Paradise lost (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has often been claimed, though less often of late, by the Labour Party that Socialism was inaugurated in August, 1945, and that quite apart from the more immediate instalments of the millennium, such as old age pensions of 26/- a week, the way to a golden future had been laid open by the good sense of the British people in voting Labour. It was implied that the objective could be attained by nationalization—making the appropriate Minister the chairman of the Board of Directors, as it were, to see that just what the voice of the people demanded was produced. The direction of the industry was otherwise to be at least strongly influenced, if not partially controlled, by the organised workers, either through their unions or more directly. This was regarded as the “practical socialism” of the Labour Party. The new position of the unions under a government and employer both demanding their loyalty caused a few pamphlets to be written (for example Ben Roberts’ “Trade Unions in the New Era”) trying to resolve this difficulty, but few Labourites seriously expected the continuation of the bitter bargaining over wages and conditions, or the recurrence of the problem of consuming the productive output. Yet, with the retention of production for a market, and consumption determined by a wages system, how could it be otherwise? When the unions adhered to their alliance with their new employer and the Government, the workers were increasingly driven to circumvent the unions in their day-to-day conflict with the employers. Both miners and railways workers wanted nationalisation for the industrial democracy it was thought to imply. Both have been disillusioned. Both demanded more say in their State industry and were rebuffed for their impudence.

All this is. given point by the British Electricity Authority’s recent £150 million issue of stock. If the B.E.A. needs equipment it does not have a claim on the community’s production of wealth, as a socialist might consider obvious; instead it must present its case as a sound investment to private owners of investable money—money, being the only access to wealth in this economic system. In prominent headlines the B.E.A. advertises, as if it were a Marks and Spencer’s issue :

“BRITISH ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY 

ISSUE OF £150,000,000 BRITISH ELECTRICITY 3½% GUARANTEED STOCK, 1976-1979 

Created under the provisions of the Electricity Act 1947, and guaranteed as to principal and interest by His Majesty's Treasury under the Act.

PRICE OF ISSUE £99 PER CENT.

. . . The stock will be redeemed at par not later than 15-11-1979.”

You will remember that the Tory and Liberal Parties, claiming to disapprove of the division of society into classes (or at least its appearance), urged the “wider spreading of property” until “everyone was a capitalist,” completely ignoring the simple fact that the mere existence of property-derived income could only produce concentration of wealth at a geometric rate. Well, dear classless reader, stand to with your Post Office Bank Book. You now have an opportunity to enter into Anthony Eden’s “property-owning democracy’’—anybody can subscribe to this issue, although of course:

“Applications must be for £100 stock or a multiple thereof; no allotment will be made for a less amount than £100 stock.”

You will of course make application through your broker. “A commission of 2/6d. per £100 stock will be paid to bankers or stockbrokers on allotments made in respect of applications bearing their stamp.” It becomes clear at this point that only mugs work, so in a matter of minutes we shall be out buying a rubber stamp, and with this as our constant capital the half- crowns will only need collecting. One-and-a-half million half-crowns (on £150 million) will be roughly £200,000, for a few hundred ledger entries.

Anyway, let us suppose we have posted off our 10 per cent. deposit for 100 of these £100 shares; this can’t be too artificial because the B.E.A. is issuing one-and-a-half million such shares, and this isn’t the only issue of the year by any means. Then for a minimum of 26 years we will receive for our thrift (i.e. on utilization of our unspendable surplus) £350 per annum, a total of £9,100. The B.E.A. then promises to redeem them at par, i.e. 1 per cent. above sale price. So we have loaned £9,900 and received back £19,100—a marked improvement, of £9,200 to be exact. And all achieved by thrift, providence, enterprise, public spirit, and consequent divine recognition of these virtues. Where it has come from is someone else’s worry (yours), but then the ways of God are exceedingly strange, and this divinely ordained system provides consolation prizes in the next world for those deprived in this.

