Should the workers strike? (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The final arbiter in any dispute is force. When arguments fail, when negotiations reach deadlock, when all forms of diplomacy and compromise are exhausted, then force is the only means of ensuring the victory of one disputant over the other. When this stage is reached in disputes between nations, the diplomats are recalled and the generals take the field. It is in preparation for this that governments store armaments and maintain armed forces. When this stage is reached in disputes, between workers and their employers, the negotiators step back and the strike committee comes to the fore. It is in readiness for this eventuality that the workers must preserve the right to strike.

When workers resort to strike action it is an indication that the negotiators of their Trade Unions have failed. It indicates that either negotiations have been so protracted that the workers have lost patience or else that the negotiators have been unable to achieve anything satisfactory to the Union members. In either instance the Trade Union chiefs who are responsible for the negotiations, unless they can provide adequate reasons and excuses for their failure, lose prestige in the eyes of the members. They are not usually lacking in explanations why it was not possible to achieve success. They object to their Union members taking matters into their own hands and using force because then they are discredited in eyes of the government and the employers. They protest at the melting away of the Union funds and seldom give their sanction to qualify a strike as official. When the Union leaders have arrived at an agreement with employers and have signed a contract covering the wages and conditions of employment of the members of their respective Unions, they want that contract to be honoured by the members. If the members will not accept, the leaders find themselves between a rebellious following on the one hand and distrustful employers on the other. It must be very disconcerting for these dealers in labour power en masse, having bargained for its price and arranged for the conditions of its delivery, to find it continually heading up the wrong street. If they can find a way to stop that, they will.

At the Trades Union Congress held at Bridlington during September this year, the question of unofficial strike action was discussed, as it had been on previous years. There were threats to use union discipline against those who promote, organise and lead unofficial strikes, and accusations against those who advocate and engage in them. Sir Will Lawther, better known as Will Lawther, president of the National Union of Mineworkers and president of this year’s Trades Union Congress, had a few things to say. He is not alone in the ideas that he expressed, but in his presidential address he put them into words that sum up the attitude of many prominent Trade Union leaders. Speaking about unofficial strikes, Mr. Lawther said that the strike,

". . . has been, in days gone by, the strongest weapon in the Trade Union armoury when it has been wielded under Trade Union authority for clearly defined industrial purposes.

Trade Unions have been forced to use the strike weapon when there was no other way open for them to redress their wrongs.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 6th. 1949.) 

We can anticipate from this statement by Mr. Lawther, that he considers the strike weapon out of date, that there is now, in his estimation, some stronger weapon in the armoury, some more effective way open for the workers to redress their wrongs. There must also be a reason why Mr. Lawther thinks that strikes were the strongest weapon and are not necessarily so now. He gives it to us.

“We can go on in the old way. treating every difficulty that arises in industry as the manifestation of an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the employer and the employed; or we can recognise that the attainment of political democracy in this land leads on to the fulfilment of industrial democracy.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 6th. 1949.)

So, according to Mr. Lawther, there are two ways in which the workers can tackle their problems; the old way, based on a recognition of the class struggle, or this new way that leads on to the fulfilment of industrial democracy, whatever that may be. We can assume that Mr. Lawther considers “the old way ” as outmoded as the strike weapon.

The arguments put forward by Mr. Lawther and other Trade Union chiefs are based on the conception that industry is run for the benefit of the whole community in each national state; that the workers are a section of this community and their interests are sectional interests must be subject to the national interest. Strikes, according to this conception, become an attempt by a section to impose its will upon the whole community. They are decried as a type of blackmail. They interfere with the smooth running of the community’s industry and must be “outlawed”. This is the line of reasoning of many Trade Union leaders, in high and lowly positions, and, unfortunately, accepted by many workers. Disputes, they, argue, must be settled by negotiation and arbitration.

But is the “old way” referred to by Mr. Lawther, really out of date? What is the relation between the worker and his employer? Is that relation different in a “political democracy” to that in other places? Has this relation undergone any change since “the days gone by”? An answer to these questions will solve the problem that besets many Trade Unionists to-day—“To strike or to arbitrate?”

Before the necessities of life can be produced, three essentials must be available; materials provided by nature, worked up into what we call raw materials; tools and machinery, which we name the instruments of production; and human labour effort which must be applied to the nature-given materials through the instruments of production in order to produce the consumable product. The workers do not own either the materials, or the instruments of production. They have only the human labour effort contained in their bodies. The other two essentials are owned by that smaller section of the community known as the capitalist class. In fact, it is this ownership that constitutes them a class distinct from the non-owning workers. The materials and the instruments of production are useless to the capitalists unless the labour effort of the workers can be engaged to operate them. On the other hand, the labour effort of the worker is useless to him unless he can have access to the tools and machinery and the materials. Those who own machinery, mines, land, factories, workshops, etc., seek to buy the energies of the workers who, in their turn, are anxious to sell in order that they may live. The relation of employer and employed is really one of buyer and seller of human labour effort. The employer does not buy the labourer, that would be chattel slavery. Neither does he buy the labour, that is the application of the workers’ energies to the materials. The capitalist already has the material and the worker does not own any, so he cannot offer it. He can only offer his ability to labour, his physical and mental energies. That is what the employer buys, by the hour, day, week or contract. When the specified amount of energy, measured in terms of time, has been extracted, the worker is free to go his way and spend his wages, which are the price he gets for the energy that he sells He must of necessity spend them on replacing the energy he has expended.

