A Battle Between Labour Leaders (1947)

From the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amongst the official workers' leaders there is developing a serious difference of opinion about a serious issue. The Margate Conference decided that the Government should take a hand in “the guiding process of fixing wages in different industries instead of leaving them, as in the past, to be fought out between the employers and the Unions,” so says Mr. Ian Mikardo, M.P., writing in support in Picture Post (21/6/47). In the same paper Mr. George Brown, M.P., trade union leader, puts forward the opposing point of view.

Despite the Prime Minister's proclamations, the present way in which society is organised is not undergoing any revolutionary change. It is still class-divided. Some millionaires are dying, others are being born. Profits are as lively as ever, those of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company having risen by a cool four million during the past year. Wages too are still here, buying for wage-earners the usual amount of food, clothing and shelter, mostly crude, mostly nasty. The Government is to fix all this; to fix profits; to fix wages; to fix everything good and proper. In the workers' world of insecurity and fear it is not surprising that the idea of somebody fixing something catches on.

Mr. Mikardo's economics are very simple. The problem, he maintains, is that the less essential trades are bleeding our basic industries of their man-power. The solution is a wages-policy which "remains the most effective way of getting the men where they are needed.” "Nobody,” he continues, ”envisages wage-cuts in the less essential industries; what a national wages policy means is that wages (barring a few anomalous cases) are kept steady, whilst wages in the under-manned industries are pushed up.” In countering, Mr. Brown states that he took the trouble to investigate the wages of the so-called less essential trades and discovered that nearly 200 out of 216 such wages were below £5 per week. These lucky people are going to enjoy the charm of the guiding hand which is to keep their pay-packets sweet and low. Not being in their ranks, Mr. Mikardo looks like missing all the fun.

One hazards the question as to what happens to the increased profits resulting from more efficient machinery and more production per man per hour? One thing is certain; it won’t go to the wage earners sheltering under the shadow of the Government’s guiding hand which keeps their low wages low. When the purchasing power of wages falls, when £4 will only buy what say £3 had bought previously, does the guiding, steadying hand toll on? The more Mr. Mikardo's idea is examined the more it reveals itself as the answer to the Capitalists’ prayer.

Mr. Brown makes the obvious query as to what is to decide which trade is essential and which is not, and comes to the conclusion that it is a question impossible to answer. We agree. What, for example, are miners? They’re very essential, comes the ready answer. Well as far as the working-class is concerned even thousands of miners are not very essential, because thousands of miners are to-day toiling and sweating to produce the coal to produce the steel to produce the luxury liners,’ Rolls-Royces, and other such novelties definitely not for the enjoyment of a working-class which does not include, to complete the cycle, compensated ex-mine-owners.

The fixed-wage idea is easy meat for Mr. Brown, but after the fireworks he follows with a pathetic justification for leaving workers to bargain through the Unions with employers for their wage, their slave-price. “How patriotic,” he says. "have been the negotiating machinery and the Trade Unions in avoiding a real inflationary spiral.” In other words the Trade Union leaders are doing O.K.. keeping wages steady, so why not leave well alone. Since it is Mr. Brown who points out the pittance earned by the workers in so-called luxury trades, it can only be assumed that he includes these low wages in his tragic boast. The Socialist approach to the economic problems confronting society is scientific. Unfortunately for Mr. Brown it disposes of his “inflationary spiral." An increase in wages does not, of itself, result in an increase in prices. Several factors influence the price of a commodity There is the supply of it and the demand for it. There is the productivity of labour continually increasing due to the introduction of quicker machinery. There is competition between manufacturers. In the case of food there is the climatic element, good weather producing a bumper harvest and bringing down the price, or bad weather and low crops sometimes increasing the price. As a matter of fact a study of the history of wages and prices shows that on many occasions wages have risen and prices, far from rising, have fallen considerably. After a recent flying trip to America, the editor of the News Chronicle (25/6/47) reported that prices were being trimmed whilst at the same time wages were rising.

Both the Picture Post contestants have no quarrel with the existence of such social animals as Capitalists and wage-slaves. They have no quarrel with the bitter struggle which is bound to go on so long as the two classes exist. They have no quarrel with profits. They are both concerned with what to do with these things. Opposing the party both represent, the S.P.G.B. is concerned about getting rid of the stupid things they would plan. The wages-system must end. The division of man into class compartments must end. There is to-day no relation between the people's needs and what the people are capable of producing; markets and profits stand like mountains, in the way. Markets and profits must end. In other words, Capitalism must end if humanity is to survive.

Prolly.

The Myth of May Day (1947)

From the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 1st of May, 1947, has seen a further extension of the Myth of May Day.

It has become fashionable in Labour circles to spread the fable that, in its early days, the "Labour Movement” was bold, fiery, and "r-r-r-revolutionary”—but now that it has grown up, assumed the responsibilities of Government and started to “lay the foundations” of the “Socialist State” (vide Daily Herald) it has put aside foolish things, as behoves "practical” and "realistic" people.

A typical expression of it is found in the article "What May Day means to me," by the News-Chronicle Industrial correspondent, Ian Mackay, an ex-member of the Scottish I.L.P.

The sort of stuff that Mr. Mackay writes was echoed in raging accents and styles on Labour platforms all over the country.

  "May-Day then to my eager young mind was the great annual festival of freedom when the quenchless spirit of the common man was continually refreshed and rededicated to the endless quest, 'the visionary gleam' of a new life of love and friendship, liberty and peace among all the peoples of the world.  . . .
   "Beyond the banners and the shouting of the slogan fanciers I could see far off, like Christian in the Bedford tinkers tale, a shining city where all men and women would be free and happy and clean in body and soul, where all the mean and petty wickedness of hunger and greed would be shameful memories, and mankind for the first time could advance harmoniously on to the gleaming uplands of the brave new world."

We gather from Mr. Mackay's vastly amusing gossip column on other days that he has since discovered somewhat more practical sources for the “continual refreshment" of his "quenchless spirit."

What we are interested in, is Mr. Mackay's accurate portrayal of the mental outlook of most of the supporters of the Labour Party—as expressed in the above collection of sonorous nothingness.

[We warn Ian that, if he’s not careful, providing he can do that sort of stuff solemnly at meetings, with the right Crosby catch in the throat at the end, he'll find himself in the next Cabinet.]

The fact is, that, as one of Mr. Mackay’s Scottish colleagues, John Scanlon (“Pillow of Cloud") has shown, it was precisely this sort of sentimental amiability, goodwill towards men, and vague hope of "a new world" which constituted the backbone of Labour Party pre-war speeches, the popularity of a Macdonald and Labour Party "Socialism."

