no solution along that road. While society is divided into two classes, one of which owns and controls the means of production and distribution while the other class is in truth propertyless, social reforms must be and will always be subordinated to the necessity of keeping the social system functioning. In other words a class which lives on property income (rent, interest or profit) cannot behave other than as a propertied class, no matter how benevolent some members of it may be. What keeps the capitalist system going is the expectation on the part of the capitalist that he will be able to make a profit out of the sale of the commodities he allows his workers to produce for him. No profit, no production! is the law of capitalism. Against that mere sympathy carries no weight at all. It is the easiest thing in the world for the capitalist to have his conscience salved by tame economists who claim to prove to him that poverty, unemployment and so on are unavoidable and will not be helped by social reforms. Failing that there are always journalistic hacks or others ready to “prove” that there is no working-class poverty, or that it is self-inflicted, through drink, thriftlessness or large families, or that things used to be bad but they are just about to be put right, or that poverty is good for the poor and they like it. Mr. Swaffer, himself, recently addressed some sharp remarks to Viscount Gort, who, in a broadcast, said we had been “leading a pleasant life, with plenty of relaxation and not too long hours of toil,” and that “neglecting our religious obligations and in pursuit of pleasure we filled the roads and deserted the churches.”— (People, August 11th, 1940.) Mr. Swaffer said : —

“Does Lord Gort really believe that everybody in Britain has a motor car, that he leads a pleasant life, and that he does not work hard enough ?

When I went into Merthyr with Edward VIII a few days before he abdicated, I saw there, lined up, all the Old Contemptibles of the town. They numbered 25. They had all been unemployed for five years, and some of them for ten years. And, under the existing system, not one seemed likely to have a chance of working for one hour again as long as he lived !

These men had all rushed to arms in August, 1914, to make it “a land fit for heroes.”

Certainly, when I saw them, they had “not too long hours of toil,” but they had spent much longer hours in the Labour Exchange queue. As for their relaxation—well, perhaps they had relaxed throats.”

One great obstacle standing in the way of Socialist propaganda is that it is not easy even for the worst sufferers from this class-divided social system to rid themselves of the idea that we must have a privileged class. Hence the readiness with which they follow the blind lead of those who are so gratified at witnessing the present contact between the classes. Good relations between the one class and the other is such a pleasant notion, disturbing to nobody. They should notice, however, that it is also productive of nothing once the temporary condition has passed. Good relations in the past between slave owner and slave never abolished the system of slavery. Mr. Emrys Jones, well-known journalist, writing in the Daily Mail (September 28th), is a case in point. He is pleased to find that the householders in a very snobbish and exclusive square where he lives have welcomed evacuees from East End bombing. He says: —

“I am glad to report, there are no stupid remarks about the place being ‘spoiled.’ It seems we are nearer the class-less society now than we ever hoped to be in our time.”

Note the childish words about the classless society. The propertied and non-propertied class do not cease to exist because for a while members of the former readily accept close proximity with members of the latter. What Mr. Jones for the moment forgets is that the propertied class as a whole, believing as they do that they deserve their privilege and that the world could not run except on a class basis, do not and never did hope for a class-less society. On the contrary they feared it and will continue to do so. It is the workers who will gradually become able to see that the future of the human race is bound up now with the abolition of classes.

Socialists have often been attacked for adopting an unhelpful, critical attitude towards the plans and proposals of benevolent-minded persons. Events have, however, always justified our criticisms and our contention that reforming capitalism leads nowhere. Let us now challenge our critics. Let them tell us why they believe that the means by which the human race lives must be owned and controlled by a small minority of persons, companies and combines. Let them tell us why the human race any longer need costly financial and commercial institutions kept going with increasing chaos and disorganisation, backed up with a multiplicity of laws and regulations. Let them tell us why we need a social system which breeds poverty, misery, ill-health and wars, with an increasing proportion of the energies of mankind devoted to trying in a complex, roundabout way to ameliorate these evils with plans and reforms and charity-mongering. Why not that class-less society known as Socialism?

Edgar Hardcastle