Tempering our nobler nature with a fractional caution, we can see that we really can rely upon getting a fair return for lending our embarrassingly unconsumable surplus, for the, “ socialised ” authority lists its illustrious composition:

“The Rt. Hon. Lord Citrine, P.C., K.B.E., Comp.I.E.E. 

Sir Henry Self, K.C.B., K.C., M.G., K.B.E., Comp.I.E.E. 

Sir John Hacking, M.I.E.E. 

Sir Norman Duke, K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O., M.C. 

Norman Elliott, Esq., O.B.E.. M.A., M.lnst.C.E., M.I.E.E.

Dame Caroline Haslett, O.B.E., Comp.I.E.E.

L. Howies, Esq., M.I.E.E., M.Inst.Struct.E., F.R.S.A.

The Rt. Hon. T. Johnston, P.C.

C. R. King, Esq., M.lnst.F.

Lt.-Col. E. H. E. Woodward, C.B.E., M.C., T.D., M.I.E.E.”

(There is a trade unionist hidden in the picture. Can you find him?) This indisputable aura of respectability is meant to show that our money will not be irresponsibly wasted and that the whole concern is being run on sound lines. This point is also clearly made later: —

“ It is the duty of the Authority so to discharge their functions as to secure that the combined revenues of the Authority and all the Area Boards taken together are not less than sufficient to meet their combined outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another.” 

To be quite fair, they also mention somewhere about maintaining an “efficient and economical system of electricity supply.” These two requirements will not always be compatible, so it will be interesting to watch what happens.

(The statement also points out that interest and redemption is required to be made from a fund provided by current income, and the outline of last year’s accounts show £16 million set aside for interest—about 8 per cent of receipts).

The dream is fading in the Labour ranks. Only on quantity of nationalisation were they divided from their opponents. Now nationalisation is seen to have left unchanged the position of the worker (and the investor), and has only minority support in the Party. The leadership of the Party dropped it long ago provided they continue to wear red ties on occasions, the Party boundaries may remain clear. But if they abandon this disguise then it is going to be difficult indeed for the voters to know what to do—unless they have read our back page.

E.R.G.

The role of the scientist (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is an anomaly of modern society that science, which could contribute much to the welfare and happiness of mankind, creates, more often than not, the very things which add to human unhappiness, insecurity and suffering.

What then of the scientists? Are they inhuman monsters relishing the spectacle of increased unemployment brought on by their mechanical creations, or gloating over the destructiveness of their atom bombs, etc., etc.? Or are their inventions the outcome of some force behind the scenes?

Let us see whether examination will throw light upon the role of the scientist in the social order of today.

We live in a society split into two classes—the Capitalist class, and the working class. The former, through its ownership of the land, mines, factories, railways, etc., etc., exploits the labour power of the working class in the production of commodities. Masses of commodities are acquired, but cannot bring a profit until they are sold. Individual Capitalists, therefore, must see that their commodities are on sale at prices which bring profit, but, at the same time, are at least as low as the commodity prices of their rivals. Thus we find the Capitalists endeavouring to keep production costs at a minimum by keeping down or reducing wages.

From a Capitalist viewpoint, however, this measure has a disadvantage. Wages cannot profitably be reduced below the level which maintains in the workers a satisfactory standard of working fitness. The Capitalist class, then, finds itself finally reliant upon an alternative course—that of introducing machinery which will reduce the amount of labour time spent upon the commodities produced. Thus we find Capitalists competing with each other to introduce machinery which will appreciably lower their production costs and keep their commodities at competitive prices. Only mechanisation will ensure for the Capitalist the retention or expansion of markets, and the consequent high demand for machinery here and overseas brings rich rewards to the owners. On the other hand, inventions that would benefit mankind but would do nothing towards maintaining or increasing profits, are, by comparison, unsaleable.

Inventors and scientists, therefore are faced with the fact that only the ideas beneficial to Capitalism are acceptable. Small wonder that these are the ideas upon which scientists, in the main have to concentrate.

