The T.U.C. 1950 (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

The 82nd Trade Union Congress met this year in September at Brighton; 917 delegates from 186 Trade Unions represented just over 7,883,000 in combined membership, i.e. 53,000 less than in 1949.

For some years past, especially since the election of the Labour Party to run British Capitalism, the main debates at Congress have been centred on Government Policy with the 33 elected members of the General Council of the T.U.C. and the majority of the Union delegates defending and excusing the Government. In order to add weight to the defence, prominent Labour Party members are invited to address the delegates and, as in 1949, the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, again called upon the delegates to support the Labour government. The cultivation of the T.U.C. by the Labour Party is, of course, no mere polite gesture for, of the over 5,700,000 members of the Labour Party more than 4,900,000 are provided by trade union affiliation.

The Chairman, Mr. Deakin, Sir William Lawther and Mr. Attlee all went out of their way to warn delegates that, owing to the attitude of Russia, progress and recovery were in danger. Mr. Attlee warned of the new sacrifices the Labour Party expected from the unions consequent on large-scale re-armament programmes, called for a continued support for “wage restraint” and finally urged trade unionists to encourage the young to join the Regular and Auxiliary Armed Forces. Adding the fatuous suggestion that such regulars should be allowed to retain their Trade Union membership.

The following day the statement by the General Council supporting the Government’s policy on Korea was endorsed.

Having supported the Labour Government’s intentions regarding War, the delegates then proceeded to two items more directly concerned with Trade Union activity, i.e. “Wage Restraint” and the implementation by the Government of its policy of “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” rejecting the former and supporting the latter and thus overturning their previous policies on these matters.

Equilibrium was somewhat restored by the defeat of a resolution urging the Government to discontinue the “Conditions of Employment Arbitration Order No. 1305.” This order not only makes almost all strikes illegal, but prevents the payment from Union Funds of “strike-pay” to strikers and also leaves strikers open to claims for damages by the employers. (Eleven miners at St. Helens, Lancs., were recently arrested for failing to pay £10 each for damages awarded to the National Coal Board because the men took part in an "unofficial” strike. They were only released after the money for the fines had been found by their Branch of the National Union of Mineworkers. Manchester Guardian, 18-9-50).

Useless Nationalisation

Congress dealt with the question of Nationalisation. The General Council presented its Report on “The Public Control of Industry” which admitted that Nationalisation of coal and transport had, as yet, increased the cost of coal, but pleaded that it was early days yet to see the full effect. It ended by stating that public ownership need not "always take the form of the nationalisation of whole industries and there is important scope for selective or competitive public enterprise and for the encouragement of Co-operation.” In other words, the administration of capitalism is showing these reformers that, despite their early claims that Nationalisation would resolve all of our difficulties, it simply does not work. Mr. Lincoln Evans (General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation) who presented this report on behalf of the General Council, confessed "that experience of public ownership in the first five years had revealed problems that were not anticipated ” and that "anyone naive enough to believe that change of ownership in itself was an answer was finding out that that was not so.” (Daily Telegraph 6-9-50). Of course, it is Mr. Evans himself who is appearing to be naive in believing that nationalisation is the ending of capitalist ownership. Evidently he was warning the supporters of Nationalisation that the problem was more prickly than he and his friends anticipated. We can assure Mr. Evans that no socialist would be naive enough to swallow the Nationalisation myth.

Lord Citrine, addressed the Congress in his personal capacity. (He was the Secretary of the T.U.C. before the present secretary. Sir Vincent Tewson). He gave his opinions based on his personal experiences as a member of the National Coal Board and as the present Chairman of the British Electricity Authority. He too was very cautious about Nationalisation and referred to the " ‘gigantic' problems facing the Nationalised Industries, the time that would be needed to overcome them, and the importance of full co-operation on both sides to ensure success." In referring to the change over to government direction of the Coal and Electricity Industries, "he several times returned to the theme of the responsibility of trade unionists for the form of nationalisation legislation and therefore their responsibility for taking a full share in making it work.” (Manchester Guardian, 8-9-50).

When it is all boiled down these people are only trying to show that the present needs of capitalism are tending towards more central government direction and. as this occurs, they require the working-class through the unions to assist in the successful running of industry, i.e. to send up production figures; further, that such adjustments in the administration are of advantage to members of the working-class.

Our suggestion is that those who are interested m the views of Mr. Evans and Lord Citrine should take a close look at the activities of those Trade Unions whose members already work in Nationalised Industries, i.e. the Civil Service, which has seven Unions affiliated to the T.U.C. Their history is one of a continued struggle for improved wages and conditions carried on with every Government in power since the existence of those unions. Joint consultative machinery is of very long standing, yet these Unions are constantly in opposition to Government representatives over questions of pay and conditions. If we are to believe what the advocates of Nationalisation say, such activities should have never arisen, and the Trade Unions in the Civil Service would merely be assistants in the task of increasing output and improving efficiency.

On the last day of Congress, Mr. Jack Tanner (President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union) introduced the General Council’s Report on "Productivity” and “laid the responsibility for increased efficiency on every member of the trade union movement.” (Manchester Guardian, 9-9-50). Mr. Tanner has been harping on this theme for several years on behalf of the General Council. The assertions connected with it are that foreign trade will consequently improve and that goods will be obtainable at a cheaper price and thus benefit the working class. Mr. Tanner seems to have forgotten the lessons of the last twenty- five years.

