Machines in Office. A Call to Clerical Workers. (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Office staffs in all branches of commerce and industry are now finding themselves faced with reductions in pay. In nearly every instance the employers, when “informing” the staff of salary revisions (as the General Manager of the Midland Bank told the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, the Bank Board does not discuss wages with the staff, it “informs them of its decision”), give the excuse that the reductions are only reasonable adjustments to a lower cost of living, so that the real standard of salaries is not being impaired. Clerical workers, while far from satisfied that a reduced salary in 1931 will go as far as a larger salary in 1929, with the docility for which they are infamous, and with a fatalistic resignation, assume that perhaps there has to be a reduction in their pay it trade is to improve. Does it ever occur to them to consider whether the “reduction-to-meet-the-fall-in-prices” sauce that is served for the goose, salaries, is also served for the gander, dividends ? In the world of banking, at any rate, it is not.

Recently there has been much talk of the need to reduce the pay of bank clerks “in order to meet changed conditions.” The lead has been taken by the Midland Bank, Ltd., which has revised its scales of pay for new entrants. Formerly a clerk in London after ten years’ service received £240 a year if he was on the maximum scale. By the fifteenth year his pay had risen automatically to £370. Beyond that point further increases were at the discretion of the directors. Under the new scale a new entrant will receive, at the most, only £205 after ten years, and at this point automatic rises cease. Other banks are following suit.

Now what about dividends? Here directors and their Press are strangely silent about falling costs of living. All of the “Big Five” banks (except Lloyds, which reduced dividends from 16 ⅔ per cent. to 15 per cent.) paid the same dividend in 1930 as in 1929. But, according to Mr. McKenna, of the Midland Bank, the purchasing power of money in 1930 was 19 per cent. higher than in 1929, owing to the fall in prices. From which it follows that the shareholders received a 19 per cent. increase in real dividends in 1930, and even Lloyds’ shareholders were 2 per cent. better off than in the previous year. To this maintenance of dividends, side by side with a reduction in salaries to meet lower prices, the remark of Sir Frederick Lewis, Bt., when proposing a hearty vole of thanks to the staff of Barclays Bank, comes as a nicely ironic pendant. Sir Frederick, who, by the way, manages to direct the affairs of a mere 32 companies, was filled with love and admiration for the staff, but unfortunately “the only method they had of recording their appreciation was the passing of the resolution he had the honour to propose” (Times, January 21st, 1931). Needless to say, as votes of thanks, be they never so hearty, do not cut into profits, the shareholders passed the vote with enthusiasm.

On the face of it, the reduction in pay of clerical workers may look like an adjustment to lower price levels, as the employers say that it is. In fact, it is something much more important. It is an attack on standards of living and a revelation of a weakening in bargaining power of the workers. It is the first of the consequences of the mechanisation of office work that has been proceeding apace since the end of the war. Machines in offices are producing the same results as are produced by machines in industry. Unemployment, formerly of fairly small proportions so far as clerical workers were concerned, is increasing and wages are falling. Before the war the typewriter was the chief piece of office machinery. To-day it is only one of many. Calculating machines, ledger posting machines, addressographs, mechanical sorters, copying machines, automatic switchboards are but a few of the mechanical devices that are supplanting labour in offices and, by simplifying processes, increasing competition. Before the calculating machine was used, a certain proficiency in arithmetic was essential for a clerk ; now it is not at all necessary. Consequently, employers are able to recruit their staff from a lower educational grade, and to utilise women instead of men. In other words, the supply of clerical workers is being extended while the demand is diminishing. It is this that leads to increased unemployment and enables attacks on wage standards to be successfully launched. The talk of reducing pay in order to help trade recovery is a mere subterfuge. Clerical workers should not blind themselves to the real economic forces at work. As was stated by a writer in the Journal of the Institute of Bankers in Ireland (October, 19291, the changes resulting from the introduction of machines into offices are “analogous in some respects to the industrial revolution of a century ago.” According to this writer, office machines give three times the output possible by hand, with less and cheaper labour. Other conclusive evidence to this same effect is abundant. Mr. H. L. Rouse, Assistant Chief Accountant of the Midland Bank, Ltd., wrote in The Banker (November, 1930) : “Two ledger posting machines should enable two male clerks 10 be released (!) and should necessitate the engagement of one new female operator.” In a debate reported in the Journal of the Institute of Bankers (January, 1930), Mr. Rouse, discussing the installation of machinery at 73 branches of the Midland, said : “The net saving of salary to these branches is approximately £85,000 per annum against a capital outlay of £150,000; but as the life of these machines may be fairly regarded as ten years, it is obvious that the economy effected is a very substantial one.”

He went on to point out that at these branches 311 men were withdrawn consequent on the introduction of the machines, and 86 women engaged, and that new entrants to the bank had been considerably curtailed, so that juniors already in the service would have to mark time for a period until the process of mechanisation had reached its economic limit. Mr. F. Hyde, General Manager of the Midland Bank, told the Civil Service Royal Commission, on Monday, February 23rd, 1931, that the machines had enabled his bank to cut down their intake of young male clerks from between 400 and 500 a year to about 200 a year.

It is interesting, in passing, to notice that the same problem arose in the Post Office Saving’s Bank before it arose in the non-Government banks. It is claimed by high Savings Bank officials that the Post Office led the way in introducing machines and is already saving £40,000 a year by employing lower-paid women machine operators in place of men clerks. One witness at the Civil Service Commission, Sir Alfred Woodgate, went so far as to suggest the replacement of the great bulk of men clerks in the Civil Service by women at lower pay.

This general tendency to employ women on machine operating intensifies the downward tendency of wages. The male clerical worker hopes to rise to a certain salary, say, in 15 years, and to receive at least that salary for the rest of his working life, say for 30 years. But women workers’ salaries do not rise to the same levels, and as women retire earlier than men, they receive the highest rates of pay in fewer instances and for a shorter period. On this point Mr. Rouse, in the debate already referred to, was quite definite, his evidence being to the effect that “the female staff are more subject to change than the male staff; in fact, 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the females resign every year and are replaced by new entrants at the lowest salary.”