Professor Hearnshaw in his “Survey of Socialism" shows that the first MacDonald Labour Government called forth a book compiled and edited by a Labour Councillor, Mr. Dan Griffiths, which was regularly pushed by the "Daily Herald" and had a wide sale at Labour meetings, entitled "What is Socialism?" The definitions were by the usual "prominent personalities" which infest Labour Parties for jobs. There are 263 definitions; all different.

   "Taking the definitions in the order in which they are printed, we gather from them that socialism is a science, a religion, an attitude, a principle, a body of doctrine, a theory, a system, an organisation, a form of society, a faith, a spirit, a philosophy, a movement, a name, an expression of belief, a tendency, an aspiration, a way of living, an endeavour, a demand, a process, an ideal, a conception, an awakening, an atmosphere, and a programme. This is sufficiently perplexing, but the perplexity is increased when some of the definitions are examined in detail." "Survey of Socialism," F. J. C. Hearnshaw, p.28.

According to Mr. J. W. Bowen, former Labour M.P., "Socialism is light in the darkness of a depressed world." Mr. W. Hampson, Labour M.P., "Socialism is sunlight opposed to darkness." "Socialism is the navigation of social currents by the liberated soul of man," R. W. Sorensen, Labour M.P. (Leyton). Mr. Wilfred Wellock, ex-Labour M.P., "Socialism is mankind functioning on the spiritual plane."

"No better definition of socialism can be given in general terms than that it aims at the organisation of the material economic forces of society, and their control by human forces," J. Ramsay MacDonald. As Professor Hearnshaw remarks "if 'no better definition' of socialism than this can be given, then indeed is human intelligence in a parlous condition."

"To me, Socialism is the practical expression of Christ’s teaching," says C. G. Ammon, now Lord Ammon. "Socialism is that form of society which will permit the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth," H. C. Charlton, Labour M.P. Mr. Dan Griffiths, himself, just to clear up the other 262 Labour Leaders’ contradictory definitions of Socialism, weighs in with "Socialism implies an ever-learning, ever-improving ergatocracy.”

One Fabian lawyer, Mr. Alban Gordon, wrote "I cannot define socialism for you in some short snappy phrase, and what is more, neither can any other socialist. Even if I could, other socialists would probably repudiate my definition as heartily as I should theirs.” (‘‘The Common Sense of Socialism," 1924).

It is this, and little more than this, that "Socialism" means to-day to many an amiable curate, and many a philanthropic member of Mr. Dan Griffiths team, who define socialism as "applied Christianity,” or the practical application of the principles taught in the "Sermon on the Mount" or "the realisation of the golden rule," or "something else of the same admirable and entirely inoffensive kind,” says Hearnshaw.

This was the "Christian Socialism” of Maurice, Charles Kingsley and Ludlow, which was lifted and made the stock-in-trade of the Labour Party by Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald. But if all the Labour Party ever stood for was this vague, rather mushy sentimentalism, how has it won elections? the reader may ask.

The answer is, of course, by the "practical programme," side-by-side with the Sermon-on-the-Mount stuff, which assured even the most timid voter that Labour Party "Socialism" was completely innocuous; the Labour Party, starting with its first programme, "Labour and the New Social Order” (written by Mr. Sidney Webb) sets forth its proposals of "practical steps.”

As Mr. Bernard Shaw has never tired of boasting, he and Mr. Webb give the Labour Party its practical programme. "In 1915," wrote Mr. Shaw in the Times (July 4, 1924), "Socialism saved the country when private enterprise had brought us within two inches of defeat,” and he went on to show that by socialism he meant no more than the state control of mines, railways, shipping, munition works, food supplies and so on. Lest there should be any mistake as to his meaning he added: "Imagine Westminster without socialism—no streets, no bridges, no public lighting, no police, no schools, no water supply, no courts, no post and telegraphs and telephones, no army, no navy, no returning officer, no election no 'Big Ben' and no parliament.” (The Observer, March 16th, 1924).

These writings are the direct ancestors of "Let us Face the Future," the 1945 Election Manifesto, with its proposals of Nationalisation.

Professor Hearnhaw does one very good service by decisively debunking the main fallacy of most Labour Party supporters in regard to so-called “private enterprise."

  "But the enlargement of the sphere of the state—the extension of the activities of the central and municipal authorities—does not, by itself, even tend to eliminate capitalism, extinguish private enterprise, or eradicate competition, three of the things which genuine socialism invariably does.
   "Take Mr. Shaw’s list of what he calls "socialistic " institutions. Do publicly made and controlled streets and bridges tend to hamper capitalism, hinder private enterprise, lessen competition? They are the very means by which all these things increase indefinitely. Is the government’s postal, telegraphic and telephone service an obstacle to capitalistic 'development, a barrier to private enterprise, a foe to competition? Only in so far as it is inefficient. In so far as it is efficient it is the most valuable possible aid to individualistic activity, and it was established precisely in order that it might be such." P.78.

 "It may be asked, Does not the extension of the sphere of public enterprise inevitably entail the diminution of the sphere of private enterprise; if, for example, you nationalise the railways, do you not take away from private enterprise one large region wherein it now rules supreme? The answer is that the extension of the sphere of public enterprise undoubtedly modifies the sphere of private enterprise; but that it does not necessarily reduce it. The question seems to assume that there is a certain fixed quantity of 'enterprise’ divided into two sections—viz., public and private—and that any increase in the one section involves a decrease in the other. That is not the case. Enterprise is capable of indefinite expansion. If the community, by means of its central and local authorities, takes over the tasks of making roads and bridges, of putting up street lamps and public clocks, of organising postal and telegraphic services, although it unquestionably obviates the possibility (or rather the necessity) of the tasks being undertaken by private persons, it nevertheless, in doing so, releases their energies for countless more fruitful enterprises, and provides them with means by which their individualistic and competitors' activities may be immeasurably more productive than they would otherwise be." P.80.

Professor Hearnshaw, the fanatical anti-Marxian, will be surprised to learn that he has stated a perfectly sound Marxian case against Capitalism. It is one which will not get votes for Tories either. As one Tory questioner stated, at a recent Socialist Party open-air meeting (after it had been explained how Labour Government Nationalisation and Public Ownership is really a strengthening of private enterprise): "So far I’ve voted Tory because I’m all for private enterprise. Now I shall vote Labour—because it's best for private enterprise."

The writer of the "Survey of Socialism" might have suspected something was amiss when he quoted the Socialist Standard for September, 1924.

  “Indignant Marxians rightly exclaim against the stupidity or hypocrisy with which, as they say, ‘literary parasites of the capitalist class [a very unkind allusion to the Fabians] are flooding the press with essays labelled “socialism," in which everything is called "socialism" from a profit-sharing bakery to the government printing office’; and they quite justly maintain that 'government ownership is not socialism,' and that 'the transfer of industries from private firms to state ownership is simply a policy dictated by capitalist needs and for capitalist advantage,' adding that 'the most open enemies of socialism have nationalised railways and other businesses without in any way benefitting the working class.’ " P.82.

