Notes by the Way: Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford? (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford?

The opening words of “Let Us Face the Future,” the Labour Party's declaration on which the 1945 General Election was fought, were "Victory in War must be followed by a Prosperous Peace.” There was no must about it and the cessation of American lease-lend soon brought the Government face to face with the fact that capitalism has its own way of disposing of election hopes and promises. Since 1945 we have had to make the best of a series of “crises” all of which have been announced by the Government with an air of surprise as if they could not have been foreseen. The workers have been asked to put up with austerity and “work harder” campaigns on the plea that after all they would not last for ever. Now Sir Stafford Cripps has let the cat out of the bag. Speaking at a Press Conference in London on 11th November, he said:

“We are now and shall be henceforth for as long as we can see into the future, engaged in a competition in overseas markets which demands for our success every economy that efficiency and high productivity can give us. We shall not be able to relapse from this endeavour any more than our competitors in the world markets will. We require a universal and sustained effort . . ." (Italics ours.) 

(Times, 12/11/48.)

So it is as Socialists have always said it must be, an indefinite sentence. For the workers the capitalist treadmill will last for as long as the working class chooses to put up with capitalism.

The Football Slavery Business

“Janus” in the Spectator (5/11/48) comments on the recent troubles about football transfer fees:

“The protest of the Middlesbrough footballer, Wilfrid Mannion, against the price (£30,000) put on his head by his club focuses attention afresh on the extraordinary traffic in human beings which prevails in League football circles. The transfer fee system has, I suppose, grown up gradually because League football is now frankly a business in which it is essential to attract large 'gates,' large 'gates' will not be attracted unless the home team consistently puts up a reasonably good show, it will not put up a good show unless it has good players, and it cannot get good players except by buying them from another club or putting so high a price on them that another club cannot attract them away. Pages could be written about this. It is enough to say that what the player—whose normal wage is £12 a week—gets out of a transfer fee of £10,000 or £15,000 is £10 for himself. Professional football might take a lesson from professional cricket. A man, it should be added, who leaves the club with which he is registered against its will is barred from playing as a professional for any other club.”

The Edmonton By-Election

The Labour Party’s experience at Edmonton, where their candidate's majority was reduced from 19,000 in 1945 to 3,327, has encouraged the Tories and correspondingly troubled the Labour Party. The Local Labourites blame the turnover of votes on an “insidious doorstep campaign” alleged to have been conducted by the Tories, in which instead of dealing with major political issues and the record of the Labour Government, the canvassers are said to have raised issues of race-prejudice and to have exploited “our nation’s post-war difficulties.” (Daily Mail, 15/11/48.)

The Daily Mail suggests that the Labour vote fell because of “the sudden cut in the bacon ration,” while the Daily Worker says “ This is the fruit of Right Wing Labour policy, particularly its cuts in housing.” (15/11/48.)

What is really going on is the normal working out of capitalist politics, the old game of ins and outs. The Labour "ins” say "ask your Dad about pre-war unemployment under the Tories” and the Tories retort with "ask your Mum about pre-war food supplies, prices and no rationing.” Socialists say look around at capitalism and its effects and ask your Mum and Dad and your grandparents for evidence that capitalism was always useless and hopeless for the working class. Those who administer capitalism are rightly blamed for their responsibility in what capitalism produces, while the capitalist opposition naturally (and falsely) promises that if they get back again capitalism will be different.

The Labour Party got in on non-Socialist votes and when the voters find that things do not go as promised they turn round and vote for candidates who make better promises. A Socialist electorate could not be led away by race-prejudice or by propaganda about bacon rations.

The “Final Stage of Communism” in Russia

A Times correspondent in Budapest (Times, 13/11/48) quotes extensively from an article in the Cominform newspaper which sets out to describe what is meant by "the final stage of Communism” towards which Russia, according to Soviet propaganda, is moving. In the article Stalin is quoted as having said that development towards Communism depends on great increases of production (e.g., to 60 million tons of steel a year compared with 19 million tons in 1940 and rather more now), and that it will take from 15 to 20 years to achieve.

What is of more interest is the social structure of this “Communist” society. According to the Times correspondent the article abandons the Marxian principle that the State will wither away, and also the "free-and-easy” system “about which Engels dreamed,” and forecasts a disciplined society rather like present day Russia but with many more and much better consumer goods. Money will continue under this “Communism.”