Is this position any different in what Mr. Lawther terms a “Political Democracy”? Do the workers receive a share in the ownership of the materials and the instruments of production? Obviously not! They are still employees, having no other means of obtaining a livelihood except by selling their labour power. Their status is not altered by the fact that they have universal suffrage or by the introduction of State ownership. If they find employment in a nationalised industry, it merely means that the State buys their labour power and pays for it with a wage as does any private employer or business concern. The wealth produced belongs to the State, not to the workers who produce it. The workers in State controlled industries can only get back as much of the wealth produced by their class as their wages will buy. The relation between the State as an employer and the workers that it employs is the same as between a private employer and his workers. That the workers have a voice in deciding which political party shall operate the State machinery' does not alter their position either.

Neither has there been any fundamental change in the relation between the workers and their masters since wage labour and capital first emerged as factors determining the mode of production. The working class has always been, and still is, that section of the community that, owning none of the means of production, must sell its mental and physical energies in order to live.

Capital is a concentrated social force, but the worker has only his individual working force. If he would make effective demands upon the force that is capital, he must combine with his fellows to create am opposing force. For that purpose Trade Unions were formed. The position has become one where a body of workers, organised in a Trade Union, bargain over the price and condition of sale of their labour power. If they cannot get the price and conditions they require, they refuse to sell. Such a refusal is known as a strike. Some matters can be settled by negotiation without resort to the strike weapon, but, let it once be known that the workers are not prepared to use the only forceful means in their power, and they will be permanently on the losing side at the negotiating table. If any man who has something to sell lets it be known that he will not refuse to sell it at any price that is offered, he will get the worst of every bargain.

During the last war, in an effort to eliminate strikes, the Government introduced the Employment and National Arbitration Order, known as Order No. 1305. This made arbitration compulsory and the decisions of the Arbitration Tribunals that were set up were legally binding on both workers and employers. The order came into force in 1940 and still operates. It makes strikes and lockouts illegal unless 21 days notice of an impending dispute has been given to the Minister of Labour and he has failed to intervene. Many Trade Unionists now consider that this order is a hindrance to the furtherance of their demands, and wish to see it terminated. Mr. Clem Bundock of the National Union of Journalists, speaking at the Trades Union Congress, put the case simply. He said, 

“Some Unions—and I fancy a growing number— have emerged from the tribunal with nothing for their members but frustration.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 8th, 1949.) 

Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, has a different view. He says, referring to Order No. 1305 that it is

“. . . the best weapon that the Trade Union Movement has got.”—(The Record. August. 1949.)

If the National Arbitration Tribunals were composed of men who saw the relationship between employers and employed as we have outlined it, who were sympathetic to the workers and whose decisions were still legally binding on both workers and employers, then, maybe, Mr. Deakin would have a case. But the men who are appointed to these tribunals view the problems brought before them from the same “community of national interest” angle as Mr. Lawther, and Mr. Deakin. The nation is a capitalist one, which means that they view all the problems from the standpoint of the interests of capital, not of the workers, except that the workers are necessary to capita] as the source of labour power. The Tribunals are influenced by consideration for selling goods cheaply in foreign markets, ensuring that industry “pays,” and all the other problems of capitalists. If these tribunals continue to function, the workers can be sure that they will be used, not only to frustrate them, but to worsen their wages and working conditions, either by enforcing wage reductions, extending working hours, or pegging wages down whilst prices rise. If the workers surrender their right to strike in favour of this “best weapon,” then, to use a popular phrase, “They’ve had it."

The strike weapon is double edged. It often brings suffering to the workers whilst only inconveniencing the employer. If other means, less harmful to the workers than strike action, but effective in securing satisfaction for working class demands, are available, they should certainly be used. The history of our class teaches us that there are no other effective means which are not backed by a preparedness to use the force of strike action.

Workers who are duped by the notion that the nationalised industries are now the property of the community and that those employed in them are servants of the community, ready to reap a reward as soon as “the country is back on its feet,” are due for a sad disillusionment. We find an example of this idea in a leaflet entitled, “For Busmen Only,” issued by the Central Bus Section of the Transport and General Workers’ Union.

"The movement has struggled for years to achieve the Nationalisation of the Industry, so that we should work for the Public and not for the benefit of shareholders. This having been achieved, it is incumbent upon us all to Rive the best service possible."

The leaflet goes on to say that you can’t get more out of a quart pot than you put into it, the implication being that the more you put in, the more you get out.

The workers in nationalised industries work for their employer, not for the customers who purchase the goods or services that they produce. If they are employed by the State they are servants of the State, not of the so-called public. And the State is not the community, it is, in brief, the executive committee of the capitalist class. Its function is to see that capitalism runs as smoothly as possible. This is usually termed “keeping law and order” or “ensuring the nation's food supply.” The State has the task of smoothing out disputes between employers and their workers, because such disputes can slow down the flow of profit to the capitalist class. Trade Union leaders like Lawther, Deakin, Tewson and others are drawn into assisting in this smoothing out process. The National Arbitration Tribunals have partially served that purpose, but workers are now getting wary of them.

The worker who urges his fellows to strike on any and every occasion is as dangerous as the “peace-at-any-price” advocate. There are times when it is obvious that a strike is doomed to failure from the start. At such times it is contrary to working class interests to advocate strike action. There are times when it may be possible to secure something satisfactory through negotiation. At such times it would be folly to fritter away working class enthusiasm and funds in a strike. But once let the workers say “We won't strike,” and they place themselves completely at the mercy of their masters who will not be slow to profit by such docility.

The class struggle goes on. It does not.cease when an industry passes under State control. We do not have the spectacle of a class struggle for some workers who are still privately employed whilst those employed by the State are immune. The State behaves like every other employer, as workers in State controlled industries have discovered.

