Points for Propagandists. (1930)

From the September 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over-production and want.

The followers of Malthus and the Secularists who still talk of over-population are completely refuted by the universal facts of modern industry. The command of man over nature in producing a food supply has increased so rapidly that there is a widespread demand to limit production.

Agriculture lagged behind industry so long in increased production that whilst industrial products declined in price, the products of agriculture tended to rise. The application of machinery to farming and the adoption of large scale methods on the land has now reached such a pitch and so lowered prices that the agriculturist is crying out. Prominent owners express their joy that the crop in South America is poor this year. Such is the pass to which production for sale and profit has brought us.

The Sunday Express (June 29th) tells us that 2 million acres of wheat and maize land will go out of cultivation next season and that Brazilians are burning coffee because they cannot sell. The meat combines of S. America have been practising restriction of production, we are told by the same paper. They also inform us that in spite of “real efforts” to restrict the production of petroleum in U.S.A. it increased there by 14 million metric tons. The total world increase this year, compared to last, is 23 million metric tons. The Shell Oil Co., however, is not in bankruptcy, but was able to report a profit balance of 6 million pounds and pay 25% dividend this year.

Economic development proceeds alongside the efforts to limit production, as the recent advances in the oil refineries show. The News of the World (June 29th) reports that a new process for doubling the yield of motor spirit from crude oil by the use of hydrogen is being developed. The German Chemical Trust and the Standard Oil Co., and the Royal Dutch Co. jointly control the process, in order to control output and extract all possible profits by gently but firmly killing that noble spirit of competition which used to be praised as “the life of trade.”

The increase of productive power along with the vast increase of wealth which cannot find a market has led the author of “The Case for Capitalism”—Mr. Hartley Withers, to make the following confession :

“This spectacle of universal plenty along with universal distress, is very far from creditable to the alleged enlightenment and civilisation which we are now supposed to enjoy. People who have worked for us have worked so well that they cannot make a living, and yet we are none of us getting nearly as much benefit as we should out of the consequent cheapness of things (“Sunday Dispatch,” 6th June).

Let society own the tools and produce for use !

* * *

Is Socialism a religion? 

“There is a conventional assumption that Socialism is opposed to religion. The assumption comes from orthodox camps on both sides. With all the being born of 40 years of active Socialist life I would like to shake it as a terrier proverbially shakes a rat.”

The angry author of these words is Mrs. Bruce Glasier, in the I.L.P. paper, the New Leader (June 13th). She shows the “harmony” between Socialism and Religion by robbing Religion of its accepted meaning, and defining it as “the spirit of the whole.” Karl Marx and Lenin are both religious types, according to her.

She does not attempt to show that Socialism is in accord with religion, as commonly and correctly understood. She leaves completely alone the conflict between the materialist basis of Socialism and the superstitions and supernatural character of religion. The community spirit is common alike to religion and Socialism, Mrs. Glasier informs us.

Socialism, however, is the object of a militant movement recognising the class struggle in modern society. The Socialist realises also that religion as we know it, is an instrument of the ruling class to divert attention from the real world and the real work to be done.

This I.L.P. pioneer has a conception of religion as confused as her idea of Socialism—”the economics of the Lord’s Prayer.” Why not the Sociology of Baptism ?

* * *

Children's Allowances and the I.L.P.

The I.L.P. state on the front page of the New Leader (June 27th) that employers will not be able to deduct children’s allowances from wages, as they will be paid like pensions through the Post Office. Such childish simplicity and evasion may suit these reformers. It is not necessary for the employers to inquire if their workers are getting children’s allowances, but the general receipt of such payments will act as a basis for compiling the average family cost of living. In a fiercely competitive labour market there will be little difficulty in employers making the workers accept the revised wages. Lord MacMillan, in making his report on woollen wage reductions, pointed out that social services such as pensions, insurance, etc., should be taken into consideration in fixing present-day-wages. It has been a regular policy for years to engage pensioned men who can live on less wages.

Children’s allowance experience in Australia give the lie to the I.L.P.

In another issue (July 11th) the New Leader tells us that during strikes the children’s allowances will assist the workers to win, as the children will no longer go hungry on account of the strike. Such is simple faith. During recent strikes it has been noted how difficult it has been for the strikers to get poor law relief for the children. During the General Strike (1926) the Press stated that plans were being made to attack the bank accounts of the Trade Unions to prevent strike pay being issued. And if children’s allowances were passed by a capitalist government they would control its administration and these allowances could be suspended when it suited the governing body if the interests of the employers were at stake.

It is not surprising that such a body of misleaders as the I.L.P. should have their discussions of party policy in private as they announce to take place at their Summer School at Welwyn (New Leader, July 11th). More secret diplomacy !

* * *

How government ownership works.

The One Big Union of Canada has sent a representative to the Privy Council here to appeal against the decision of the Government-owned railway of Canada—The Canadian National. This national railway has adopted a policy pushed by the American Federation of Labor, known as the B. & O. Plan, called so because it was first initiated by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the U.S.A. It has led to the promotion of many safe and servile company unions there.

The masters needed a scheme to kill any militant union activity and also to increase output while silencing workers’ complaints. The B. & O. Plan is a brand of efficiency systems which pretends to make for profit sharing and fosters “co-operation” between master and man. A pliable tool was found in the American Federation of Labor Unions, which was given special privileges to enlist membership and to smooth the path for the adoption of the masters’ plans. The One Big Union complain that the American Union has been given sole recognition, with the result that either dismissal or joining the American Federation has been forced on the men.

Speeding-up and spying on each other, which is the common feature of co-partnership systems, has become the rule. The O.B.U. complain that J. H. Thomas is at the head of the “forceful” union they are fighting. They are applying to the Privy Council for the right of assembly and freedom to join a union of their choice.

So much for Government ownership or nationalisation, the aim of Labour Parties. The One Big Union has to face the fact that business, nationally or privately owned, is carried on for profit, and concentration of industry collectively in investors’ hands—called national ownership—simply provides a more, powerful force against the workers.

The municipalising or nationalising ideas of many of the workers in Canadian Unions has been given a nasty blow, which should make them sec the need for political action for Socialism.

Adolph Kohn