Those lines were written by our old pioneer comrade, Adolph Kohn. Whether the last two years have confirmed them, or not, we leave the reader to judge.

The Labour Party was never Socialist and never revolutionary. Mr. Mackay’s rosy dream of "shining cities" in "brave new worlds" were merely the "ants in the pants" of many active young people.

The Labour Party, in its early days, peddled a lushy mess of sentimental idealism admixed with large doses of Liberal State Capitalism. This is the reason it has ousted the now defunct Liberal Party—and incidentally, why ex-"r-r-r-evolutionary’’(?) I.L.P. "Socialists" like Mr. Mackay can spread the Myth of the Labour Party’s early May Days in the Liberal’s daily newspaper.

Horatio

Of Memories and Managing Directors (1947)

From the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a recent edition of the house magazine, the managing director of a multiple store stated, "The memory of those who gave their lives for their country will abide with us.” We are familiar with these earnest promises to keep faith with those workers who died in senseless wars waged against the workers of other lands. Stone manifestations of these utterances stand in every village and town up and down the country, surmounted by the symbol of a rather elastically interpreted religion.

The dead present little or no problem in our modern capitalist society. Their dependants are doled out with a pittance, their names are mentioned with less and less frequency; and so they die their second death. It is the survivors who constitute the problem to the capitalists, who are, one presumes, sufficiently grateful to take back their ex-warrior employees for the period the reinstatement right covers (it is true there are cunningly concealed loopholes available to these employers which they use whenever urgently necessary).

But more and more of our stalwart men are finding that, far from a situation arising where they can say, "Well, we’ve done our bit, the war’s won, now we can settle down to make progress in our chosen careers,” business concerns have no use for men who inadvertently wasted six or seven years at a time when they would have been increasing their knowledge and experience. Too old to be trained anew, out they go. On applying to other firms for employment, they get the same answer—too old; too old in their late 20’e or early 30’s! Becoming bitter, they blame the individual firms, the Labour Government, anyone, in fact but the only cause of their troubles—CAPITALISM.  It is capitalism which dictates that a worker should only be employed in a job and at a wage which leaves a surplus value for the employer.

Workers! Whilst you accept capitalism as the system of economic life you will always be too old or too young for the job. You will at intervals be rushed off to serve “your” country by destroying your comrades of other nations who are being urged with identical slogans to destroy you. You will always return to find that the fine promises were tongue-in-cheek ones which your bosses do not intend to implement.

The breathing-space between the rounds in the fight for world markets grows shorter. Stir yourselves now, or soon you too will be “abiding” in the memory of some managing director.

G.

Editorial: Two Worlds and What Divides Them (1947)

Editorial from the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is only too easy to contrast the warm and lofty phrases of the United Nations' Charter with the hostile acts and vituperative speeches of the present period, only two years after the end of the war. "We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save successive generations from the scourge of war . . .”, already face the division of Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific lands into rival Russian and American-British spheres of influence. Two years of meetings of the foreign ministers of the war-time Allies have resulted in Western Europe being enticed into the American camp by offers of aid while Russia, more crudely, orders its satellite States of Eastern Europe to stay away. The backslapping and handshakes are forgotten and now we have Mr. Bevin warning Russia in terms reminiscent of those directed against Nazi Germany. Speaking in London at an American Independence Day dinner on July 4th Mr. Bevin addressed these remarks to hie Russian ally:—

   "They seem to think that our obsession for peace is a thing which entitles them to go on to provocation . . . They must not be surprised . . .  that you can carry provocation too far. People will say one day 'We are tired of this.' There comes a moment when we say, 'We have had enough.' I say to my friends who take a different view from ours, 'Don't provoke that situation.' " (Daily Telegraph, 5/7/47).

And lest anyone should think that it will remain a war only of words the United Powers, which solemnly pledged themselves "to settle their international disputes by peaceful means," are at this moment maintaining 19,000,000 men under arms and spending on armaments £2,500 million a year more than in 1938. (News Chronicle, 13/5/47). Like the ill-fated League of Nations the U.N. already has its test case in the Balkans. A U.N. Commission having found that Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania have been helping Greek guerillas against the Greek Government, and the Russian group having declined to approve action to stop it, the British delegate on the Security Council, Sir Alexander Cadogan, declares:—

   "If we cannot apply proposals such as those submitted by the Commission we had better tear up the Charter and pack up.” (Manchester Guardian, 4/7/47).

Everyone sees the drift towards another cataclysmic war. Everyone—except a certain "lunatic fringe” in all countries—deplores it; but very few understand why it is taking place, the Government spokesmen among them. These gentlemen have their neat face-saving explanations. They each see the cause in the inexplicably stupid behaviour of their opposite numbers. "I love the Russian people,” says Bevin. "The ordinary man and woman of the world wants peace. They want to be left alone. They want the amenities that civilisation can give them. Why split the world on some ideology, on such things as material determinism or Christian religion?” These are Bevin's words but they could be Truman's or Stalin's; the favourite theme of Russian Government spokesmen is the way the peace-loving masses of Britain and U.S.A., friendly to Russia, are being duped into supporting the hostile acts of their respective governments. The theme is plausible but is the most arrant nonsense no matter which side puts it forward. The world is not going to war because of ideological differences, though if war comes between the groups as at present divided—and let it not be forgotten that this grouping is no more inevitable and permanent than any past grouping—the Bevins and Molotovs, Attlees, Stalins and Trumans will find it a convenient banner under which to try to rally mass support.

What then is the cause of international rivalry in the modern world? To find it the worker in each country needs to look not abroad but at home; not at the relationships between the governments but at the relationship between the social classes; not at Foreign Ministers' protestations of good will, but at the thrusting, aggressive export drives of the Ministers of Trade, the ceaseless effort to find foreign markets and sources of cheap raw materials.

Oil offers a convenient illustration of the problem. Britain and France have little or no home petrol supplies and Russia and America, exporters in the past, are increasingly in need of imported oil products. The new and growing source is the Middle East, so the Middle East becomes a scene of violent rivalry between all the Powers, veiled, of course, under a propaganda smoke-screen, with charge and counter-charge of interference, imperialism, ideological war, foreign violation of sovereignty, etc., etc.

Because British capitalism needs cheap oil it seems perfectly reasonable to Mr. Bevin that the British Government should not abandon its position in the oil-producing Middle East. The American Government feels the same about its aid in money and arms to Middle East countries not yet fallen into the Russian orbit. But Russia’s rulers equally protest the reasonableness of their demand to control North-Persian oil, and to have, in all the countries on Russia's western borders, governments amenable to Russian influence.

