The Trouble in Berlin (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

It stands to reason that when rival Powers are forced to unite by fear of a common enemy the one thing that cannot fail to bring their loving association to an abrupt end is the destruction of their enemy. Ostensibly the four Allied Powers agreed together to occupy the four Zones of Germany in order “to keep the Germans down” ; but only the very simple believed it would last. The destruction of German might in 1945 was bound to have the same kind of sequel as it had in 1918. Then it was France and Britain that were soon at daggers drawn, this time, with Germany crushed, it is Russia and the Western Powers that fear each other and are trying to win support for their respective policies among the Germans themselves. All the occupying Powers were in an awkward position when it came to making advances to the Germans. They had to explain by what right they remained in occupation of Germany after the end of the fighting. To each other they kept up for a time the fiction that they were united allies who were in Germany because each wanted the other to be there just out of comradely feeling and under amicably negotiated agreements.

As their quarrels became more open and heated this ceased to be of any use, especially as both sides accused the other of having broken the agreements. The other and only real “right” to be there was the “right of conquest,” since not even the most brazen politician could argue that they were there by invitation of the population. But when allies get to the stage of arguing about the right of might danger is in the air. When each side accused the other of wanting to split Germany both were evading the issue. Each wanted a united Germany provided the government would be subservient: neither wanted a united Germany which would back the other side. Russia had an advantage because its zone encircled Berlin, the traditional capital, but it still remained to squeeze America, Britain and France out of their sectors of Berlin itself. The latter governments stood on their right to be there by agreement, to which the Daily Worker (10/7/48), retorted with the answer that the Russians got to Berlin first and “invited” the other Powers, to join them because they then supposed that “the British, Americans and French were at one with the Russians in sincerely desiring the united control of Germany.” The major reason given by the Worker is, however, that “the Russians took Berlin with tremendous loss and sacrifice by their own forces. . . .”—in other words the “right of conquest.” The inevitable answer to the argument that one Power holds something by right of force is for some other Power to threaten to use more force to change the “right.” And that was the position in July when all sorts of vague threats of never yielding were being bandied about by both sides. The Observer’s Washington correspondent summed it up as follows: “There is every reason to believe that the American Government, and indeed all three Western occupying Powers, have accepted the risk of war which is inherent in the Berlin note to Russia.” (Observer, 11 7 48).

This Correspondent quoted a diplomatic informant who brightly remarked : “We have put our boat in at the head of the rapids and will just have to see how it turns out.” So the preliminary manoeuvring for the third world war goes on over the, at present, prostrate body of Germany. What the future will bring when some day the boat does “shoot the rapids” everyone can imagine.

In the meantime the palm for stupidity surely goes to the Labour Government’s Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, who as an ex-teacher must have learned nothing from history and as an ex-soldier must have learned nothing from war. and could actually talk in our age of war “for honour.” Speaking at a British Legion meeting in South Shields he said : “There is one price we are not prepared to pay for peace. That is the loss of our honour.” (Daily Telegraph, 12/7/48).

The joint military occupation of Germany was hound to fail because in a capitalist world the formerly allied capitalisms have real things to fight about among themselves.—the capture of markets and control of regions of economic and strategic importance. If the workers of the world were alive to their common interest in the struggle against Capitalism and for Socialism they would have opposed from the start any attempt to impose a settlement by armies of occupation. The German workers, like the workers of Russia and the West, have to learn to achieve their own emancipation for themselves: and behind the problem of destroying militarism, which is but one of the effects of capitalism, is the fundamental problem of destroying capitalism itself, a task for the working class of all lands.

Edgar Hardcastle

Behind the gathering war clouds (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the course of the last fifty years there have been two major wars and many smaller ones. The second major war, that which ended in 1945, involved the greater part of the world’s population in its devastation and misery. It left behind it sufferings and hatreds, problems and disorders, that still paralyse efforts at amelioration. But war on a still vaster scale is already on the horizon ; war will always be either with us or on the horizon while Capitalism lasts, because modern wars are caused by the clash of interests inseparable from Capitalism and stemming from its root, the control and disposal of the surplus wealth wrung from the workers in all lands.