This is sufficient to show how machinery causes workers to be dismissed, the substitution of cheaper labour, and a contraction in the demand for labour.

The introduction of mechanical appliances has already gone far, but the process is only in its infancy. As the City Editor of The Times states : “The mechanisation of banking is likely to increase considerably during the next few years in order to reduce labour costs” (Times, December 22nd, 1930). This remark can safely be extended to apply to all other branches of clerical employment.

So far as Socialists are concerned, we have dealt with this mechanisation of clerical work because it bears out two points we have always made.

Firstly, it shows that, under capitalism, machines arc additional weapons in the hands of the employers, creating unemployment and lowering wages. Secondly, clerical workers must ultimately realise that they are not a class apart in society, a “middle class,” but that, economically considered, their position is identical with that of the so-called manual workers. They are, like navvies, dependent for their living on being able to sell their labour-power. They are propertyless individuals working for wages for the benefit of the property-owning-class. They are members of the working class. Until they act politically in the light of that fact, they will continue to find that machinery is of no benefit to them.

“BANK CLERK”

Is Russia to blame? (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism is responsible for unemployment and all the other evils from which the members of the working class suffer as such. The politicians who exist to defend the system, however, cannot afford to admit this. To do so would put an end to their job. Hence we find them seeking refuge in various excuses. The Labour Party attributes unemployment to “world causes.” The more blatant section of the Conservatives ascribe it to a Labour Government plus Russian “dumping.” Their recent campaign against exports from Russia, on the ground of the slavish conditions under which they are produced, presents features which are both interesting and amusing.

Russia is a Protectionist country, like Germany and the U.S.A., and if all that the Tories have told us about conditions of employment there were true, it would only prove that Protection is of no value to the workers of Russia.

In the endeavour to industrialise Russia, its Communist rulers are imposing considerable hardships upon their wage-slaves. The Communists do not deny this. Nay, they boast about it. They proclaim that this is the inevitable method of “building up Socialism,” and that the Russian workers are only too pleased to suffer for “their” country. All of which proves, if true, that the workers of Russia are as gullible as their fellows elsewhere. They see in the steady accumulation of capital the growth of a god before whom they must bow and worship.

The Conservatives of Britain, however, attribute the sufferings of the Russian workers, not to the development of capitalism (which is their actual cause), but to the Communist mask worn for the nonce by the Russian ruling class, which will be dropped when it ceases to serve its purpose of deceiving the workers. It is evident to anyone who looks back over the history of the last thirty years, that Russia has simply taken the place of Germany in the minds of the rabid “patriots.”

They are not concerned with the evils endured by the Russian workers for whose blood they will howl, if and when occasion arises, just as vigorously as they did for that of the Germans. They are concerned merely to provide in advance an excuse for the fact that when they eventually unseat the Labour Party they will be as unable to prevent unemployment as they have proved hitherto. The relief they may offer the starving workless will be another hectic time in the shambles, possibly with the Russian workers for company.

Eric Boden

The Socialist Forum. (1931)

Letters to the Editors from the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (A. J. G., Wimbledon) asks why we do not get inside the Labour Party and help to convert it to Socialism. He writes : —

“I am still a member of the Labour Party, because though differing widely from our present leaders, I think there is yet hope of getting the Party machine under the control of genuine socialists. (The same applies to the T.U.’s.) 

As the break down of the Capitalist system becomes increasingly apparent, involving more poverty, unemployment and strikes, the position of some of our leaders of “sitting on the fence” will be more and more difficult and a choice have to be made by them on a clear issue. 

I suggest that your influence (had you been inside the Party) in conjunction with the I.L.P. and many Communists who still remain in the Party, would have helped to bring about the above result.”

Reply.

Our correspondent’s letter deserves close attention because it expresses the point of view of a considerable number of workers who have perceived the necessity for abolishing capitalism, but have not yet perceived that there is only one way in which that can be brought about. Each of the statements in the letter contains a partial truth, but in each case a deeper examination leads to a precisely opposite conclusion.

He says that he differs from the leaders of the Labour Party, but overlooks the very important fact that if this is a correct indication of his position, then he differs also from the overwhelming majority of the rank and file of the Labour Party, because the opinions and actions of those leaders are a very close reflection of the opinions of the members as a whole. We are aware that it is a constant slogan of the series of “Left Wing” movements, which follow each other like the days of the week, that the leaders do not represent the rank and file’s views ; but it is without any foundation. The same leaders with the same old tricks are elected and re-elected with monotonous regularity. When Maxton and Cook started their short-lived campaign which was going to carry a fiery cross through the Labour movement, they had to confess within a few short weeks that the working class wanted MacDonald and Thomas, with all their black record of betrayals of working-class interests.

Our correspondent says next that the leaders of the Labour Party and the Trade Unions will have to give up sitting on the fence and make a choice on a clear issue. Why must they do anything of the kind ? Was not the war in 1914 a clear issue? And the “greater production” campaign in 1919? And the series of “agreed” wage reductions in the past two years? And taking office on Liberal votes in the House of Commons? They have all been clear issues to the Socialist, but not clear to the members of the Labour Party. In consequence, the leaders have either sat on the fence or come down solidly and with the uproarious approval of their members on the capitalist side of it.

Lastly, we are told that we should have been inside the Labour Party, associating with the I.L.P. and the Communists, trying to oust the present leaders. Our correspondent disregards the facts. In the past four or five years I.L.P. members have been a clear majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party. So that every one of the leaders from whom our correspondent “differs widely” have been elected by the I.L.P. members with whom he wants us to associate for the purpose of opposing those leaders ! For a whole series of elections the Communists were in precisely the same boat. As we have pointed out in these columns year by year, the Communist Party has repeatedly told the workers to vote for MacDonald, Thomas, Frank Hodges, Clynes, Henderson, and the rest of the leaders. When Mr. Maxton was asked if he would try to get rid of MacDonald, he replied that he would not.