And what of when Capitalist competition overflows national boundaries and becomes a case of each nationalistic entity competing against the Capitalism of other countries? What of when the struggle for markets, trade routes, and sources of raw material inevitably ends in war?

It is then that the most urgent need of sectional Capitalism is that its own nationalistic entity should survive against the Capitalism of other countries. It is then that the individualistic competition within the opposing countries is temporarily abandoned and every muscle is strained to achieve a greater task for national Capitalism—i.e., to win the war.

The fruits of science most needed by Capitalism thus change from industrial machinery to weapons of destruction and the machines that will manufacture such weapons. Only these things will now be in high demand.

In this manner we find that scientists, in order to live, must resort to the creation of things which either throw many workers out of employment, or intensify the horrors of modern war.

Nor does nationalisation prevent this. Nationalised industries, like private concerns, run for the purpose of making profits and must therefore adopt every possible measure to achieve that end. Moreover, countries wherein nationalisation exists still find that the functioning of Capitalism inevitably drives them into periodic wars. Consequently they are forced to use all the hideous means of killing and destruction entailed in waging war.

Not until Capitalism is replaced by socialism, , an order of society wherein there could be such things as commodities, buying and selling, markets, etc., etc., will scientists cease to be restricted by the question: “Will our inventions be profitable to Capitalism?” The only question facing them within socialism will be: “Will the things we create benefit mankind?”

F. W. Hawkins

The Thinkers' Handbook: Review (1950)

Book Review from the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Thinker's Handbook: A Guide to Religious Controversy” by Hector Hawton, is published by Watts & Co. at 2/6d. With 250 pages of well-printed matter, a stout paper cover, ample index, and adequate bibliography, it would on these points alone rank as one of the cheapest books now on the market. The publishers claim that “in clear, simple language the best contemporary solution to problems that have baffled man from the dawn of reason are set out side by side in order that the reader may reach his own conclusions in accordance with the evidence.” 

The author deserves the thanks of serious students for having made a conscientious endeavour to carry out this claim; very rarely indeed is a statement of fact or opinion made without clear indication of source; attempted rebuttal on the religious side receives adequate. even generous quotations.

The book under review is a rich quarry for undisputed facts regarding the practice of prominent Christians. “Saint” is the highest title bestowed by the Church to a chosen few. On page 87, one reads that St. Augustine, a very pillar of Christian faith, “preached the damnation of unbaptised infants.” It may be added here that Pope and Saint Gregory I wrote letters of congratulation and other marks of honour to Phocus “a monster of vice and cruelty.” This is regretfully admitted in “The Students’ Ecclesiastical History” Part 1, p. 493 (in many respects a Balaam’s Ass in reverse).

Students should do their best to get two books quoted by Horton placed in the public library. They will probably be surprised to find to what a scraggy anatomy Christian “belief” has been reduced. “Doctrine in the Church of England” is a frantic effort on the part of Archbishops Temple and Davidson and their fellow Vicars of Bray to reduce to some respectable shape, the irreconcilable “beliefs” of the official clerical crowd. The “preface” alone is revealing. “Christianity in the light of Modern Knowledge” (various authors) provides entertaining reading in every essay. “The Thinkers’ Handbook” quotes from Dr. Bevan’s essay “The death of Jesus was an unquestionable fact admitted by everybody.” Is “impudence” too strong a term to ascribe to this reverend guide of theological students?

All rationalists are aware that persecution has been one of the high notes of Christian theology, the bitterest antagonisms being among rival schools of thought. Crude persecution has practically ceased, but on p. 190, of “Whither Theology?” (is quoted) the author (W. W. Robinson) claims that “The Fall” is “truth couched in symbolic form, and can only be denied by those who deliberately close their eyes to facts.” Does it require much penetration to sense here the old roaring persecutor doing his best to nightingale the roar? The ghost of the Inquisitor is not completely laid. “ Deliberately ”!