The next obvious question is why cannot the peace-loving peoples of the world amicably share world resources to their mutual benefit? Why are they all represented by governments which preach peace and goodwill but foster war-producing trade rivalries? Here let us return to another part of the United Nations' Charter (Article 55) in which the governments pledged themselves to promote "higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.” Who are the men who, as members of governments, are supposed to be carrying out this pledge? All of them are high salaried individuals, often with private fortunes, who look at the world through the eyes of the wealthy, privileged minority. All of them are committed to the task of making the capitalist system of society function. For whose benefit is the pledge supposed to have been made? For the benefit of the working masses, the exploited wage earners of the capitalist world. In spite of superficial appearances to the contrary class-divided capitalism is still the form of society in all of the countries of the world, and the ruling group, their protestations notwithstanding, are all of them forced to promote foreign policies dictated by the needs of capitalism in their respective countries. Capitalist competition for the world's resources and markets is just as much the determining factor in the world of to-day as it was in 1939 before World War II and in 1914 before World War I. All of the governments of the world are primarily concerned with making surplus value by the exploitation of the working class and with realising that surplus value by the profitable sale of the products in competition with the exporters of other countries. Let us put the matter to a simple test All the governments are committed to promoting “higher standards of living” for the workers, and many of them, including the British Labour Party and the Russian Bolsheviks, have in the past formally proclaimed their intention of abolishing the vast inequalities between the privileged minority and the exploited majority. Where then is there a government that is carrying out its pledge given in the Charter? All the governments are preaching austerity to the poor and resisting the demands of the workers for “higher standards of living." The Russian government lengthens the working day. The British government seeks to increase shift-working and night work and the use of systems of payments by results. The U.S.A. government introduces savage anti-trade union legislation. All the governments defend their actions by pleas of shortages, while at the same time defending a system which gives the privileged minority ease and luxury at the expense of the wealth producing class. In the “work harder" drives the rich are everywhere excluded from the hard and odious jobs deemed so essential.

The conclusion is simple. The United Nations' Charter is not faulty because of anything wrong about its appeal for peace between the governments but because of its implicit acceptance of the capitalist system that gives rise to class struggle at home and international struggle abroad. The United Nations’ Charter is a charter of capitalist governments, trimmed with pious and meaningless phrases pledging the representatives of an exploiting system to alleviate the worst hardships of those they exploit A working class charter would put different aims and put them in the proper order. Not a pledge to avoid war, with a tacit acceptance of capitalism, but' first and foremost a pledge to abolish capitalism and institute Socialism— from which all else would flow.

An American Professor Looks at Marx (1947)

Book Review from the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

A book which has gone the rounds is Professor Schumpeter’s “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.” Discursively spread over 375 pages its criticism of Marx is superficial indeed, at times, almost trivial. Professorially patronising he blue-pencils and underscores Marx after the manner of a tutor ploughing an exercise.

On p.11 Marx loses heavily on his percentages for not calling the Materialist Conception of History the economic interpretation of history, the Professor’s correction being that it is no more materialistic than Hegel’s views, and is compatible with any religious or metaphysical interpretation of the world.

Various forms of an economic interpretation have been advanced by thinkers such as Adam Smith, Sismondi, Thorold Rogers, etc. Unlike Marx, however, they did not regard man’s economic activity as the outcome of certain indispensable social productive relationships into which men are born but as the result of the behaviour of an abstract economic man. Thus the economic factor assumed by some thinkers to be the self-regulating principle of social life, is itself nothing more than a mere manifestation of eternal human attributes. In this way the real concrete productive conditions of social life are dissolved and reconstituted into the mere appearance of an underlying mental process. History is thus treated on an ideological level and the economic interpretation of it is but a species of social idealism. This presumably is Schumpeter's version of Historical Materialism.

Marx, rejecting ideas as the primary factor in social evolution (while showing the part they played in modifying the main trends of economic development), did not, as had his predecessors, the mechanical materialists, make man the victim of economic fatalism or the passive instrument of external Nature. For Marx, a dynamic relationship existed between them. Man by his social labour is integrated into Nature and in transforming it to meet his needs transforms himself. This progressive adaptation by man of the natural force to meet his needs under a given social and economic organisation, constitutes the primary role in social evolution. Man’s social labour since the passing of communal society has assumed different forms of class ownership resulting in inevitable class struggles.

Marx's method is then a materialistic, scientific one, which views social origin and development as a material process in a world of material processes. For the Marxist there can be no a priori ideas or eternal concepts, only laws, theories, etc., which are approximated to a concrete historical situation.

Says Schumpeter (p.19) there are more plausible social classifications than Marx’s division of capitalism into two classes, i.e., capitalist class and working class. Schumpeter, however, fails to produce even one, plausible or otherwise. Now, for Marx history has shown the emergence of different class systems, each phase of the historical process being characterised by a transformation of the productive forces operated by a new productive class, whose interests were bound up in these economic changes. As a result an opposition grows up between these new expanding productive forces and the old social organisation based on and adapted to an earlier mode of production. A new set of social relations becomes necessary if these new economic needs are to be adequately fulfilled. Class antagonism is rooted then in the relationship in which different classes stand to each other and constitutes the basic motive-force for effecting the transformation of different stages of historical development.

Now Capitalism is a class system—the last in a stage of historical procession which divorces the labourer from his productive instruments and converts his working energies into a commodity, labour-power. Marx sought in these class relationships the key to the understanding of the laws of capitalist society. He was thus able to penetrate beyond the superficial analysis of exchange relations in a "free market” with its belief in profit as being something derived from a creative attribute of capital itself and was able to show the real source of this category of capitalist class income, an income derived from the class monopoly of the means of production which enabled the capitalist to appropriate the difference between the value of the workers’ labour-power (his wages) and the total value of the product he produces. This mutually antagonistic character of class incomes, i.e., profits and wages, reveals conflicting class.interests. The capitalist class thus has an interest in perpetuating the institutions of a class society which maintains the working class in a dependent position. Likewise the workers have a corresponding interest in abolishing a system based upon such property rights. This makes nonsense of Schumpeter's assertion (p.19) that the normal relationship between the classes is one of co-operation and even harmony. One, of course, is at liberty to divide society into all kinds of social groups, but the principle of class division as enunciated by Marx is the only one which effectively lays bare the social mechanism whereby profits are extracted, wages regulated, the accumulation of capital extended and the conditions for a new social order determined.