Lastly, our correspondent is silent upon one very important question. He gives us to understand that he is busy in the Labour Party trying to convert the members of the Labour Party and trying to get rid of the anti-working-class leaders. May we ask him a few questions? Does he tell the workers to vote at election times for these leaders? Or does he tell the workers that voting to return these men to Parliament is voting for the retention of capitalism? If he does the former, then he is not helping Socialism forward. Further, if he, or we, were inside the Labour Party, telling the workers to vote against Labour Party candidates, we would be confusing the minds of the workers. And, moreover, the Labour leaders would soon see to it that we were put outside, where we belong. Finally, the only way to obtain Socialism is to advocate it, and not to help the Labour Party by increasing the mental confusion already existing.

* * *

A Defence of the I.L.P.

Mr. W. Latimer (Carlisle) objects to our policy, particularly our criticism of the I.L.P. The chief points in his letter are given below, together with our reply.

“(1) I accuse you of misrepresentation of the I.L.P. . . . You wrote that the I.L.P. is not a Socialist organisation or party. What is it then? Capitalist?

(2) What are you doing to nullify the attacks of the capitalist class?

(3) How are you capturing the various weapons (State and Municipal) for the workers?

(4) Have you a policy to put into practice when you acclaim power?

(5) What are you doing to Socialise the Labour Party and the Trades Unions?”

Reply.

(1) The I.L.P. stands for nationalisation under which the capitalist class will continue in existence, but will draw their income on Government stocks instead of on company shares. “The Socialist Programme” (published by the I.L.P. in 1923) says :—

“The present shareholders in mines and railways could receive State mines or railway stock based on a valuation and bearing a fixed rate of interest.” (Page 24.)

That is capitalism. The party which advocates it is a capitalist party.

(2) While pointing out the limitations of trade union action, we urge the workers to resist attempts by the employers to lower wages. This has been made more difficult by the actions of the Labour Government in reducing the pay of Civil Servants. A majority of the Labour M.P.s are members of the I.L.P., which therefore cannot escape responsibility.

(3) The I.L.P. members in Parliament were all elected on the Labour Party programme, described by Mr. Maxton as a capitalist programme. That is not capturing the political machinery for Socialism, but for something else.

(4) Socialists want power only for the purpose of introducing Socialism. That is our programme.

(5) By propagating Socialist principles among the workers we try to make Socialists of them, whether in the trade unions or in the Labour Party or any other non-Socialist party. Our work is made vastly more difficult by I.L.P. Propaganda, which misleads the workers into believing that nationalisation is Socialism and will benefit them. (See I.L.P. pamphlet, “Socialism in Queensland,” for an example of harmful I.L.P. Propaganda.)

* * *

Why workers do not join the Socialist Party.

Glasgow, 

January 16th, 1931.

To the Editor, 

The Socialist Standard.

Dear Comrade.

Re your question to non-members, I venture to put forward a few reasons as to the apparent apathy among sympathisers. I am certain there must be some thousands of Socialists in this so-called second city of the Empire who are unattached to any party. At the Sunday night meetings here at West Regent Street, your speaker, Comrade Shaw, can and does, hold large and attentive crowds, seldom or never are questions put forward. I am convinced that a fair percentage of these crowds is made up of individual who have, at one time or another, been members of a political organization, and are, as it were, sitting on the fence. The following are some of the reasons (in my opinion), why men hold aloof :—

(1) Many are convinced Socialists that grudge the time and energy that is expected of them when joined up in an organization—Laziness.

(2) Not a few would join up and take an active part in the movement, but for the fact that it would cause unpleasantness, if not unhappiness in the home. One real Socialist in the midst of anti-Socialists is always in hot water, and to one who takes an active part for Socialism the water is extra hot.

(3) No doubt a number are timid or funky Socialists, and are somewhat obsessed with the thought that to be seen or heard by gaffer or boss taking part in Socialist propaganda, means, if not the sack, becoming a set man.

(4) Again, I believe there are many who have made up their minds that Socialism won’t come in “their” time, have become disgruntled at the apathy of the masses, and are out to get as cushy a time possible out of the present system.

The above four reasons apply to Socialists only ; outside of these, of course, are a host of bewildered individuals who listen to the various speakers of different organizations—each and all slating each other ; these bewildered ones won’t read or think for themselves, hence their bewilderment. As to those who oppose the position of the S.P.G.B., I mention one view which I often hear advanced. Many Socialist politicians start off in all good faith and earnestness, but when they get mixed up in Westminster or Trade Union atmosphere, they are bought over, become corrupt, make a position or pension. They have arrived, lifted out of the gutter, as it were, on the backs of others. They are convinced that Socialism won’t come in “their” time; their bread and butter is secure. They become apathetic or hypocritical, and the cause is deserted.

There can be no guarantee for the integrity of any man, no man is infallible; human flesh and, too often, the spirit, is weak.

Would S.P.G.B. M.P.s have this integrity and soundness of spirit? Would they withstand the temptations by which many have failed ? Would they hold the bridge or sell the pass?

I know a reasoned answer can be given to above, but without doubt, this view sticks in the minds of many. Let us hope this letter will open up discussion on same.

Yours for Socialism,

F. J. Derrett.

Reply.

The above letter very well sums up the various reasons given by sympathisers for remaining outside the Socialist Party. We would suggest to our sympathisers that they should reconsider whether their reasons are really adequate.

A number of readers have pointed out that many Socialists are undoubtedly in the position that they dare not actively associate with the Socialist Party without certain loss of their employment. This applies particularly in small country and provincial towns, where any public activity is sure to come to the ears of employers.

The reference in the above letter to the untrustworthiness of political representatives is worth special comment.

Electors who want a certain end but are not prepared to support the only way of getting it are sure to be disappointed. Nothing can prevent it, not even the most incorruptible of political representatives. How, for example, can any M.P. keep his pledge to solve the problems of unemployment and poverty if the electorate are not prepared to have Capitalism replaced by Socialism? M.P.s being human, and being usually under the necessity of earning their living by keeping their seat, have no choice but to go on doing those things that the electors are prepared to support.

The only remedy is a politically educated electorate which knows the problems and the solution. Nobody can “sell” an electorate which knows what it wants and how to get it. The Socialist Party  not say, “Support us and all will be well.” Our message to the workers is, “Study Socialism yourselves ; organise in the Socialist Party to get it.” Only Socialist knowledge will protect the workers against lenders and misleaders.