Yes, the class struggle goes on, and every weapon in the workers’ armoury must be kept sharp and ready for use. The strike weapon is not out of date. Maybe, the lessons of years of working class struggle may show how it can be used more effectively and with less harm to the workers who use it, but it must never be discarded whilst wage labour and capital confront one another.

W. Waters.

Notes by the Way: A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers

The Daily Worker (12/10/49) had an article on “Hire Purchase—New Style ” in Hungary. It appears that in “Socialist” Hungary “hire purchase . . . . is now organised as a State enterprise,” and is “no longer a means whereby manufacturers can sell expensive goods to poor people, but one designed to help the poorest and largest families.”

The Worker correspondent does not explain how it is that in “Socialist” Hungary there should be “poorest families” unable to get what they need without hire purchase, but he describes a feature that will make the financiers of hire purchase here and in U.S.A. turn green with envy. One of their bugbears is the worker who gets the goods and defaults on payments or manages to disappear before he has paid them off. If they would take a tip from Budapest it need never happen again, for in that blessed land “hire purchase payments are deducted from pay at work. If the purchaser changes his job the payments are transferred to the new job.”

* * *

Cupboard Love for the Trade Unions

The Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties are all, so they say, anxious to save the trade unions. In 1927 the Tories “saved” them by introducing the Trade Disputes Act which among other things made it more difficult for trade unions to provide funds for the Labour Party and compelled the Civil Service and Post Office unions to disaffiliate. The Act made it necessary for each member of a trade union to indicate his desire to pay the political contribution, thus reversing the clause of the 1913 Act which required those who objected to paying the political contribution to register their objection. It was designed, as everybody realised, to hit at Labour Party funds, and did so effectively. Labour Party trade union membership dropped in 1927 from 3,240,000 to 2,025,000, and income from affiliation fees dropped by £15,000.

In 1946 the Labour Government restored the pre-1927 position with a consequent big increase in trade union affiliated membership and funds. Trade union affiliated membership in 1947 showed an increase from 2,635,000 to 4,386,000, and trade union affiliation fees jumped by about £25,000 to £77,000.

Now the Tories are proposing if returned to power to reopen the question and Mr. Churchill claims— though on what evidence is not known—that about a third of the members of trade unions are Conservatives.

As the accumulated funds of the “registered” trade unions (representing about 85 per cent. of the total trade union membership) amount now to over £50 million, the interest taken in them by the three political parties is not surprising.

Even under the present arrangement of “ contracting out” of political contributions, a considerable proportion of trade unionists do not pay, as can be seen by the difference between total membership of the unions and the number of members who pay the political contribution, i.e.,‘ membership on which the unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. In 1947 the Agricultural Workers' Union, with 130,000 members, was affiliated to the Labour Party on a membership of 71,000. The Transport and General Workers' Union (membership 1,264,000) was affiliated on 800,000; and the A.E.U. (742,000) was affiliated on 609,000.

* * *

Whither India?

Nehru, Prime Minister of India, calls himself a Socialist and declared in 1946 that his party intended to set up a “Socialist Republic of India” (News Chronicle, 22/11/46). Like his friends and admirers, Attlee and Cripps, all he meant was that he would make use of socialist phrases as a bait to keep the Indian workers acquiescent while his government got on with the job of building up India into a first-class capitalist Power. India needs foreign capital which British investors under present conditions are unable to supply in anything like the amount needed; hence Nehru’s wooing of the U.S.A. capitalists, who in their turn are anxious to find a safe area for foreign investments. On October 13th Nehru addressed both Houses of Congress at Washington and had not a word to say about his proclaimed intention of establishing Socialism—that is only for home consumption before working class audiences. Instead he buttered up the Congressmen and Senators with the usual poppycock about how the Indian Constitution “had been greatly influenced by the principles and ideals enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence ” (Times 14/10/49.) The whole of his speech requires interpretation in this way, but his audience would certainly know how to “read between the lines.” What, in effect, he was saying was that his Government have the workers well in hand, will not line up with Russia, and will give security for American capital.

What he asked in return, and this of course was the real purpose of the visit, was in the concluding phrases—“But we . . . need much mechanical and technological aid,” and “we shall, therefore, gladly welcome such aid and co-operation on terms which are of mutual benefit.”

In short Nehru was assuring them that they need not take seriously anything he may have said about destroying Capitalism and putting Socialism in its place.

* * *

The Tito-Stalin Slanging Match

The root of the Tito-Stalin conflict is the desire of the Russian ruling clique to incorporate Yugoslavia economically and militarily into the Russian system and the counter efforts of Tito’s group to strike a better bargain with U.S.A. A fairly close parallel can be found in the way the Italian ruling class changed sides in both world wars; both countries are industrially weak and both occupy a strategically important position, but nevertheless one that is exposed to pressure from those who wield combined naval and air power in the Mediterranean.

The Yugoslav spokesmen have complained that the Russian Government tried to control the Yugoslav army, installed its own agents in the country; compelled Yugoslavia to export to the Russian market at prices below world level, and by setting up so-called joint industrial enterprises that are in fact controlled by Russia alone, sought to turn all the Balkan satellites into Russian colonies. This is the normal relationship that the stronger Powers try to impose on the weaker ones and it did not surprise socialists. The communists have been very much surprised because they have fallen into a trap set by their own tortuous propaganda. Having decided to pretend that Russian State Capitalism is Socialism they have ended by believing it, and have in consequence thought that the economic and class forces that push all capitalist states into rivalry and imperialism would cease to operate East of the “iron curtain." Forgetting their once-held view that international politics could only be explained by looking at the underlying economic forces the communists have been forced into the absurd “idealistic” explanation of the Yugoslav attitude that it is due to Tito and his colleagues having been got at, bribed and flattered by American agents.