Schumpeter seems no better informed on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value. On p.25 we are told that by eliminating natural agents from his Labour Theory Marx deprived them of their proper place in the process of production and distribution. This betrays utter confusion of thought in respect of Marx’s views. A theory of value which included natural agents as determinants of value would not be a labour theory of value, whatever else it might be. Now for Marx, labour was the crucial productive force of human society, be it slave-labour, serf-labour or wage-labour. As such it is man’s productive energy (as distinct from these natural agents) which is the prime cause for originating all increases and changes in forms of wealth production that have occurred at various historical stages. The form of wealth assumed by capitalism is not typical of all societies but the outcome of certain historical circumstances. Value then is a social relationship in contrast to natural processes and is therefore a quality of human activity. If the value of an article of wealth is to be expressed as a definite objective quantity and as such capable of entering into relationship with others of its kind, i.e., have exchange value, then clearly value must be directly related to the output of this human activity in terms of the expenditure of human brain, muscle and nerve under given socially organised conditions of production. Value, then, is the subject matter of economics, just as the properties of natural agents—in so far as they are useful and necessary for productive purposes—are a matter for investigation by the natural sciences, e.g., physics, chemistry, etc. The using up of human energies in a productively organised fashion and its division by Marx into units of socially necessary labour hours, i.e., an hour of average working intensity normal to the requirements and technique of industry, constitute the cause and unit of value to which varying price movements can be referred.

Marx was thus able to show that profit arises not from selling an article above its value—but at its value—the cost of the social labour contained in it. The value of the worker’s labour-power represents only part of the total labour expended by him in production. The other part, appropriated by the capitalist, is unpaid labour. In selling the article at its value the latter is able to pocket the difference in the shape of surplus value. As Marx says, in “Value Price and Profit," if you cannot explain profits on the supposition that commodities are sold at their value, then you cannot explain profits at all.

Schumpeter dismisses the Theory of Surplus Value on the ground that you cannot produce workmanlike machines according to national cost calculations (p.27). He admits (p.29) that capitalism is in a state of constant technical revolution. He fails, however, to see the connection between this and the purpose it fulfils of securing a supply of labour-power adequate for the requirements of progressive capitalist accumulation. To achieve this the workers must produce more surplus value by becoming more productive; hence the introduction of new inventions, labour-saving machinery, etc. This means that a greater part of capital will be devoted to purchasing these means and henceforth a given unit of capital will offer less employment to wage workers. The workers who are displaced by this constant process of capitalist production thus form a surplus working population surplus that is, to the requirements of capitalism. Should, however, an acceleration in production be such as to warrant additional supplies of labour-power then this surplus population becomes a source of recruitment for the capitalist. With the decline in profit-anticipation a productive slackening takes place. Accumulation of capital is curtailed and the industrial reserve army consequently grows greater. Thus the expansion and contraction of employment is but a corollary and consequence of the expansion and contraction of the productive forces of capitalism. Schumpeter talks vaguely of surplus-value being produced in an un-Marxian way (p.24) but fails to show how this is done.

Schumpeter's contention (p.21) is that expanding capitalist production in the Marxian sense would lead to such increases in the demand for labour-power, and hence the price of labour-power, that profits would be swallowed up. Actually any increase in the price of labour-power beyond a certain point in a particular industry would further increase the capitalist tendency towards labour-saving devices and at the same time the threat to profit-anticipation would lead to a decline in capital investment in that industry. This would lead to increased redundancy of workers and so restore a condition of the labour market favourable to the capitalist. By this double process capitalism regulates wages according to the requirements of a profit-making economy.

Schumpeter says Marx based his theory of value on the assumption of a capitalism in perfect equilibrium (p.24). What Marx actually did in volume I of "Capital" was to make a number of simplifying assumptions in order to present a clear picture of the essential relationship existing between capitalist and worker in a process of simple commodity production, in order to demonstrate that the law of value was the guiding principle underlying a class system based on production for profit. Apart from purely theoretical considerations, but as a matter of practical judgment upon which all theories, hypotheses, and first approximations must be finally judged, Marx's theory alone provides an accurate and dynamic picture of the nature of capitalist development, viz., concentration and centralisation of capital, poverty, unemployment, crises and wars. Moreover, productive time-charts and speed-up processes for reducing the labour-time spent on commodities and thus reducing their value confirm in the real world of capitalist production the practical validity of Marx's Labour Theory of Value.

Schumpeter's own remedy for the evils of capitalism is more capitalism—he calls it Socialism. The workers not controlling the productive forces will, of course, be a dependent class and continue to produce surplus-value. Indeed he tells us that democracy is likely to turn out to be more of a sham under Socialism than it was under Capitalism (p.302). Pathetically he tries to assure us that wages and profits will not, under his scheme, be really wages and profits. The result Is ludicrous. In short, Schumpeter's scheme is only a highly rationalised anti-democratic capitalism which he dubs “Socialism" but which is merely his own term for describing Fascism.

Ted Wilmott

What Price Racialism? (1947)

From the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following instructive news item appeared in the Evening News (July 5th, 1947).

  "Mr. Winston Churchill has joined the 'rebels.' He is the first Englishman to be elected a member of the Society of the Cincinnati organisation of descendants of American Revolutionary Army Officers. He qualifies through his maternal great-great-grandfather."

Thus a direct descendant of the aristocratic and unimpeachable House of Marlborough has descended, on his mother’s side, from a family that fought strenuously against Britain, finally helping to cut the connection and establish a new and opposing “nation” which may one day be engaged in a life and death struggle with Britain. What other nation, totalitarian or democratic, has also absorbed blood into it from the same source we do not know, nor do we know the blood mixture that has joined the original stream from outside sources in the course of time. Further than that we do not know the derivation of the great-great-grandfather on the maternal side; the same, of course, applies to the great-grandfather and the grandfather; all is swathed in mystery.

Even in this one instance how complicated the question has become? Now apply the same reasoning to the whole of the English aristocracy who boast of their lineage, and who are noted for their generosity in bestowing titles upon wealthy wives of lowly origin, and it will be appreciated what nonsense racialism really is.

To cap this modern mixture of blood kindred let us reflect upon the effect of the idea contained in the well-known proverb, “It is a wise child that knows its own father,” as well as the influence of the progeny of the past favours of royalty, and we add complication to complication. The blood of what murky ancestry may roll full billowed through the veins of aristocracy? What applies to them applies to all of us; which shows how farcical is the basis of all claims to racial purity.

Gilmac

Notes by the Way: Blood and Coal (1947)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blood and Coal
The Centralia Coal Company, charged with wilful neglect in connexion with the death of 111 miners by reason of an explosion in one of its mines on March 25 last, was fined $1,000 to-day in the county court at Nashville, Illinois. The penalty was the maximum provided by law. (Times, 9/7/47). .
(1,000 dollars is about £250).


Frederick Engels and Manchester

  “It is an excellent suggestion which was made in the Manchester City Council yesterday, that the city's new block of flats in Hulme should bear the name of Engels House. Of all the eminent people who have made Manchester their home it could well be argued that Engels had most influenced the course of history, both by his own writing and by his alliance with Karl Marx.” (From an editorial in the Manchester Guardian, 3/7/47).