The chief trouble now is not that workers’ leaders sell out and go over openly to the other side, but that they remain in the workers’ movement because the workers approve of Capitalist policies. Should a Socialist M.P. sell out, that would end his association with the Socialist movement.

Editorial Committee.

A Socialist Searchlight. (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour Party as Investors' Party.

It is often alleged by Labour Party members that their party differs from the Liberals and Tories in that it is a workers’ party.

If they mean by this to claim that Liberal and Tory supporters are, in the main, not workers, the facts are against them. At least 85 per cent. of the voters are members of the working class, and since the number of Labour voters at the 1929 General Election was only two-fifths of the total number who went to the poll, it is evident that there are more workers who vote Liberal and Tory than there are who vote Labour.

The Daily Herald used to claim that it was “the workers’ paper.” Now its posters proudly proclaim that—

“’THE DAILY HERALD’ PROTECTS THE INVESTOR.”

In its City column, on March 13th, an article was published, telling a reader “how to invest £12,000.” Won’t this be good news for unemployed miners, and railwaymen whose pay has just been reduced !

The Daily Herald’s editorial on March 12th contains still more cheering news. It says :—

“The investing public is, on the whole, doing remarkably well.”

We ask readers who still support the Labour Party to think over that statement. Nearly two years after the Labour Party came into office, when the workers are suffering more than they have ever suffered, they are told as a fact that “the investing public … is doing remarkably well.”

* * *

A War-Time Curiosity. The Leeds Conference.

The following passages are extracted from a circular letter sent out on May 23rd, 1917, by those responsible for the calling of the still-born Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council which was to have been inaugurated at the Leeds Conference. It is interesting to observe that several of the signatories are now members of the Labour Government.

“To Trades Councils, Trade Unions, Local Labour Parties, Socialist Parties, Women’s Organisations, and Democratic Bodies. 

Dear Comrades,—The conference to which we invited you is already assured of a great success. It will be one of the greatest democratic gatherings ever held in this country. It will be historic; it will begin a new era of democratic power in Great Britain. It will begin to do for this country what the Russian revolution has done for Russia. …. It will be a democratic conference to establish democracy in Great Britain. Russia has called us to follow her. You must not refuse to answer that appeal. Send in your application for delegates’ cards at once, etc.”—On behalf of the United Socialist Council we remain, yours fraternally, 

H. Alexander, Chas G. Ammon, W. C. Anderson, C. Despard, E. C. Fairchild, J. Finsberg, F. W. Jowett, Geo. Lansbury, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Tom Quelch, Robert Smillie, Philip Snowden, Robert Williams.

May 23rd, 1917.”

* * *

The Daily Herald's Two Voices.

Daily Herald Editorial on December 10th, 1930:—

“The man in the street, asked what is the cause of our present troubles, would be likely to answer, “There’s not enough money about.” The man in the street would be largely right. The world is not . . . producing enough gold for its needs. . . . Shortage of gold means shortage of currency. Shortage of currency means shortage of purchasing power.”

Daily Herald Editorial, January 20th, 1931:—

“The pessimists received a further blow yesterday when a £3,000,000 issue of new debenture stock by the London Power Company was oversubscribed within a few minutes. Here is evidence in plenty that there is in this country money available for sound schemes. . . . How can it be attracted into industry again? The sure way is by increasing public confidence in our industrial future, and by persuading the ordinary consumer to buy more of the goods which are on all sides being offered at reasonable prices.”

It may be remarked that the oversubscription of public issues of shares was going on throughout the latter half of 1930. We wonder, too, whether the “ordinary consumer” who is asked to spend more includes the workers whose wages have been reduced while the Labour Government has been in office.

* * *

The Cotton Lock-Out.

It is interesting to notice that the factor which induced the employers to withdraw the lock-out notices and abandon their intention to try to impose a further 12½ per cent. reduction in pay and an increase in hours was the refusal of the locked-out men and women to give their trade union officials power to enter into negotiations. Reynolds’s Illustrated News (February 10th) says :—

“What brought about the collapse of the lock-out undoubtedly was the firmness of the rank and file of the operatives.

Right from the beginning of the dispute they have resolutely refused to give their Trade Union leaders power to negotiate with the employers, and have held our for the complete ending of the more-looms system.”

The Socialist Party has always pointed out the danger which arises from the practice of giving the officials power to negotiate in secret with the employers.

* * *

Unemployment in France.

A Blow to the Birth-Controllers.

Last year the publishers of the New Generation distributed (with the assistance of the New Leader a leaflet by G. A. Gaskell and R. B. Kerr, M.A., LL.B., showing how birth control would abolish unemployment. France, they said, was the “one country . . . which is free from unemployment.” France used to have unemployment, but birth control cured it. “Surely this is a magnificent achievement for birth control !” wrote the authors. Unfortunately for them, France hasn’t got rid of unemployment. In the August, 1930, Socialist Standard we gave the reasons why France had temporarily escaped obvious unemployment, and prophesied that unemployment would soon appear.

Now we have some definite evidence on the subject. The special correspondent in France of the News-Chronicle wrote as follows (22nd December, 1930) :—

“No reliable unemployment figures are available, though the Government admits a slow, but steady, increase. M. Lenoir, the Secretary of the Confederation Generale du Travail, declares that the situation is serious and that the number of unemployed is increasing every day. ‘It is not,’he adds, ‘seasonal unemployment. The workless are legion in the textile and metal industries of the North. . . . There is also a lot of short time everywhere.’”

Further evidence was given by Mr. H. J. Greenwall, who was in France for the Daily Express. He wrote (January 13th, 1931) :—

“There are, at the moment, about a quarter of a million unemployed in France, while those on short time bring the figures up to about half a million.”

The French representative at the recent Geneva Conference on unemployment admitted that there are in France 350,000 wholly unemployed and about 1,000,000 partly unemployed, excluding all firms employing under 100 persons (see The Times, February 7th). These figures were confirmed by the French Government. The Paris correspondent of The Times also reported that the census of 1921 showed 537,000 unemployed, and the census of 1926, 243,000. France is now faced with threatening strikes and lock-outs in several industries owing to attempts to reduce wages.