An entertaining though tragic aspect of the conflict is the way both sides present their case under a cloud of Marxist phrases. In between blackguarding each other in the choicest invective the Stalinites accuse Tito of betraying Socialism—as if he ever had any to betray—while Tito smartly retorts with references to and quotations from Marx and Lenin. Telling the miners in Belgrade that Russia must not interfere in Yugoslav affairs, because Yugoslavia is one of the countries “which are building up Socialism,” Tito added: “ We must clear this matter up and say—as Lenin once said against Trotsky—it is possible to create Socialism in one country ” (Times 12/9/49).

A little later we find Tito working up the war spirit with talk about fighting to the death in defence “Marxist Leninism”—the enemy of course being the Russians who will be told they are fighting for the same principles. He was addressing high-ranking army officers after the manoeuvres:—

“It is better to die in battle honestly fighting for justice and truth than allow yourselves to be trampled on or bend your necks like slaves and sec the great principles of Marxist-Leninism destroyed without resistance.

"We have carried out these manoeuvres when attempts are being made to frighten our people, disrupt our unity, and render impossible the successful building of Socialism."

The Army, he said, would defend Yugoslavia “until the last breath and regardless when the attack came."— (Daily Mail, October 10th, 1949.)

It only remains now for the British and American Governments to “discover” that Tito is defending democracy. Already Mr. Bevin has dug out the old phrases about a small nation bullied by a big one (at the United Nations), and various articles and speeches have been made on the theme that Tito is really a very fine fellow.

* * *

Ship-owners and Shipyard Workers

Workers in the shipyards are worried. During October many hundreds were stood off, and we are told that “shipyards all over Britain are expected in the next few weeks to declare thousands of workers redundant” (People, 9/10/49). Most of them are skilled workers.

"They have been kept busy ever since the war ended on reconversion of liners and freighters back to peace-time requirements. Now that work is coming to an end. The rush is over. Demand for new ships is also slackening off and there is only enough work in sight in the shipyards to keep occupied the regular peace-time ship workers.” 

Among the factors disturbing the owners and workers is “growing foreign competition.” The Daily Telegraph (4/10/49) quotes an official of the Confederation of Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Operatives as saying that with the re-entry of Japan and Germany into the shipbuilding market, “there is no saying what might happen in the future.” And according to the Liverpool Dai Post (3/10/49, quoted in Daily Worker, 8/10/49) shipowners are also worried about the threatened undercutting of Atlantic fares by big, fast Russian liners and on 5th October the first Russian ship to dock at Montreal for years “undercut British and Canadian freight rates and secured a cargo of cereals for Britain” (Herald, 6/10/49).

There are problems here for both owners and workers. The sacked workers are assured by the Herald (14/10/49) that they have not much to be worried about, for they “will be quickly absorbed in other jobs,” the industries named being engineering and the building trades. They may be absorbed in these industries for a time, but the Herald does not take into account either the likely restriction of building or what will happen to these and all industries when Capitalism develops a major crisis. For the building trade there is already talk of curtailing of building plans as part of the plans the Government is considering in order to enforce concentration on the export trades.

The shipowners are also thinking ahead. On October 13th, when Mr. Attlee attended the annual dinner of the Chamber of Shipping at the Dorchester Hotel, Mr. Colin Anderson, the President, let fall a delicate hint that when they are in serious difficulties the shipowners will turn to the Government for some kind of assistance.

“We face a cold decade—we are already feeling the first frosts. Where shall we stand when the winter is really upon us? Rather than be slowly frozen even we may be forced to contemplate applying for the shelter of some form of counter-action—a garment which, in this case, perhaps only the State would be able to provide."— (Daily Telegraph, October 10th, 1949.)

Mr. Anderson (who by the way made his remarks in the course of a speech “ proposing the toast of the Government”) said that the shipowners are trying to work out a sensible way of retaining the valuable aspects of private enterprise, but doubtless “if winter comes” they won’t much mind the Labour Government buying them out with State-guaranteed bonds which will save them from the icy blast that will send the shipyard workers to the Labour Exchange and the dole.

* * *

The Co-operatives and the Sugar Industry

The Daily Express (16/9/49) suggested that the Co-operative societies may not be enthusiastic about the suggested nationalisation of the sugar industry by the Labour Government. It was pointed out that the Co-operative Wholesale Society was not represented at the meeting of Tate & Lyle shareholders when nationalisation was discussed and opposed. And there is a curious item of information in the same issue of the Daily Express, to the effect that the C.W.S., in addition to being Tate & Lyle's biggest customers are also “ the largest single shareholder in Tate & Lyle.”

* * *

Herald Editors Slip Up

On October 6th the Daily Herald editorial described the frigid reception Sir Stafford Cripps received at the Guildhall. Their comment was: —

”We might say that if the bankers and merchants of the City of London received with enthusiasm a pronouncement by a Socialist Chancellor, that would be sensational news. It would also be sinister news.”

But on the same page of the Herald we read the following about a meeting of Wall Street stockbrokers in New York addressed by Mr. Maurice Webb, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party: —

”. . . Webb was asked to explain Labour policy to the 24 most important stockbrokers on Wall Street. He was surprised when his only critic turned out to be an Englishman who had emigrated to the States years ago.”