The Times, which is interested in the struggle for world power between Russia and U.S.A., rather than in social theories, points out in its editorial that U.S.A. already produces more steel and coal than Russia plans to produce in 20 years’ time.

Solution of the Palestine Problem?

While the new state of Israel disputes for territory with the Arab states, and the Powers behind the scenes think of oil, pipe lines, Middle East strategy and the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, the “solution” of the problem of European Jewish refugees is now accompanied by the new problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine. A letter in the Times (13/11/48) from Mr. Marcus Shloimovitz, in which he appeals to the Israel Government to make a generous effort to help the new army of refugees, contains the following:

"A tragic situation is rapidly deteriorating into a tragedy of heartless abandonment of over 350,000 Arab refugees in Palestine to the ‘mercies’ of a winter without adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical supplies. A letter I received from a co-religionist in the Lebanon the other day says that they are existing under the most deplorable conditions of squalor and semi-starvation. The Israeli Government are in a position to solve the problem, as it should be solved, by allowing them to return to their former homes in Palestine without delay. I am convinced that this is the duty of the leaders of Israel to their faith. It would show that they are merciful and humanitarian, in accordance with the teachings of Judaism. Have human feelings been so dulled by the happenings of the past 10 years that a further 350,000 victims of war (two-thirds are under 18 years of age, nearly one-third are children under five, and one in 10 is either an expectant or nursing mother) are regarded as a minor and inevitable consequence of the Palestine troubles?”

Oil Millionaire

From the Evening Standard (10/11 / 48):

‘‘It will take months fully to unravel the financial affairs of Lord Bearsted. But there seems little doubt that when he died this week, aged 66, he left less than he inherited in 1927 from his father, first Viscount and founder of the Shell oil group.

“Lord Bearsted’s share of his father’s £4,000,000 estate was more than a million. He multiplied this fortune several times.

“But he gave away large sums to charities. In addition, during his last years, Lord Bearsted disposed of the bulk of his fortune by trusts settled on his three sons.”

Another Communist Rift

Alongside the acrimonious dispute between the Tito Communists and the Russian Controlled Cominform another storm has blown up, between the Australian Communist Party and the British Communists. We are indebted to an Australian Comrade for a copy of the ”Communist Review” (Australian Communist Party, September, 1948) in which appears a long article criticising British Communist Party policy, together with an answer by the Executive of the British Party. The articles are far from friendly for the British Party accuses its Australian comrades of attributing to them ”various policies which we have never put forward, without giving evidence to substantiate the statements made . . .”

The British Party is accused of the “blunder of advocating the continuance of the reactionary coalition government, headed by the arch-imperialist and warmonger, Churchill.” It also showed “lack of understanding of the role of the social-democratic government,” failed to foresee the Labour Party’s victory at the 1945 General Election, and "failed to estimate correctly the position in Britain and the mood of the masses.” It is also accused of betraying a "class collaborationist outlook” because even as late as April, 1947 it was boosting the greater production campaign and the export drive.

The British Party in its reply denies ever having wanted a continuance of the war-time coalition government after the war under Winston Churchill, though they admit having proposed the formation of a government of ” National Unity,” but not under Churchill.

As, in 1939, the British Communist Party took the initiative of writing to Churchill and the Labour and Liberal leaders inviting them to form a coalition to oppose Hitler it is rather surprising that they should be so anxious to deny having wanted him as Prime Minister in 1945.

One revealing passage in the Australian party’s reply is the following about the British Communist miners’ leader, Mr. Arthur Horner:

"The language of Comrade Horner, in rebuking striking miners, is as fierce as that customarily used by the extreme right wing in Australia, and is headlined in the capitalist press in order to help break down strikes in Australia.”

A quotation from Mr. H. Pollitt’s booklet, "Looking Ahead,” is used by the Australians with telling effect in a charge that the British Party does not understand what is happening. Pollitt wrote: "I have no hesitation in declaring that the essence of the period we are now in is that of a transition stage towards Socialism.” The British party’s denial that this was meant to refer to Britain, is met by the production of other similar statements and the Australian Communist Party declares that "there can be no doubt that these statements have specific application to Britain and not general application, as the British leaders claim.” Altogether it looks as if some Communist “purges” are on the. way as soon as the Russian Party decides which party is toeing the line suitable to the Russian Government.