By the end of February, according to The Times March 7th, 1931), unemployment had risen to at least 650,000, with a further 1,500,000 partly unemployed.

So much for birth control as a cure for unemployment and poverty.

* * *

Mr. Maxton's acrobatics.

Mr. Maxton has often declared that the Labour Party is a capitalist party, but he always takes good care to keep inside that capitalist party, in the warm. The thought of being put out into the cold, where there are no political jobs going for the bright young men and women of the I.L.P., fills him and his supporters with the wildest alarm. He was taunted with this inconsistency at the Conference of the Scottish I.L.P. He said (Forward, January 17th) :—

“He had been told in the House of Commons that a man could not ride two horses. All I can say is that if you cannot ride two horses you have no right to be in the bloody circus. . . . 

Surely I, in the Left Wing, am entitled to my acrobatics, and to have one foot on the Labour official horse and the other on the fighting socialist horse.”

A resolution to disaffiliate from the Labour Party was defeated by 112 votes to 25. Bold Mr. Maxton, riding his two horses as usual, “said he would not speak either for or against the resolution.” This is how the “leaders” give a “lead” to their followers.

* * *

The I.L.P. drops members.

It was disclosed at the Conference of the Scottish I.L.P. that the number of Labour M.P.’s who are members of the I.L.P. has fallen to 156. A year ago, when the Party held its National Conference, it was stated in the Report to Conference that nearly 200 I.L.P. members were Labour M.P.’s. So that over 40 Labour M.P.’s have in a year decided that the I.L.P. can be of no further use as an aid to a political career. The I.L.P. still, however, counts as members a clear majority of the Labour M.P.’s.

It is interesting to notice how the membership of the I.L.P. has fallen in recent years. In February, 1925, according to the “Socialist Annual, 1925,” published by the I.L.P., there were approximately 50,000 members and 1,028 branches. At the Conference in 1930 it was stated (Manchester Guardian, April 3rd, 1930) that the branches had fallen to 748. If the membership has fallen proportionately to the fall in branches, it would have been not more than 30,000 a year ago. The income from affiliation fees fell by over 40 per cent. between 1925 and 1929.

The Report of the National Administrative Council to the 1931 Conference shows a further decline. The branches now number 712, and affiliation fees have fallen to £.1,523, as compared with £3,467 in the year ended January, 1926.

According to Mr. F. A. Ogg (“English Government and Politics,” p. 541), the I.L.P. in 1914 had 60,000 members, and in 1927, when its book membership was 50,000, the actual paid-up membership was nearer 30,000.

* * *

The Well-To-Do I.L.P.

The I.L.P. has objected to the Government’s proposed Voting Bill because it is not sufficiently democratic. The I.L.P. put down several amendments, but we observe that neither they nor the Labour Party, the Liberal Party or the Tory Party, propose to abolish the clause which compels candidates to deposit £150. To find such deposits is a hard task for a party (such as our own) dependent on the spare cash of members of the working class. It is by no means difficult for the wealthy parties referred to above. The dependence of the I.L.P. on well-to-do supporters is illustrated by their recently published appeal for funds. Four lists of subscribers have been issued up to February 20th. Out of a total amount of £1,169, no less than £709 was subscribed by only 14 persons. This included one donation of £250 and three donations of £100. Although the I.L.P. complains of dwindling funds, it is still able to count on well-to-do supporters.

* * *

Capitalism and class barriers.

Defenders of capitalism are fond of pointing out that everyone has a chance of climbing to the top. The statistical department of the German Government has just conducted an inquiry to find out how many workers’ sons have actually been able to climb into the ranks of the privileged class. An account of the inquiry was given in the News-Chronicle on December 10th, 1930.

It was found that there were only four workers’ sons among 247 bankers, stockbrokers and big business men ; two among 258 company directors ; none among 122 big property owners ; six among 203 actors, singers, theatrical managers ; none among 300 political economists, etc. ; and only about seven among 1,370 high Government and Municipal officials. 

No daughter of a working man was found to have penetrated into the learned professions or big business circles.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Red Herring. (1931)

Editorial from the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent election in St. George's raises a few interesting questions.

In the first place, there seems little doubt that Tory, Labour and Liberals were allied in supporting the Conservative candidate against the Rothermere-Beaverbrook nominee. But the first question that strikes one is, Why all the bother and mud-slinging? What is behind the Rothermere-Beaverbrook attempt to run the Conservative Party? And, further, why the comparative unanimity between Conservatives, Liberals and Labour on the Indian Question? Is it all a game of bluff?

That Rothermere and Beaverbrook desire to wield the balance of power in the Conservative Party, and that Winston Churchill (who up to the present seems always to have changed his political colours too late) desires the position of Prime Minister, may all be true, but yet not the main object behind the trouble.

Ireland was for decades a useful blind to keep the English workers from taking too close an interest in their own political circumstances. After Ireland had passed out of the picture, Russia stepped in, and now India is in the limelight. But in the meantime Liberal, Tory and Labour have been drawing closer together and the Labour Party have given ample evidence of their ability to steer accurately in the interests of capital. There is a danger of the workers getting restive and dissatisfied with the Labour Party's meek acceptance of capitalist conditions. What better method then of heading off dangerous restiveness than by putting up a sham fight with a new brand of capitalist political parties. The hazier and more indefinite the object and programme, the larger the number of people likely to be attracted.

The way Gandhi has been manoeuvred into such a position that many of his followers are now repudiating him, suggests the nature of the bluff.

The Daily Mail and the Evening News have been publishing furious articles about the surrender to Gandhi, but Gandhi has now discovered that there are certain reservations relating to safeguards in the British Government's agreement that were (purposely?) not made clear to him at the time of signing.

In the meantime, mass protest meetings are being held in India by Hindus who threaten to withdraw their support from Gandhi if he agrees to certain demands of the Moslems. It looks very like the old game of “divide and conquer."

