Shall Capitalism Continue? (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The question that all thinking men and women must be asking themselves to-day is: Can capitalism stand inviolate and yet satisfy human needs? That this stage of thoughtful consideration is prevalent is borne out to some extent by a leading article in the "Transport and General Workers' Record," the organ of the T. and G.W.U., the union that caters for over a million "unskilled" workers. (Feb. 1943).

Under the heading "A Call to Duty," the writer insists that it is the duty of every trade unionist to study the social and economic problems that press for a solution to-day. He goes on:—

  But we have seen nothing in any of the post-war plans published by organised vested interests which encourage us to hope that if their proposals are adopted we shall not see once again the skies black with the smoke of burning wheat, coffee and cotton while the streets resound to the march of the unemployed, or hear once again the scream of bombs and shells of nations fighting yet another devastating world war.

The writer's solution for this is summed up in his own words :—

  A way must be found to keep the resources of the world in full employment, and to enable the people to have access to the goods produced. There must be an unbreakable link of adequate purchasing power between production and consumption.

What we should like to ask is this: Is it possible under capitalism to let the people have access to the goods produced? Let us probe this a little deeper.

Socialists have critically examined capitalism, and have come to the conclusion that the wages system is basic to it.

That in order to end capitalism, an end must be made of wage labour, and no amount of tinkering, planning or scheming will unfetter the latent productive powers that are waiting to be used by humanity, unless the wages system is abolished.

This may seem an alarming conclusion to many, and we must provide some evidence for this finding.

The wages system is the capitalist method of paying for the use of the mental and physical energies of men, women, and even children, by those who possess and control money, plant, land and raw materials.

To put it bluntly, the transaction amounts to this: The owner of this energy or labour-power sells it to the highest bidder; the buyer then rises it to his best advantage, appointing foremen, overseers and timekeepers to see that the contract is kept, and that he gets his money's worth.

Wages, then, are the price of labour power, which takes on the attributes of a commodity for sale on the market. Its price rises and falls—it is dear, it is cheap, it is scarce, or there is a glut—in short, labour power is part and parcel of commodity production. Well might an old speaker of the S.P.G.B. enquire of his audience. What is the difference between what you sell and pounds of sausages—sausages 1s. 4d. per lb., and you 1s. 4d. per hour?

Yet there is a special difference between the commodity labour power and the other goods that our capitalist must purchase for production. Honest business man that he is, paying the proper market price for machinery, materials and his labour power, he finds that by putting to work this active commodity on his inert merchandise, that it produces goods or values over and above what he originally laid out, thereby leaving a surplus which legally belongs to him.

Our capitalist is in possession of commodities in which is contained the unpaid labour of the worker.

As to their use value to other people he is not so much interested as how quickly he can sell them, and it must be fairly obvious that the worker cannot buy back the whole of the product that he has produced by his labour.

Here we must leave the simple illustration, and transpose it to the real world, for we have arrived at the point around which swings the whole capitalist system.

For our capitalist is representative of the employing class which exploits the great working class with one object— the obtaining of surplus value, which they divide among themselves as industrialists, bankers, landlords or middlemen, by a process which is beyond the scope of this article to describe.

The workers' share is kept at a minimum by the acceptance of the commodity nature of their one possession—their labour power, and in the struggle over its price they have built up huge unions, in order, as the cynics have it, to bargain over the conditions of their servitude to the capitalist class. Yet if they did not struggle, and if necessary withdraw their labour power—i.e., strike—they would, in the words of Marx, be reduced to the level of broken wretches past salvation.

But our capitalists have troubles of their own. What if they cannot sell their commodities? Contained in the mass of products in capitalist hands, there is, when sold, not only the income they seek, but the new capital to repeat the operation we have described. This is where the trouble starts, for capitalist production is not an isolated phenomenon but is world wide, and the "world markets" are the possession of those who can sell the cheapest. They can reduce prices by more than one method; they can reduce the cost of labour power, increase the intensity of labour, instal labour-saving machinery, lengthen the working day, obtain cheaper raw materials, or keep rivals from obtaining same.

A tendency in this we must note is that capitalism to-day is organising not as a "private enterprise" agglomeration, but as national units, which speak and trade for their capitalists as a body.

Every so often, as has been seen, there comes a "depression." The markets are "glutted," and the first action of capitalists is to reduce the buying of labour power, so then its unfortunate owners must walk the streets unemployed, sustained by grudgingly given doles or charity. Nor can the capitalist give away the products he cannot sell, even if he wished to, for not all have their capital in "means of subsistence," which is what our worker needs in the shape of clothes and food. Many are engaged in producing "means of production," such as factories and heavy engineering; furthermore, they would by such methods knock the bottom out of prices, thereby rendering capitalism further inoperative.

The usual practice is to let their commodities lie up, and often rust if they be ships or plant, and even make bonfires of such things as wheat or cotton.