Communist Tribute to Rqoeevelt

The Daily Worker (11/11/48) announced a Peace Rally and an ex-servicemen’s march from Trafalgar Square to lay a wreath on the Cenotaph. The Rally was "called jointly by the Daily Worker and nine major trade union organisations.” The announcement goes on as follows:

“A delegation will also go to the Roosevelt Memorial with a tribute from the people of London to the late President ‘lover of peace’ and all those Americans following in his tradition.”

As Mr. Truman was Roosevelt’s Vice-President, and is his successor as leader of the “New Deal” Democratic Party this tribute presumably includes him. And why no Communist Tribute to Mr. Churchill, who, after all, was their choice as Prime Minister of Britain in 1939 and was brother-in-arms of Roosevelt during the war?

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Capitalism was Necessary (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter criticising the article in the October Socialist Standard entitled "Will ‘The Last Hottentot’ hold us Back?"

Dear Sirs,

Capitalism is Necessary.

Gilmac, at the beginning of his article in the October Socialist Standard, chiding those who talk in a superior way of backward races, writes the word “backward" in inverted commas, as though its use is unjustified. Later he uses the word without quotation marks, as though its use is justified. We gather that peoples can be backward in one way and not in another; they are good enough mentally but backward socially. In his own words, they lack the “social conditions favourable to the development of Socialist ideas." By social conditions he obviously means capitalist conditions. So it seems we have got to wait for the Hottentots after all.

Once the backward peoples “take part in building up capitalism on their own account," he says, “then they cut the cord that ties them to the past." So that is what they need, says the Socialist—Capitalism. "Everywhere native populations are stirring restlessly, struggling to cast off the shackles of the past in order to enter the heritage of today"—that is, the heritage of Capitalism.

Gilmac says: “India is undergoing the birthpangs of a capitalist state which will soon transform its primitive village economy," and “the primitive agricultural communities of India will soon be overwhelmed as India gets upon its capitalist feet." India must have Capitalism, implies Socialist Gilmac. Capitalism is necessary in India. And while the Indians are enjoying the necessary Capitalism, Gilmac will presumably say: "Capitalism is horrible; away with it and replace it by Socialism."

I can imagine a S.P.G.B. seaman disembarking at Bombay this week and meeting an Indian steelworker. As he would be anxious to spread Socialist propaganda the following dialogue might take place:

Socialist: Comrade, you have a miserable life. You are born in poverty, you live in poverty and misery and you die in poverty. Capitalism is the cause of this.

Indian worker: Yes, I am poor and miserable. What would you substitute for Capitalism?

Socialist: Socialism! Under Socialism all would work and all would share in the wealth produced, so we would all be well off.

Indian worker: That sounds fine to me. We must have that.

Socialist: Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare you for Socialism.

Indian worker: You tell me Capitalism is awful and that I ought to do away with it and have Socialism, but you also say I can’t have Socialism until I have had more Capitalism. You are telling me mutually contradictory things. If I must have Capitalism, as you say, I will put up with it, and not waste my energy grousing about it.

I should like the S.P.G.B. answer to this question: If Capitalism is necessary and inevitable in the evolution of human society towards Socialism, why grumble about it?

If you print this letter, I suggest you keep my heading, if it states your position correctly. It will, however, look somewhat peculiar in a Socialist journal.

Yours faithfully,

G. Davies

London, S.W.17.

Reply.

Mr. Davies makes no attempt to deal with the substance of the article he criticises, nor does he deny that Capitalism is rotten and produces wars, poverty in the midst of plenty, degrades the wealth producers and causes a host of other evils that spring from the particular type of class ownership in which it is rooted; his only argument is that if Capitalism is a necessary evil why grumble about it? He forgets that most of man’s conquests of natural forces have been accompanied by necessary evils, and that it was only by "grumbling" about them that these evils were eventually either eliminated or considerably reduced. In the social sphere the horrors of the early factory system, which degraded, demoralised and decimated the factory population, were responsible for fierce protests that helped to bring about changes in factory methods. The protests were just as much a necessary product as the factory system itself. According to Mr. Davies’ curious ideas of necessity there should have been no protests, and children from the age of six or seven years of age ought still to have been abandoned to the unbridled lust for profit and exploitation of people like the cruel factory owners of the middle of last century, who battened upon human misery.