To the worker the issues raised at St. George's were of no concern, as the interests engaged were capitalist interests. Self-government for India, like self-government for Ireland, is only a question of which group of capitalists will rule. The dinners to Gandhi given by the rich Bombay mill-owners are suggestive of the meaning of Indian self-government to the mass of the population of India.

For over a century the population of India has been exploited for the benefit of European capitalists who broke up the old communal village system of production that had flourished there for ages. In the meantime, native capitalists have amassed wealth and own much of the recently developed instruments of modern production. The latter now want political domination in order to secure a greater share of the fruits of the labour of the Indian workers—hence the movement for self-government.

Indian working men and women are exploited in mills, mines and on the land, like their English brethren, and, like them also, their only salvation lies in the international movement for Socialism. In this movement no help is to be expected from Indian mill-owners nor from the parties in this country that are united in demanding the continuance of present conditions, whether they fly the colours of Tory, Liberal, Labour or United Empire Parties.

The Mosley Party. Old Fallacies Re-Furbished. (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

One cannot but sympathise with the exasperation of Labour Party members who were promised something new and striking when their party came into office, and now find themselves not even in the position of defending the Government’s actions against criticism, because the Government has, for all practical purposes, not committed any actions. It has just sat tight, apparently paralysed with fear of the consequences should it try to put its programme into operation. As Lady Cynthia Mosley complains, they have had to listen to the Liberal Party smugly reproving the Government for being unprogressive and for allowing itself to be scared into inactivity by the Conservative opposition. If the Liberal demand for action was bluff, as the MacDonald Ministry maintains, why not, she asks, call their bluff? Sir Oswald Mosley, who was a member of the Government, tried to goad .them into adopting his scheme for tackling unemployment. Having failed, he has finally taken the step of forming the “New Party.”

The Origin of the New Party.

In the Leader on March 10th, 1931, Sir Oswald Mosley tells the story of the Party’s formation :—

  A year ago I and many other of the younger men began to see the economic crisis which has since struck this country. I was then a Minister, and I submitted a memorandum to the Cabinet showing this, and outlining an active policy to deal with it. What response did I get? I and my friends were laughed at as alarmists, who were always crying “ Wolf.”
  We were told we were young men in a hurry, that there was no economic crisis, that trade would soon mend of itself, that it was silly and unnecessary to take any special emergency measures to deal with the situation. Not once, but again and again, Mr. Snowden, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, told us all that trade would mend; sometimes he said within a year, sometimes within six months.
  Well, the year has gone by, and what do we see? This same Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, comes down to the House of Commons, and in a panic speech announces a crisis. All of a. sudden he has been converted to our view, and calls for sacrifices from all.
  What does this phrase, “sacrifices from all," mean in plain language? It means simply wage reductions, reductions in all the so-called social services, it means less money for everybody. This is his way of dealing with the crisis.

The Mosley Programme.

Sir Oswald Mosley, in the article referred to above, and in the pamphlet, “A National Policy” (Macmillan’s, 6d.), sets out the principal points in the policy of his party.

Their first demand is for the reform of Parliamentary procedure:—

“Nothing can be done with that creaking, broken-down, antiquated old machine at Westminster.”

Secondly, they propose a National Economic Planning Council which would rationalise production and marketing with a view to eliminating waste, overlapping and inefficiency.

Thirdly, there would be Commodity Boards to control the importation of foreign goods which under-sold any home industry. The object of restricting the entry of cheap foreign goods would be to enable the home industry to be re-organised. Protected industries would have to pay an adequate wage; how much, he does not say.

There is to be “economic partnership with the Dominions and Colonies,” and trade agreements with foreign countries that are willing to help this country’s export trade.

Is Parliament Too Slow?

Sir Oswald Mosley’s first error is his.supposition that Parliament’s failure to do certain things is due to the machinery being out-of-date. The real explanation is that those who control Parliament are, on the whole, very well satisfied with things as they are, and do not want to make any fundamental change. And in this they accurately reflect the insufficient knowledge, lack of purpose and lack of agreement among the electors. If the electors, or a majority of them, wanted something done, the machinery of Parliament would not stand in the way. In 1912 an occasion arose when capitalist interests required a more stringent Official Secrets Act in order to make preparations for the coming war with Germany. The Speaker of the House said it would be contrary to every Parliamentary. precedent to put the Bill through as quickly as the promoters desired. Nevertheless, the Bill was pushed through the whole of the stages of the House of Commons procedure and given the Reyal Assent all within 24 hours. General Seeley tells the full story in his book, “Adventure.”

Rationalisation and Unemployment.

The new Party’s next proposal is merely a new version of the century-old demand for increased efficiency as a means of solving capitalism’s problems. Sir Oswald Mosley and his lieutenants do not so much as refer to the vital working-class objection to such schemes. Under capitalism the proceeds of the work of the working class do not belong to them. The products of the labour of farm workers and mill hands, railwaymen, clerks, sailors and others are the property of the employing class. Any increase in those products, however it may be obtained, is also the property of the employing class. It does not follow, either in theory or in practice, that the workers will have all or any of the increase in the amount of wealth which may be produced. In addition, rationalisation means the introduction of labour-displacing machinery and devices, with consequent growth in unemployment. (Sir Oswald Mosley promises to “rebuild the trade of this country,” but overlooks the fact that his schemes of rationalisation would enable still more wealth to be produced by fewer workers. Unless society is re-organised on a Socialist basis, the fruits of economy and greater efficiency will continue to be enjoyed by the propertied class. The Workers, when employed, will continue to get as their share wages based roughly on their cost of living.

There Is No Grave Crisis For Capitalism.

The new Party, in common with all the “old gangs” whom it criticises, accepts the fallacious doctrines that the workers are poor and many of them unemployed because of foreign competition, and that the decline in exports in recent years has left capitalist industry unable to afford higher wages.

The workers are poor because the capitalist class own the machinery of production and because they retain and consume a vast amount of the wealth produced.