In April, 1948, The T.U.C. issued a leaflet entitled, "Ten Questions about that Extra Ten Per Cent.” and urged the workers to fall into line with the appeal of Mr. Attlee that, “An all-out effort will increase our total production by the ten per cent, we need to turn the tide.” In November, 1948, a Special Conference of Trade Union Executives was called in London to discuss the General Council’s Report on "Productivity.” The Report, which was accepted, called for increased production, closer consultation between the unions and the employers, the re-examining of "restrictive practices” and support for Training within Industry. At the end of 1948 still another leaflet was issued by the Government’s Central Office of Information entitled, "Productivity Pays . . . And How ” it was circulated among the Trade Union members. It purported to show how productivity could be increased during 1949 and was signed by the President of the F.B.I., Will Lawther (now Sir William Lawther), the then President of the T.U.C. and by the President of the British Employer’s Confederation. These gentlemen said, "We warmly endorse this move to make widely known the efforts now being made in industry to improve Productivity, and the profound importance to management, workers and the whole community of a steady and rapid increase in our rate of output.” (Perhaps it was sheer shyness on the part of the shareholders that reference to them was omitted from this endorsement?).

It is possible now to see what has been the result of the campaign for increased production. In 1948 Mr. Attlee wanted just an extra 10 per cent. Since then according to official figures industrial production has increased by 18 per cent. (“Monthly Digest of Statistics,” August 1950). Is Mr. Attlee satisfied and can the workers now begin to take their reward in higher wages or lower prices? By no means! In line with the normal progress of capitalism still more increases of production are demanded, partly to reduce export prices to undersell rivals abroad but particularly to provide for larger armed forces and war preparations.

Wage increases since 1948 have been insufficient even to keep pace with the rise of the cost of living, the official wage index having risen by only 5 points while the cost of living index has risen by 7 points, from 106 to 113. Wage restraint is still the order of the day.

In the meantime profits have kept up quite comfortably during the past two years and the future looks more rosy still. “It would seem from the latest quarterly figures that industrial profits are again rising ” (“Economist ” 5 August 1950).

The results of the T.U.C. show clearly that the working class is still wedded to the idea that they have a stake in capitalism. They have still to learn that the quicker they cease to bother their heads about the way to run capitalism the more quickly will they begin to appreciate the advantages of Socialism; of a system where there will be no classes; without struggles of trade rivalry and without the threat of war; a society in which men and women will be free and in peace, to use their abilities for the benefit of a classless community.

PEDCA.

Korea An Imperialist Cockpit (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 12th September Mr. Attlee addressed the House of Commons on new “defence” measures. On the same day the Evening Standard published a report of his address. From this report we learn that:

“The steps we are asking the House to endorse are taken solely with the intention of preventing another war and resisting in its early stages the onward march of aggression.”

What a familiar ring this statement has! The “steps” in question covered increased man-power and equipment for the fighting forces. Larger and more efficient fighting machines mean larger and more efficient killing and destroying machines. More and more of the world’s productive power is being concentrated upon purely destructive purposes as time goes on. During each war we are promised peace and plenty when that particular awkward squad has been removed. But no sooner has one awkward squad been liquidated than another pops up in its place. From the East we are told that the “Western Imperialists” are the niggers in the woodpile, and from the West we are told it is the “Eastern Imperialists.” The fact that it is both is only appreciated by the socialist. In 1914 similar “steps” were taken to stop the Junkers and prevent further wars; they were stopped but it made no difference; wars went on. In the 30*s the “steps” were to stop the Fascists and the Nazis. They were stopped, but not further wars. Now it is the Kremlin and so the comedy is played on. Steps are always allegedly being taken to stop wars but these “steps” consist of building up bigger and better means to wage war.

For nearly forty years we have been living in the midst of a catastrophe or on the brink of one. The Labour Government has learnt nothing more from its predecessors' failures than to follow the same well worn road to the battlefield. It has not a single policy that is directed at the root of the trouble—the property basis of society. The same thing is true of the governments of America, France, Russia and the rest.

Conditions make nonsense of all the “statesmanlike” forecasts of what will be done after hostilities cease. Those who make these forecasts forget that we are not living in a vacuum but in a real world consisting of sections of people with conflicting interests arising out of property relationships. During the last Great War, just as during the previous one, we were assured that Germany would never be allowed to arm again and become a potential threat to world “peace.” Conditions have again knocked the stuffing out of this assurance. Now we are being prepared to accept a re-armed Germany—in the interests of peace! Major-General Sir Francis de Guingard (Sunday Times, Sept. 17th) puts the question in the following way:

“This all leads to the problem of German participation in Western defence. Without it, any question of trying to hold up an aggressor on the Elbe is ruled out.  . . . We must, therefore, accept a major German participation in defence: otherwise we are likely to lose the ‘soul of Germany,’ the good will of the German people, and maybe Europe. Without it there is grave risk that Western Union defence will be unable to marshal sufficient strength, even to hold the Rhine, by 'Danger Day’—say in perhaps one or two years’ time.”

To return to Mr. Attlee’s address. He repeats the kind of phrase that was used in relation to the Nazis by members of the Tory Government.

“I have every confidence that aggression will be halted and a salutary lesson given to would-be aggressors.”

How often have we heard this banal phrase! Later on he makes nonsense of this “confidence” by stating:

“We must face the fact that what happened in Korea may in one form or another be repeated elsewhere.”

It does not require much insight to realise that this is the obvious policy for the Russian Government to follow. Imperialist Russia is in a position to use other groups as tools by playing craftily upon the cupidity of propertied sections that wish to be rid of Western influences and, at the same time, its fake anti-capitalist protestations mislead sections of the working class. The Western “Democracies” on the other hand have to convince those who must bear the burden of the fighting that their existence is jeopardised and that, on this account, sacrifices are “necessary.”

Major-General de Guingard commenced the article, to which we have already referred, with the following words;

“The Western world should be truly thankful for the Korean aggression; for it has set ablaze an alertness and determination that may prove our salvation.”