War is only possible because the workers of the world have not yet understood the identity of their interests as workers in opposition to the interests of their masters, regardless of colour, race or creed. Whilst this condition remains, workers of different nations can be inveigled into shedding their blood for alleged objectives that, even if accomplished, leave them still an enslaved and exploited class; beasts of burden, crushed down by the weight of modern industry. In days gone by many subterfuges have been used to entice workers into the support of war; such are the alleged defence of democracy and of the right of small nations to self-determination, resisting the alleged aggression of other nations, safeguarding essential sources of food supply, and so on. Yet when war has ended in the victory of the groups that put forward these seductive objects not only have the workers experienced no amelioration in their conditions of exploitation but again they are called to war for the very same objects, though in the meantime some of the enemies have become allies, some of the allies have become enemies, and the exploiting system has gained a firmer strangle-hold upon the world at large. And so it goes on and always will go on while the workers are deprived of the ownership of the means of production, and Capitalism, with its economic rivalries, its brutalities and its oppressions, continues to darken the world we live in.

The economic rivalries, produced by Capitalism, which lead to wars, are complex and changing, like the shifting dominance of different capitalist sections; at one time it is the demand of the cotton section for raw materials and the power to force their goods into reluctant markets, at another time it is the steel section whose interests have to be served, or the shipping section that demands protection against competitors, or the financial section that demands protection for its investments abroad, and at yet another time the demands of the oil section of the capitalist class are the ruling factor. The demands of all these sections are always operating, but at a given moment one of them becomes so insistent, that it tips the scale in favour of war. These are the real factors that, individually or in combination, produce modern wars, but they are not the professed ones; over these factors is drawn a curtain of high-flown and empty ideals. Therefore in order to understand the immediate influences, behind an impending war it is necessary to examine the shape of these economic rivalries and to see which are most pregnant with armed conflict.

Two fundamental events of recent years have an important influence on the war situation ; one is the emergence of Russia as a first class imperialist power, and the other is the intrusion of America into Europe, the Middle East and beyond. Russia has undergone a hothouse development in the past thirty years, but it still lags behind economically. It is attempting to make up for this lag by spreading wider and wider over border states and absorbing their economic resources as well as, at the same time, cutting off markets and sources of raw materials that were formerly open to the West. America, the state upon which others outside Russian influence have been compelled to lean more and more heavily, must find markets for its superabundant production and raw materials to supplement its own now inadequate supplies. Russia stands more and more firmly as a barrier across its path. The breaking up of the British Empire, the downfall of Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan, and the disintegration of French economy by the war, reduces these powers to the position of poor relations leaning upon America or Russia according to which of the two appears to offer the best hope of wealth and security to their respective capitalists.

In furthering their economic ends the leading states have two objectives that are complementary. One consists of those actions, economic, political and diplomatic, which enable them to enlarge the market for their, goods and secure sources of supply; the other consists of those actions which are intended to enable them to resist armed attack, or force submission, by building up the most murderous forms of armament within the present range of human ingenuity. The building up of armaments in turn breeds fresh economic struggles in the effort to accumulate the material that forms the basis of armament. The development of the atomic bomb is an example of this and is expressed in the search for, and the conservation of, the materials essential for atomic bomb production. Thus there is an intermingling of economic motives in the pursuit of economic and military dominance, because the means to carry on modem warfare are rooted in the quantity, diversity and development of the resources for building up methods of destruction. Along with this is the tragic circumstance that whether production is adjusted for peaceful or for warlike purposes, sections of the international capitalist class accumulate wealth out of the labour extracted from the working class, and they do so without even coming within the familiar category of ”war profiteers.”