* * *

Another Cotton Revolution on the Way

The industrial revolution made the cotton industry largely a woman’s industry and at present about two- thirds of the workers in the weaving section are women. Now as a result of technical changes recommended by the Cotton Manufacturing Commission it is forecast that men will replace women.

”Thirteen men sitting as the Cotton Manufacturing Commission have come to the conclusion that married women weavers—the bulk of the labour force in the industry—cannot adapt themselves as well as men to redeployment.”—(News-Chronicle, October 5th, 1949.) 

Another report (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49) says: “The industry must ‘redeploy' or perish. Redeployment—the rearrangement of machines giving highly- skilled operatives more looms, and increasing output and wages by up to 25 per cent.—was the essential part of the Commission’s recommendations.”

The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, K.C., told a Press Conference that “he wanted the industry to pay a wage sufficient for a married man to keep a family without his wife going out to work. He visualised the industry becoming predominantly
male instead of female” (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49).


* * *

A Scientist on Scientists

Professor J. D. Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, London, caused a stir by a speech in Moscow in which he said that science outside Russia and her satellites is under the direction of war makers. He subsequently explained in a letter to the Times (8/10/49) that when he spoke of “capitalist countries” he meant mainly America and not “Socialist Britain.”

The controversy produced a useful admission about the limitations of some scientists when they wander out of their own field, from Sir Edward V. Appleton, Principal of Edinburgh University. Speaking in Edinburgh on October 3rd, Sir Edward Appleton, who was formerly Professor of Physics and is Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, said: —

‘‘The statement by Professor Bernal is a striking illustration of the fact that the reliability of the scientist does not always extend beyond his own laboratory, and one often finds a scientist who, while not ready to accept any scientific result until it is fully tested, is quite ready to voice wholly untested opinions about other matters in the most prejudicial and dogmatic manner.”—(Manchester Guardian, October 4th, 1949.)

If any other evidence is required that the above criticism fits Professor Bernal we have the latter’s own letter to the Times; for without any evidence at all— all the evidence is against it—and obviously without any serious thought, he describes Capitalist Britain as “ Socialist.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Week-end Summer School, held at Tree-Tops Holiday Camp, Farley Green, near Guildford, Surrey, on September 17th and 18th, was generally claimed a great success. Many of the members who attended arrived early on the Saturday afternoon and spent that afternoon and evening indulging in various recreations and social activity. A swimming pool, tennis court and a selection of indoor games were available and a dance was organised. On Sunday morning at 10 a.m. Comrade Hardy gave a lecture on “ The Lessons of Four Years of Labour Government.” Those who attended this lecture were enthusiastic in their commendation and a call was made, and unanimously supported, for steps to be taken to put the subject matter of the lecture into print so that it could be made available for party propagandists. At 2 p.m. on the Sunday an open discussion, “Socialism, What Will it be Like? ” was commenced, and continued up to tea. time, 4.30 p.m. The discussion was opened by Comrade Cash and started mildly, the early contributors only sparring with the subject. Arguments warmed up as the discussion proceeded and many of the ideas propounded were still being hotly debated when the local bus came to collect members for Guildford Station and their homes. The food, sleeping arrangements and general facilities were considered to be very good and the charge of 18/- per visitor for the week-end was extremely moderate. A number of members present expressed a wish to see the camp used again for similar purposes.

The Half-yearly Delegate Meeting was held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, on Saturday and Sunday, September 24th and 25th. Consequent upon a resolution passed at our last Annual Conference this Delegate Meeting was a two day assembly instead of a one day meeting as heretofore. The maximum attendance was 42 delegates representing 23 branches. The more distant of our provincial branches were not represented. The attendance of visitors on the afternoon of the second day brought the total gathering up to approximately 150 members and friends. It was apparent that the hall in which the meeting was held was overcrowded and that we shall need more spacious accommodation for future Delegate Meetings.

Discussion on the first day centred around the proposal to afford an opportunity for Central Branch members to vote at Conferences. The plan submitted by the Executive Committee received the support of the meeting. A recommendation to adopt a system of proportional voting at Conferences was considered. It was pointed out as an example, that a branch with a membership of 40 might decide in favour of a resolution by 21 votes for, and 19 votes against, and send its four delegates to the Conference to vote for the resolution. Another branch of only 20 members, and. in consequence, only sending two delegates, might vote unanimously against the same resolution. This would make the voting of Party members 21 for the resolution and 39 against it, but the voting at the Conference would be 4 votes for, and 2 against. It was hoped that a scheme of proportional voting would eliminate this anomaly.

The Executive Committee was urged to hasten the publication of a pamphlet stating our attitude to war. It was pointed out that we have no literature to-day that specifically deals with this aspect. A brief leaflet or manifesto on the subject was considered to be inadequate, the nature of our case making it advisable to deal comprehensively with the subject in a pamphlet. Delegates also called for the publication of leaflets of a lively and interesting nature to attract the attention of workers to our case. The Editorial Committee, amplifying its report, stated that it was essential that writers should submit articles for publication in the Socialist Standard by the first week of the month prior to the one of publication. Notices of meetings were required by the 15th of the previous month or there could be no guarantee that they could be inserted.

The pièce de résistance of the meeting was the item in the report headed “Electoral Activity.” The Executive Committee was criticised by some branches for the method of appointing prospective Parliamentary candidates. After considerable discussion the following resolution was carried.

“That this Delegate Meeting recommends that the whole question of appointment of Parliamentary candidature be re-organised as follows: —

(a) That a panel of Parliamentary candidates be drawn up composed of members who have been examined by the E.C. and not through a sub-committee, and that the E.C. invite nominations from this panel.