We wonder what the homeless, battered and suffering Koreans would reply to this expression of high sentiment? How do they feel about being the subject of warfare between conflicting imperialisms? Both in the North and the South homes and industries are being reduced to ruins; Koreans are dying by the thousand and by the thousand they are leaving ruined homes to trek wearily they know not where. When it is all over and some survivors return to the battered ruins that remain what will their feelings be towards their respective backers and “liberators ”? Some forms of liberation they have already experienced; the liberation from life, homes, home-ties and the means of living. An indication of the attitude of the South Koreans, as well as the soldiers of the United Nations, was given in an article by a war correspondent, Richard Hughes, which appeared in the Sunday Times on the 10th Sept. Here are some illuminating extracts from the article.

“Nor is there any real soul to this war. No profound sympathy or even warm liking exists between the Americans and the South Koreans. The soldiers of the United States and Britain notoriously have little abstract opinion or articulate comment on why they are fighting, but they usually detect in any war a menace to their country or to their home. As they profanely insist, they can perceive nothing of that sort in this war.

“However they have now developed a hatred for the enemy, largely because of his atrocities. And their earlier natural resentment at the spectacle of able-bodied Korean youths squatting impassively by the road and watching the white man move forward to ‘defend’ them has disappeared as President Syngman Rhee’s conscription orders become effective and 5,000 Koreans in American battledress are added to each American division to take over hill fighting."

The fact that masses of the South Koreans had to be conscripted before they would bother to take up arms does not suggest that they were very much worried about the threat from the North. If Information were available probably the same kind of thing could be said about the Northerners when they realised the price they were called upon to pay for what they thought would be a minor internal struggle. However both groups of pawns will have plenty more to worry about when hostilities have ceased and they have to set about rebuilding what they have lost

In fact none of the Governments involved were fundamentally concerned about liberating or defending the Koreans as a body. Korea is simply a cockpit, one of the bloodier strategic moves in the greater struggle between rival imperialisms.

In the course of his address Mr. Attlee said: “But it does mean that in our view we must take every practicable step that is possible to prevent war.” There is only one practicable step that can prevent war and that is to abolish the cause of war. This step Mr. Attlee and his colleagues are unable to take, even if they wished to do so, because they sought votes for. and became the government on, a programme that ensures the continuance of capitalism. The continuance of Capitalism necessitates the production of goods for the purpose of ensuring dividends and interest to those who invest. In order to accomplish this object goods have to be sold. Production and sale requires sources of supply of raw materials, markets in which to buy and sell products and unmolested trade routes to the markets and to the places from which the raw materials come. Out of these requirements wars arise, and as long as production is organised for the purpose of selling goods at a profit there will always be wars. When buying and selling have disappeared along with property incomes the objects of wars will no longer exist. Until then "small nations” will be the pawns of the more powerful groups and working men and women will lose their lives in quarrels that do not concern them.

Gilmac.

Editorial: General Smuts (1950)

Editorial from the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

As in this century it has become a widely accepted convention for professional politicians to speak well—and indeed flatteringly—of their party opponents when they die it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect obituary judgments to be well balanced and critical. With this in mind we could pass over the exaggerated praise of the work and qualities of the late General Smuts but still demand that those who attempt to assess him should give a recognisable portrait. But to do that the writers need to recognise what part Smuts played and the background against which he played it. In particular they need to see that he was a figure in the world of capitalism, thrown up by class interests and strictly limited in his action by the social system in which he lived and by the forces he represented. Instead many of the writers, including some who might have been expected to have at least some understanding of the reality, try to interpret him as if he had complete freedom of action to behave according to some abstract ideal, and as if therefore his seeming inconsistencies had to be explained as defects of character or courage or as errors of judgment.

A line taken by many who paid tribute to Smuts is that he was a man above class and national prejudices. To Mr. Attlee there was “in his large heart . . . a place for all humanity. His great contribution to the creation of the United Nations is but one example of his breadth of view and world statesmanship." (Daily Herald 12/9/50). The Prime Minister of Canada described him as having “adopted the world as his nation,” and Mr. W. N. Ewer (Daily Herald 12/9/50) credited him with “imaginative genius and liberal instincts . . .  His real greatness lay, perhaps, in his imaginative understanding of wider issues.”

These and many similar opinions explain nothing and merely fog the issue. The picture of the errant genius, usually triumphing over obstacles and the stupidity of lesser men, but occasionally falling below his own high ideals is and must be fundamentally false. The real Smuts started as a representative of the Boer farmers in their unsuccessful war against British imperialism and then came to power in South Africa as a capitalist politician, trying, as all administrators of capitalism must do, to reconcile divergent propertied class interests while defending South African capitalism against white workers and the non-white majority of the population. When we are told that he represented “all humanity” we need only remind Mr. Attlee of his own position as a caretaker of British capitalism—there is no room in capitalist administration for a “Minister for the welfare of all humanity.”

Attlee and Ewer cannot have forgotten how the Trade Union Congress condemned Smuts for his part in the crushing of the striking gold miners on the Rand in 1922. Mr. Ewer does in fact refer to it but interprets it (as also Smuts' attitude towards the natives) as “limitations” of his character. “His iron-fisted handling of the great Rand strike . . . cannot be forgotten in any judgment of him. And, though he opposed the ‘native' policies of Herzog and Malan, he was always a rigid up-holder of the idea of ‘white supremacy.' " 

The miners on the Rand in 1922 faced an attempt by the owners to force down wages and to undercut their standards by employing more low-paid native workers. In the strikes and rioting that followed it was Smuts who declared martial law and used troops, artillery, tanks and bombing planes to crush what he called a “reign of Red Terror.” Many lives were lost and many workers imprisoned.

The aspect of this that interested the writer of the lengthy tribute in the Manchester Guardian (12/9/50) was the bold way in which Smuts handled it. “Smuts’ personal courage and decision in this emergency are still the subject of talk in South Africa; after proclaiming his intention to impose martial law, he made his way secretly to Johannesburg, took command, and within a few days restored order.”