The volume of imports and exports passing between capitalist countries is related to the total amount of wealth in those countries only in the same way that the exchange of goods between, say, London and Manchester is related to the wealth of the people living in those two cities. The fact that a Manchester firm may lose its London market owing to the opening of a London firm selling the same line of goods, and that a London firm producing some other article may lose its Manchester market to a new Manchester firm, does not mean necessarily that Manchester and London become poorer. If the change has been due to the utilisation of more efficient machinery and methods of production, the amount of wealth produced, and still more the amount capable of being produced, will be greater than before in both areas. But the workers may get none of the increase.

During the years since the war the exports from this country have heavily declined in value, due in part to technical developments in industry and agriculture which have made it more profitable for the capitalists of this and other countries to employ workers on the production of certain articles at home, instead of importing them. Imports and exports have fallen, but the wealth of this country has been increasing.

Mosley, like the Empire Free Traders, points to the fact that there are farmers in the Dominions who cannot sell their grain, and factory owners here who cannot sell their industrial products. He asks, Why not bring the two together? But what about the farmers here who cannot sell their grain, and the factory owners in the Dominions who cannot sell their industrial goods?

When Sir Oswald Mosley says that the position of the industrial capitalist “becomes daily more impossible," and that there is now a crisis which will smash Great Britain unless something drastic is done about it, he is talking nonsense. The capitalists' average rate of profit has remained remarkably stable since tire war at a level well above the pre-war average. (For figures, see March Socialist Standard.) The present two and a half million unemployed is no higher than the number recorded during the Lloyd George Coalition Government’s term of office. It is merely a sign of the periodical accumulation of goods which cannot be sold because the employing class have satisfied all their wants, although they still have vast purchasing power available. Now that production has been severely curtailed, the accumulation is being got rid of. In due course sales will revive and unemployment will fall to a lower figure. The Labour Government went into office gambling that unemployment would decrease. They backed the wrong' horse at that time. Mosley now appears to be gambling that it will continue to increase heavily. He looks like being disappointed.

The Mosley Party A Capitalist Party.

The Mosley Party may make headway among disappointed members of the existing parties, but it seems obvious that, in spite of a lavish expenditure of money on meetings and posters and talk of 400 candidates at the next election, they cannot hope to be in a position to apply their programme except by joining with some other party.

But even if Mosley did manage to get Governmental power, his programme would not solve the problems of the workers. The chief promoters of the Party have every appearance of muddle-headed sincerity, but they have explicitly ruled out the only solution of the workers’ problems, i.e., the abolition of capitalism. In “A National Policy” occurs the following declaration :—

   Questions of the ultimate goal of society are excluded by the urgency of the problem which confronts us. (Page 6.)

Moreover, not only do they exclude questions of the ultimate goal of society, but they do not even admit Socialism—that is, common ownership of the machinery of production and distribution—as being a question at all. For them the question of the ultimate goal of society is merely the issue of State capitalism versus private capitalism—an issue of no concern to Socialists.

Mr. W. E. D. Allen, the Conservative M.P. for West Belfast, who has joined the Party, confesses that his object in joining it is "the adjustment of the capitalist system to the economic needs of the nation as a whole” (Star, March 9th), and he further says that his action is no offence against the "broad principles of Ulster Unionism ” (Manchester Guardian, March 3rd).

The Mosley Party and the Labour Party.

Most of the original support for the new programme came from Labour M.P.’s, the majority of whom, however, deserted Mosley when he actually formed the new Party. Those who went right through with it—Lady Cynthia Mosley, Mr. Strachey and Dr. Forgan—have all defended their action on the ground that it is not they, but the Labour Party which has deserted the Labour programme. They have stated explicitly that they still stand by "Labour and the Nation,” the programme on which they were elected. They also maintain that they are Socialists.

Mr. W. J. Brown, M.P., who left the Labour Party, but now declines to join the Mosley Party, although his name appears as one of the writers of "A National Policy,” and although he was billed to speak at meetings of the new Party, takes up a quite different attitude.

Although he also was elected as a Labour Party candidate on "Labour and the Nation,” he declares that "Labour and the Nation” is a programme of capitalism. This he did in a speech at the 1928 Labour Party Conference (see Conference Report, page 207). He said that its application would give  "not Socialism, but a State-subsidised capitalism.”

From this speech and from Mr. Brown’s subsequent actions, two things emerge. The first is that in his view he and the other Mosleyites, as well as all the Labour M.P.’s, were elected on a capitalist programme. The second is that, whereas in 1928 he rejected "Labour and the Nation” and said he wanted in its place Socialism, he has since changed his mind. He still rejects “Labour and the Nation,” but, in common with the Mosleyites, he wants a different kind of capitalist programme, i.e., the Mosley programme which he helped to draft.

The Angry I.L.P.

The I.L.P. are furious with Mosley, not because the new Party is a capitalist party, but because it threatens to queer the pitch of the Labour Party and the I.L.P.

The I.L.P. are amazed, no doubts at the Mosleyites leaving the Labour Party. Seeing that the Labour Party are acting as "caretakers of capitalism" (as it was put by the prominent member of the I.L.P., Mr. Campbell Stephen, M.P., in the New Leader on March 13th), why go outside and form another party of caretakers of capitalism? The I.L.P. Members of Parliament, who form a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, are quite prepared to go on acting as caretakers of capitalism, but they strongly resent the action of the Mosley group who were, apparently, honest enough to leave the Labour Party when they found themselves no longer in agreement with it. The action of the Mosley group shows up the Maxtonites for what they are—a body of dishonest and cowardly time-servers, pretending to condemn the Labour programme as a programme of capitalism, but themselves seeking election on it, and painfully careful never to translate their words into deeds.

The Old “New Party.”

It would be a pity not to refer to a very cruel blow delivered at the new Party by a correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. He points out the marked resemblance between the new programme and the writings of Bishop Berkeley. Mr. John Strachey, M.P., a member of the Mosley group, confesses that Bishop Berkeley was one of his father’s favourite authors, and that the new Party is indeed indebted to the Bishop. But he asks (Manchester Guardian, February 28th), "Why should we deny it?" "Because a man lived 200 years ago, is he necessarily wrong?” We would ourselves like to ask the Mosley Party what reason they can urge against trying Socialism, especially in view of the great age of their own policy?