What Manchester thought of Engels when he was alive and what Engels would now think of the City Council, is another story.


The Independence of Small Nations after the War to Make Them Safe
The Manchester Guardian makes the following comment on the position of East European countries “persuaded” by Russia not to attend the Paris Conference of the West European States.

  “There is no pretence that pressure has not been applied, and in the cases of Czechoslovakia and Finland it has been ostentatious; their Governments have suffered a public humiliation. The West will have only sympathy with the plight of these countries and regret that they have 'slipped into the position of subordinate countries deprived of their independence.' Their hopes of rebirth as free democracies have been disappointed and they now bitterly realise that they have exchanged a German overlordship for a Russian." (Manchester Guardian, 12/7/47).

"Payment by Results"
Many trade unions have fought for years against the introduction of systems of payment by results. It has remained for a trade union Minister of Labour in a Labour Government to encourage such systems. Mr. George Isaacs, Minister of Labour, declared in the House of Commons on July 8th, 1947: “We are asking industry to examine methods of payment by results and to adopt them wherever possible." (Manchester Guardian, 9/7/47).

When it is possible for the employers to lengthen hours of work that is normally the method used by them to extract more work from the workers. With restrictions of hours under the Factory Acts the same purpose was served by going over to systems of payment by results. At the present time the Government is encouraging the introduction of double day-shifts and if, as is proposed, the two shifts are restricted to the period between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., the hours on each shift will be eight a day less half-an-hour for meals and it will normally be confined to five days a week according to the recommendation of the Committee on the Double Day Shift System. Hence the renewed demand for systems of payment by results. Another factor at the present time is the relatively small amount of unemployment. When unemployment is heavy the threat of the sack is the principle goad to keep the workers working at full pressure. Now that that pressure is for the time being weakened another has to be found and the Labour Government finds it.

And if that is not sufficient Lord Hyndley, in the newly nationalised coal industry, threatens another. Speaking of unofficial strikes at the Conference of the National Union of Mineworkens he said:—

   “It is our intention . . .  to deal rigorously with all flagrant cases . . . To re-introduce prosecution under the law would be a most unpalatable decision to the Board, but failing a real alternative there will be no other course open to us." (Times, 10/7/47).

The Profits “Fallacy"
Speaking at a dinner of the Federation of Property Owners on February 5th Sir John Anderson "gave warnings against the fallacy which led to the ‘ widespread belief ’ that there were large resources still to be tapped for the benefits of labour." (Daily Telegraph, 6/2/47).

On April 27th, in the Observer, the City Editor wrote at length to explain away the increase of profits of Imperial Chemical Industries from £4,770,062 in 1945, to £7,171,109 in 1946. He explained that £1,700,000 of the increase was due to unnecessarily large provision having been made for taxation in previous years, and he showed that while I.C.I.’s expenditure on wages and salaries in 1946 was £30,500,000 its net profit (excluding the £1,700,000) was only £5,900,000.

Perhaps he would now like to try his hand with the Monsanto Chemical Co. Their prospectus (Daily Telegraph, 12/5/47) when raising new capital showed that their 1946 profits before charging Income Tax were £426,000 and the number of workers employed is 1,500. This shows a profit of £284 a year per worker employed —about £5 10s. 0d. a week. The company's 5s. shares now stand at over £3.


Nationalisation of Railways In Southern Rhodesia
Southern Rhodesia has an anti-Labour Party government, the United Party being in power with 23 seats against the seven seats held by the Labour Party In opposition. Its railway system is privately owned, the British South Africa Company having a controlling interest.

The Southern Rhodesian government has just raised £32,000,000 in London for the purpose of acquiring the share capital of the railway company.

Yet there are still Labour supporters who imagine that nationalisation was invented by their party and is something designed to benefit the workers. The capitalists were nationalising, when they deemed it to be in their interest as a class, before the Labour Party had been born.


Our Country
The following, under the heading "Village for Sale," appeared in the Daily Herald (1/7/47).

  "Another English village is likely, I hear, to be offered for sale complete. It is Woolstone, one of the loveliest little villages of Berkshire, tucked into an elm-planted fold in the downs below the White Horse . . .
   "Woolstone belongs to the Misses Butler, who live there. They seek a purchaser who will keep the village intact and unspoiled,"

Edgar Hardcastle

Party News Briefs (1947)

Party News from the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leyton Branch are concentrating a lot of their work in the parliamentary constituency of Walthamstow E. where a number of their members live. They are holding outdoor meetings there, canvassing the Socialist Standard and visiting their opponents’ meetings. Their branch discussions are going extremely well, one on “Nationalisation,” opened by G. McClatchie recently, was particularly interesting.

The Finance Committee at Head Office ask branches to send in their quarterly reports (Forms “C”) as quickly as possible after the end of the quarter. Standardised branch books, branch circulars and printed branch notepaper are available at Head Office and can be supplied on request being made to the Finance Committee.

Birmingham Branch are having a speaker up from London at least once a month during the summer. They have been holding meetings with their own speakers in the Bull Ring lately and are becoming established there. One of their members spoke at an A.E.U. meeting at the end of June, and other members took part in the discussion. C. Lestor was there for a week-end and, assisted by the local members, held three successful meetings in the Bull Ring.

National Posters giving the party angle on the Government’s “Work or want” posters are now ready. Branches should write in to the Publicity Committee for supplies.

The State of Party Funds was given serious consideration by the Executive Committee during the month. The first step taken was to set up a Party Funds Committee to do whatever is possible to stimulate the flow of money into the party. The position is serious and the Executive Committee are now compelled to scrutinise all proposed expenditures with ever greater care than before. One effect of the shortage of money has been that the Executive Committee have been compelled to delay calling for nominations for the vacant post of Propagandist /Organiser, from which D. Fenwick had to resign for personal reasons. Party activity increases all the time, but we must have funds to back it up.

Bradford Branch are having C. Lestor with them for a month during the summer. They have been holding a number of outdoor meetings on the Bradford Car Park, a station opened up when Lestor was the propagandist/organiser in the area. The local Conservatives, who hold two outdoor meetings a week there, now carefully point out that we are not the people to whom they allude when they talk about “socialists.” It is to be hoped that before long our opponents will learn to call things by their proper names, and stop trying to discredit socialism by giving the Labour party a name which they do not earn by their practice, policy or objectives.

The Communist Council of Holland (Spartacus Group) have now sent a report of the conference held by various groups in Brussels at Whitsun. This is being translated from French, and main points from the report will be sent to branches. From the report it appears that the conference dealt at length with statements received from other organisations but practically ignored the one we sent. The only reference to us is that the letter we sent was noted by the Conference.