No noticeable evidence of the much praised love of “all humanity” there!

The Times gets nearer to a recognition of the class nature of Smuts’ activities and interests when it points out how his party was defeated at the election in 1924 and he lost his own seat: —

“Of the many charges brought against Smuts, who had been in power for so long a time, two of the most widely circulated and effective were, based on his use of troops in suppressing the Johannesburg strike in 1922 and his connection with the Chamber of Mines, whose agent he was declared to be.”—(Times, 12/9/50.)

The South African workers had not forgotten how Smuts’ intervention strengthened the hand of the Chamber of Mines in their attack on wages.

It may be that Smuts had what Mr. Ewer calls liberal instincts but a capitalist politician cannot serve two masters, he cannot sacrifice the interests of the class for whom capitalism functions in order to serve the interests of those whom capitalism exploits. His love of all humanity did not include the white workers and the native population when their actions in their own interests clashed with those of the ruling class, and it would not be far wrong to say that a large element in the universal scope of Smuts’ vision was the necessarily world-wide interests of a country the main economic basis of which is the production of gold for world trade. South Africa had grown from a Boer farming community to an expansionist capitalism and Smuts’ horizon expanded with it.

What is man? (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

If we were to be asked what, in this world and all that in it is, men understand least, we should be tempted to reply—men themselves. This may seem a little astonishing when we observe the great advances made by men so far as the non human side of nature is concerned. Physics and chemistry can show a worthwhile, even spectacular progress. With it have gone notable technical achievements. In the field of biology reliable evidence has been built up about man considered as an adaptable organism. Yet, when we view men from the most fundamental stand-point, that is their social relations with each other, only then does their knowledge about themselves seem meagre, distorted and even mystical. Their power to utilise natural forces is quite unmatched by their power to control and plan their social lives.

Not that men have not sought to explain themselves. They have never ceased to do so. From time to time they have entertained notions of themselves as the darlings or the playthings of the gods; the unwitting victims of fate or kismet; 'the sports of chance, or even the splendid products of cosmic design. What men, by and large, have never significantly understood is themselves as men. They have never appreciated at its true level, the fact that, as men, they are the offspring of historical forces; the heirs of certain socially determined conditions as well as the initiators and begetters of all social change. 

It will have been noticed perhaps, that we have used the term “men” rather than individual man. The choice is a deliberate one. There is no scientific evidence to support the view that men have lived their lives as isolated specimens of the human genus without knowledge or experience of others of their kind; as “lone wolves” pursuing solitary productive activity. The notion of the bare individual with no social reference is something which cannot be adequately defined. It certainly cannot constitute the starting point of any investigation into the concrete behaviour of actual men existing at any particular time. In living fact we are always confronted with a man who exists in a social organisation with the other men; a self whose identity is established by his relationship with other selves in a social framework. We do not begin our lives with self consciousness. It is acquired at a later stage of our mental development. Our consciousness of self coexists with consciousness of other selves. Before there is a man, there are men. If an infant were to be deposited in the heart of the African jungle, and assuming it could live, it would never achieve self consciousness. It could never acquire language, culture, a code of ethics or anything which is distinctly human. It could only be an animal, and one poorly equipped to survive, among other animals.

The institutions of men, their culture and ideas, are not part of their biological structure but an outcome of social organisation. The birth of a baby as an organic being is a natural fact. Human beings are however born in society not outside of it. It is society which enables and ensures that their genetic potentialities can be actualised into something specifically human; i.e. the acquiring of speech, self consciousness, social skill and techniques, which includes not only the using of tools but the making of them. In short, it is society which makes possible the possession of those human attributes which mark men off from the animal kingdom.

Individuals are not then self-existing, self-sufficing atoms who arbitrarily come together for purposes of temporary experience but people who can only live by making demands on others and having demands made upon them in turn. People can only fulfil their own needs by fulfilling the needs of others. The products of labour by which a man lives cannot be exclusively his own, but are the result of communal effort. Because labour is social labour, that is men working together in a definite way, every man is dependent upon the social skill and techniques which he, in common with others, socially inherits. Even a man working on his own has much more than his own efforts going into the work he produces. Strip a man of his social dependencies or attempt to abstract him from the complex of his social environment and nothing which is uniquely or recognisably human is left.

The individual is not than a prerequisite, but a result of society. While society is composed of individuals, these individuals work and live in a mutual dependence upon each other. That is why different societies produce different types of individuals. They even produce different notions of what constitutes individuality.

If the individual man cannot exist apart from society how then did men enter into productive cooperation with each other? The answer is that our gregarious sub-human ancestry were forced by brute necessity to involuntarily enter into a primitive form of economic co-operation. It was this primitive productive process, not known to other animals, that finally forced them into becoming men.

The things that bind men together in a thousand and one social ties are not abstract notions of self interest or eternal mental attributes but primary human needs indispensable to man’s existence:—that is food, clothing and shelter or as Engel's says “the production and reproduction of life itself.” This holds good for past society, for present society and society for all time. The basic social bond between man and man is not spiritual or psychological. It is practical. Men need each other's bodies in order to live before they need each others minds in order to converse. As Marx points out, speech is consciousness and speech arises from the concrete practical needs of social intercourse.

We have so far spoken of man as distinct from nature but the distinction is of course only a relative one. Men live in nature and through nature. Men act upon nature and are acted upon in turn.

“He (man) opposes himself to nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate nature's productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway."

(Capital Vol. I P.P 156-157 Swan Sonnenschein.)

It is this interaction between men and nature that constitutes economic production. Human nature, so far from being a constant in terms of fixed instincts, innate capacities and desires is, within its organic limits, something which can be changed by men’s historical and productive activity. ‘‘All History,” says Marx, “is the progressive modification of human nature.”