Mr. Davies refers to the phrase the “heritage of today" as if it simply meant the Capitalist social organisation itself, but it meant more than that; as the article makes clear it also meant the ideas that develop out of Capitalism, the opposition to Capitalism from which springs the desire for the common ownership of the means of production that will involve the disappearance of clashes, of trading, of money, of the exploitation of man by man and of all forms of social privilege except those which are accorded to the young, the old, and the infirm. By giving birth to ideas like these, and by demonstrating that it is incapable of bringing comfort and security to the mass of the world’s population, Capitalism of necessity digs its own grave.

Capitalism became a necessary evil once sections of mankind had got upon the track of the advantages to be derived from privilege but it also, in its time, conferred benefits as well as evils upon mankind. In the general march towards Socialism it has played a valuable part. Capitalism has been both revolutionary and reactionary. It was revolutionary in the sense that, at considerable cost in human suffering, it developed the productive forces to a pitch where it became possible to guarantee comfort and security to all, relieving mankind from blind dependence upon natural forces; it is reactionary in the sense that, being founded upon privilege, it is now a barrier to the achievement of this comfort and security. Socialism, a necessary product of Capitalism, will absorb all the valuable productive achievements of Capitalism but it will abolish class ownership of the means of production and, at the same time, the multitude of evils that spring from this class ownership; it will abolish privilege, thereby leaving the way open to a free, full and happy life-for all. Capitalism has taught mankind the value of associated labour on a world scale; the profit motive which is its central idea, sordid though it is, sent people scurrying all over the earth, and delving deep under the earth, to make the earth fruitful; it developed marvellous machines and methods of production, but now, as far as the advanced nations are concerned, its work is finished and its fruit has become rotten; what remains to be done is to take advantage of its accomplishments and turn its achievements from means of causing suffering to means of bringing happiness.

Now let us turn to the imaginary dialogue between an Indian worker and an S.P.G.B. seaman which Mr. Davies regards as so devastating to the position we take up. We preach Socialism to the Indian worker, to the Hottentot and to every other worker; we recognise, however, that, regardless of our desires, Capitalism is still continuing to develop in India and elsewhere and that the Western workers have not yet decided to establish Socialism. We further appreciate that though India cannot at the moment jump straight into Socialism without a considerable development of industry and ideas yet it can learn from the advanced nations, learn both industrial methods and socialist ideas, and that it can do so comparatively rapidly. If India does happen to lag behind when the workers of the advanced nations establish Socialism then, for the reasons outlined in the article criticised, India would have no difficulty in becoming absorbed into the new world social system, the advantages of which would be obvious from the outset and would be easy to absorb.

Where backward people “take part in building up Capitalism on, their own account” they do “cut the cord that binds them to the past." It is also a fact that this development, as we have already shown, brings them nearer to the achievement of Socialism. On the basis of this Mr. Davies argues that we should advocate Capitalism to the Indian worker as a stepping-stone to Socialism. What he overlooks is that Capitalism is already well developed in India, in spite of areas of backwardness, and that Socialist ideas are already spreading there. It is, therefore, the Capitalist who advocates and builds up Capitalism in India and the Socialist who advocates Socialism and builds up the Socialist movement. The Socialist does not say to the Indian worker “Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough of Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare for Socialism.” What he does say is: You can have Socialism as soon as the majority of the Indian workers understand Socialism and want it! Therefore study it and work for its achievement.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Mr. Davies’ suggested heading is wrong; Capitalism was necessary but is no longer. That, however, will not prevent it from undergoing a hothouse development in areas where it has not yet made great progress. On the basis of Mr. Davies’ argument there would have been no social evolution; chattel slavery and other forms of social organisation would still be flourishing because nobody would have "grumbled” about their evil consequences. Unfortunately for his argument they did "grumble,” just as, no doubt, he grumbles when Capitalism pinches him in some directions. It is certainly astonishing to find someone cavilling at grumbling after the fearful consequences of the first world war, the last world war and the prospect of still more terrible experiences in the new war that is foreshadowed ; wars that were and are a necessary consequence of the Capitalist social order. Mr. Davies seems to have been blinded by his logic and, like the imaginary Hottentot, is out of touch with developments in the world in which he lives. 

Gilmac.