Wages, interest and nationalisation (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx was undoubtedly right when he said that the workers would seek every avenue of escape from the effects of capitalism before they turned to the only possible solution, the complete abolition of the capitalist system of society. Throughout the period of their history the workers have paid heed to all kinds of queer political notions, followed all kinds of political quacks and given allegiance to many political parties. They have plumped for Tariff Reform and for Free Trade, they have lent an ear to single taxers and to currency jugglers, they have supported Conservatives, Liberals, Labourites and others.

Towards the end of the last century a great new hope dawned in the minds of many. Industry should be controlled by the state and the state should be administered by the political party of the working class. Nationalisation offered a solution where all others had failed. Nationalisation, labelled “ Socialism,’ became the programme for which thousands of workers have since given their time and effort. With the workers’ own political party at the helm, controlling industry, most of the workers troubles should be swept away. Now, after a few years of nationalisation in some industries, the trick does not seem to have worked.

All the same, many workers cling to the idea that nationalisation does offer a solution to their problems. The failure, they consider, is not due to state control, but to the manner in which the state does the job. Some say that the rate of interest paid to the bondholders is too high. Some object to the large salaries paid to members of the various national boards. Others point accusingly at the lack of working class representation on the national boards. They still search for a way out where there is none. These proposals are mere tinkerings with surface effects and they offer no solution at all. If they were all put into operation the workers would not notice any difference in their living conditions.

A reduction in the rate of interest paid out of state controlled industries to the holders of bonds is not a practical proposition for a capitalist government, even a Labour capitalist government When an industry is nationalised, the act of parliament that converts it from so-called “private enterprise” to control by the state also sets out the terms of compensation. The rate of interest on the government stock issued to the former owners depends on the market conditions of the time. Two main factors will determine the level, the general level of interest rates throughout industry and the fact that the bonds issued are “gilt- edged,” that is, they are guaranteed by the government. The security that this guarantee offers will mean that the rate of interest, in most instances, will be lower than in company owned industry where no such guarantee exists.

The various national boards that manage the state controlled industries must have access to capital. To operate, to develope, to renew their plant, they must be able to raise funds. They can do this, through the government by the issue of stock. But if the rate of interest offered on this stock is very low, even taking into consideration the guarantee, nobody will be found to purchase the bonds. The attraction of higher interest rates in other fields of investment will determine that the investors of capital will turn their backs on nationalised industry. Just as a punter on a racecourse will turn from a dead cert if the gamble offers too small a return for his outlay, and will seek to place his money where he has the opportunity of longer odds.

If interest rates in nationalised industries are reduced no problem will be solved, but many will have been created. The workers have no guarantee that such a reduction would result in an increase in their wages. If they argue that the industry is too poor to afford the present interest rates, they are simply repeating the employers’ line that the industry is too poor to afford higher wages.

The real solution for the workers is not a reduction in interest rates on the capital invested, but in the total abolition of capital altogether.

Neither will a reduction in the salaries paid to members of the national boards offer any easement to the workers. The wages a worker receives are not determined by the amount that his employer pays to a manager. If the members of the national boards were deprived of all their salary, the workers would not necessarily get it. Even if they did, the amount per worker, when it was distributed, would be infinitesimal.

Greater representation on the boards and management committees of the nationalised industries is another will-of-the-wisp. The workers’ troubles arise from the capitalist nature of nationalised industry, not from the class origin of those who manage it. Whilst there is capital on the one hand and wage-labour on the other, there will be an incessant struggle between the two with the wage workers always at a disadvantage. No matter who is represented on the national boards, the general level of wage rates, like the general level of interest rates, will be outside their control. The need to capture export markets, the competition of like industries in other countries and the ever present need to produce cheaper will cause a constant pressure to be exerted on the workers' wages and conditions. This is an effect of capitalism. It matters not who administrates the system, it will not work in the interest of the working class. The workers can wriggle and twist and run after all sorts of hare-brained proposals, but they cannot escape the effects of capitalism whilst they tolerate that system.

Any plan, any scheme, any proposal that falls short of the abolition of the capitalist system is doomed to bring disappointment with a feeling of frustration and its attendant apathy. Ever seeking to improve wages results in continual adjustments to changing conditions of capitalism and little more. The 'sound line for the workers is to struggle for the abolition of the wages system. Without capital and without wages, men and women can work to produce wealth, not for the profit of a few but for the benefit of all.

W. Waters

Capitalism and ill-health (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

With all the wonderful knowledge at our disposal, with all the efforts of the National Health Service, and again with all our doctors, dentists, specialists, hospitals and facilities for teaching health and preventing disease—it would appear on the surface that there should be no such thing as ill-health. But what do we find? Sickness is everywhere, and disease rather than health is the order of the day. Can it be that this problem under capitalism has something in common with other factors which are likewise conditioned or controlled by capitalism?

There are the means for producing an abundance of food in the world, and according to a recent issue of “Time” it is costing America over a million dollars a day to store food which they can’t sell, yet there are millions of workers facing starvation in Asia. There is abundance of raw materials for the purpose of building houses, yet there is a shortage of houses. There is an abundance of resources in the world capable of giving leisure and happiness beyond our wildest dreams, if only it was used intelligently. Yet there is poverty, want, misery, insecurity and everything that would appear to indicate an absence of wealth rather than an abundance of it.