Men’s adaptation to nature is not an organic adaptation to external conditions. It is a social adaptation carried out by socially organised labour in order that men may live. Birds fly and fish swim as the result of biological adaptation to external conditions. Men travel through air and water better than birds or fish but they do it, not as individuals responding to external stimuli but as an organised social body acting on nature in a planned and purposeful way.

Men’s language, science, art, techniques and skills are not adaptations to nature. They are adaptations inside society and through society, which acts as an organised force upon nature in certain specific ways. Men in this way are able to change the face of nature and utilise its forces in a way unknown to the rest of the animal world. Thus, while man has biologically changed very little over thousands of years, his social evolution has been continuous and remarkable. Men, socially, are able to manipulate and change nature-given material, i.e. by building cities, roads, means of transport, machinery, etc., and in changing their environment, the changers are changed themselves. In addition, men, by changing their environment gain a deeper insight into the causal nature of reality. By increasing their knowledge of nature and society they enlarge their views and change their conceptions of reality. They thus change their conception of themselves as part of this reality. It is the development of the social productive relations which makes the culture of chattel slavery different from that of modern capitalism. This difference lies in the different social environment. This different environment as a result produces different men.

To-day we no longer have the Egyptian Pharaoh, the Greek gentleman, the Roman patrician. The feudal lord has gone and the mediaeval knight is buried with his battle-axe. Not only have they disappeared as men but with them has passed, a whole way of life. A whole way of social thinking and acting has disappeared down the irreversible stream of time. Today men are not born into the social relations of slave master and slave, or overlord and serf. They are born as employer and wage-earner. Today a different social system has produced a different subject class and with it a different individual. Today the modem workers must be educated in the arts, the crafts, the technologies and the sciences. Collectively they must perform all the complicated functions necessary to run a complex system. Their acquiescence to Capitalism must be sought in a thousand different ways via the schools, press and radio. Today they have the vote. Tomorrow, class knowledge behind that vote can sweep the capitalist system into the limbo of social antiquities. By understanding the class struggle, men can end it and usher in a social classless era and a classless man.

The nature of social man then is to change. The collective history of men reveals a vast and shifting multitude of men in different social systems; each system with its different civilisations, institutions, culture, technology and its peculiar religion and philosophy.

Social changes occur because men find that their needs cannot be adequately satisfied within a given social order. The forerunners of the present capitalist class brought about the destruction of the old feudal order because productive development had made possible new needs which the old system, based on less efficient methods of wealth production, could not satisfy. In the course of these social changes men changed themselves.

Today the needs of the working class are the class-conditioned needs of an exploited section of the community. Their needs are determined not by what they produce but by how much is necessary to keep them in efficient production and reproduction of their working energies. Thus in a profit economy like capitalism the social well-being of the class that owns is dependent upon those who toil. There is an ever growing disparity between what the worker actually gets and what the productive capacity makes possible.

The capitalist class has carried the process of the division of labour to a point which has increased the productivity of labour and cheapened labour costs. For the capitalist it has meant vastly increased profits. For the worker it has had the most harmful results. The capitalist system has fragmented much of the productive capacities and working faculties of men into multifarious impersonal automatic processes. In this way Capitalism compels many to be chained to exclusive spheres of repetitious productive activity which cripples their natural endowments. Capitalism wherever possible seizes on every trade and craft and seeks to convert it into an ever increasing number of detailed processes and repetitive operations. The capitalist in demanding excessive specialisation compels the worker to sacrifice all other faculties. In this way capitalism cripples and deforms human nature and forces it into dehumanising activities. The worker does not work for himself or for a common communal activity in which the exercise of the special capacities of all may be made available for all. He works under orders in an appointed way at an appointed time. As Marx has said, he works merely for money which has nothing to do with work itself. Today man is no longer a productive animal working for the pleasure that the exercise of his productive faculties gives him. He is only half a man or half the man he could be in the exercise of his genuine human potentialities.

The outworn cliche, “You can’t change human nature,” is still in vogue. It serves to perpetuate the notion that “human nature” being what it is, capitalism is the only system possible. Through the ages a motley crew of priests, pundits and politicians has echoed and re-echoed it. The pity is, not that they have said it but that the multitude, to whom they have said it, has, without understanding what it means, accepted it.

Human nature has changed and is still changing. Its most fundamental change is dependent upon the vast majority becoming socialists. Only when men have realised socialism will the opportunities for man to come of age be realised.

Ted Wilmott

Passing Comments: Re-armament (1950)

The Passing Comments Column from the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Re-armament

The Investor’s Chronicle runs a service for its readers which answers their questions about buying and selling shares; each week it prints four or five of those which are of most general interest. In the issue of 12-8-50 this question was one of those thought to be of widest interest: “Can you name a sound engineering share which offers a good yield and which might benefit from re-armament?” The questioner was recommended to buy an engineering share which, though nominally five shillings, now stands at twenty shillings; the dividend is 26¼  per cent, and the yield 6½ per cent. And in the issue of 26-8-50 this question was one of those printed: “I think that the Far Eastern set-up, coupled with re-armament, augurs well for the wool-producing companies and should be glad if you will please give me a recommendation if you agree with my views.” The person who replied to this enquirer did agree with his views, for he draws his attention to a New Zealand company whose shares, now at par, pay 8 per cent. Wool hasn’t disappointed those shareholders who followed this advice, since the prices quoted at the Sydney wool-sales on August 28th went up 50 per cent.; a little later. South African wool showed even bigger increases in price.

Lower Income Groups

Some people, then, stand to gain considerably if the war spreads. But war, as we are regularly reminded, entails sacrifice. Sacrifice on whose part? Here the Investor’s Chronicle again comes in useful. It is unblushingly frank on this matter, disdaining the usual talk about “equality of suffering.” First of all its commentator Candidus pours scorn on the idea of having a capital levy. Then he goes on: “There is no escape from the simple facts of the case. To the extent that re-armament is not provided from extra effort and by America, it can only come from reduced consumption in the directions where the great mass of consumption now resides—in the ranks of the lower income groups.”