Having brought the reader so far, it does not need any great imagination on his or her part to understand that a prolonged stalemate on the part of world capitalism can easily lead the competitors to settle the question by force of arms—by war. Therefore to let the people have access to goods produced, there is only one way: let the people own and control all the means of production and distribution, producing everything solely for use instead of for sale and profit.

Well might Marx, that guide and thinker, begin his classic "Capital" with the words: "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities." For in this prosaic opening is contained for Man, as for us, the crux of capitalist production, and to-day, 60 years from his death, there is no working class in the world that has abolished commodity production—has, in other words, established Socialism, where the buying and selling of labour power has ceased, where the link of "purchasing power " is abolished as a capitalist device.

We as the only Socialist party in this country hope for the day when the mature advice of Marx is heeded, and trade unionists write upon their banners, not a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, but the abolition of the wages system.

Frank Dawe

The Growth of State Power (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The State is the public power of coercion. It makes and administers the laws, and it does so in the interests of the class that is economically supreme at the different epochs. In antiquity it was the state of the slave proprietors, in the middle ages the feudal proprietors, and in modern times the capitalist proprietors.

The State had its beginning with the birth of private property, which started with the limitation of property within the early communistic tribes. Members of the tribe were appointed as officials to guard the rights of this budding property. As the operations of private owners extended outside tribal limits, the functions of these officials were extended.

With the disintegration of tribal society the incipient State was personified in the military chief and his followers. These war leaders overran other territories, and, like the Spartans and the Normans, established themselves as ruling, tribute collecting bodies.

The growth of trading and the splitting of society into more clearly defined classes strengthened the influence and power of the growing state, and the struggle for control of it. It was the only body that stood apart from the various social groups, and therefore the most obvious body to take over the work of promulgating laws. It also had the power to enforce the laws.

This early form of the state was rude and barbarous, and frequently resorted to open force. It was an object of struggle between social classes because the class that was paramount in society had the power to enforce its will and, if necessary, sweep away its opponents. It was a state form that fitted the early civilisations in which people lived in walled towns that were surrounded by agricultural territory.

In the city states of Babylon and Egypt the military rulers became both priest and law-giver, and the laws were administered at the gates of the temple. The temple itself was the receptacle for the tablets upon which the laws were engraved. From that time onwards religion remained a pillar of the state.

The growth of the small Roman state into the overlordship of myriads of similar states throughout Europe and a part of Africa and Asia threw up a host of administrative problems that resulted in a vast growth of officials and a huge bureaucracy that covered with a network the whole unwieldy Roman Empire. It was also a spur to the study of the use and abuses of private property, which resulted in the production of a mass of laws and methods of legal procedure, a good deal of which has lasted to the present day.

The empires that were based on the organisation into city states were not closely knit societies with local autonomy and direct connection with the centres, such as sprang up in modern times. They were in the main municipalities preyed upon by the central power. The Roman State was principally a huge tax-gathering machine.

Very little further progress was made in state building from Roman times until the modern state began to emerge in the 14th and 15th centuries with the opening of world markets and the rise of the capitalist class.

The growth of the modern state has followed similar lines everywhere, and thus a brief description of its development in England will give a clear enough general picture.

England was settled by different bands of warriors before and after the Roman conquest. The population was small and the country covered with woodland. The withdrawal of the Romans left it open for conquest by Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Danes, each of whom at first occupied definite tracts of country and kept their own identity. As consolidation developed tribal kingdoms became local administrative centres of larger kingdoms, until eventually, in the ninth century, the whole country was brought under the control of one king. By that time also the manorial system, with its lords and serfs, feudal dues and local courts, had become firmly established.

By 1066, the Norman conquest, local government divisions of shire, hundred, borough and township had grown out of the swallowing up of earlier tribal territories in larger ones. The local settlement of disputes under the manorial system left little room for royal intervention at first, though it was from the latter that the state was to grow.

In those days the king was elected by leaders sitting in council, and obtained and held his position as a rule by his military prowess, although kingship generally kept within the same family group.

The Norman Conquest planted upon the country an upper tier of war lords, who exacted feudal tribute, and for this purpose took a census of the number, wealth and standing of the inhabitants. The different districts were organised into a system of land tenure under which the whole country was owned in theory by the king, but each district, or a number of districts, was held in fief by nobles (his personal followers), who owed him military and other service. They in turn had vassals, who owed them similar dues. In fact, the king was a glorified manorial lord, but his position at the head of the feudal system gave him the opportunity and the means to gradually intrude in local affairs. This intrusion began with the establishment of what was called the king's peace. The lawlessness of some of the feudal lords and bands of feudal retainers became too much for the local courts to deal with, and furnished an excuse for the royal power to step in.

During the Middle Ages the King's Council ruled England. At first it consisted of the more powerful nobles, thanes, bishops and abbots, but was later reduced in size by various causes, including the crusades. Eventually the growing power of the king led to a struggle between the king and the nobles for control of the state. It was this body of feudal lords, neither elective nor representative, that began to be known as Parliament about 1250.