But surely critics will say, the workers can’t be worse off under capitalism from a health aspect. With all the modern sanitation methods, doctors, radio propaganda, school instruction in matters of health and hygiene, and factory cleanliness, and a literate race who should know how to look after itself. 

Under feudalism, the health of the people was appalling, chiefly because of filth and lack of rudimentary sanitary knowledge. Capitalism has provided this knowledge, but in addition brought with it other factors which affect the health of the worker. Since the time when children and women were not allowed to work in coal mines, about 150 years ago, there has been a steady improvement in the health of the worker measured in terms of extension of life. But what about the pressure under which so many thousands of workers have to spend their days? What about the sweat shops in the East End of London where even if the worker doesn’t work so long in hours as previously, has nevertheless to keep up a pace with machines which work ever faster. Sewing, cutting, sawing, planing, chiseling, spraying, nailing, packing, etc. And again, there is the enormous amount of van driving which has to be done along streets ever more congested and at speeds which would have frightened our ancestors. Hurrying to work, hurrying all the time at work, hurrying over meals—and the result is, sooner or later, a breakdown in some part of the digestive or nervous system. All this is made very much worse by the precariousness of living and lack of any real economic security.

Then there is the quality of our foods. More adulterated than ever before, for there is profit in food adulteration. More coloured and refined than ever, for the same reason. Is it a wonder that digestive complaints rapidly increase? With all our hospitals packed and a long waiting list for beds, the National health service goes on, but does the health of the people steadily improve?

The plague and cholera have disappeared so far as England is concerned, but their place has been taken by new diseases like neurasthenia and those which arrive later in life. It is an undeniable fact that we live longer (or linger longer) as insurance figures for expectation of life have shewn.

All workers are not engaged in industry and therefore don't suffer directly from the effects of industrialisation. But all workers have to eat food, and so do their wives and children. Food makes blood, builds muscles, nerves and gives health and vigour; but only if it is of the right kind. Poor food lacks essentials for preventing disease, helps to clog the system and lays the foundation for ill-health which can easily and totally incapacitate an individual. Food is consequently an enormous factor in the health of any and every community, yet the control of our food is in private hands and the food services run for profit.

Capitalism is a factor which contributes to ill-health because there are profits to be pursued, and incentives which make the capitalist's role in society ignore the health requirements of the majority. Although health is said to be the first wealth—from the capitalist’s standpoint, profit is the first wealth, in fact the only one they think of. Consequently until the working class can organise the production of food for use, it will always be tampered with by the capitalist for his own ends.

Horace Jarvis

Soliloquy on monotony (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Variety is the spice of life we are told but deadly monotony characterises the speeches of our politicians when with outworn phrases they seek to hornswoggle the workers into accepting the idea of another shooting war (defence, of course). The whole bunch of phrases could be collected and broadcast on a gramophone record whenever it was deemed necessary to jerk us to attention.

Whether it be the precise enunciation of Mr. Attlee; the gusty rodomontade of Mr. Churchill; the golden voice of Mr. Bevin splitting infinitives and shedding aspirates right and left, or the nasal twang of Mr. Truman, they all use the same hackneyed phrases and raise the same bogeys. It is true the bogeys differ as the various powers reshuffle. Late enemies become comrades in arms and vice versa with startling rapidity but “san fairy ann,” its all one in a capitalist world.

How many times have we heard that “our way of life is in danger?” (Our lives being such a giddy whirl, we sob ourselves to sleep over this threatened catastrophe). “Our hard-won liberty is at stake,” “Civilisation itself is in danger.” “To ensure Peace we must prepare for War.” “Our whole economic structure is threatened. We must stand firm against aggression.” “The democratic countries must unite, there must be no appeasement; we must defend the rights of small nations,” “The free world must buttress its defences and combat aggression.” “We must fight for freedom and human rights.” And so on till the cows come home.

Monotony also characterises the lives of the workers the world over, and whilst on the subject we must admit that our Socialist message suffers from that complaint. By its very nature it cannot vary. But it differs in this respect from the messages of present day politicians—it holds out hope of peace and plenty, not war and want.

F.M. Robins

£3,000 per minute (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The News Chronicle on February 1st published an article which stated that the Government had not made the people of the country realise the effects of the defence programme. How it would affect the standard of living and freedom of action of the population.

It correctly claimed that these vast sums of many millions of pounds were too great for people to appreciate without looking further into them. The article stated that £3,000 per minute every day and night for the next three years would be spent on defence.

Stating the figure in this way can certainly make one realise the effect it will have on the production of commodities for consumption and on things like the housing programme.

Think for a moment of the effort to produce armaments to the value of £3,000 per minute. Think of the useful articles that could be produced, think of the shortages that this programme will mean, and think that if capitalism did not exist, the tremendous waste of labour and materials would not occur.

The chickens have now come home to roost. The Labour Government has given proof (not that any more evidence was needed), that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of the working class.—Think on these things.

S. W. Lock

Blogger's Note:

Though this short piece is signed 'S.W. Lock', I think that was a typo and the actual writer of the piece was probably D. W. Lock, a regular writer in the Standard in the early 1950s. 

Lock joined the Lewisham branch of the SPGB in September 1948, and remained a member until his death in August 1993. Prior to joining the SPGB, he had been a member of the ILP and the Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist Party.

SPGB Meetings (1951)

Party News from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Sybil Morrison of the Peace Pledge Union was quite a well known pacifist and suffragette speaker and activist in her day.