Scroungers

At Birmingham on August 22nd a man was charged with persistently neglecting to maintain himself, and was sent to jail for two months. He refused to work for his living, and tried to get the National Assistance authorities to support him instead. This case is important, because it establishes a precedent, which always weighs heavily with the judge when he is reaching his decision. Professor Charles Oman refers to the "inveterate respect for precedent which sways the legal mind.” It seems that the rule now is to be that people who do not work for their own living, although they are capable of doing so, are to be sent to jail. This rule should be enforced thoroughly. Numbers of shareholders and landowners are to be found around Lombard Street and scattered up and down the country, who have never earned their own livings, and who have no intention of doing so: worse, they make other people work for them, people who themselves have to live on much lower incomes. These property owners are thus offending more than the man who got two months: but with immediate action by the police, and a few salutary sentences from the judges—say five years’ penal servitude for a first conviction—no doubt this kind of offence could be stamped out. The fact that these criminals have a lot more money than the man now serving his sentence will make no difference, for every secondary schoolboy is taught that England is famed for her enjoyment of that inestimable privilege, which our ancestors fought and indeed died for, the privilege of Equality before the Law. Is it not well-known that every British citizen, whatever the length of his purse, gets exactly the same treatment in the law-courts? The police should therefore act speedily on this question.

Leopold

The recent disturbances in Belgium over the return of King Leopold provide a good illustration of how the Communists and Social Democrats waste their time. The Daily Worker (4-8-50) praised the leaders of “this historic movement,” or at any rate the Communists among them. After Leopold returned, said the article, “it took the Belgian working class just five minutes to get angry and five days to get organised.” It applauds the “working class unity” that was attained; it describes the strikes, the riots and the processions, and talks about “ this great class battle.” And it leads up to the triumphant conclusion when Leopold agreed to hand over his powers to his son Baudouin—though it blames the Social Democrats for not having insisted on his complete abdication.

When all the shouting and the shooting was over, what had happened? Before the agitation against the king, the Belgian workers were being exploited by the Belgian owners under the nominal presidency of someone called Leopold; after the agitation, the Belgian workers were being exploited under the nominal presidency of someone called Baudouin. Which makes a lot of difference. And yet to obtain such an insignificant change, the “Left-wing” parties strained all their energies, and three men who were following the lead of these parties were shot by the police at Grace-Berleur. The three men were called “martyrs,” and the name is just; the men were martyrs to the ideas of those “leaders” of the working class who, instead of encouraging the workers to understand and bring about Socialism, spend all their time in noisy pursuit of aims which in the end bring no benefit at all to the workers.

Smile, Please

From the Daily Mirror (7-6-50): “A group of people want Britain to smile more, and the first stage of their plan is a Happiness Week for thousands of city folk. It goes into operation in Manchester in 10 days' time. Everybody in the Levenshulme Ward of the City will be asked to smile—at their work, at play, in the streets and at home. Albert Sidi, business man, first thought of it. Smiling James Bowes, councillor for the ward, took it up. Now the church is supporting it, and the Lord Mayor of Manchester, who will be president of the week of smiles. Mr. Sidi said yesterday: ‘ We intend to make people smile and be happy whether they like it or not.’ ” And the point of all this? Mr. Bowes told the Daily Mirror: “It’s a wonderful idea. If we can make people happy they’ll work better. . . .”

Whatever the long-suffering citizens of Levenshulme think about all this nonsense, this last part should make shareholders and profiteers grin like Cheshire Cats.

The Public

The dictionary defines “the public” as “the people in general; all the people.” But in the minds of our politicians and statesmen it has come to mean something quite different. Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations” gives us a hint of this new meaning when he says: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” The implied distinction here between worker and member of the public is repeated with more emphasis by Captain Gammans (“Everybody’s,” 25-3-50): “ Nationalisation has no appeal now to the British public, and, judging from the number of strikes in the Nationalised industries and the growing drift from the Nationalised coal mines, it is losing its magic for the worker as well.” Captain Gammans evidently considers that the same man cannot be both a worker and a member of the public. And if the public, in the sense in which the word is being used today, contains no workers, it must consist entirely of the owning class. This is borne out by the phraseology of the financial columns in the newspapers, which regularly refer to the public as being that body of people which owns shares and other capital. For example, when the City Editor of the Daily Herald suggested (9-8-50) that company law should be amended to rule out directors’ estimates from a company’s prospectus, he said: “Had that been done in the Crittall case and in other cases where the ’estimates’ have been optimistic, the prospectus could never have been issued, and the public’s money saved for more worthy objects.” Here the public covers those people who have money for “more worthy objects,” i.e. capitalist investment. And no worker has any money for investment worth mentioning; if he had, he would not be in the ranks of the working class. It seems then that the new meaning of the public is simply “the owning class.” So the next time you hear of some politician proposing that we reduce wages for the “public” good, or go to war in the “public” interest, you will be able to understand what he really means.

Priority

When Mr. Attlee is replying to Mr. Churchill’s criticisms his theme-song should be “Anything you can do I can do better.” For the Labour Government has brought the country through the “work harder to recover from the war” stage, and is now leading the workers into the “work harder to prepare for the next war” stage. With any luck, it might still be in power when the third part of the workers' eternal triangle is reached, the “work harder to win the war” stage. If it is, it will have proved that it can run the country just as well as any other capitalist government; though that, perhaps, is not saying much.