(b) That the branch in the constituency concerned in the election have the right to freely ask members of the panel to be their candidate."

The Parliamentary Committee drew attention to the serious state of Party funds in view of the coming electoral campaigns. If we have an early election, as some seem to expect, we shall be in a disastrous position. The Parliamentary Fund contains only £219 and we need at least £900 to make a success of the election effort. There are tentative plans for the issue of a quantity of literature in connection with the campaign, but the rate of increase of funds will determine whether such plans can be operated.

There was a tussle between delegates over the relative merits of suburban as opposed to central London propaganda meetings. Some claimed that prominent Party speakers who are frequently to be found at Central London meetings should distribute their time around the suburban and provincial branches giving help and advice to new speakers.

The question of disciplining Party members, especially speakers, came up for discussion, but the difficulty of imposing any sort of discipline on members of an organisation that is run entirely by voluntary work, was appreciated.

The meeting was scheduled to finish at 5 p.m. on the second day, but delegates called for an extension to 7 p.m., and a number remained even later to discuss items on the agenda that could not be considered by the meeting because of pressure of time. Collections taken at the meeting totalled £9 11s. 3d.

Ealing Branch has had a much better outdoor season this year than in 1948 and it is intended to continue the meetings at Richmond and Ealing until the end of October. A prominent factor in the success at Ealing Green has been the introduction of a new and higher platform allowing the speaker's voice to carry further and enabling the branch to hold some excellent meetings in spite of the usual Tory opposition. In Richmond the efforts are bearing fruit. Enquiries have been received regarding the local Kingston Branch and the discussion group at Hounslow.

Ealing Branch trip to Southsea on September 18th exceeded the most optimistic expectations when an audience of over 200 listened to a three-hour peroration by our speakers, showed a great deal of interest, and contributed well to literature sales and collection. The Ealing members were impressed by the appreciation shown by the local sympathisers who wanted to know why our trips were so few and far between. It is certain that Southsea presents a ready soil for Socialist propaganda.

The Greenford and Hounslow discussion groups, sponsored by Ealing Branch, are both making satisfactory progress. A recent lecture given by Comrade Thorburn at Hounslow attracted an encouraging number of non-members.

Efforts to extend Ealing Branch’s literature sales are still doggedly and persistently being made. There has been an increase in pamphlet sales and, with the approach of winter, the monthly canvass should send literature sales to a higher level than on any previous year.

The Socialist Party of New Zealand has sent us a few sample copies of the recently issued pamphlet, “Introducing the Socialist Party of New Zealand.” It is a small eight-page pamphlet in a bold yellow cover and is for free issue. The chapter titles will give an idea of the scope of this small but very useful addition to socialist literature. The pamphlet opens with an introduction over the stamp of the Party's Executive Committee, pointing to the futility of Labour Government as a means of achieving Socialism and emphasising the importance of Parliament. The body of the pamphlet then deals with the founding of the S.P.N.Z., “Piecemeal reforms do not lead to Socialism,” “The fundamental problem of our age,” “"What Socialism Involves,” “Socialism is necessarily an international conception,” “The Road to Socialism,” “The Future belongs to the Socialist Movement.”, and “ The S.P.N.Z. and ‘Promises'.” We commend it to all readers of the Socialist Standard as a useful introductory pamphlet, but please do not send to our New Zealand comrades for a copy unless you enclose a donation. We know the cost of producing such a pamphlet, and. although it is for free issue, we ask you to remember that all our work is voluntary and our pockets, in New Zealand as well as in Britain, are like all workers' pockets, very, very shallow. Pay heed to a phrase from the end of the pamphlet, “ Our bugbear—lack of funds.”

The Socialist Party of Ireland is getting on with its task with determination and is collecting around itself a useful group of contacts from whom it is hoped to make new members. Indoor meetings in Dublin commenced at the Boilermakers' Hall in Lower Gardiner Street on September 11th with an address by the Party's General Secretary, Comrade Walsh. Further meetings have been held weekly since, each addressed by a different member of the Dublin Branch, and with satisfactory literature sales and collections. Catholic and Communist opponents have not attended or have not made their presence known. The Dublin Branch has sent out offers to various organisations to supply speakers and has issued challenges to debate, all without result to date. It is further hoped to be able to get a large hall in Dublin later in the season for a good large meeting. The Belfast Branch is also having success. Outdoor meetings in Belfast have been getting bigger and bigger. At two outdoor meetings during a recent strike, an audience of over 1,000 gathered around the platform. Belfast comrades have challenged the N. Ireland Labour Party to debate, but the challenge was not accepted. Indoor meetings began in Belfast on September 28th, and the initial meeting was a success that gave encouragement and promise for the future. The S.P.I.’s manifesto is now complete and we are told that we shall receive the draft as soon as the Belfast comrades have passed it. There is a friendly rivalry between the branches that speaks well for future activities.

W. Waters.

Communist cakes and ale (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Roman Catholic Church has always been well versed in the art of attracting unbelievers, and of keeping hold of them once they have entered the fold. For centuries it has used elaborate ceremonials, processions, and festivals to keep the faithful bemused and impressed.

In no other country has it rung so many changes on these methods of impressing the multitude than in Italy, nor, probably, with greater success. The pomp and pageants associated with Rome are regarded with awe and reverence all over the Catholic world. True, it began to experience some hectic competition before the war from Mussolini and his Blackshirts, but that was a passing phase and those days have gone. Since 1945, it has had the field all to itself—at least until a few weeks ago.