A Good Selection of Marxist Classics is on order from Charles H. Kerr & Co. of Chicago, and will be available for sale at Head Office when it arrives. A number of the books have been practically unobtainable in this country since the beginning of the war, and members will have an opportunity of building up their libraries with books which all socialists should have.

Paddington Branch filled Paddington Town Hall for their “Work and Want” meeting on July 3rd. This was particularly encouraging as their principle means of advertising, a loud speaker van, broke down three days before the meeting. Questions and discussion centred largely on the workers' struggles against the employers on the industrial field, probably due to the possibility of a London bus strike starting the next week-end. The speaker emphasised the view that effective strike action depended in a large measure on the extent to which workers understood their identity of interests as against the employers.

Sir Waldron Smithers, M.P., had second thoughts about debating with a party representative for a third time. A week before the debate he had undertaken at Edgware, he sent the Edgware branch a telegram saying that he would not appear. He gave no reasons and sent no apology to the audience of over 100 who attended. Like Beverley Baxter (see July Socialist Standard) he lacks both courage and courtesy. The party representative, C. May, carried on with the meeting on his own, as the local Conservative Association were not prepared to supply a substitute. The audience were sympathetic to the way in which we dealt with the Conservative party from the platform, and donated a collection of £3 15s. 0d. A considerable amount of party literature was sold.

Hackney Branch challenged the Co-operative party to debate, who re-acted favourably at first but subsequently climbed down. As an alternative the Co-operative party suggested that they should send a speaker to Hackney branch, which Hackney accepted provided that the Co-operative party would receive one of our speakers. This was agreed to, and the Co-operative speaker had the doubtful pleasure of meeting about 40 party members and sympathisers who during discussion gave him the socialist attitude to the Co-operative movement. The return date is being awaited, but so far no news has been received from the Co-operative party on this subject. A report of Hackney’s debate with the Revolutionary Communist Party at Bethnal Green Central Library on July 16th will be in next month’s Socialist Standard.

Palmers Green Branch's debate with the Labour Party at Edmonton Town Hall on July 14th was very successful. There was an audience of about 500, a large amount of literature was sold and a collection of £13 6s. 0d. was taken. E. F. Durbin, Labour M.P. for Edmonton, spent most of his time in attacking a special mythical “Marxism” of his own invention and seemed reluctant to defend the Labour Party. Our representative, A. Turner, after disposing of Durbin’s curious views on Marxism, went on to demonstrate the futility of Labourism, giving illustrations from the Labour Party’s record: he then put forward the Socialist alternative.

C. C.. Groves

General Secretary.

Mr. Strachey provides food for thought (1947)

From the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party Government is made up of all types of people. Many of its members have been political opponents in the past but are now "united" in administering British capitalism in its decline.

Perhaps one of the most interesting examples of a Labour careerist is Mr. John Strachey—present Minister of Food; one time follower of Mosley in his pre-Fascist days and later still high priest of the Stalinist variety of Leninism.

Here we have a typical expensively-educated suave politician who has built himself a career and a good living, on the immaturity of the working class. After graduating from Eton and Magdalen, John Evelyn St. Loe Strachey—to give him his full name—entered the offices of the I.L.P. This started him off on his literary and political career.

Inside the Labour Party he fell under the influence of Sir Oswald Mosley. He later joined Mosley's New Party but left Mosley before the B.U.F. was formed.

Then Strachey began his advocacy of Leninism in order to combat Fascism. Much of what he wrote in those days could be to-day used as a criticism of the present Labour Government. In those days when he posed as a "revolutionary" he often exposed the futility of the Labour Party and its policy of administering capitalism in the interests of the working class.

This is what Mr. Strachey had to say of Social Democracy in his book, "The Coming Struggle for Power ”:—

   '‘In general, therefore, we may prophesy the social democratic system will, more and more, become the mechanism by which the capitalists control the workers." (“Coming Struggle for Power," p.337, Gollancz edition).

He went on further, to accuse Social Democracy of preparing the conditions which give rise to Fascism.

   "Social Democracy becomes in fact ‘Social Fascism'."

In those days he studied and criticised the majority of capitalist economists; especially did he hit out at those economists who supported the Labour Party like G. D. H. Cole and Barbara Wootton. He even went so far as to assert that the Labour Party’s propaganda was the greatest danger to the working class.

   "In particular the writers, thinkers and spokesmen of the British Labour Party, who chiefly influence the British masses, consistently hold out the illusion of a pleasant, easy and non-revolutionary issue from the present crises. We have already analysed the content of this illusion. We have seen that it is based, whether consciously or unconsciously upon the belief that a new and prolonged period of capitalist stabilization is at hand, a period which will offer the objective possibility of a steady, slow transition to a more socialistic basis of society. This counsel is the deadliest of all the poisons which can be administered to the workers." (“Nature of Capitalist Crises," p.370-371, published by Gollancz).

What a piece of self-condemnation!

But Mr. Strachey soon dropped all those ideas when the British Empire was threatened. Instead of advocating “revolutionary defeatism," as a true disciple of Lenin, with the outbreak of war he joined the A.R.P., and later the R.A.F. He abandoned the Communist Party which, at that time, was calling the war an “imperialist war." From that time up to the time of writing he has been a supporter and member of the Labour Party.

His actual job during the war has been very well described by the Observer (June 2nd, 1946).

   "A critical moment was reached in the development of our bombing policy. Heavy raids on German cities caused heavy civilian casualties among German women and children. These concentrated raids might rouse the British public to objection. His weekly broadcasts gently took the public mind off the receiving end of the bombing attacks, and fixed it on the courage of the crews and the master plans behind the attacks."

Indeed, a nice occupation for an avowed internationalist.

So we see that Mr. Strachey has changed from an enemy of Labourism to a member of the Labour Government.

This does not come as a surprise to Socialists. For members of the S.P.G.B. realise that so long as the workers are not Socialists, politicians are able to change their policy at will because they receive their support from workers who give them blind allegiance.

The remedy is for the workers to do a little thinking for themselves. For when the majority of workers have become Socialists it will mean doom for the professional politician. For then the working class will have established a society which will no longer need Labour leaders or politicians of any sort.

G. W. Clark

Why Can't We All Get Together (1947)

From the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ever since workers' political organisations were first formed the idea of uniting them has occupied the minds of many members. Frequent attempts have been made among political bodies in this country, but always the S.P.G.B. has stood aside on the ground that effective unity can only be on the basis of agreement on fundamental principles, that is to say agreement about the aim and about the methods. Where there is such agreement, as between the S.P.G.B. and the parties with the same aims and methods, in U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, close and harmonious co-operation presents no difficulty. It is obvious, easy and useful.