It was while the rallying-cry was still “work harder to recover from the war” that Mr. Aneurin Bevan made his pronouncement to the working class reported in Reynolds News (17-7-49): “‘Work first, independence second. Socialism third ’ was the order of priority for British workers, Mr. Aneurin Bevan told thousands of Northumberland miners at Morpeth yesterday.” Like his colleagues in the government, Mr. Bevan regards Socialism as a vague and undefined objective for the dim and distant future; but the word is nevertheless useful, since it performs the same function for the workers as the carrot on the end of the stick does for the donkey. The workers never get it, but they are continually being exhorted to produce more so that some day they might.

St. Leger

But Mr. Bevan put work as Priority No. 1 only for the working class; there are others to whom he was not addressing himself. After five years of Labour Government there are many who have undoubtedly attained the second of Mr. Bevan’s objectives, independence, but who regard the other two, work and Socialism, with strong aversion. They need have no fear. Under this government they are equally safe from both.

The Sunday Express gives details of the activities of some of them. Talking of the St. Leger race-meeting,' it says (3-9-50): “The new fashion is to rent a house in Doncaster for the meeting. The Earl and Countess of Derby have taken a modern villa near the course, and Lord Irwin has followed suit. . . . Mr J. V. Rank, the rich miller and race-horse owner, has rented two houses. But there are still some stately homes where the week is celebrated in the traditional manner. The Earl of Scarborough, Lord-Lieutenant of the West Riding, always has a gay party at Sandbeck Park. His neighbour. Lady Galway, is entertaining Jockey Club Steward Sir Humphrey de Trafford, Lady de Trafford, and Sir Rhys Llewellyn. And parties are being taken by the Marquis and Machioness of Hartington, by Baroness Beaumont and by Sir Richard Sykes.”

Marx and the Labour Party

From the Daily Herald (31-7-50): “The Labour Party’s rejection of much of Karl Marx’s teaching had not been a source of weakness, said Morgan Phillips, the Party’s secretary, last night.”

Well, certainly not to Karl Marx’s teaching.

Alwyn Edgar

Scapegoats for the Labour leaders (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

For five years the Labour voters were very loyal to the government of their choice. Through a series of “crises” they patiently worked and waited for the better times they were told would soon be here. Then just as they were preparing to reap the reward they expected when they had delivered the stipulated production and “closed the dollar gap” they received an icy shock that changed their political outlook more than anything that had gone before. This was the Prime Minister’s curt announcement that a new round of austerity is on the way to provide for re-armament, the Korean war and the other wars that it is feared may follow. The new blow has brought to a head the cumulative effect of past disappointments, showing itself in a wave of wage demands and “unofficial ” strikes in disregard of the appeals of Ministers and Trade Union officials.

Workers are asking themselves whether the Labour Party is any better at keeping its pledges than were the Conservatives. Those who looked on the Labour Party as the enemy of conscription and armaments find themselves heading for a third world war. Those who wanted higher wages and lower prices are asked to be content with wage-restraint, a rising cost of living and demands for more sacrifices. Those workers who thought that nationalisation would solve their problems find that it makes no difference to them. Labourism has been tried and has failed but politicians do not easily reconcile themselves to losing office and power. The leaders are bewildered at the failure of their plans, and frightened as they find themselves caught up in capitalism’s swift descent towards war; but they do not yet despair. Like many a government before them they hope to be able to turn a critical situation to their own advantage. If the workers at home dislike the increase of fares, the rising cost of food, the extension of conscription to two years, the entry into the Korean War, the refusal to grant wage increases, perhaps their resentment can be turned away from its natural targets of capitalism and the Government that administers capitalism, and turned in another direction by a campaign against Russia and Communist agents.

It is all so easy—just as it was when the Tory Government worked it to the full during and after the first world war, and used it again to unseat the Labour Government in 1924.

Of course Russian State capitalism and Russian imperialism are evil things but so is capitalism and capitalist imperialism in Western Europe, Britain and America. And the Western Governments’ real objection to the Russian Government’s actions is only that of rival concerns in the same line of business. As Mr. Sefton Delmer, Daily Express correspondent, said in an interview with the Indian Prime Minister, Nehru;—

“We objected to Communism because the countries where it had established—itself mostly by force of arms or terrorism—had been closed to Western trade. This deprived both them and us of commodities essential to our prosperity and progress." (Daily Express, 19-9-50).

The other side of the picture is given by an article in the journal of the Czeckoslovak Ministry of Foreign Trade. (Quoted by the Manchester Guardian, 16-9-50). The Czeckoslovak Ministry’s article discloses that while they encourage the Russian move to promote strikes of dockers in the countries allied to America, on the ground of alleged sympathy with the dockers, at the same time the Ministry is urging foreign business men to send their cargoes through the strike-free ports of Poland and thus avoid hold-ups and consequent loss of profits. Under the East European capitalist dictatorship the dockers strike at their peril.

The British Labour leaders profess to be very much opposed to governmental regimentation of the workers as practised in these countries. Yet at the same time we have Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union demanding the suppression of the Communist Party and the Daily Worker (Manchester Guardian 18-9-50), Mr. Isaacs, Minister of Labour threatening legal action and if necessary legislation against the “promoters of illegal strikes” (Daily Herald 16-9-50). Meanwhile Scotland Yard are studying the activities of “Communist agitators”—“Blue print for the arrest of dangerous communists within a few hours, if empowered by legislation, is ready.” (Evening Standard, 18-9-50).

So, in the blessed name of freedom and democracy, the Labour Government prepare to bring British legislation and suppressive measures more closely into line with those of the dictatorship countries.

The position is so fantastic that we have Mr. Deakin, the servant of union members who pay their contributions to support an organisation for the purpose of making wage claims, denouncing Communists on the ground that “they were out to create and encourage wage claims and to use every possible opportunity to cause dislocation.” (At a Press Conference. Daily Telegraph, 19/9/50).