The influence of the crown in the general affairs of the country really began with .the appointment of Justices of the Peace, at first to assist the local sheriffs in police duties, but later to perform a great variety of functions necessary, for efficient administration. For instance, the increase in commerce increased the importance of the monetary system and the need for reliable standards of weight and measurement. Counterfeiting coins and clipping gold and silver coins was common. These were among the evils that the Justices of the Peace were organised to check. Also the putting down of piracy and securing the safety of highways came within their province. And so their number and activities increased until they covered the kingdom and attended to the smallest of local matters.

These justices were appointed by the King's Council and were only answerable to it, and they reported everything and spied upon everybody. Their growth was assisted by the disorders following the Black Death, the plague that ravaged England during the fourteenth century, and the wars with France during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.. These factors contributed so much to the state power of the crown that by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Tudor sovereigns, Henry VII., Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, had the country under the control of a despotism that covered the acts and aspirations of every single one of the inhabitants.

In the course of time control of public affairs had become so complicated that the King's Council, which by 1626 became the Privy Council, had to delegate its work to commissions, such as the Star Chamber, Court of High Commission, and Councils of the North, of Ireland, and of Wales. Secretaries were established covering the treasury, foreign affairs, and the navy and arms. In the seventeenth century these secretaries and heads of departments formed a Cabinet Council, which later entirely took the place of the Privy Council for executive purposes. It was they who decided what money should be asked from Parliament and how Parliament should be prevailed upon to grant it.

It is necessary to go back a little to consider the development of Parliament itself.

The object of the crown in building up and controlling the state was to acquire wealth. At first the use of brute force was sufficient, but it could not thrive indefinitely upon plunder, because wealth has to be produced before it can be plundered, and a measure of security was essential to the production of wealth. Hence the crown's interest in the peace of the country.

The growth of trading, with the gradual disintegration of the manorial system, strengthened the central government, which undertook regulation of economic matters by proclamation and statute, but it also dried up some of the sources of royal revenue and forced the crown to devise other means of replenishing the treasury. In 1264 four representative knights (minor landowners) from each shire were summoned to a great council in London for the purpose of voting money to the royal exchequer. This was the germ of the House of Commons, just as the council of nobles and bishops was the germ of the House of Lords.

In 1266 two representatives of certain towns (borough members) were added to this council. And in 1322 Edward II. settled by Act that the Commons must taker part in all future legislation. In 1341 the meetings of the council were restricted to Westminster, and the Commons sat apart from the Lords. By the middle of the fifteenth century the Commons had acquired the sole right of granting money, and used it to extract concessions from the crown.

The growth of the trading companies and the exploitation of the newly discovered foreign lands poured wealth into the hands of the commercial group, and they answered the financial demands of the crown with demands for influence in legislation. These demands culminated in the Revolution of 1640, which gave the Commons an opportunity to gain experience in legislating on their own behalf. That is to say, on behalf of owners of property, because there was a property qualification for membership of Parliament which persisted until the Reform Acts from 1832 to 1886 cut into it, and it was finally abolished in the present century.

After the compromise between the crown and the landowners and financial magnates in 1688, there began to appear responsible accounts of public income and expenditure, and the practice of governing by departments readied a position by the middle of the eighteenth century that was similar in its main details to present-day practice.

The increasing complexity of social affairs, coupled with the struggle of the workers to make their voice heard, resulted finally in the admission of the whole of the population to the vote, and hence, in theory, to a voice in the control of social affairs. In fact, however, the mass of the population have not yet reached the point of desiring to control their own affairs, due partly to the work of bamboozling accomplished by the capitalism and their supporters, and partly to a failure so far to grasp the fact that society is organised at present in the interests of the owners of private property.

The acquisition of the vote by the workers has, however, given them the key to the control of the state when they wish to use it to serve their own interests by establishing a new form of society in which the means of production will be commonly owned, thus abolishing private property and the need for a state.

Gilmac.

No Unemployment After The War? (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let the Prophets Beware
Speaking at a conference of the Institute of Industrial Administration on March 7th, 1943, Mr. A. S. Comyns Carr, K.C., made the following statement about postwar unemployment:—

  He believed that the problem of post-war unemployment did not exist. On the contrary, the problem of employment after the war was going to be how to find enough people to do the work. (Times, March 8th, 1943.)

To those who do not understand how capitalism works this statement seems to be well-founded. So many articles will be needed by the mass of the population that surely the workers will all be busily at work producing them. What could be more certain than that? Unfortunately for the reasoning, capitalists are not concerned with the production of articles because articles are needed, but with producing for sale at a profit. During war-time, when there is an unlimited demand for war materials, unemployment practically disappears, but when war is over production for profit returns to normal. This is not a matter about which we have no experience, for after the last war politicians used exactly the same reasoning as Mr. Comyns Carr, but the events proved them wrong. Let Mr. Comyns Carr note the following rash and wrong prophecy made in 1919 by Mr. J. R. Clynes, the labour leader :-—

  "If there ever was a risk of over-production, causing unemployment, there is none now. For at least a dozen years there must be conditions of shortage which, with the best energy and effort, cannot be removed. We are in arrears. We need have no fear of the supply exceeding the demand." (Reynolds' Newspaper, November 30th, 1919.)

Mr. Clynes' prophecy was not true for a dozen months, let alone a dozen years. There were 600,000 unemployed at the time he wrote. By the middle of 1921, unemployment had risen to over 2,000,000, and 10 years later it was a million and a half and the country was oh the verge of the crisis of 1931.

Edgar Hardcastle

Outdoor Propaganda: May (1943)

Party News from the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Socialists and Reforms (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (L. Watson) writes asking whether an S.P.G.B. minority of M.P.s in Parliament "would vote for reformist measures giving the working class greater security and better conditions, even though temporary, within capitalism." He instances the Beveridge Report or a measure to increase old-age pensions.

In order to understand the position of the S.P.G.B. on this question, it must clearly be borne in mind that it is a fundamental principle of the Party that any of its members standing for election would stand solely on the demand for Socialism. Not on any account would votes be solicited on a reform programme. Our case is not that particular measures are in themselves necessarily harmful or useless, but that "reformism” (the policy of seeking members and votes on a programme of reforms or immediate demands) is useless and harmful in the task of achieving Socialism. Particular measures (e.g., extension of the franchise, introduction or improvement of the education system) have been decidedly useful to the Socialist task. If we envisage a minority of M.P.s in Parliament elected simply as Socialists, they would take instructions from the Party on the question of voting for a particular measure which clearly was of advantage to the workers or the Socialist movement. If the issue were a clear one of that kind, no confusion would be caused, and there would be no possibility of voters being misled into thinking that at elections Socialist candidates were soliciting votes on a promise to support or initiate reforms.

At the present time there are no Socialist Party M.P.s in Parliament, and the Party has, therefore, had no occasion to consider particular questions in that connection. It will be seen, too, that the Beveridge Report, even as it stands, is not a straightforward and simple measure clearly of advantage to the working class (what form any legislative measure may take is also not yet known). It is very largely concerned with simplifying the administration of insurance from the point of view of the capitalist taxpayer and the capitalist administrative machine. It is further largely concerned with redistributing the wages of the workers among the workers, and its ultimate effects are, to say the least of it, highly problematical.

Editorial Committee

Why Lord Nuffield looks after the workers (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The worker is the lifeblood of capitalism. Without workers, no profits can be made. Efficient and healthy workers are better profit-making instruments than inefficient and unhealthy ones. Modern capitalists are fully conscious of this, hence the various "Welfare" schemes which are the vogue to-day. As is to be expected, the Nuffield organisation is not behindhand in this development, and. the Electrical Times (March 4th, 1943) gives particulars of “one of the largest workers' welfare schemes in the country." Two complete blocks of buildings with a floor space of 7,000 square feet were recently opened. "In one of these," it is stated, "is housed everything of a general nature appertaining to the well-being of the employees—National Savings, provident club, athletic club, and similar activities." In the other block of buildings is a wonderfully efficient health centre. This contains an electro-cardiograph, which even many hospitals do not possess, an X-ray installation, sun-ray lamps, and up-to-date dental and optical departments.

Some readers may object that we are prejudiced when we take the view that the object of welfare schemes is to enhance profit. The facts, however, do not allow us to take any other view. The system of society in which we find ourselves to-day has certain features which must be plain to all who are not wilfully blind. These features are the fact that the means of production—the land, the mines, the factories and the transport services—are the private property of a relatively small number of people, the capitalists, while the great bulk of the population, having no independent means, are compelled to work for the capitalists in order that they may live. There is no way out, short of begging or stealing, both of which have certain disadvantages, so most people prefer to work, if they can find someone to employ them. The worker works so many hours per week, and in exchange he receives a wage or salary. This wage is, on the average, sufficient to enable him to keep on working, in an efficient manner, and to enable him to produce and rear offspring. There is, of, course, a natural desire to beget children, but this works very well in the interest of the capitalist, because workers grow old and become less nimble and lose their strength, so there is always a fresh supply of young workers coming along. It will be noticed that we have used the phrase "in the interest of the capitalist." Our doing so implies a belief in a clash of interest. But let us not be misunderstood. We do not advocate a clash of interest; we merely notice it as a fact, and here is the proof. The commodities which the worker produces, but which belong to the capitalist, are sold in a market, and for them the capitalist receives a price. Between the price which the capitalist receives for the sale of his commodities and the amount which he expends on wages, raw material and plant (depreciation), there is a margin, and that margin is his profit. It will be seen that this margin can be increased by adjustment at either end. It is perfectly natural for the capitalist to want to do this, and it is equally natural for the worker to object to the part which affects him. Hence, despite any desire to the contrary on either side, there is this clash of interest—what Socialists call the “class struggle." But there is another method of increasing profits. If, as a result of more intensive application, workers can produce more commodities in the same amount of time, it will be at once apparent that the margin is increased— the goods sold produce more money, while the workers' wages remain unchanged. It is clear, therefore, that it is in the interest of the capitalist that the workers' energies should be expended in the most sustained and intensive manner possible. This explains the interest of the capitalist in the welfare of his worker. It explains why he wants to make sure, by means of a medical inspection, that he gets a healthy worker to start off with—one who has a sound heart, for example— and that, when once engaged, he does not lose time through illness. Hence the marvellous paraphernalia for pulling out his teeth, putting optics on his eyes, and sun-tanning his skin.

It is one of the curious features of modern capitalism that neither the popular nor the technical press, in presenting its latest developments, are able to do so without giving the facts a kind of mental twist. Thus whether it be the production of planes, music in the factories, social insurance, the bombing of cities, or works welfare schemes, they are always described as if they were in the interest of the workers. This report in the Electrical Times is no exception, for it says that one reason for the Nuffield scheme was "of course, the wish to do everything possible for the worker for his own sake." The other reason was "the knowledge that swift diagnosis is the most powerful weapon, not only against serious illness and contagion, but the minor ailments which cause absenteeism of a few days."

This Nuffield affair also contains a food research department, with a bio-chemist, food dietician and chef. "The problem" it is stated, "of finding the meals which are at once palatable, satisfying, and at the same time conforming to dietetic principles, will be the task of this department. while at the end of every day the directors can know precisely the number of calories served to each worker and the nutritional values, in hard and fast figures, provided for their employees."

This solicitude for the welfare of the worker reminds us very much of the care which those capitalists who are interested in the turf lavish upon their racehorses. There are, of course, slight differences. A racehorse does not have to worry about making ends meet, about getting clothes for the children, about coupons or rations, or whether he will get a job when the war is over. In fact, he just doesn't do any worrying at all. There is another difference between the relationship of the worker and the racehorse to their common master. If a racehorse is no longer wanted, he can be sold, and perhaps eventually finish up in the knacker's yard, and, in these days, as horse meat. But if a worker is no longer wanted, he is discharged, and sent about his business.

At all events, times of depression do occur, and all industries are compelled to "release" their workers, as they so euphemistically term it. When this happens, as it will, there is no doubt that Morris Motors will part with regret with the workers upon whom they have lavished such care and attention. What a pity that they could not be put into refrigerators until wanted again, as one of our contemporaries has suggested.

Ramo.

Accumulation of wealth in Russia (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting light on the way wealth is accumulating in the hands of certain individuals and organisations in Soviet Russia is provided by news items in recent issues of Soviet War News, published by the Press Department of the Soviet Embassy in London. The items relate to gifts made by the persons concerned to various war-time funds, as, for example, funds for building tanks and warplanes.

Thus the issue of Soviet War News for December 19th, 1942, reports that a collective farmer donated "all his personal savings, amounting to 100,000 roubles." At the official rate of exchange (25 roubles equals £1) this is £4,000. but a better idea of its significance is given by comparing it with the average minimum wage of workers, which is put at about 8,000 roubles a year; or by comparing it with the top ranges of pay of specialists, put at about 24,000 roubles a year.

Other gifts reported in Soviet War News are:—

  The Patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, 100,000 roubles; Elokohvsky Cathedral in Moscow, 300,000 roubles; Father Superior of the Kolchida Cathedral, 100,000 roubles; Priest of the Church of the Assumption, "all my savings, totalling 273,000 roubles in cash." (The above are reported in the issue for January 6th, 1943.)

Then we read of the Council of the Church of Kazan in Kuznetsk donating 250,000 roubles, while the Archdeacon made a further personal gift of 150,000 "from his savings" (January 30th, 1943). Another Church dignitary, the deputy Catholicos of the Armenian Church, donated on behalf of his Church "a precious panagia set with diamonds us well as other objects of platinum and diamonds worth over 800,000 roubles" (January 25th, 1943).

Edgar Hardcastle

Pocket History of the British Working Class (1943)

Book Review from the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the faults of Postgate’s “Pocket History of the British Working Class" (N.C.L.C., 2s.) is that it is far too short to deal with the tremendous amount of material. The effort to compress working class history into 90 pages must result in the omission of much that is important. This, however, is not our only criticism, as while the book serves well as an introduction to the study of the infancy of the movement, the latter part, from the formation of the Labour organisations onwards, contains some inaccuracies.

The difference between the craft guilds of the journeymen and the Trade Unions is shown quite well. And a good outline is given of the efforts of the unions and sympathisers to gain a legal standing for the unions by the repeal of the Combination laws.

The Owenite movement is touched upon, but none of the other Utopians, such as Richard Hall, A. Combe, and John Bray are mentioned. The writings of these men played an important part in the theoretical side of the workers' movement in the early nineteenth century and a knowledge of their ideas is very useful to any student of working-class history.

The Chartist movement is summarised fairly adequately; the course of the movement, the disputes over the questions of violence, moral force and compromise, and the waning of enthusiasm, which eventually led to its break-up, are very well described. The wild statement of Stephens, given on page 30, "limb for limb . . . blood for blood," could have been followed by this statement of Lovett, a striking contrast: “All this hurry and haste, this bluster and menace of armed opposition can only lead to premature outbreaks and to the destruction of Chartism.' (History of British Socialism, Vol. 2, page 43, M. Beer.) One lesson we have learned is that the working class cannot maintain and sustain its movement by using violence against their employers or the State.

With the collapse of the Chartist movement and the rise of the “new model" unions, the workers seek concessions on the industrial field, and we have a short period of stagnation politically. We see large amalgamated unions arise which attempted to work in a spirit of co-operation and conciliation with the employers. Despite their activities, strikes occurred in many industries and widespread discontent existed. The Reform Act of 1867, giving the vote to town workers, and certain other concessions obtained, led the members of these unions to support the Liberals in elections, and some of their leaders went into Parliament as Liberals. In fact, as Postgate says on page 56, “Politically they become indistinguishable from party Liberals."

We now come to what must be considered the less satisfactory part of the book. When reading a work dealing with Socialism and Socialists, a newcomer would at least expect a little enlightenment as to what Socialism means, and an indication of how to establish it. In this work he will look in vain. Postgate classes all Labour organisations, with the exception of the Labour Party at its foundation, as Socialist, but differing in their methods of obtaining it. "Class war, the dialectic, no compromise, no reforms—the revolution or nothing. These were S.D.F. principles." (Page 68.) This is far too sweeping a statement, as the S.D.F. throughout their history were advocates of reforms.

We are. told that the work of Keir Hardie and the I.L.P. was "the making of Socialism a mass movement instead of a clique's doctrine " (page 64). Yet forty-seven years after they were founded, C. A. Smith, their chairman, wrote in the New Leader, March 14th, 1940, when referring - to Socialism: "Clearly it is high time for Socialists to get down to the job-of definition, and make quite clear to themselves what they mean by the term."

Although Postgate refers to the Labour Party as Lib.-Lab„ he infers, generally, that they were Socialist—e.g., page 66: "The propaganda of Socialism had at last reached the masses." This is stated because 29 Labour men had been elected to Parliament. Non-Socialist organisations such as the Fabians, the B.S.P. and the Labour Party are paraded through these pages, but the silence regarding the S.P.G.B. is complete.

Again, when dealing with the first world war, he omits any reference to the consistent Socialist attitude of the S.P.G.B.—an attitude based on understanding—yet he mentions the opposition of the I.L.P.

It is suggested that the two Labour Governments were prevented from passing Socialist measures because of the possible opposition from the Liberals (page 78): “A full Socialist programme was ruled out by the Liberal veto." The truth is that the Labour Party, being a non-Socialist organisation, could do nothing other than administer capitalism, with all its defects.

In general, therefore, this is a useful work so far as the early history of the movement is concerned, but in the latter sections the reader should proceed warily and critically.

Lew Jones

The Workers' Outlook (1943)

From the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The press has pleaded until recently that the war must be won before the “blue prints of the future” are made. Now for a number of reasons the planning and. reconstruction propagandists are given full play, both over the air and in print.

Perhaps a good reason for the present flood of spiritual and temporal oratory on the part of the “better worlders” is the marked apathy shown by the workers to those who would arrange their future for them.

Truly no Socialist in the ranks of the organised workers could fail to see that, granted the toilers dutifully put up with all the “directions” given under the Essential Works Order, are ”pushed around,” as Americans say, that this is only tolerated because of their war resolution summed up in the words, “We don't want Fascism here." Yet by no token can this mood be taken as being in the spirit of class-collaboration. Indeed, in this respect the "Communists" have become about as popular as black-beetles by the anti-dispute aid they give the capitalists and their managements.

Perhaps the outlook of the not-too-articulate workers may be gathered by a quotation from an article by R. B. Bathers in the A.E.U. Monthly Journal for December, 1942.

   In the midst of the general rejoicings over the Allied victories, Mr. Henry Kaiser informs the world that the great masses of workers are shivering with apprehension that the war will come to an end. General Smuts says in 1944. Another American has prophesied that when peace comes the United States will have 18 millions unemployed. Similar apprehensions have been voiced here, and. as Lord Croft, divulging the Tory mind, has declared that we need no new order, we can assume that the number of unemployed here will be several millions. Sir Patrick Hannon, President of the National Union of Manufacturers, has spoken of “the absolute certainty of industrial impoverishment at the close of the conflict.” There is the fear, the fear of want. The masses are sceptical about Atlantic Charters and speeches about the New World Order, many of which are quite sincere— many are not.
    Here, faith in the intentions of Parliament to implement the promises of the Charter is at a low ebb. It is lower because of our victories. For, as the tide has turned, so have the hopes of the Tories risen that they will continue to rule the roost and return to the Old Order. Big Business, represented by 120 prominent industrialists, has issued its programme for the future. Does this forecast the era of the Common Man? No. The Common Man is to be kept in his place as heretofore. He is to have no part in the control of industry, though he may get a few more crumbs. Sir Patrick Hannon fears that the Atlantic Charter, if carried out, would injure British competitive power. Obviously, he envisages an era of international competition for markets as before. That this would sooner or later end in war does not trouble Big Business. Like the Prime Minister, their slogan is "What is our own we hold.” 

It would be churlish to argue that the foregoing does not show the way to end capitalism; for it expresses a degree of class-consciousness which, if held by the mass of workers, would bode ill for capitalist rule.

In general one finds that though the workers are under the duress of war conditions, that Jingoism is weak, while the Socialist case, quite unvarnished, can be stated almost anywhere. But what of after the war? Can the capitalists hold their power and prestige?

It would be Utopian to think of a sudden conversion to Socialism on the part of the workers, as suggested by the I.L.P. in their ”Socialist Britain Now” stunt, even if the I.L.P. understood Socialism. In any case there are dozens of tricks left in the bag by which to bemuse a not-socialist working class.

Our capitalists could introduce centralised State insurance, Nationalisation, Empire, or should we say Common? wealth development, or even the setting of one section of the workers against the other by State jobs.

The ruling class could spend, if necessary, millions on propaganda in building up reformist or phoney parties to attract the workers, and would not be above taking an idea or two from the State Capitalism of Russia. In effect, any proposition could be tried which left the class relationship intact—namely, capitalists and wage workers.

In the opinion of the present writer, the political fight will become progressively keener, because of the State tie-up of the workers' industrial organisations, which may continue long after the war. This will have the effect of nullifying much of the bargaining power of the workers, such as strike action and industrial hold-up.

The class struggle then enters the political stage, which makes quite archaic the ideas of those who advocate direct action, in the sense that capitalism can be overthrown by force behind the barricades. It puts these ideas where they originally belong—to the conspiratorial, unenfranchised period of working-class history.

We as a Party unflinchingly upheld the Socialist cause throughout World War No. 1 and the present conflict. We correctly interpreted, against all opposition, the Russian upheaval as not being a Socialist revolution.

All this and more is the splendid background of the Socialist Party with the sound case for ending the wages system.

Frank Dawe

The Communists, the Labour Party, and Parliament (1943)

Editorial from the April 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

We hold that as the Labour Party is committed to the policy of trying to reform capitalism, instead of the policy of abolishing capitalism, no purpose useful to the Socialist movement would be served by the S.P.G.B. seeking affiliation with the Labour Party. Consequently the S.P.G.B. never has tried to affiliate with the Labour Party or any other party in this country. We could not pledge ourselves to give loyal adherence to the non-Socialist programme of the Labour Party.

On the other hand, the S.P.G.B. is not opposed to the Parliamentary system. We hold that the only important thing that is wrong about Parliament, from our point of view, is that it is controlled by the wrong people and for the wrong purpose. Its M.P.s at present have been sent there by electors who want capitalism to be retained. When a majority of the electors have become Socialists they will send their delegates to Parliament with the mandate to establish Socialism. In the words of our Declaration of Principles, the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, will be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation. We have always held the above views, and have never been beguiled by the various opposing views that have had their long or short periods of popularity. The S.P.G.B. never went in for theories of armed revolt or general strikes, or "taking and holding" the factories by industrial organisations. Nor did we ever give support to the idea of soviets or dictatorship.

All of this is by way of providing a background to the dispute between the Communist Party, which wants to affiliate with the Labour Party, and the Labour Party Executive, which doesn't want the Communists to win enough support to be able to force a way in. The Communist Party's position, judged by any ordinary standards, is peculiar—but then, if any such standards are applied, the Communist Party itself is revealed as a peculiarly irresponsible and dishonest organisation. It has proclaimed for years that the Labour Party is this "third capitalist Party," yet it wants to be inside. It has proclaimed that the road to emancipation lies through soviets not parliament, and through civil war and dictatorship not votes and democracy, yet it unhesitatingly affirms its belief in Parliamentary democracy when trying to wheedle its way to affiliation.

The Daily Worker (March 6th, 1943) published an article by J. Walker, M.P., putting the Labour Party's view against Communist affiliation, and alongside it a reply by W. Gallacher, M.P., writing as a Communist M.P.

Here is a question put by Walker, followed by Gallacher's reply:—

Walker: "Does the Communist Party believe in the British, system of democracy and democratic elections, or does it still believe in a policy of dictatorship?"
Gallacher: “ Of course, we believe in parliamentary democracy. That is why I am in Parliament. That is why I am such a regular attender and why the Party is so anxious that I should give a good account of myself.
   The dictatorship of the Proletariat applies to quite different conditions from those we are discussing now. It arises out of the attempt of the dispossessed exploiters to overthrow by violence the victorious forces of the working class."

Anyone who knows what was and is the official policy of the Communist International, of which the British Communist Party is a subordinate part, will recognise at once that Gallacher's reply is not by any means full-blooded Communist doctrine. Why Gallacher does not state his own Party's case only he knows. Perhaps he has forgotten what it is. Let us therefore recall a few earlier statements made by the Communists.

The fundamental document is the "Statutes and Conditions of Affiliation of the Communist International," as adopted at the Second Congress, Moscow, August, 1920 (published by the Communist Party of Great Britain at the time, price 2d.).

The opening statement contains the following:—

   The aim of the Communist International is to organise an armed struggle for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the establishment of an international Soviet Republic as a transition to the complete abolition of the capitalist state. The Communist International considers the dictatorship of the proletariat an essential means for the liberation of humanity from the horrors of capitalism; and regards the Soviet form of government as the historically necessary form of this dictatorship. (Page 4.)

Another interesting little item is contained in the first of the 21 Conditions which are binding on bodies like the British Communist Party which are affiliated to the Communist International. Condition No. 1 lays it down that adherents of the Third International must use any means of propaganda that are at their disposal, "in the columns of newspapers, at public meetings, within the Trade Unions and Co-operatives," to " denounce not only the capitalists, but also their allies, the reformists of every colour and shade."

Another document worth recalling is the answer the Communist International gave to the I.L.P. when the latter contemplated seeking affiliation. It was drafted by Lenin, and published by the British Communist Party under the title "The Communist International answers the I.L.P." (1920, reprinted 1932, price 2d.).

This is what Lenin wrote on Parliament:—

    "Whoever tells the British working class that it can overthrow the capitalist dictatorship in the British Empire through any other means than the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is by taking the full power into their own hands by depriving of political power all those who defend capitalist exploitation, and by organising a Red labour army—deceives himself and others."

Lenin went on to say that even supposing the unlikely event of a working class gaining power by parliamentary elections, "even in that case the Communists are not for a minute freed of their duty of saying to the workers the following: (1) that it is most unlikely that the English bourgeoisie . . . will give up its power without a struggle and become subject to the paper will of the parliament; (2) that, therefore, the workers should prepare not for an easy parliamentary victory, but for victory by a heavy civil war; (3) that should the workers have succeeded in gaining power without this civil war, that would only signify that the necessity of civil war would confront the working class as soon as it set out to realise its will to defend itself from capitalist exploitation and speculation; so soon as it began to liberate the masses in the colonies, now oppressed by British Imperialism." (Page 21.)

It will now be seen that Gallacher's "Of course, we believe in parliamentary democracy" is quite a long way from the whole of what good Communists are supposed to believe.

Above all, Gallacher did not recall what Lenin wrote in reply to Gallacher about the question of supporting the Labour Party. This was in Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" (1920, published by Martin Lawrence, 1/-) Gallacher at that time was opposed to Parliamentary action and to voting for Labour Party candidates. Lenin replied to Gallacher by showing why Communists should take such action.

   At the present time the British Communists very often find it hard to approach the masses and even to get them to listen to them. If I as a Communist come out and call upon the workers to vote for the Hendersons against Lloyd George, they will certainly listen to me. And I will be able to explain in a popular manner not only why Soviets are better than Parliament, and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (which is concealed behind the signboard of bourgeois " democracy”), but I will also be able to explain that I want to support Henderson with my vote in the same way as a rope supports one who is hanged—that the establishment of a Henderson Government will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will accelerate the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens, as was the case with their friends in Russia and Germany. ("Left-Wing” Communism, p. 68.)

Last of all there was Gallacher's original opposition to Parliamentary action altogether. He used then to describe himself as “anti-Parliamentarian,” and wrote about his views in a letter to the Workers' Dreadnought (February 21st, 1920).

"Any support given to Parliamentarism,” he wrote, "is simply assisting to put power into the hands of our British Scheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes & Co. are hopelessly reactionary.”

Again:—

    The rank and file of the I.L.P. in Scotland is becoming more and more disgusted with the thought of Parliament, and the Soviets or Workers' Councils are being supported by almost every branch. This is very serious, of course, for the gentlemen who look to politics for a profession, and they are using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into the Parliamentary fold.

Gallacher in his letter had a final word of disgust for those "who are so eagerly clamouring for Parliamentary 'honours' (?) and who are so anxious to prove that they can rule as effectively as the 'boss' class politicians themselves.”

Now all is changed. Gallacher now has Parliamentary honours himself and wants to take what he regards as his rightful place alongside Henderson's successors in the Labour Party.