The following item about the Easter Conference of the I.L.P. was published in the Manchester Evening News (2/4/47):—

I.L.P. CONSIDERS ANARCHIST LINK 

  “When the I.L.P. meets at Ayr at Easter it will debate a proposal for close links with Common Wealth, the Socialist party of Great Britain, and the Anarchist Federation.
  “A resolution from Ipswich urges that the I.L.P. should conduct a joint campaign with these bodies on specific issues stressing workers’ ownership and control of industries and freedom of colonial peoples.”

It appears from published reports of the Conference proceedings that the decision actually made was to form some sort of joint committee between the I.L.P. and Common Wealth. Another decision was that I.L.P. members are barred from being members of the Labour Party though this is to be reconsidered.

The organisations that plead for unity, the I.L.P. and the Communists, for example, either hold that agreement is unnecessary or pretend that it exists where it does not. Sometimes the proposal is that there should be associated action on a particular issue between parties that claim to be fundamentally antagonistic.

The reasons for the distinctive attitude of the S.P.G.B. can be found in our declaration of principles. The three clauses of special relevance are the object, the clause affirming that there is an antagonism of interests between the working class and the Capitalist class, and the clause that lays down the need for the working class to organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government.

Our object is Socialism, defined as a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community. Our definition is not a mere insistence on a formula. We work for Socialism and oppose Capitalism—including nationalisation or State Capitalism—because only Socialism will solve the problem facing the working class. The Labour Party miscalls State Capitalism "Socialism,” as also do the Communists. The I.L.P. used to do so although at the moment it places more emphasis on the equally false proposition that State Capitalism is a useful stepping stone on the way to Socialism. When therefore the unity seeker asks why cannot the S.P.G.B. get together with others who want "Socialism” he is letting the misuse of a word deceive him. We do not want State Capitalism and therefore have no interest in associating with those who do. The fact that they call it “Socialism” only makes their activities more dangerous to the workers.

Another proposition is that while recognising differences of aim why cannot Socialists consent to be fellow-travellers with others who are “on the same road but are not going so far.” This has often been put to us by Labour Party supporters, I.L.P.ers, and, in the old days, by Liberals. One objection is that it is an essential part of Socialist propaganda to convince the workers that the advocates of “something less than Socialism” are and must be advocates of Capitalism. It is our job to demonstrate that their activities are against the interests of the workers; that they are enemies of Socialism and of the working class. How could we associate with them and at the same time expect the workers to believe us when we say that support of such organisations is useless and dangerous? Years ago when a Liberal put this proposal in debate with the S.P.G.B., our speaker, the late A. Anderson, pointed out in reply that the only gainers would be the Liberals. What they called travelling together would mean in effect only that we would be carrying the Liberals’ luggage for them.

The resolution quoted at the beginning of this article seeks a joint campaign with Common Wealth, the I.L P. and the Anarchists on specific issues stressing workers' ownership and control of industries and freedom of colonial people. The objection of the S.P.C.B. to any such joint campaign should be obvious. We do not want “workers’ ownership," which means syndicalism, but ownership by the whole community. We are utterly opposed to the support of State Capitalism given by Common Wealth. We regard the propaganda and activities of the Anarchists as useless and dangerous to the working class. Finally we have to point out to colonial workers that "freedom/' i.e., national independence, is not the solution of their problem. We want all countries to be free from Capitalism and are not in favour of encouraging the illusions fostered for interested reasons by the propertied class in colonial countries.

Point is given to our case against the Anarchists by their views and actions in the country where they are strongest, Spain. In 1936 they abandoned their claim to be opposed to political parties by joining in the movement to elect a Popular Front Government The following recent report shows a new twist:

"Madrid, March 26th.
   “The Spanish anarchist movement announced to-night that after a meeting of delegates from all parts of Spain it had decided to collaborate fully with the Monarchists for the overthrow of the Franco regime and for holding a plebiscite to decide whether Spain should be a republic or a monarchy.” — Reuter. — Manchester Guardian, March 29th, 1947).

It would seem that association with Anarchists for specific objects may lead the participants into curious company.

On the international field the S.P.G.B. has always taken the same consistent view. Having in 1904 sent two delegates to the International Socialist Congress at Amsterdam, and found that the organisation was largely made up of bodies interested in reforms but not in Socialism, the S.P.G.B. laid down as a first requirement: "That only Socialist organisations recognising the class war in theory and practice should be represented at the International Socialist Congress.” 

As this was naturally unacceptable to the reforms bodies in the International the S.P.G.B. did not see any use in seeking admission. The attempt to associate at home with bodies having conflicting aims and methods would only cause confusion and wasted effort. Equally the passing of pious resolutions at international conferences merely hides the nationalist outlook of the affiliated parties as two world wars have demonstrated. Effective unity for Socialism can only be on the basis of real agreement about the aim and the methods. Our Declaration of Principles provides such a basis and it is for the critics to show what other basis there can be for the Socialist movement.

Edgar Hardcastle

Jerome K. Jerome (1947)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

       (We publish the following letter from a reader for the interesting and instructive story about the late J. K. Jerome, but we confess our mystification about the point of the last sentence.—Editor Comm.)

Leicester.

Dear Comrades,

Although our ultimate success is assured I doubt if any of us are satisfied with the crop of Socialists that arise from our efforts. Some are inclined to sit back and wait for the blind forces of economic development to affect the social revolution, rather than seek to promote that change by cultivating the minds of their fellows to achieve this purpose. They do not realise that these so called blind forces may grope about for a thousand years without producing any marked change. On the other hand we have the over optimistic who in consequence of being in the forward line imagined that they could score a goal in North Paddington. Maybe such “Royal Stand-backs” as myself can see more of the game than they can. I read your admirable publication, the “Socialist Standard,” and although I have not had the pleasure of attending any of your propaganda meetings, I am aware of the fact that your immensity consists in your minority. Of course the number of people you are able to speak to is very limited and the “Standard,” even if the paper restrictions were removed, has only a small circulation. You cannot afford to print more. Everyone knows that it is the adverts that pay for the capitalist papers. Naturally they determine the policy. We all remember the old "Clarion” and its cycle trade adverts. But the classical instance is poor old Jerome K. Jerome. He ran a weekly called “To-Day.” It had a good run. It was then I think that Jerome discovered H. G. Wells, as he published probably Wells’ first story, “The Lady in Grey.” Then Jerome slipped. He printed Marx’s “Value, Price and Profit” as a serial. His advertisers dropped him like a hot potato and Jerome went bankrupt. In face of all this is it to be wondered that some of us cast envious eyes upon that powerful weapon of propaganda, the Radio, and desire to harness it to our cause? We know all the obstacles that stand in our way to achieve our purpose, believe me the financial side is the least But we must not be dismayed, our need is great and I would draw attention to a recent remark by some member of the Jewish community who claimed that it was not illegal for Jews to enter Palestine, but that it was illegal to prevent them doing so.

                                                                                                                            Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.