Just one suggestion; Could a future edition of Horton’s book contain some reference to the part played in the religious tragicomedy by sheer greed on the part of Church and State, and, more important still, the base part played by churches in support of the State? The saintly grovellers under the foot of a Constantine, of a Clovis, a Bluff King Harry, deserve some mention, as does the patron, if uncanonised saint of Protestantism, the baleful Luther.

“Thinkers Handbook” marks a big advance in rationalised literature; Herbert Spencer’s silly “Unknowable” is quietly by-passed; apologetic “agnosticism” whether of the order of T.H. Huxley or of Aldous Huxley receives cool attention.

The emphatic recognition of Marx as a powerful opponent of religious thought is welcome; there is a valuable extract (p. 134) from Marx’s "Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.” Above all, readers will be introduced to the flaming torch which Marx, pausing a moment from relatively dry (essentially necessary) exposition of Socialist economics, threw into the camp of all and sundry religionists. Here it is: “ The religious reflex of the real world can only finally vanish when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellow men and to nature.” (“Capital” Vol. 1, p. 51 Kerr’s edition).

The general reader interested in politics and religion will enjoy “The Thinkers’ Handbook’’—the Socialist should certainly add the book to his library, read it through at leisure once, and then compile his own Index, choosing first the chapters which have interested him most. Amen !

Augustus Snellgrove

Am I a Socialist? (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many and varied are those who at the present time call themselves either socialists or communists. How many of them can correctly be so described ?

It is obvious that a knowledge of Socialism must be gained before one can correctly answer the question: “Am I a socialist?”

What, then, is Socialism or Communism?

“Socialism” or “Communism” are synonymous terms describing a social system based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community. In this system there could be no capitalist class and no working class: no capitalist class because none would privately own the land, factories, railways or state bonds, etc., which empowered them to exploit others: no working class because the whole of the community would have access to the things produced by the community and would thus obtain life’s needs without wages.

In this manner buying and selling would come to an end and neither the state nor private employers could buy labour power and sell the products of that labour power. The state, which Capitalism builds within itself to ensure its own preservation, will, with the establishment of Socialism, disappear, and with it will pass the armed forces which will no longer be required to conserve the monopolistic position of a privileged class or to fight the wars arising from the competition between rival capitalist groups.

This then is what Socialism or Communism implies: —No social divisions or classes, no coercive factions or armed forces, no commodity production and, in consequence, no money, wages, profits, markets, etc., etc.

The high degree of productivity brought about by Capitalism has made the world economically ripe for Socialism. One thing only prevents the overthrow of the present social system and the establishment of the classless society. The socialist knowledge which, possessed by the majority, would enable the world's workers to discard leaders and themselves usher in the new social order, is at present possessed by only a relatively small number. Not until a majority possess this knowledge will Socialism be achieved. In short—the establishment of Socialism requires a majority of socialists.

If the above has increased your socialist knowledge you can now apply to yourself such questions as these: —Do I believe that nationalisation is an example of Socialism and cuts out profit-making and exploitation, or am I a socialist and know that nationalisation leaves untouched the capitalist system wherein profits are made by the exploitation of labour power ?

Do I consider that the social system prevailing in Russia is Socialism?, or am I a socialist and realise that in the Russia of 1917 the semi-feudal backwardness of productive means and the political ignorance of most of the people precluded the possibility of achieving Socialism or Communism? Do I realise too that the continued existence in Russia of money, wages, buying and selling, police and armed forces reveals the Soviet social system as one of Capitalism?

Do I believe that a Labour government can bring in reforms which will eventually bring Socialism, or am I a socialist and know that reforms patch up and prolong the capitalist system?

These and many other questions you can put to yourself when you have a grounding of socialist knowledge. If your answers to such questions show you arc already a socialist your place is plainly within the ranks of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

If, however, your self-questioning reveals you are not a socialist, we of the S.P.G.B., urge you to continue reading our literature and listening to our speakers. By so doing and eventually becoming converted to our views you will swell our numbers and thus help to produce that pre-requisite of Socialism—a majority of socialists.

F. W. Hawkins.