We have briefly related the general economic circumstances bound up with the breaking out of warfare and which apply with equal force to the conflagration which is already casting its shadow before. What particular set of interests will finally precipitate the armed struggle it is too early yet to say with any degree of certainty, although those concerned with oil are, at the moment, the most prominent. To all the first class powers oil is essential both for peace and war purposes. Motorisation for road and air tranport alone requires enormous quantities of oil, quantities greater than any of the leading states have so far found within their own frontiers. Hence the international preoccupation, with the Middle East and its future which has partly obscured the success of Russian penetration in Burma. The struggle over oil has brought America permanently into the maelstrom of political ferment in Europe and the Middle East as the big stick with which to curb Russia’s imperial penetration. In co-operation with the European States America is the potent influence in the attempt to build a wall (which keeps crumbling in places) of resistance around Russia; a wall whose ramparts they hope may penetrate the iron curtain.

Since the last war Russian expansion has continued to creep along successfully, largely because their methods, like Hitler’s, have included the open use of brutal and naked force. They have also been considerably helped by the successful appeal their propaganda makes to large groups in the areas they have more or less tightly annexed to the new Russian Empire. It is this propaganda, false though much of it is, that inspires alarm in the rulers of the Western states. Like the French Revolution it has built up large bodies of admirers in the camp of the enemy. In a wild attempt to eliminate the. results of this propaganda, stupid attacks are being made upon the holding of political opinions antagonistic to the ruling powers. Capitalism in the West has produced so much misery for the mass of the people that its supporters can no longer find convincing arguments in favour of its continuance. It is for this reason that many disillusioned workers give willing ear to the false promises that come from the East shutting their eyes to the manifest evils of Russian domination. It is like the old internal business, of voting first one capitalist party into power and then, disgusted wilh the result, voting the other capitalist party into power, and so on backward and forward.

The extent of Russian penetration, and the, seriousness of its threat to the economic interests of Western capitalists, can only be properly appreciated if the enormous area covered by it is realised. This area, starting in Finland, sweeps round through Germany, Czecho-slovakia, Hungary, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia, and includes Italy, Greece, Burma, and other states. Farther East it is a matter of speculation what may be in process of preparation on the Siberian side of the Bering Strait opposite Alaska.

In Europe a desperate attempt is being made to create, a West European-British bloc that will be large enough to provide an internal market for mass production industry and some military backbone that might induce the weaker states to refrain from entering the Russian maw. In the East, China is being left to resist the invader as it can, and Japan is an uneasy protege of distant sea-powers.

Russia is admirably situated for military operations on land that would be difficult to resist by powers that must depend largely upon transportation by sea and air; it covers so vast an area, and its main centres are so far apart, that it is problematical whether even atomic warfare at its present level would be able to deliver a crushing blow, though it would cause an enormous amount of devastation. It is probably this last fact that is mainly behind Russian readiness to strain diplomatic pressure to the limit but not beyond. Russia’s over-riding problem at present is economic backwardness which will require some years to overcome, even with the assistance of the areas over which it is gaining control. In the meantime the Russian Government is trying to accomplish its ends by diplomatic bludgeoning without going far enough to precipitate conflict.

Thus the struggle goes on with increased tension, for oil, uranium, rubber, and other essential products that are widely distributed. The game of penetration, resistance and counter penetration, however, is fast reaching the point when, however disinclined either group may be to take the risk, war will be the final arbiter between their respective claims to dominate the world, unless the workers take their long overdue hand in the game and decide that what their own hands and brains are responsible for producing should he the equal and common heritage of all mankind; that the world, free from the ominous shadow of war, wherein all the inhabitants can enjoy comfort and security is worth the thought and effort required to achieve it.

All the present signs point to the next war involving America and Russia as the principal antagonists, with Britain the leading ally of America and the attitude of the lesser states doubtful. Economic development and political changes, however, are always liable to affect the line up in the course of time, though these changes only accelerate the forces driving society in armed conflicts under Capitalism. It may be that Germany, the “villain” of the last two great wars, will become the darling child of the Western allies in the next. If this happens then all the fanciful tales about the innate barbarism of Germans, with which we have been fed for years, will suffer a temporary burial.