Now, however, another rival has appeared on the scene, and, from all accounts, a very formidable one, too. Not, as might have been expected, a new eruption of Fascists having a second attempt at achieving power and using the old and well-tried technique of pomp and circumstance to do it. No, this time it's none other than the Communist Party, ready as ever to try anything once—if it will help the Communist Party. The object on this occasion was to try to increase the sales of its daily paper, Unita, and at the same time to raise £200,000 for the party’s funds.

And, if they themselves are to be believed, they certainly went in for it in a big way? In fact, so convinced was one of their leaders, Luigi Longo, that there had never been such festive festivals as those organised by the Communist Party, that he worked himself up into a really challenging mood.

“Let our adversaries try to organise anything even remotely resembling our festivals in number and penetration. Not even the Church, now that its high functionaries have made religion a subject of hatred and division rather than of union and love, can succeed in collecting as many people as we do for its functions."—(Manchester Guardian, Sept. 26th, 1949.)

Then, really warming to his theme,

“To you, friends, who will come to Florence after hours of journeying I say we shall meet at dawn in the Plaza Santa Croce, where the unending procession will form up with the entire Central Committee of the Communist Party leading it. Then we shall march through Florence in our tens of thousands, and every Italian worker will be present in spirit with us.

. . . At the Cascine hundreds of stands with all the best products of our 150 other festivals, will be lined up. Chianti wine will flow in torrents, hundredweights of tripe will be on sale . . . The alley is full of news-vendors; each purchaser gets five copies of the ‘Unita' and joins the news-vendor in shouting his sales. . . .”

“. . . Further on there are the five villages, the the women's village, the young Communists' village where late tonight until early dawn there will be dancing, the gourmets village where 2,000 people can eat at once served by groups of comrades, with macaroni for all, roast chicken in such numbers that one might think the race of fowl had been exterminated, and rivers of the best Chianti . . . then the Italo-Soviet Association village with native Russian costumes, and then the Press village, with all the Communist papers exhibited and a nation-wide exhibition of wall newspapers from Italy’s factories. . . . After Togliatti’s speech at 5.30 p.m. mere will be the traditional giant firework display. . . . It will be a great day, another glorious step forward in the history of our paper, of our party, and of the Italian people."

The Manchester Guardian contents itself with the cryptic and sarcastic comment: “No, the Church has certainly not yet arranged anything on this scale in Italy." For our own part we rather like the second paragraph, particularly the conjunction of Unita and tripe. We hope that the Italian workers, for the sake of both their mental and physical digestions, were able to distinguish between the two.

Stan Hampson

The National Health Service (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage-labourers."

Thus wrote Marx in the Communist Manifesto 101 years ago; it is still just as up to date now as when written. The doctors in those days was a wage-labourer as to-day, in spite of the fact that many looked upon him as a minor capitalist. The doctor was dependant for his livelihood upon the sale of his labour power, his ability to work, to give advice, to dispense, to diagnose, to operate and to heal. For these services he received his rewards whether he worked as a private physician, or whether he sold his services to a local municipal council, or worked for a hospital or institution.

The National Health Service of the Labour Party has not changed the doctor’s economic relationship to society one iota, except that it should have made it plainly visible to the doctors themselves that they are members of the working class, whose wages can by Government decree be drastically reduced.

When the Labour Party decided to inaugurate the National Health Service, which means in effect the Nationalisation of medicine, Bevan approached the doctors to ascertain what the average General Practitioner was earning. The representatives of the doctors were not a little concerned with such a question, knowing that some form of nationalisation was in the air. If they plugged for high wages (or salaries) by stating they were earning let us say £3,000 to £4,000 a year, their income tax returns could easily be investigated; and if it were discovered that they were paying income tax on, let us say £1,000, the ministry would know at once what was happening. The long and protracted negotiations between the Minister of Health and the medical profession were not a little due to this awkward position which the doctors very reluctantly had to face. In the struggle the Labour Party won, and Bevan triumphantly proclaimed to the doctors that the State would pay them a salary commensurable with that which they were earning, that is what the doctors said they were earning. That being done, they became pafd wage labourers of the State, Civil Servants of a type.

It is quite well known that every doctor formerly lost a large percentage of his fees by bad debts. Although doctors have the legal privilege to sue for unpaid fees, very rarely did any doctor take advantage of such facilities of the law. If Doctor Brown sued poor old Mrs. Jones (who let us say was bedridden and poverty stricken), his name would be mud in the district, and his fellow-practitioners would soon scoop up his practice. Under the National Health Scheme, since the Government collected the cash in weekly instalments that everybody must pay, a guarantee could be given to the doctors that there would be no loss of fees. This did not appear to enthuse the doctors who sulked and acted as if they were getting a raw deal. Is it possible that they were taking cash and forgetting (it is easy enough) to record it for His Majesty’s Inspectors of Inland Revenue?

The net result of all this is that many of the doctors are not very interested in the National Health Service, which has been witnessed by thousands who have consulted doctors under the new plan. For the nationalised physician it means more work for less fees, hence the reason why they have discussed the possibility of mass resignation at an early date.

