A "Done & Dusted" catch up special

"Another late 'dust and dusted'. Sorry about that. Me and the laptop are currently caught up in health scares. It'll be curious to see what pegs out first. (Only joking  . . . the laptop's in better condition than me.)" [From here.]

The beauty of being consistent in your tardiness is that you can fall back on previous excuses and reach for the old cut and paste. And, if a joke's worth telling, it's worth telling seven or eight times. Flog those self-deprecating lines to death.

Four months to catch up on. Sounds a lot but, as you'll note, it only adds up to 24 Standards. Moving forward, I'm probably going to move away from particular months when finishing old Standards. It has got to the stage now where certain decades are all but completed and I just want to engage in a kind of 'mop-up' operation. I don't want to be tied down too much on trying to find April Standards to finish in the month of April. If I want to pore over a particular period 'cos that's currently caught my interest, then that's is what I'm going to do. Don't worry, if you can't cut through my waffling, it'll make more sense further down the line.

Okay, here's the catch up. Usual schtick . . . click on the months for the full issues.:

December's "Done & Dusted"

December 1908

December 1910

December 1912

December 1947

December 1963

December 1977

November 1986

December 2004

December 2025

January's "Done & Dusted"

January 1909

January 1939

January 1948

January 2026

February's "Done & Dusted"

January 1961

February 1961

February 1991

February 2026

March's "Done & Dusted"

March 1909

March 1947

March 1962

March 1965

March 1975

March 2002

March 2026

Disunited Nations (1957)

From the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always maintained that the United Nations Organisation, and before it, the League of Nations, could never provide a solution to the problem of war.

We have gone further than this. We have claimed that most politicians, British and foreign, have always been well aware of the fact. But politicians, if they are to keep their jobs, must profess to have an answer. After each world war the working class has looked to its “leaders” for a scheme to prevent the next one. No politician in these circumstances could hope to win votes without some solution to offer.

How many politicians have supported U.N.O. in the knowledge that it could not be effective can only be surmised. That it constitutes a majority we assume from the fact that they are generally no less intelligent than the rest of us.

U.N.O. Moonshine

But here is one who, in an unguarded moment, comes right out into the open. Here is what Ted Leather, M.P., thinks of the United Nations:—

"Sir,—Mr. Gaitskell’s statement that whatever the United Nations may say we should meekly reply “ we obey ” is perhaps the key to much of our differences in the last few weeks. Mr. Awbery, Labour member for Central Bristol, recently referred to the United Nations as a “court” which had passed “judgment” on us. In an ideal world they might both be right. In this one it is the view of many of my friends and I that they are talking moonshine.

For good or ill, it is just not true that the United Nations is a supreme court, or that it hands down objective judgments that have any moral force at all. The Assembly in New York, important though it is, is a body of politicians. They make political speeches, and the great majority of them vote according to their own political interests. A large number of them represent dictatorships. Many are openly hostile to Britain. If there were an international Government based on sound principles, or an international supreme court empowered to enforce law, many of us might support it. To surrender the ultimate sanction of the interests of the lives and interests of the British people to a body constituted as the United Nations now is, seems to me not only unrealistic but downright suicidal.

Yours, etc.,

Ted Leather,

House of Commons.”  

(Letter to the Times, December 10th, 1956.)

We may well wonder how long Mr. Leather has been of this opinion, whether he proclaimed these views when he sought votes at the last election.

He suggests that there are “many of us” who do not support the United Nations. That is what we thought. But we do not remember “many of them” saying so at the election.

We do not think there are many members of the British electorate who now have any faith in the effectiveness of U.N.O. We believe that most of them are aware, if only vaguely, that international conflict is an inevitable outcome of international Capitalism. The trouble is that they see no alternative.

It is that alternative which is offered in Socialism. We urge all workers to study the case for Socialism. With that understanding they will never again surrender their votes for spurious solutions to the problems of Capitalism —whether it be war, or poverty or unemployment or any other of its manifestations.

Read our two pamphlets, on Socialism and on War. Think for yourself and put not your trust in “leaders.”

John Moore

Editorial: The Myth of Planning (1957)

Editorial from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the world has taken the great forward step of establishing Socialism production will, of course, be planned so that there will at all times be enough basic materials, finished products, and transport and other services, etc., to meet the requirements of the population. The chief aim will be to have enough to satisfy all needs after making allowance for growing population and for all possible wastage and destruction through storm, fire, and other eventualities. But it will not matter greatly if too much is produced because nobody will be dependent on paid employment for his living and therefore nobody will lose anything by finding that the articles he works to produce have been produced in too great abundance. Men and women will be be rather complacent about producing too much and only worried if they should err by producing too little.

Too Much or Too Little

Notice how this differs from the kind of planning that goes on in the world of manufacture today. Now the business man would be quite unruffled if he had planned the output of his factory so that it turned out to be rather less than demand, but he would be very worried indeed if his output was too large for the market for that would mean falling prices and smaller profits.

Planning versus Forecasting

We are, however, dealing with two different operations, for the kind of planning of production that will be possible under Socialism is quite unlike the market forecasting that goes on now. The one is concerned with determining how much you need and then getting things organised so that you will have that amount produced in good time. But present day forecasting of demand starts at the other end and is really much nearer to guesswork.

It requires that the manufacturer shall form an opinion about what kind of product will be a saleable one, two, five or ten years ahead and how much of it will in fact be sold and at what price. Of course the length of time varies according to the nature of the product. Christmas Cards are designed and planned something more than a year ahead and women’s dresses and hats something less than a year. Planning and sinking coal mines may take several years, as also does the planning and construction of an oil refinery. In all these instances market conditions at the end of the period may be quite different from those the planner thought they would be. He may find his anticipated sales of summer dresses and hats ruined by an English “summer,” or that the market for coal or oil has suddenly grown or suddenly shrunk.

Forecasting for 1960-1970

Information was given in a Financial Times supplement on the Motor Industry, about the problems of forecasting future sales of motor cars (15 October, 1956, p. 7). The head of the Sales Analysis Department of the Ford Motor Company, Mr. K. D. Bull, explained that companies in the motor industry undertake two types of forecasting:

“The first covers the short-term period up to and including the next 12 months and is used for production planning. The second covers a longer period and is used for much wider purposes. This latter type of study is undertaken not as an interesting academic exercise, but as a necessary concomitant of future planning; The time taken for the installation of new facilities, and in the processing of new models from conception to production, means that the investment involved can only be justified in terms of the sales to be expected over the period of their employment, which may be some years ahead.”

Mr. Bull went on to explain that this second type of forecasting deals with the period which “does not start for two or three years hence and covers generally the ensuing ten years. In using this forecast we pay little attention to the results for individual years, accepting only that these give a reasonably accurate measure of the market in the average.’’

This period of three to ten years means that in 1957 they would be trying to figure out what average conditions will be between 1960 to 1970 and it is not at all surprising therefore that they do not attempt to forecast what is likely to be the state of the market in individual years within the 10 year period.

Mr. Bull says too that past efforts to forecast the long term demand for motor cars have all underestimated the size of the demand that actually came.

Where Labour Party Planners Go Wrong

The Labour Party (and the Communists), are believers in what they call planning, but the trouble with it is that it is out of its time. They are trying to apply planning of production to Capitalism, but what Capitalism requires is not the planning of production but the forecasting of demand in the market—a very different thing. So far as this near-guesswork about sales is possible at all, the manufacturers can do it as well (or as ill) as anyone else; certainly better than a Labour Party Committee, or a Labour Cabinet. The real planning of production is not. required under Capitalism and will only be possible under Socialism.