It is true that those who direct Communist policy are not interested in the welfare of the working class being concerned to exploit discontent in order to help Russia, but the discontent exists and will go on expressing itself no matter what the Communists do and even if they are suppressed.

Past experience should warn the Labour leaders of the likely outcome of the policy they contemplate. From 1917 onwards the charge of being pro-German or “Red Agents” was made against all who were critical of the war and all who took part in strikes, and among the results was that more and more workers gave their support to Ramsay MacDonald and Snowden and to trade unionists like Smillie, Williams and Arthur Cook who were thus enabled to gain popularity at the expense of the old leaders. Eventually the workers discontent exploded in the General Strike of 1926. Since the rise of the new men did not mean progress towards the only solution—the replacement of capitalism by Socialism—it only led to further disillusionment and in that respect also a repetition of the process now will be merely another phase of misdirected work and purposeless suffering by the working class.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will continue to urge the workers of the need to rid themselves of the delusion that Labour Party or Communist Party administered capitalism can solve their problems; also of the need to retain their trade union weapon, the strike, and above all of the need to recognise that only through a world wide movement to establish Socialism can their emancipation be brought about.

Up boys and atom (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the workers of this unhappy planet are hearing the call to arms. From the pages of the national press the sensational headlines are once more screaming war news straight from the battle fronts. The heavy, serious tone of the B.B.C. announcers adds to the urgency of the situation. A crisis is upon us, we are told, of far greater gravity than the 1938 Munich turn-out and every able-bodied man and woman is required to defend the home of freedom, democracy, the British way of life, our homes, children and the host of other valuable treasures that we of the working class hold dear to our hearts. Let us kill, maim and destroy the heinous swine who threaten our very existence. Into battle, let right (which is always our virtue) prevail, and with God’s help (His help is always available to us) we shall smash home to another glorious and bloody victory. So the hysterical clap trap is ceaselessly poured out, gradually preparing workers to kill and be killed.

Up to present our masters are a little ashamed of us. There appears to be a certain reluctance on the part of the masses to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the general struggle for survival. The necessity to expend more blood, tears and sweat in the cause of freedom, etc., does not seem to have registered fully. There is too much interest being shown in the results on the back page of the newspapers and too little being shown in the struggle against aggression as reported on the front page. Truly here is good reason for concern and at least one of our national newspapers has set out to remedy this little defect. “Are you prepared to spend just one hour a day wrestling with the great problems that confront us?” asks the Daily Express. Are you, the man in the street, prepared to grapple with and try to understand the significance of events occurring thousands of miles away. Anyway for the price of one penny a team of “ experts ” are at your disposal to guide and instruct you in the sometimes unintelligible ways of this funny old world. Maps of the battle front with the familiar little arrows representing the attacks and counter-attacks of the opposing armies, are once again printed for our attention and perusal. As these little black arrows move to and fro, people all over the world learn with horror and grief that some loved one will never again return. But economic interests are paramount to human life and suffering and it is the earnest hope of our masters that the mass destruction of their enemies will in the near future take precedence over the fortunes of “ One Eyed Jack ” in the 2.30.

Nevertheless the supporters of British capitalism sometimes lament woefully on the apathy of people towards a nice juicy war. Civil defence was the theme discussed recently in the House of Commons. Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd opened the debate and in the course of his speech, urging greater support from the “Smith’s and Jones’s ” for civil defence, he was reported to have made the following observations (Daily Graphic 25.7.50).

“The Government must have the responsibility for making plans, but it needs the co-operation of the population.

“The greatest difficulties were general revulsion against the whole idea of war and the psychological impact of atomic warfare on public opinion.”

He went on to add that the Home Secretary could assure us that an atomic bomb would not, as the “egregious Dean of Canterbury” had claimed, melt stones and rocks 60 miles from the explosion.

Certainly this terrible idea that war and all it implies is revolting and undesirable, is something that no sane individual will understand. Why, now that we have the personal assurance of our eminent Home Secretary that stones and rocks will not melt at 60 miles distance from an atomic explosion, the whole idea becomes almost attractive. To those people who might enquire as to what might happen to a human being residing 60 miles from an explosion, we can only say that such questions are far out of the scope of this humble organ and that no doubt the team of “experts” employed by such organs as the Daily Express will be able to put your mind at rest.

All over the Capitalist world, in Britain, America, Russia, etc., the working class is being cajoled, urged and panicked into taking up arms on behalf of their respective masters. The economic trade war that is a constant aspect of capitalist society is once more, as in the past, threatening to develop into another bout of blood-letting. All the “peace pledges” and petitions that pacifists and such like are touting about can be of no avail and will go the same way as their predecessors. Knowledge is the only weapon that can destroy for ever the economic conditions that give rise to war. One day the working class of this world will possess this knowledge and then only will capitalism disappear forever, taking with it all the evils of Poverty, unemployment and war that fester on the back of humanity at present. The atom bomb and all modern means of destruction will then take their rightful place alongside the spears and bows and arrows in our museums.

G.L.

SPGB Snippets: Pivotal moment for Burnham? (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website 

October 8, 2026

Westminster watchers were glued to the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, and none more so than new Prime Minister Andy Burnham, after a Conference speech laying out his ‘vision’ of undoing 40 years of Thatcherite privatisation and ‘wrong turns’.

Will he call a snap general election to secure a popular mandate for this vision? The Tories are nowhere, the far-right divided and mired in scandal, and the Greens have arguably damaged their prospects by passing a resolution that Zionism is racist.

Thrilling stuff, if you like domestic soap operas. But capitalism will continue regardless, just as socialists continue working for its abolition. Because only then will anything really change.

Blogger's update:

Sagal Abdi-Wali won the Holborn and St Pancras bye-election for the Labour Party, defeating the Green Party leader Zack Polanski. It was Keir Starmer's old seat. George Galloway finished 7th with 314 votes. (1.1%)

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.