Edgar Hardcastle

Psychology and Socialism (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader has asked us to give our views on “Psychoanalysis and Sociology,” by Aurel Kolnai, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul, and published in 1921 by George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. It was an attempt to use psychoanalysis to throw light on the part played by society in shaping the individual. The translation is in a style which often makes it exceedingly difficult to understand what the author is driving at, and there is abundant evidence to show that he was quite unfitted to pursue this study, or in fact any study requiring logical argument backed up by knowledge and evidence.

This may be illustrated from his chapter on “Marxism as a Social Psychosis.” He says (p. 157) that “Marx espoused the Hegelian dialectic with great energy, merely replacing spirit in that system by economics, conceived as autonomous independent, mystically operative " (italics ours).

What exactly the italicised passage means it is hard to say, but it is certain that Marx himself did not conceive his theories in any such light. The view expressed must therefore be entirely Kolnai's own, but not one word of justification or explanation does he offer. This is typical of the whole book—an uninterrupted flow of obscurely worded assumptions linked together by the slenderest thread of connections.

Aurel Kolnai says that Marxists show all the signs of paranoia (p. 159), “a form of insanity, characterised by systematic delusions.” All the evidence he offers is contained in two statements; first, that Marxian theories ”suffice to arouse a suspicion ” that they have not a rational basis, and, second, that Marxism ”vividly recalls ” the idea of Christ the Saviour.

But these two assertions do not tell us anything about Marxism and Marxians. What “suffices” for Aurel Kolnai would not suffice for most people; and when he says that Marxism vividly recalls Jesus Christ to him, that only tells us something about Kolnai, about his trend of thought and about his inadequate ideas concerning proof.

And having so easily “proved” that Marxism is paranoia, he just as easily shifts his ground and allows that it is not “ simply a case of paranoia ” (p. 161). He even admits (p. 164) that the conditions under which the workers live may be a "contributory" cause towards moulding their ideas.

It is a pity that Aurel Kolnai did not follow up this one fruitful line of inquiry. If he had done so, he would have discovered that the private ownership, by the Capitalist class, of society's means of life is not a "systematic delusion,” but a hard fact. It is the determining factor in shaping the worker's ideas, because it governs the material conditions of his life.

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialists and the Communist Party (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks why we oppose the Communist Party. Our general objection is that the Communists confuse the workers as to the meaning of Socialism and urge them to follow policies which are useless and dangerous.

The Communists mislead the workers by claiming that Socialism has been or is being established in Russia. The claim is false. In Russia all of the essential features of capitalism exist, and are not in process of being abolished. The workers are wage-earners, as they are here. Goods are produced for sale, not for use. Means of production are privately owned. There is vast inequality of income. Persons in administrative and technical posts receive twenty and thirty times as much as industrial workers. There is rent, interest and profit. The State capitalist industries and farms (mis-called “Socialist”) are avenues for the investment of the surplus wealth of the wealthier sections of the population. There is a great and growing investing class drawing incomes from their investments in State loans at 10 per cent, and over.

We do not condemn the Bolsheviks for the fact that capitalism exists and develops in Russia. They would have had Socialism if they could, but the conditions do not exist to make Socialism possible.

We condemn the Communist Party for pretending that Russian capitalism is Socialism merely because it is administered by Communists.

We condemn the Communists for their dangerous and futile policy of setting unarmed workers against the armed forces of the State.

We condemn the Communists for their advocacy of reforms and for their policy of telling the workers to vote into power Labour Party candidates, whom the Communists themselves admit will use their power to bolster up capitalism.

Ed. Comm.

The People By Campanella. (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The people is a beast of muddy brain
That knows not its own force, and therefore stands
Loaded with wood and stone; the powerless hands
Of a mere child guide it with bit and rein;
One kick would be enough to break the chain;
But the beast fears, and what the child demands,
It does; nor its own terror understands,
Confused and stupefied by bugbears vain.
Most wonderful: With its own hand it ties
And gags itself—gives itself death and war.
For pence doled out by kings from its own store.
Its own are all things between earth and heaven;
But this it knows not; and if one arise
To tell this truth, it kills him unforgiven.

(Translated by J. A. Symonds.)

The Fall of Riazanov (1931)

From the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The process of eliminating all of the better-known men and women who were prominent in the Bolshevik party at the time of the seizure of power has gone so far that practically all of them now share Trotsky's fate as exiles, or are in prison or relegated to obscurity. The latest person to be got rid of is D. Riazanov, the authority on the literature of Marxism, who formed, under the auspices of the Soviet Government, the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

Riazanov has been removed from his post as Director of the Institute, expelled from the Russian Communist Party, and lodged in jail on the grounds of alleged "betrayal of the Party" and "rendering assistance to the Menscheviks and foreign interventionists."

It would be idle to discuss whether these or any of the charges levelled by the Russian ruling caste against its opponents are well-founded, for the simple reason that those charged are not in a position to defend themselves. The authorities are in a position to secure whatever verdict they like and to publish alleged "confessions" in the names of the prisoners. After more one of the past trials the prisoners in private conversation repudiated their "confessions."

What is interesting about Riazanov's case is that his deposition is accompanied by the claim that his reputation as an authority on Marxism was totally undeserved. He is now alleged never to have understood the Marxian system—this in spite of the fact that only last year, when he reached the of sixty, great honours were shown officially, including the award of the Order of the Red Flag.

The real reason for the denial of Riazanov's soundness as a Marxian can possibly be looked for in the urgent need to mislead the Russian workers into the belief that the Russian system of "State capitalism" is in reality "Socialism."

We have before drawn attention to the theories now being propounded in Communist economic text-books, according to which the Russian workers are not exploited, in spite of the existence of a growing class of investors in that country. Marx showed that you cannot have a rent, interest and profit system without the exploitation of the workers. Marxism has consequently been unpalatable to Russia's rulers. Anyone who cannot or will not swallow the bowdlerised Marxism of the Communist Party dictators necessarily becomes a danger to their interests.

Perhaps Riazanov has been guilty of knowing too much about Marxian theories, and of not knowing how to dance to a different tune.

R. E.