Another economic aspect of the National Health Service must not be overlooked. Since its introduction a year ago, the value of the shares in all the drug companies has increased and record profits have been made. At the recent shareholders’ meeting of the Boots Drug Stores, the chairman declared that “they had had a record year with profits over £600,000 and that had they had more staff to cope with orders, they would have done a great deal better.” It is, therefore, no accident that the National Health Insurance has been introduced. In actual fact it is no insurance at all from the workers aspect, but a national disease treating scheme, whose real function it is to get workers back to work as soon as possible. It means that the big problem of absentee-ism has been tacked nationally. No longer can a worker offer an excuse that he was ill and could not get a doctor or afford treatment. If the Health Insurance insures anything, it insures that the worker is got back to work in double quick time! Strange is it not that this peculiar service has been introduced at terrific costs in time and labour, by a political party which has been shouting itself hoarse to get increased production! The net result is lower wages for workers by compelling them to pay insurances, lower salaries and more work for doctors, and larger profits for the big drug houses.

Thus does the Labour Party in but another field not only carry on the task of running capitalism in the interests of the real ruling class (the capitalists) as we have consistently claimed, but does it more efficiently and effectively than previous capitalist Governments.

Horace Jarvis

The Purport of War (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"What, speaking in quite unofficial language, is the net purport and upshot of war? To my own knowledge, for example, there dwell and toil, in the British village of Dumdrudge, usually some five hundred souls. From those, by certain 'natural enemies’ of the French, there are successively selected, during the. French war, say thirty able-bodied men: Dumdrudge, at her own expense, has suckled and nursed them; she has, not without difficulty and sorrow, fed them up to manhood, and even trained them to craft, so that one can weave, another hammer, and the weakest can stand under thirty stone avoirdupois, nevertheless, amid much weeping and swearing, they are selected, all dressed in red; and shipped away, at the public charges, some two thousand miles, or say only to the south of Spain; and fed there till wanted. And now to that same spot in the south of Spain are thirty similar French artisans, from a French Dumdrudge, in like manner wending: till at length, after infinite effort, the two parties come into juxtaposition; and thirty stands fronting thirty, each with a gun in his hand. Straightway the word 'fire’ is given: and they blow the souls out of one another; and in place of sixty brisk, useful craftsmen, the world has sixty dead carcasses, which it must bury, and anew shed tears for. Had these men any quarrel? Busy as the Devil is, not the smallest! They lived far enough apart; were the entirest strangers; nay, in so wide a universe, there was even, unconsciously, by Commerce, some mutual helpfulness between them. How then? Simpletons, their Governors had fallen out; and, instead of shooting one another, had the cunning to make these poor blockheads shoot.”

—Carlyle: "Sartor Resartus,"

A Tory joins the Communist Party (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Any person wishing to apply for membership of the Labour Party, Communist Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Socialist Party of Great Britain, and, as far as we are aware, any other political party, must first of all fill in an appropriate application form. Of all these parties, only the S.P.G.B. insists upon something more—that every applicant for membership should at the same time prove to the satisfaction of the members that he or she understands the Party’s case. We insist upon this examination for a purpose—an obvious purpose—to ensure that Socialists only come into our ranks. And as an example, amusing but nevertheless instructive, of the sort of thing that can happen when such precautions are not taken is a little paragraph tucked away in the Daily Telegraph of 8th October. It seems to us a pity that it should pass by unrecorded in the columns of the Socialist Standard.

It appears that a certain “Pete” Macdonald, of 39, Lugley Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, had the dubious honour a little time ago of receiving a letter from the General Organisation Department of the British Communist Party. This is what it said: —

“Dear Comrade: We are very pleased to receive your letter ot' application for membership of the Communist Party. May we take this opportunity of welcoming you as a member?”

Unfortunately for the Communist Party, however, their General Organisation Department seems to have been organising just a little too generally. It now turns out that the address to which the letter was sent is none other than the head office of the Isle of Wight Conservative Party! As for “Pete” Macdonald (we wonder whether it was the “ Pete ” that got him his membership) he is apparently no other than Sir Peter Macdonald, Conservative M.P. for the Isle of Wight for the past twenty-five years! Somebody has been playing a joke upon the Communist Party and in their enthusiasm for enrolling anybody and everybody capable of signing his name (or somebody else’s), they fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

We hear a great deal about the Communist technique of “boring from within,” and of how good they are supposed to be at doing it. It now seems that one of the easiest things possible, certainly, is to bore from within—inside the Communist Party!

Stan Hampson

Two useful books (1949)

Book Reviews from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Plain Words.” Sir Ernest Gowers. (H.M.S.O., 1948. 2/-.)

“Straightforward English.” (N. L. Clay. MacDonald & Co., 1949. 4/6.)

Among the more recent books on the English language are Sir Ernest Gowers’ “Plain Words” and “Straightforward English” by N. L. Clay. The former was written for civil servants concerned with official English, but has interested a much wider public. It presumes a knowledge of the language, and is a very fine corrective for those whose habits of speech and writing have become slovenly. The latter is “designed to help an ordinary person to write a clear message.”

Prepared by a schoolmaster, it is laid out along the lines of a school text-book, with examples and exercises on each section. It covers all the necessary ground, and the exposition is clear without being tedious. The examples are well chosen, up to date and of adult interest.

The use of jargon, probably the most certain pitfall for the political propagandist, is dealt with in both books. Thinking clearly and writing clearly are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate them. In “Lectures on Rhetoric” Blair said, “They who are learning to compose and arrange sentences with accuracy and order are learning at the same time to think with accuracy and order.”

As a political party committed to a programme of propaganda, we know what a handicap muddled thinking is. Our case is strong and clear. It is up to us to put it lucidly. There is nothing ambiguous in ‘'Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains; you have a world to win.”

That is the clear thinking we need, and the straightforward English for expressing it. Those who wish to infuse that quality into their propaganda would be well advised to take a fireside refresher course with either of these books this winter.

K. D.

How the rich fare under Labour Government. (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard