The American Civil War — IV (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part III

Victory and what it was worth
Ask that approachable fellow, the man-in-the-street, to name a battle of the American Civil War and he will almost certainly mention Gettysburg; if history was one of his subjects at school he may remember Antretam and Manassas. These battles were all fought in the east, where the more glamorous—if that is the proper word—campaign of the war took place. If the western theatre was less famous, its effect was of greater consequence.

The Campaigns

In the north and the east, around the Potomac river, in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, the two armies grappled for each other's capital city. Washington and Richmond spent an unquiet war in consequence, always afraid of attack and pillage. The early Unionist tactics in this area were notable for their lack of aggressiveness, which allowed Lee and Jackson to gain some spectacular victories. Fortunately for the Union, these victories were rarely pressed home, because of the Confederates’ heavy losses and their shortage of ammunition; they paid dearly for their industrial shortcomings. Lincoln fumed and fretted at his generals and changed them many times, until Grant’s appointment as commander brought a new conception to Northern tactics. Grant kept a constant pressure on his opponents, chasing them and forcing them to battle until in the end he destroyed them.

In the south and the west the vital part of the war was forged and fought. The Union armies moved down the Mississippi river from Missouri, whilst their navy landed troops at the river’s mouth to capture New Orleans. Vicksburg--an important junction of railway and river—was taken after a siege and the Union armies then moved cast through the mountain gaps into Georgia. They captured Atlanta and swept on to Savannah on the Atlantic coast, plundering as they went, and cut the Confederacy in two. Although this campaign earned Grant the leadership of the Union forces, it is General Sherman's name which is always linked with the march through Georgia. His men were a harum-scarum lot. who cared little for the niceties of military dress and discipline. But they could march and fight and destroy, and this they did, through 200 miles of enemy territory. “Sherman's dashing Yankee boys," the song called them, and that was what they were. More than any other their ruthless campaign won the war for the Union. 

Peace and Problems

On April 9th, 1865. General Robert E. Lee, commander of the starving and ragged Confederate army, dressed himself in his best uniform and went out to surrender. Ulysees S. Grant cut a poor figure beside the resplendent Southerner, but there was no hint of spite in the surrender terms which he offered. Washington’s policy was to draw the Southland back into the Union and to rebuild it on a sound economic basis. On April 26th Johnston—in the West—gave up and through May and June the surrenders dribbled on. Jefferson Davis was himself captured at Irwinsvillc. Georgia, on May 10th. From May 22nd to 25th the Northern victory was celebrated in Washington with a mass review of the armies of Grant and Sherman. Abraham Lincoln was not there to take the salute; a month before he had been shot to death in Ford's theatre by the actor John Wilkes Booth, a vain and passionate man, and a fanatical rebel.

Now that the war had been won, what was to happen about slavery? Northern policy had not been consistent. Back in November, 1861, General Fremont had proclaimed his intention of confiscating the property of rebels and setting their slaves free. Lincoln’s government had been elected for its Unionist policy and was uncommitted to abolition of slavery: it found Fremont’s declaration embarrassing and removed him from his command. Two things changed the government’s mind. The early successes of the Confederates strengthened abolitionist sentiment in the North. And it became necessary to draw up a co-ordinated policy on emancipated slaves, for each Union commander was dealing with them in his own way. Amid the chaotic conditions then existing in Washington, Lincoln issued his Proclamation of Emancipation. When the North won, this declaration gave the American Negro the hope of a life free from chattel slavery.

Ku-Klux-Klan

The emancipation measures broke down the plantation system and many Negroes took advantage of this and went to the Northern cities to look for work. The cities were partly unwilling and, anyway, unable to accept these immigrants, and thousands of them died of hunger and cold. Eventually, New York and Chicago eased the problem with their “black reconstruction” schemes. When power was handed back to the Southern States the whites soon look control again and the right of Negroes to vote vanished beneath a blanket of trickery. Prohibitive poll taxes, tests which could prove the most learned Negro to be illiterate and open violence were often used to prevent the black man from voting. We have all heard of the Ku-Klux-Klan, who are said to put three questions to their applicants for membership: “Do you hate Niggers? Do you hate Jews? Have you got three dollars? ” These were —and are—typical of the Southland, still largely carrying on its old agricultural economy with the Negroes and the poor whites barely scratching a living from the earth. The bloodshed and the tearfulness of the civil war was over, but the loud-voiced, colourful, racial-phobia politicians still lorded it over the land of the magnolia.

But the American Civil War did not leave things all unchanged, for it was the first modern war the world has seen and it introduced several things which we have since become familiar with. Grant's strategy of incessant pressure on his enemy was a tactic repeated in World War 1, in the slaughter at Passchendaele and Verdun and at Stalingrad in 1943. There was an official policy of conscription to counteract the large scale desertions from both sides, and an intensive propaganda campaign to sweeten the battering which the civilian population took through the Union blockade, the burning of Atlanta, the looting of the Shenandoah valley, and so on. London and Coventry and other English cities got similar treatment in the last war. And there was the lesson that a modern war is a social tragedy, not to be won by brilliant generals alone. The best commanders fought for the South, but the North had the industrial power and developed the necessary social organisation.

Integration
What of the present, and the future? American industry is expanding into Dixieland and needs the Negro to work in the factories alongside white people. It also requires that Negroes school themselves in the technicalities of modern industry. This expansion of productive and social knowledge is the force—more powerful than any war—which will, to use an overworked word, integrate the black and white American. Knowledge will destroy the Crufts of the human race and their theories of inborn superiority. Society's needs and progress will win. They always have.

Jack Law

(Concluded.)

" . . . the common desire for a scapegoat." (1959)

Quote from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

   “It is sometimes thought that dislike of one human type for another is inevitable. This is certainly untrue, since children of different types brought up together show no special antagonisms. There is no doubt that race hatred exists only where it has been taught. The ease with which it can be taught is perhaps one of the most remarkable things about it . . . one important factor is the common desire for a scapegoat. If all types of workers combined in trade unions . . . the inferior position of the non-Europeans would no doubt rapidly improve, to the disadvantage of their employers. Thus in South Africa as in many other countries it is to the advantage of the ruling and employing group to maintain “racial” divisions, and to support them with lies about human biology.” 

From Anthony Bannett’s (member of W.H.O.). The Human Species.

The General Election (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

From a window in Stockwell, and doubtless many other places, can be seen two huge propaganda posters. One is from the Labour Party, the other from the Conservatives, side by side. With the election fever hotting up, old lies and newer lies (but mostly the same old lies) are poured out frantically in the quest for working-class votes. The one really major issue in the election, whenever it comes, will be, whether in the light of all their past experiences, workers will still be kidded into voting for the continuation of Capitalism.

For although this system robs the workers of the fruits of their labour, condemns many of them to live in barracks or slums, periodically murders millions of them in wars, while in peace time they live in fear of dole queues and the problems of hire-purchase and overtime, the ruling-class politicians know that if this system is to stay, workers must vote for it.

Counting 1945, there have been four General Elections since the war. At each one of these the excuses have been varied, but the problems have been the same.

If the Labour Government from 1945-51 had solved anything for the working-class they might still be in power. Instead, having accepted responsibility for running Capitalism, although they said in 1945 they were the high-wage party, they froze wages and broke strikes. They also launched the present arms build up and prepared the Atom-bomb. They stood for Nationalisation, but now that this policy of State Capitalism has disillusioned many workers and is no longer a vote-catcher they are having second thoughts. The Socialist Party of Great Britain have always pointed out that Nationalisation would change nothing for the workers but would guarantee an unearned income to bond-holders. Labourites are, however, gluttons for punishment and still think that Capitalism can be made to work in the interest of those it exploits.

So, with a black and inglorious past, their present poster reads: "Safeguard the Future with Labour.” Since the future envisaged by the Labour Party means that the present system will remain, the best safeguard for the working-class would be to understand their real position and bring about Socialism.

The seven years which have passed since the Conservatives took power have been the same as any other period under Capitalism. In 1951 they had a huge poster saying: "It’s Time for a Change at Westminster.” so the workers changed the office boys, but nothing else changed. Still war preparations (in the name of peace, of course) still attacks on wages, still strikes, and slums, pensions, prices and fear of dole-queues. Now they have a poster urging us—"Forward in Freedom with the Conservatives.” That word "Freedom” has a highly emotional ring about it and it might be appropriate to add that the workers will be making their usual mistake if they expect it from the Conservatives.

Freedom, whilst a privileged few own the means of living and the majority must hire themselves on the Labour market for wages in order to live, is a hollow mockery. Whilst the profit motive dominates every social relationship, and access to the things of life is determined by money and not by need, freedom will remain in its infancy. It is alright to say, as people so often do. that we are “more free here than they are in Russia,” etc., but the fact that our fellow workers in Russia have not yet obtained the very limited elbow-room workers have here only indicates that Capitalism is older and more experienced here than in Russia. It is no excuse for workers here to accept their shabby lot simply because elsewhere it may be worse.

So far as this election is concerned none of the reformist Parties—Labour. Conservative, or so-called Communist — has anything to offer worth a single working- class vote.

None of them challenge the existence of Capitalism. They all ask for voles on programmes based on continued Capitalism. Therefore since all the problems facing workers arise from Capitalism none of them has any answer. The S.P.G.B. alone challenges the present system. Our one object and sole programme is its removal and replacement by a Socialist system.

That we are not very strong in numbers is the fault of workers who, despite repeated disappointments, continue supporting Capitalist Parties. We are, however, contesting the election in the Bethnal Green constituency. We wish very much that more workers were Socialists so that we could contest more seats.

Meanwhile to make the best of present circumstances we must have funds. We get no large donations from trade unions or big business, but we are confident that as workers begin to realize the need for a real change our funds will grow in proportion to the growth of Socialist understanding.

Both the Labour and Conservative posters have pictures of children to underline the emotional level of their appeals. No understanding is necessary; just vote and they will do the rest. By coincidence, the two propaganda posters appear on the same display site as a notice of a "Clean Air Exhibition” but, unfortunately, the political smog put out by the two major Capitalist parties is not on the list for dispersal.

As the election draws near the promises will roll out faster and faster. As in the past, each Party will be trying to apply a thicker layer of sugar-coating than the other. The sad aftermath of every election is that workers find their diet of promises not very fattening.

It must be seriously understood also that Capitalism is international, so Capitalist parties which cannot solve so-called national problems internally, certainly have no solution for world problems brought about by the system they uphold.

All parties of Capitalism accept the national set-up, and when elected, form governments for the purpose of maintaining the interests of their national propertied class. It is this which bring the various nations into diplomatic and military conflict. When one ruling class feels that its possessions, such as markets, oil resources, trade routes or vested interests is threatened by some rival group, they call upon the propertyless workers to fight and die for them.

Capitalism sets workers at one another's throats both nationally and internationally. Only the S.P.G.B. and its companion Parties appeal to workers as a world-wide class with common interest. The common interest of all workers is to end Capitalism with its poverty, insecurity, war, crime, and exploitation. The world can be run on a basis of commonly-owned means of production without wages or profits. The workers can run the world as they do now, only they do it for the few who own. To run it for the benefit of everyone means that they must first understand Socialism. The promotion of this understanding is the only worthwhile issue of the coming election.

Harry Baldwin

The Economics of Health (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

2. Food and Profits

Sir Jack Drummond, the nutritional expert who was murdered in the South of France a few years ago, declared that if we were to put the nation's diet right we could close half our hospitals. Drummond was well aware of the extent of food sophistication, that most of our foods are adulterated, preserved, coloured with dyes, treated with' anti-oxidants and anti-staling agents (not anti-Stalin agents), sprayed with poisonous concoctions and grown in soil which has been treated with chemicals. A lot of our foods have gone through all these processes—in fact, any food that comes from a factory and is canned or packed up in some way, has had most of these mysterious treatments. For what purpose is all this done to our food? Who has demanded that food should be grown artificially, have its vitamins removed, have chalk mixed with it, have it bleached with poisonous gases, and various chemicals added so that it will keep twice as long in a soft condition than it otherwise would? Whoever made such requests to food manufacturers? The answer is that nobody has ever asked that any of these things shall be done to his or her food—they are all done without our wishes and in many cases without our knowledge.

There are about 700 chemicals used in the manufacture of foodstuffs and most of this delightful list has not been sufficiently tested to determine precisely its toxicological effects upon the human body, This fact was referred to in an address given by Sir Edward Mellanby as President of the Medical Research Council, But let us ask again why are these foods tampered with in such a way? The answer is that it enables products to be sold and hence a profit made—which is the prime object. Caviar is not used to adulterate sausages nor brandy to sophisticate beer, because this would be unprofitable.

Why does the farmer grow wheat? Because there are people who want bread? No fear; so far as he is concerned they can starve if they have not the money to pay for it. there are people wanting all sorts of things, but nobody is going to try to provide them because there is no profit to be made. Yes, profit! The farmer grows wheat with a view to making profit, on which he lives. The miller grinds the corn to flour for the self-same delightful purpose—that of making profit, the baker bakes bread for no other purpose than profit. If it is profitable to use artificial fertilisers to grow more wheat. and barley, potatoes and sugar-beet then the farmer employs artificial fertilisers. If the miller discovers that by bleaching flour he can sell more of it, then it is bleached white, or if required, he would colour it purple to aid his sales. When he finds that by extracting vitamins from his flour he can keep it longer and so prevent germination, which would prejudice sales, then the germ of the wheat is extracted, if the baker finds that people want bread that does not go stale in 24 hours, and are prepared to pay for a loaf that is more like a pudding, then who can blame him if he makes it so? So long as society is run in this way we will have the present state of affairs—the factor that is wrong is neither the farmer, the miller nor the baker, nor even the public, but the social set-up that produces these idiotic and harmful phenomena. Fancy selling foods by colour. Not only are sweets made in all the colours of the rainbow with aniline dyes, but so are jams, confectionery and tinned foods. In older days, in order to adulterate a sack of flour a miller, if sufficiently unscrupulous, would put a heavy stone in it. The size of the stone was usually proportional to his scruples. To-day it is necessary to be a little more scientific and grind the stone down to powder and mix it carefully with the flour. Perhaps to-day’s process is the most dangerous for it cannot be so easily extracted as the former stone could. But the motive is precisely the same. Of course, ordinary stones are not used, but special ones- chalk and various powders functioning as anti-oxidants and anti-staling agents, and substances to soak up water, which makes a loaf more like a sponge, or causes water to stand up on end. All these chemical treatments masquerade under the name of “improvers,” meaning that they improve the profits of the baker.

Horace Jarvis

50 Years Ago: Industrial Unionism (1959)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Industrial Unionism” is merely a pleasant name for Anarchism and “Direct Action.” It is one of those almost inevitable elements of confusion and disorganisation which beset the working class in its advance. Every dog has its day: and every freak idea its boom, as though the workers were prepared to traverse every avenue of error before keeping steadily to the right road. The freak idea that the workers can, without the conquest of political power and by means of an industrial organisation alone, “take and hold” the means of life from the capitalists, is one that has just enjoyed its brief boom: but its hollowness has been quickly seen, and its followers have, in consequence, been rapidly dropping away.

(From the Socialist Standard, April, 1909.)

Marx and Under-Consumption (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The Affluent Society -  Part 2

A Reply to Professor Galbraith

It often happens that when people look for a criticism of Marx, not being sure where to look, they look in the wrong places. Professor Galbraith, for instance, looked to Moscow, to Mr. Strachey and even to Mrs. Joan Robinson.

Poverty, Crises and Catastrophe

He gathered from some of these sources that Marx had formulated an absolute law of poverty and that the system’s chief defect was acute and chronic under-consumption. Along with the ever greater ability to turn out wealth the workers’ living standards would decline, capitalism would choke under the weight of its unsold commodities and collapse. As if “all this—and purgatory, too,” was not enough. Professor Galbraith adds another alleged Marxian theory of crises, of a continuous fall in the rate of profit and hence capital investment, with slumps of ever greater magnitude and final breakdown. Which one Marx was really supposed to hold we are not informed. Our view is that he held neither. However, let our motto be one crisis one article, and it is the under-consumptionist variety which will be its subject.

Marx not an under-consumptionist

In view of all that has been said of Marx as an “under-consumptionist” theorist, the only statement which has any bearing on the matter is in Vol. 3 of Capital, where he says,

“The last cause of all real crises, always remains the poverty and unrestricted consumption of the masses as compared with the impulse of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as if only the absolute powers of consumption of society were their limit.”

This statement is merely an interpolation by Marx when he is discussing at length the view that shortage of capital is a cause of crises. This statement seems out of context with the passage, but even so, it is obvious that Marx was drawing attention to the contradiction between the tendency of capital to expand in an absolute way the powers of production, and the limits imposed upon it by the antagonistic income distribution inherent in capitalist society. This has nothing to do with under-consumption theories as understood, but implies the conflict between productive powers and productive relations.

To put it simply, capital accumulation logically leads to a demand for labour power and hence to a rise in real wages. It is true that wages are part of the consumption fund of capitalist society and an increase in real wages means increased consumption for workers. But wages are also the purchase price of labour-power and if as a consequence of increased capital investment, wages rise, this means for capitalists an increase in costs and a lowering of the rate of profit. Should wage earnings reach a level which threatens the customary rate of profit yield, then capital investment may sharply recoil.

It is the essence of this society that wage advances can never wholly absorb capitalist profits. The ceiling of wages and hence consumption cannot extend beyond the point where additional wage advances annul profit returns on capital outlay. Even an approximation to such a state of affairs will suffice to induce a downward trend in capital accumulation. The impulse then of capitalist production to expand the forces of production in such a way that only the entire satisfaction of social needs is its ultimate limit is inhibited and finally checked by the antagonistic class income distribution of capitalist society—wages and profits. The forces of production come into conflict with the social relations of production.

The fact that extant society is not one of conscious motivation, directed towards social ends, but of profit motivation, places grave restrictions on its productive powers and hence consuming powers. As Marx points out : —

  ". . .  It is not a fact that too much wealth is produced. But it is true that there is a periodical over- production of wealth in its capitalistic and self-contradictory form. . . . The capitalist mode of production for this reason meets with barriers at a certain scale of production which would be inadequate under different conditions. It comes to a standstill at a point determined by the production and realisation of profit, not by the satisfaction of social needs.” Vol 3 (p. 303).

This is why Marx indicted capitalism as a system of organised scarcity. In this sense and only in this sense can there be a Marxist view of under-consumption.

Marx and Rodbertus

How little Marx had in common with the underconsumption theory of crises which Professor Galbraith thrusts upon him, along with so many others, can be seen by his criticism of the economist Rodbertus, who formulated in essentials the generally accepted under-consumption theory of crises. It holds that crises are the result of a deficit of purchasing power of the mass of people and would be remedied by raising wages. Marx himself emphatically repudiated such a view, thus:—

  “It is purely a tautology to say that crises are caused by the scarcity of solvent consumers or paying consumption. The capitalist mode of production does not know of any other mode of consumption but a paying one, except that of the pauper or of the thief . . . But if one were to clothe this tautology with a semblance of profounder justification by saying that the working class receive too small a portion of their own product and the evil could be remedied by giving them a larger share of it or by raising wages; we should reply that crises are always preceded by a period in which wages rise generally and the working class get a larger share of the annual product intended for consumption. From the advocates of simple common sense such a period should remove a crisis. It seems then that capitalist production comprises certain conditions which are independent of good or bad will and permit the working class to enjoy that relative prosperity only momentarily and, at that, always as a harbinger of a coming crisis.” Vol. 2 (pp. 475/6.)

There is also a footnote to this passage by Engels which says, “advocates of the theory of crises of Rodbertus are requested to make a note of this.”

Is there a defective monetary mechanism?

The under-consumptionist theory of crises always depicts capitalist society as what it is not and cannot be; a system serving the needs of the community. For them crises are not the outcome of capitalist relations of production, but a defect in the monetary mechanism which can be regulated via banks and state action. This comprises the essentials of Keynes’ theory.

Under-consumptionists hold that the cause of crises is due to deficit purchasing power, i.e., the inability to buy back the ever-increasing amount of commodities thrown on the market. But as we have already noted, before the boom breaks, the workers’ purchasing power is at its height. It is not then lack of purchasing power which causes a cut back in investment by capitalists and unsold stocks to appear on the market, but because from the capitalist standpoint wages are too high and profit margins too low. It is this which can give rise to a crisis (a sharp break in price equilibrium) and if big enough brings about depression.

If this happens there will be a falling spiral of wages and profits and unsold stocks will pile up. This is not a cause, but an effect of certain conditions and has nothing to do with a defect in the monetary mechanism or some absolute deficit in purchasing power. What actually takes place is that a number of capitalists—members of the ruling social group—take decisions as to the future trend of capital investment and, of course, production. If they decide not to invest at the existing profit level or cut back, it is because from the capitalist standpoint the existing income distribution is an unsatisfactory one for them. Profit margins are too small and wage bills too big. As has been already stated it is not a question of workers having too little purchasing power (wages), but from the capitalist view too much. But supposing a crisis does break out. It does not follow there is an overall lack of purchasing power. There is plenty of available purchasing power in banks, holdings, reserves, and the pockets of capitalists to buy up surplus stock for needy workers. But capitalists do not choose to spend their money that way.

There are good reasons why they should not redistribute purchasing power this way. As Marx pointed out, the capitalist, if not a miser by nature, is one by necessity. Being realists they know in any depression period they must husband their resources—even seek to increase them, conditions permitting, if they are to successfully ride the next wave boom.

Capitalism knows of only one form of consumption and that is paying consumption, and as we have seen the system operates in such a way as to impose in relation to the ability to produce wealth, a restrictive consumption on the working class. To say this is due to a lack of purchasing power is the merest tautology. Actually capitalist society generates the purchasing power necessary for the realisation in terms of money, of the wealth it produces. For instance, suppose a boom starts in the capital goods industry (it could, of course, start elsewhere), increased production of the means of production will by employing more and more labour-power, generate increased purchasing power among workers which will be transmitted to the industries producing consumption goods. These industries will expand and order further machines and auxiliaries for this purpose and so a continuous process will go on in the generating of purchasing power. Under the stimulus of demand, prices will rise and the purchase price of labour-power will rise also. In fact, generally speaking, labour-power during the later stages of the boom tends to rise faster than other commodities. Increased purchasing power is synchronised with increased production.

What causes a crisis?

Capitalism, however, is based on anarchy of production. Capitalists do not meet beforehand to harmonise production in accordance with social aims and ends. Capitalists for that reason, invest with little regard and knowledge of other capital investments being carried out at the same time. As a result different industries expand at a different rate and disproportionality of production, as Marx calls it, takes place. If then one industry—say the one producing capital goods—over-expands in relation to the industry producing consumption goods, it means they have over estimated demand and if on a big enough scale, the realisation price of their products will be unremunerative. This disproportional development relative to other industries will, however, have cumulative effects. Not only will the industry affected by over-expansion cut back investment, but as a consequence reduce orders to other concerns linked with them. In turn, these other concerns will do likewise and so on from trade to trade. As a result of cancellation of orders and contracts, unsold stocks will pile up. Relative over-production, which started in one industry, then assumes the proportion of general over-production—but, it must be stressed, not absolute over-production.

In such a situation production and employment will fall sharply and so, of course, will purchasing power. To say that if the workers’ wages were higher, all this could have been avoided is to utterly misunderstand the nature of capitalism. In the first place the cut back in investment by the industry that had over expanded its demand was not a question of purchasing power, but profit margins due to unremunerative prices. What is more, workers do not spend their money in the capital goods industry. Again, from the standpoint of the employers in the capital goods industry, wages are too high and a factor in helping to reduce profit margins.

It is not then a question of too much wealth being produced and too little purchasing power to buy it back which brings a crisis, but simply that an over-expansion in one sphere of industry has been big enough to start a downward spiral of investment and profits. Thus there comes into existence a volume of capital investment too great to be consistent with former profit earnings. As Marx points out, “Since production depends on investment [such a situation] constitutes an over production of capital which takes the form of an over production of commodities” (italics ours).

It might be argued that increased taxation of capitalists might be a means of disbursing extra purchasing power among workers in times of a crisis to prevent a slump. Increased taxation at such a time would, however, be most inappropriate and meet with strong resistance from capitalists. Not only would increased taxation deplete capital funds necessary for future expansion, but the purchasing power generated via taxation at one phase of the cycle, will as the result of restricted expansion, not be available at another phase of the cycle (the boom). But this in no way supports some under-consumptionist view of a total deficit of purchasing power being the cause of crises. It merely means a redistribution of purchasing power via a redistribution of income. Neither Keynes nor the Labour Party have made such proposals.

If Marx had believed in a law of absolute poverty based on absolute under-consumption, why he took such pains to analyse the trade cycle of capitalism—Boom— crises—depression, must for ever remain a mystery. For on the premise of absolute under-consumption, it is not a question of how slumps come to start, but how under such conditions a boom can ever begin.

Some Labour economic theorists have claimed to have gone beyond Keynes by advocating a further period of extensive investment just prior to the boom breaking. (Planned Capitalism). It is, however, at the top of the boom that demand for labour-power is greatest and its purchase price highest. To maintain investment at a high level would deplete the existing labour reserves, cause increased competition among employers for labour-power, and so enhance its price. Along with increased labour costs would go the increase of the supply price of the various factors in production and repeat the process of mounting costs and the narrowing of profit margins to the point where the volume of capital investment would yield too small a profit margin at the existing level. Such theorists seem to forget that capitalism is and always must be a profit motivated society. A profitless capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

We have, of course, dealt with much of this in past issues. We believe, however, it might still be of some benefit to readers, even Professor Galbraith, if he should by any chance read it.

Ted Wilmott

Link to Part 3

"What has the modern world to offer the child born into it in a humble family?" (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

   “What has the modern world to offer the child born into it in a humble family? After reading the staring headlines in the newspapers, we might be tempted to answer, 'Not very much.’ 

   “The Cold War, revolutions, armed intervention, and the ordinary course of power politics now make up so large & part of the international scene that we have become almost indifferent to them. Scientific discovery has given us so many dangerous toys and conveniences that we accept disaster and sudden death as almost a daily occurrence. 

   “But apart from what we read in the newspapers, life in many corners of England can be anything but green and pleasant. Overcrowded cities, unplanned living and substandard housing are still the lot of many millions. However much has been delivered since the war, much remains to be done before life can be enjoyed to the full by everyone—as a matter of course. And until the world has been made a better place for him, the child of to-day is still denied a rightful part of his heritage.”—(Radio Times).

Optimism—For Whom? (1959)

Editorial from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Evening Standard reported on March 13th, on the front page: —

 “Mr. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in London to-day: "I am absolutely convinced that our economy to-day is in better shape than it has been at any time since the end of the war.’
   “I am sure that as a nation we can face the future with a steady confidence and faith in ourselves'."

Another column on the same page is headed “African gangs smash shops," and still another tells us that “Masked Gang Raid Town Strongroom.” The Daily Express of the day before, under the heading “Ike’s Berlin Shock,” makes this comment: —

  “President Eisenhower said to-day that America was not going to fight a ground war in Europe, where Russia could muster an overwhelming army of 175 divisions.
  “The President spoke at his Press conference and left the impression that if the U.S. had to go to war over Berlin it would use nuclear weapons.”

An American reporter at the conference commented “I don’t know whether he has scared Kruschev, but he certainly frightens the pants off me.”

In Africa, the Middle East—and, in fact, all over the world—trouble is flaring up and the governments are apprehensive, like men walking on tightropes. Unemployment in this country has grown and housing conditions for the workers are still bad—but Mr. Amory, a leading Cabinet Minster, is optimistic.

Similar optimism was expressed by the executives of our capitalist rulers between the last two great wars, but first an “economic blizzard” and"then the last world war shattered the optimism for all except those who reaped a harvest out of the troubles.

The world is, and will remain, a mass of trouble as long as capitalism lasts, because capitalism with its privileged and unprivileged, its class cleavage, and its hunt for profit for the privileged contains the seeds of trouble. No sooner does one sore appear to be healed than another breaks out. Not all the journeyings of government spokesmen can find a path out of this morass as Macmillan’s recent Russian trip bears testimony.

There is only one solution to the misery and insecurity of the mass of the world’s population and that solution requires that its workers of the world realise that they perform all the functions necessary to feed, clothe and house everybody. That the reason so many go short is because the means of production are owned by a relatively small proportion of the population who reap the benefits of the worker’s toil without the need to work themselves. In other words, that the workers carry parasites on their shoulders. When the workers achieve this knowledge they will realise that the solution lies in making these means of production and distribution the common and equal possession of all mankind. When this awakening occurs then genuine optimism will supersede the fatuous and spurious optimism that occasionally appears today. and Amory and his like will find their occupations gone.

Party News Briefs (1959)

Party News from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Propaganda. It will be seen by the list of meetings advertised in this issue, that much activity is taking place in order to spread the Party message. In Bethnal Green, where we are planning to contest the next General Election, regular meetings are being held, and canvassing of the Socialist Standard is part of the plan to contact workers and get them acquainted with the party and its case. Kingston Branch has been very active and has arranged a series of indoor propaganda meetings, a new venture which is being well supported by the Branch members and others comrades. Islington and Lewisham Branches hold regular meetings which are attracting sympathisers, and it is hoped, new members.

May Day, Sunday, May 3rd. In London there will be a Rally in Hyde Park from 2.30 to 6 p.m., where Comrades D’Arcy, May, Willmott and Young, will be on the platform and Comrade Ambridge will be Chairman. It is not really necessary to urge members to support this occasion as it is usually very well attended, but it should be stressed that members can take an active part here; there is literature to be displayed and sold, and the meeting generally supported. The Hyde Park Rally will terminate at 6 p.m. promptly in order that our efforts can be centred on Denison House, where a meeting is being held from 7 p.m. Comrades Grant, Lake and Mostyn will speak, and the subject, “Socialism is International.” With the zest and interest that is apparent in the membership nowadays, May Day, 1959, should be most successful.

Ireland. Party members will be pleased that from April 4th to the 11th, Comrade Coster is visiting Ireland. His visit has been organised by the S.P. of Ireland, and on arrival at Belfast, Comrade Coster will be met by the local Comrades and will go on to Dublin. Whilst there, he will attend a Conference of the Irish comrades—they hope to press a resolution at the Conference to change the name of the Irish Party to the World Socialist Party. Comrade Coster will return to Dublin to address an arranged public meeting and also other organisations and have a “get together” with the Irish Comrades. It is hoped that this is the first of many such visits by Comrades to the Emerald Isle..

Swansea. Comrade Ambridge gave a public lecture on “Is Labour the Way to Socialism?” at Swansea Central Library recently. According to the local press who wrote up the meeting in detail, it was “followed with interest by a small audience.” Such write-ups, together with the correspondence from local comrades which is regularly printed in the columns of the local papers, help considerably to get the Party case known in Wales. Much work is being done by the Swansea Group who hope that it will not be long before they can proudly acclaim that they are the Swansea Branch of the Party.

Dartford Branch recently held its 500th meeting and the occasion was marked by a celebration supper at the “Black Prince,” Bexley. Twenty-four members and friends sat down to the meal and took the opportunity to discuss past activity and the future outlook of the Party and the Branch. One young hopeful, after the meal, engaged three Party Comrades in animated discussion. It is hoped that he profited by the knowledge gained! At least the act of thinking “on his feet,” promises well. The Dartford members were heartened by the attendance of Comrades from other branches, and of the General and Assistant General Secretaries, and the Branch extends its thanks to them all. It is hoped that those who missed this event, will look out for, and attend, the 1,000th meeting “do.” The Branch, so handicapped by the scattered membership, has now, thanks to one comrade, begun canvassing in the Eltham area. Results are already promising. Arrangements are in hand for a debate with the North Kent Socialist League. It is to be held at the Labour Club, Lowfield Street, Dartford, on Friday, April 17th, at 8 p.m. Subject: “Which Group should the Working Class support?” At the time of writing these notes, it is not known who will represent the Party or the N.K.S.L., but it is hoped to get this information to Party members in time for them to support the debate. Regular discussions are held on the second Friday of each month, and all are welcome. A special invitation is extended to readers of the Socialist Standard in the Dartford area. The Labour Club, Lowfield Street, is easy to find. It is convenient for bus, Green Line, or train—and the Party name is on the room door. The Branch will be happy to welcome you.

Debate at London College. Next month will be given details of a debate which took place recently at a University Union when Comrades D’Arcy and Mostyn of Islington Branch represented the Party.

“If we are to survive” was the title of the lecture given at Denison House, Victoria, on Sunday, March 15th. Organised by Paddington Branch, the meeting was very well attended and the audience listened to Comrades Coster and Wilmott, showing their interest by the questions and discussion which could have gone on much beyond closing time. A collection of over Thirteen Pounds was donated. This will greatly assist the Branch in meeting the cost of this venture, and it is to be hoped, by more such successful meetings. Paddington Branch planned this meeting well in advance and the result is certainly most gratifying.

Phyllis Howard

Small Shopkeepers and the Government (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

A dozen years or so ago, the small shopkeepers of Britain—those, who, looking in the social mirror, see themselves as part of a non-existent “middle class’’—were “cashing in” on a market depleted by the hardships of the 1939-45 world war.

In those days of a “sellers’” market, requiring no “salesmanship,” the goods flowed off the shelves and the cash flowed into the tills with an unrestricted rhythm that brought some recompense for their “behind the counter" drudgery. Some of them even had visions of forsaking their imaginary “middle class” status and paving their uphill route with sufficient pound notes into the coveted ranks of the bourgeois élite!

Such ambitions, however, founded as they, are on the “quicksands” of boom and slump trading, can be likened to Omar’s lines

“The worldly hope men set their hearts upon
Turns ashes, or it prospers and anon.
Like snow upon the desert’s dusty face
Lighting a little hour or two is gone.”

For, from 1956 onwards, a “rot” set in, until to-day they are struggling to pay accounts for goods pressed on them by the “couriers” of commerce, the so-called “high pressure salesmen.”

Unfortunately the majority of these small shopkeepers do not understand the real nature of the “Good” or “Bad” times they experience behind the counters of their “slave pens.” Pathetically enough, they put their trust in the Government of the day as being some autonomous power capable of shaping their destiny. Indeed, this outlook is not limited by any means to small shopkeepers. As an illustration, there are the recent delegations to Parliament of representatives of the Lancashire cotton industry alarmed at the “foreign” cotton imports which threaten to put them in “Carey Street.”

The question arises — “Is the Government” the sole arbiter of imports and exports? If it were, there is no reason why it should not accede to the demands of any particular trade delegation and thereby ensure continued political support. However, there are economic forces at work as a result of the present organisation of society into competing groups of Nations which determine, by and large, the actions of the British Government or any other national entity. As Sir Anthony Eden remarked after the Suez action: “. . . My hand was forced . . .” and what forced his hand but the plain unvarnished need of British commercial interests for the uninterrupted flow of oil via the Canal ? “Great Men” or “Lofty Ideals” notwithstanding.

But to return to our small shopkeepers—many of whom do not even own the premises they occupy and, in the case of newsagents, have to rise earlier than the majority of factory operatives. One such newsagent, known personally to this writer, rises at 4.45 a.m.. remains “open” until 8 p.m. and has not even had the orthodox “capitalist” holiday for years on end. In addition, he “opens” on Sundays until noon.

Whilst this may be an isolated case of very long hours, these small one-man shopkeepers certainly qualify as members of the working class! They are really salesmen for capitalist concerns.

Yet many of them are Tories or Labourites, identifying their interests with the ruling class in Britain who exploit them. Mostly they have vague ideas about “Fair Trading,” but when asked to define such a misnomer as this, they can only lamely point to the local “cut-price” competitor, failing to realise that this is the “healthy competition” they give their political support to when voting for capitalism to continue.

In conclusion, so long as world society is split up into rival groups of nations, competing with one another for the sale of their commodities, with 90 per cent. of the national wealth owned by 10 per cent. of the population, causing as it does, the POVERTY which besets the mass of the human race, there can be no solution in agitating for fiddling reforms or hoping for “better times” under the present of any future “governments.”

What IS required is the total abolition of class ownership of social wealth, including mines, electricity plants, productive machinery of all kinds and transport on land, sea, and in the air. In short, the abolition of commodity production, with its buying and selling and advertising: shoddy goods for the masses, but diamond tiaras for the few. Its centrally-heated mansions, and oil-stove shivering hovels. To say nothing of the colossal waste of human lives and socially produced wealth in recurrent wars, etc. Is this the sort of world small shopkeepers are striving for ?

If not. then they should join up with the world movement for the achievement of Socialism, helping to abolish the chain of wage slavery wherein they are but a link.

G. R. Russell

Correspondence on John Strachey (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cwmbran.

Mon..

5th March, 1959.

The Editorial Committee

"The Socialist Standard"

London, S.W.4.

Dear Comrades.

In his writings prior to Contemporary Capitalism John Strachey had displayed his lack of understanding of Marxism and his desire to tailor the theory and practice of “Socialism” so that it fitted both Social-Democracy and Leninism. In Contemporary Capitalism he surpassed himself and asserted that. “Marx in fact taught that not only was it impossible for the wage earners to raise their standard of life under capitalism: he went further and announced that their standard must steadily decline.” (Page 101.) Page 95 has it that Marx. “ . . . predicted that real wages could never rise above subsistence so long as capitalist relations of production continued . . ." and page 90 assures us Marx held that, ". . . the standard of life of the mass of the population . . . never rises; indeed, as we shall see, Marx believed that it would actually fall below subsistence.” Strachey is quite dogmatic about this. He tells us that, “The crucial passages leave no doubt that Marx took this view”, then calmly stating, “It may be sufficient to quote two of them . . . ” (page 101) he displays for us the famous “pauperisation ” quote from the Communist Manifesto and the equally famous “increasing misery” quote from Capital, Vol. I. which in the faulty Eden & Cedar Paul translation (dealt with by Jack Fitzgerald and Riazanov, Socialist Standard. Vol. 1932) becomes happily for Strachey “increasing poverty.”

The real significance of these two passages has been dealt with in the Standard and it has been shown that they lend no support whatsoever to Strachey's case, but what of the other “crucial passages.” the ones that Strachey doesn’t quote, but keeps up his sleeves? The truth is that these other passages just don’t exist, that Strachey is unable to advance any proof to back up his wild claims, that Strachey was, when he wrote this book, on his own admission, ignorant of the real position taken up by Marx on the living standard question which is in fact the very reverse of the position fastened on him by Mr. Strachey.

Mr. Strachey’s admissions were made publicly at the Transport Hall, Cardiff, where on February 10th, 1957, he held, under the auspices of the N.C.L.C.. a one-day school to discuss the scope and findings of his Contemporary Capitalism. I took to that school all the works of Marx and Engels available in English at that date, thus making sure that any defence offered by Mr. Strachey could be accurately examined on the spot and thus eliminating the chance of an alibi based on “writings not on hand."

During the question and discussion periods I gave Mr. Strachey the opportunity to prove to the hundred or more people present that his analysis of Marxism was correct. With every book that he could need to prove his case on hand, Mr. Strachey was unable to produce any evidence to back up his assertions other than the two quotes already mentioned. The celebrated “crucial passages” failed to materialise, not even a clue could be given as to their whereabouts!

When I read out to the school the many passages in which Marx clearly shows that the working class could increase their living standards under capitalism, Strachey admitted that he was not acquainted with any of the extracts quoted. He stated that the passages I had advanced showed that Marx had held views contrary to the ones attributed to him in Contemporary Capitalism. He also said that it looked as if he had over-emphasised (!) one aspect of Marx’s ideas and neglected others. He was also not aware of the faulty nature of the Eden and Cedar Paul translation of Capital, Volume 1, from which his chief piece of “evidence” was taken. Since my quotes were mainly from Wage Labour and Capital and Capital, Vol. 1 (the majority of these quotes can be found in the January, 1957. S.S.), which are works as basic as one can get. Mr. Strachey s admissions arc pretty damning.

Later, in the presence of the organizer of the school. Mr. Strachey complimented me on my “Marxian scholarship” and speaking of Marx said: “It looks as if I’ve done the Old Man an injustice.” Scholarship is an odd word to describe a mere basic knowledge of a subject and it is intriguing to think of a term which, continuing this same picturesque tradition, will describe Mr. Strachey’s lack of knowledge!

I was prepared to wait for the promised second volume by Strachey before writing anything about this encounter, but I now learn that Mr. Strachey has been acquainted with the articles written by E. W. (January, February, March, April. .S.S..) on Contemporary Capitalism and is trying to dismiss their incontrovertible arguments as mere differences in “interpretation” of Marxian theory. This is dishonest of John Strachey. It is not the position he took up at Cardiff and it is not a position that he can maintain if he is bold enough to meet the Socialist Party in public debate. Though not a member of the Socialist Party at the time of this meeting with Strachey, the position I then took up is the same as that held by the Party. I therefore challenge Mr. Strachey to meet a representative of the Socialist Party in public debate and I can promise him that he will be very fairly treated, though 1 cannot promise that his cup of happiness will be overflowing or even full.

Yours fraternally.

Melvin C. Harris.

More Trouble in Africa (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was set up in 1953, it was known to be against the wishes of most of the African population in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. They did not want to be taken out of the control of the British Colonial Office to be handed over to domination by the white settlers, whose attitude, as shown particularly in Southern Rhodesia, is much like that of the South African Government. Opponents of Federation, including the British Labour Party, foresaw that tension would increase and were not surprised by the recent disturbances in which a number of Africans were killed by Government forces. Among the Africans the idea of early independence for Nyasaland has been given a powerful stimulus, associated by some of them with more ambitious ideas of a wider nationalism, taking in all Africa.

Are they right ? Will “independence” make them better off and happier? Their African leaders tell them there is no doubt about the matter. And it is quite obvious that most Africans would prefer to put up with a lot of inconvenience, even hardship, to escape living under a government which operates or tolerates a colour bar against them. Africans are only behaving like other people, for history is full of examples of resentment of, and revolt against, the imposition on subject groups, of racial, national, religious and language barriers. And because it has happened so often we have plenty of information about its consequences: nobody need plead ignorance. What then has national independence done for the mass of the population, whether we take the European nationalist movements of last century, such as the Italian struggle against Austria or the Balkan countries’ struggles .against Turkey, or the quite recent new States set up in former Colonies? Without going into detail we can say that national independence is good for local politicians, lawyers, army officers, manufacturers and business men; it opens up careers and money-making opportunities for them, as also for local holders of government civilian posts who may have found their advancement hindered while a foreign administration had control! Sometimes the achievement of national independence helps to speed up industrial development where this has been deliberately limited by the governing Power and may make it rather easier for workers to form trade unions.

What has the winning of independence done for the progress of humanity? The accumulation of experience has served to fill many of those who once hoped much from it, with disappointment and doubt. Mr. Hannen Swaffer, who spent many years supporting Labour Party demands for “freedom" for the colonics, writes:—

“. . . at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, under my window, British people were gathering to offer thanks on the anniversary of Ghana’s obtaining freedom from British rule. Yet, in Ghana, its native rulers were oppressing the Opposition leaders—and its dictatorial Premier had boasted that he would work for a United Black Africa. Is full freedom for immature peoples really the remedy for economic injustice?”
- (People, 8th March. 1959.)

Mr. Swaffer might have added that on the political side we have recently seen military dictatorship set up in the Sudan and Pakistan, two areas formerly British-administered, and that from the standpoint of what he calls “ economic injustice,” independence has not brought anything worthwhile to the ex-colonial workers. The early beliefs of Swaffer and the Labour Party, that national independence for the colonies would solve the economic problems of the workers, were well meant, but quite unfounded. They did not understand what is the nature of nationalism and national independence. Nationalism is not just the friendly association of people who speak the same language, share the same culture and live in the same place. In the world in which we live, where military force dominates, national independence means setting up a “sovereign state”; a government which, with the use of armed force can impose its property laws on its nationals individually and on its workers as a class, while at the same time using its forces to strengthen its position against other nations. The creation of a new capitalist group able to hold its own in a competitive capitalist world is the real aim of those who profit by nationalist movements; the encouragement of national and linguistic sentiments is merely the means to an end.

This is little appreciated by those who think that what mankind needs is a set of “good” ideas and ideals, and that national independence is one of these. Holding such a conception they are shocked and puzzled when they see liberated countries falling to dictatorship, and see some Africans now preaching anti-white racialism.

So although the liberal-minded Capricorn African Society, looking at what has already happened, can say that “Nationalism is not enough,” their founder, Mr. David Stirling still believes that “ African nationalism is of itself a splendid and dynamic force to be encouraged ” (Manchester Guardian, March 5th, 1959). And Father Trevor Huddleston, who worked so hard for Africans against the policies of the South African government, still holds to his belief that nationalism “on the part of the great peoples of Africa” is “not only natural, but entirely’ right.” (He does not notice that the nationalism of all groups, including the white South Africans, appears to to them to be equally “natural” and “ right”) He backs his belief with the distorting half-truth that “over much of Africa wealth was white and poverty was black.” (Manchester Guardian. March 9th, 1959.) This is the kind of misleading political slogan on which all nationalisms thrive; misleading because when independence has been achieved the African masses will still be poor, though the number of rich Africans, rich through the exploitation of the poor, will be somewhat larger. The subject economic position of the African workers will not have been removed.

It is here that we see the gulf between Socialists and the well-meaning reformers like Father Huddleston and the Capricorn Society. For us it is a question of changing the basis of the social system as the only way to change the condition of the exploited masses, the only way to abolish riches and poverty. For the idealists it is a matter of “changing men’s hearts,” as if that could prevail against the class structure of the capitalist social system. True to his misguided notions Father Huddleston calls upon white settlers and the British government and people to choose “the path of faith ” and reject “the path of fear.”

But these idealists are not the only people who have views on Africa. A Tory peer. Lord Brand, has recently revisited South Africa, and in an article in The Times (March 9th. 1959), foretells the inevitable failure of Apartheid. But he is not relying on good intentions, or sentiment or faith, but on something more substantial. He finds that it is an economic impossibility for the mining, industrial and commercial companies, farmers, employers of domestic service, etc., to survive if cut off from their African labour force. Though the supporters of the South African government will not face up to realities, the fact is that “white and black must live together for endless centuries. They must either in the end learn to live harmoniously and at peace, or they must physically destroy each other.” Lord Brand sees that far, but no farther.

As Socialists we can say that his approach shows more understanding of the problem than does that of any of the good intentioned idealists already referred to. Lord Brand, though he never names it, is a supporter of capitalism: he believes it to be the only possible social system. He sees that capitalism has its own needs and economic laws and that, however obstinate the Apartheid supporters may be, they cannot put the clock back and make capitalism fit their out-of-date beliefs. But if the Afrikaners in South Africa cannot twist capitalism back to suit their prejudices, neither can Huddleston and the other would-be reformers make capitalism into the rational and benevolent social system of their dreams. “Liberated” Black Africa will be Black Capitalist Africa and the African workers will still be exploited, as are the white workers elsewhere. The only way out of this impasse is that the Black workers and all other workers join together for the Socialist objective of overthrowing capitalism and establishing Socialism, in Africa and all other lands. But this will involve the abolition of national frontiers and the disappearance of racial prejudices. The world will then be a place for all its inhabitants to live in and travel in, freely and without hindrance or prejudice. The Blacks will be emancipated because all workers will be emancipated from capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Church's One Foundation (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the Sunday Express (January 18th, 1959): “The Church of England stands to make millions of pounds if the Tories win the next election. The money will come from investments in free enterprise steel. The Church’s 2,187,000 shares put it among Britain's top ten investors in steel. . . . The investment is worth around £3,400,0000. Growing confidence that Tory success at the polls will end the threat of renationalisation has brought a rise of nearly 50 per cent. in steel shares from the low points touched last year. This suggests that the Church is already showing a profit in the region of £1,000,000 on its holding . . .  Soon the Church’s advisers will face the problem of reinvesting the £1,100,000 to be received from the take-over of its $260,000 British Aluminium shares.. This single transaction has brought the Church a profit estimated at £500,000."

The prophets of the early days for truth made spartan search,
     They lived on nuts and wore apparel strange;
But now in more enlightened times the profits of the Church
      Are made in dealings on the Stock Exchange.
"Take no thought for the body,” said the Gospel of St. Luke,
    “Consider ye the lilies of the field.”
They considered: but, while thinking, much more worldly steps they took,
     And placed their Cush to get the highest yield.
Do they pray, in their churches, that the Consols may not fall?
     Do they beg, as they kneel, that oil may rise?
Do they summon the Almighty to keep closer on the ball
      So their shares, like their prayers, may hit the skies?
The Church complains it cannot reach the workers—it despairs
      That it doesn't find them very fruitful soil;
But the Church can reach the workers other ways—by buying shares,
      And grabbing surplus value from their toil.

Alwyn Edgar

The Passing Show: Another Colonial Plot (1959)

The Passing Show column from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another Colonial Plot

In Nyasaland the Governor proclaims a state of emergency because, he says, a plot by. the Africans to massacre the whites has been discovered. Southern Rhodesian security forces have been drafted into the country. There are three million Africans in Nyasaland, a sea of Negroes in which are scattered a handful of whites, no more than eight thousand all told. Despite this enormous disparity of numbers, the number of whiles so far killed as a result of the “massacre plot” is—none. But more than forty Africans have up to now been slain by the security forces.

The disturbances in Nyasaland originated in the desire of the Southern Rhodesian ruling class for aggrandisement. In Southern Rhodesia, the situation is much like that in South Africa. The white farmers and planters insist on "apartheid’’--although they don’t call it that. Hotels, restaurants, schools, are run strictly on racial lines. Political power lies in the hands of the whites. Theoretically anyone can vote, but the great majority of Africans are barred because they must pass a means test before they can exercise the franchise. If too many Africans apply for enfranchisement, then the means test can be stiffened—this, says a writer to the Manchester Guardian (March 11th, 1959) has been done twice in the past.

The devil they know

But the parallel with South Africa goes further than this. Successive governments of the Union, while pressing the desirability of keeping whites and blacks apart, nevertheless regularly, demand the handing over of Bechuanaland. Basutoland, and Swaziland—although these three territories together would add nearly a million Negroes to the population of South Africa. What the white South Africans want is not separation, but white domination: and so it is in Southern Rhodesia. Fcderation—which is in fact rule by Southern Rhodesia—was imposed on Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland against the wishes of the great majority of the Africans living in those countries. Many Nyasas travel far afield to find work: they have seen the subjection of the Africans of Southern. Rhodesia to the whites, and they don’t like it.

Not British

These developments have aroused much uneasiness in Britain. Modern capitalism demands educated workers; at school the worker learns enough arithmetic and English to labour at his employer’s bench or keep his employer’s books. Capitalism also demands enfranchised workers; the worker who votes from time to time —whether in Britain. America or Russia believes he is ruling himself, and this encourages him to think that the prevailing economic system is fashioned in his interests, fhc Southern Rhodesian ruling class, whose power is based not on industry but land, has shown itself hostile to both of these requirements. Hence the divergence of views between Britain and Southern Rhodesia. Sir Robert Armitage, the British-appointed Governor of Nyasalund, has been markedly less active in the latest developments than Sir Roy Welensky, the Southern Rhodesian Prime Minister of the Federation, and Sir Edgar Whitehead, the Premier of Southern Rhodesia itself. In Southern Rhodesia, where there had been hardly any civil disorder reported except some stone-throwing by strikers, a state of emergency was declared on February 26th. On the same day in Nyasaland, where the trouble was, a spokesman of the Government "said, “there was no question of a situation requiring a state of emergency in the protectorate" (Manchester Guardian, February 27th, 1959): the Nyasaland state of emergency was not in fact declared until March 3rd.

As in South Africa, the inevitable industrialisation of the country will settle these problems as capitalism wants them to be settled.. Socialists can leave capitalism to get over its own difficulties, and concentrate on the spread of Socialist ideas.

Never

In 1954 Mr. Henry Hopkinson, then a Conservative Minister, stood up in the House of Commons and said that there were some British colonies which could never hope to achieve independence: as an example he cited Cyprus. For the next four years the island was torn with violence: hundreds of human beings—British, Greek, Turkish—died: repeatedly British Governors announced that they could not bargain with violence, and that law and order must be restored before any constitutional advance could be made. Last month, with the terrorist groups still at large in the hills, Cyprus was granted its virtual independence. But do not expect the Ministers of the Crown to be at all abashed at having done what they said could never be done. To make a meal of their own words is no new experience for our present political leaders. They seem to thrive on the diet.

And Mr. Henry Hopkinson, whose use of the word “never” started it all? Like many another unsuccessful politician before him, he has been rewarded with a peerage. The costly struggle of the British ruling class to keep Cyprus has, at least for Mr. Hopkinson, not been entirely fruitless.

Freedom from the oppressor

The Cypriot workers, who have now exchanged their British musters for a home-grown variety, and the Nyasa people, who arc trying to do the same, might ponder an item of news from Pakistan. The long light against the British with its killings on both sides, its violence, its long jail sentences, its executions — which is only now ending in Cyprus, and seems to be getting under way in Nyasaland, has long been over in Pakistan. A decade and more ago, the British handed over authority to the new Pakistani rulers, and withdrew. The Pakistani workers expected their long struggle to result in a new and better era. How disappointed they must be now..

A letter to the Editor of the Manchester Guardian (March 12th, 1959) runs in part as follows

   "A little less than a month ago you briefly reported a large strike at the largest jute mill centre in the world at Narayanganj, East Pakistan. This involved some twenty thousand workers, and the dispute resulted worn a demand for the continuance of Sunday as a day of rest, instead of staggering holidays throughout the week as ordered by the managements on alleged technical grounds.
   "On the following day there was a partial return to work, and a large cavalcade of officers descended on the mills, led by Major-General Umrao Khan, the East Pakistan Martial Law Administrator.
    "Addressing the workers, he proclaimed that 'the strike being illegal, everyone who had absented himself from work had committed an offence, and was liable to punishment under the Martial Law Regulations. He made it clear that the ringleaders who had been arrested, would not in any circumstances be released and those who continued to play into their hands would not escape punishment.'
    "That this was intelligent anticipation has since become clear by an announcement that Lieutenant-Colonel S. A. Zaman Khan, President of the Special Military Court trying the ten employees of the Adamjee Jute Mills under the Martial Law Regulations, had sentenced them to between five and six years' rigorous imprisonment and flogging for resorting to an illegal strike.

Five years’ jail, and a flogging, for going on strike to keep Sunday as a day off! The British themselves could hardly have been worse than the new rulers of Pakistan. What a lesson this is on the futility of those who mislead the workers into fighting for the removal of one ruling class, and its replacement by another. If only the Nyasa workers could learn this lesson now, instead of when they have firmly saddled a new Nyasa ruling class on their own backs, what years of useless strife could they save themselves. Even if the fight for “independence” is won quickly, the real battle will still have to be faced: the struggle for an end to all ruling classes, the struggle for Socialism.

Alwyn Edgar

The Worker (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Mediterranean shores, on the sands of Waikiki, on Caribbean Waters, these are among the places where the worker is to be found. But not in great numbers and not stretched out on his back. He will be found in these places in just those numbers that are required to wash, clothe, feed and minister in other ways to the wants and comforts of people who have neither the need nor the urge to look after themselves.

There are places where the worker can be found in far greater numbers: the swamps of Florida, the forests of British Columbia, the auto plants of Michigan, the mining camps of Ontario; places that he is far more accustomed to, where the produce of nature is moulded into things useful to man; far places, near places, places of dirt and smoke, and smoke and sweat and work.

The worker is a handy sort of person to have around. Without him the Mediterranean shores would lose most of their splendour, the waves would wash over Waikiki unsung by travel agencies, the waters of the Caribbean would abound in ocean life undisturbed by intrepid sportsmen. Without him there would be no smoke over Pittsburgh, no satellites over Moscow; no grandeur in Rome, no pomp in London; no magnificence in Washington, no bull in Ottawa; no joy in the hearts of those who live without working.

To ensure that he creates an abundance of the finer things of life for other people and a sufficiency of other things to care for his own needs, in the way of food, clothing and shelter, plus a bit extra for tobacco and the raising of a family to take his place in production when he grows old, and also to ensure that this state of affairs be protected to infinity, that is the fondest aim of those in whose care rests the destiny of society. That is the blessed eternity that the owners of the world and their spokesmen dream and yearn and sigh for. What finer world could be envisaged than one in which the workers work happily on simple fare and the non-workers live happily on the rest ?

Somehow this doesn't sound just right, docs it ? Somehow it seems that somebody is getting away with something, that there should be a better set-up than one in which the workers wind up with rations while people who do nothing useful live on the fat of the land. Yet that's how it is.

There is a lot said in high places about talking turkey to the Russians and hanging one on the nose of some other foreigner. There are grandiose plans in governing circles for intercontinental guided missiles and improved types of atom bombs. There is much said about foreign trade, tariffs, agreements and embargoes. The world we live in treats the wealth of the owning class with the greatest reverence. It has to be guarded by every means, shifted here and shifted there, moved within the terms of international understandings, cared for and catered to in every way that will benefit the owners. And these antics are all assumed to be in the interest of the whole community, the theory being that what is good for General Bullmoose is good for everybody. But after everything has been done according to plan, it still works out that the worker finds himself by the palm trees, the rolling waves, the silvery sands, for no better reason than to work. Either that or he is trespassing.

It doesn't have to be like that. But if someone thinks that maybe the other fellow will do something about it, he had better move back to the beginning and start thinking some more. The other fellow has too many things to do. He has a world in his lap, placed there by the worker. How can he enjoy to the full the bounteous produce of labour and at the same time concern himself about its grubby producer? Besides, what can be wrong with a world that is so full of wonderful things and places—and so much time in which to enjoy them ?

Thoughts like these are hard to counter. There is logic in the other fellow’s position—logic for him. But it could be different for the worker. This kind of logic doesn’t help to build up his supply of caviar or contribute to the upkeep of his coach and four. He needs more. And when he has gotten down to some serious thought and study and found out what really goes on in society, there is no doubt whatever about the outcome: he will know what needs to be done and he will know who has to do it.

He will know that the reason he and his family and his kind receive so little while the other people mentioned receive so much is that he and his kind are members of the working class, having no share in the ownership of the means of production and distribution and forced in order to live to work for these other people, the members of the capitalist class. He will know that the workers are forced to do this because the capitalists own the means of production and distribution and will allow their operation only on condition that it brings them a profit. He will know, too, that this profit comes from the amount of wealth produced by the workers in excess of their own essential needs and that the capitalist class exert constant pressure to increase this excess and so their profit, even to the extent of lowering the subsistence level of the workers. Knowing this, he will also know that the only way for the workers to rid themselves of the shackles of subservience and want is to transform the means of production and distribution from capitalist property to common property, introducing at last a condition in which human needs will be satisfied unaffected by the restraints, dictates and diversions of an owning class.

And since the class ownership of the means of life is protected for the capitalists by their control over the government, the worker will know, too, that he and his fellows must become organised in a political party designed to bring about the necessary transformation. Then he will join the Socialist Party.

(Reproduced from a Leaflet published by the Socialist Party of Canada.)