Whether the groups who form the privileged class of the world play their parts under Democratic Governments, Labour Governments. Communist Dictatorships, or any other titles, they are equally tied to a system of commodity production that contains the seeds of war and hence are opposed to the freedom of the workers from exploitation.

War has never solved, and can never solve, any working class problem; it only helps to make the workers’ position worse in the long run. It brutalises all those concerned in it, cheapening the feeling for human life and all that makes life worth while. Only the continued existence of Capitalism drives society to warfare. The abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism will remove the causes of war, and is the only way to remove them. Our fellow workers in this and other lands must, therefore, turn a deaf ear to those who, from the East or the West, are striving to get their support for policies that can only lead to the shambles. We urge them to recognise their fundamental identity of interest as the wealth producers of the world ; join together for the purpose of abolishing capitalist domination in all its forms and, by establishing Socialism, make the earth and its products the common inheritance of all. Only then will it be possible to put into operation the socialist principle that will ensure the comfort, security and happiness of the whole of human kind – ”From each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs.”

Gilmac.

Editorial: The Dock Strike and the Emergency Powers Act (1948)

Editorial from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the unofficial strike of London dockers had lasted several weeks and sympathetic strikes were taking place at other docks the Labour Government on 28th June declared a state of emergency under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. The Daily Herald the next day reported this as follows:

“Armed with full powers under the State of Emergency plroclamation signed by the King, the Cabinet last night prepared regulations to meet any possible crisis arising from the dock strikes.”

“The government, with its emergency powers, will, if necessary, requisition accommodation in and near the London docks for troops and other labour, and seize warehouses for storage. It is also expected to take powers for the control of all arrangements at ports, including the turn-round of ships, and for dealing with acts of sabotage or attempts to dissuade troops from carrying out their duties.” (Daily Herald, 29/6/48).

The Prime Minister swiftly followed up the proclamation with a broadcast appeal to the men on strike and the next day the strike was called off. Whether the strikers were more influenced by the appeal, or by the threat, is a matter of opinion, but there is no doubt what would have been the outcome had the strike continued. The prestige and continuance in office of the Labour Government were at stake and it would have been a fight to a finish.

Labour M.Ps. and supporters saw in the incident a personal triumph for the Prime Minister’s eloquence and sincerity. The Opposition had a double target to attack. They abused the Ministers, for dilatoriness and lack of courage, especially Mr. Isaacs. Minister of Labour, who, they gleefully pointed out, had not only flown off to America to attend an I.L.O. Conference but had actually done so in an American plane. They also laid the blame at the doors of the mammoth Transport and General Workers Union, which, they said, must be badly managed and quite incapable of serving its members properly since the latter repeatedly show their discontent by ignoring the Union and striking against its advice. Others saw in the whole affair a Moscow-inspired Communist plot to upset the Labour Government and sow dissension between workers and their anti-Communist officials.

Mr. Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, indignantly defended himself and his Executive against all the charges levelled at the Union. Writing in the Record (July) he made what is on paper a good case. Its fatal fault is that it is too good since it claims to demonstrate that the men had nothing to strike about. Thousands of men do not stop work, remain out for weeks on end without strike pay, bitterly denounce their officials and shout down speeches urging a return to work if, as Mr. Deakin writes, “there was no reason for the strike to start.” Mr. Deakin’s account is as follows : The dispute arose about the piece-work rate for unloading zinc oxide and on several occasions the men refused to complete the job. For this breach of discipline they were punished with suspension for one week and disentitlement to attendance money (i.e. their minimum guaranteed pay) for 13 weeks. They appealed but came out on strike before the appeal was heard. Subsequently after an appeal tribunal had failed to agree a new tribunal was set up under an independent chairman and reduced the disentitlement to two weeks. Mr. Deakin makes much of the fact that the bodies which imposed the penalty and heard the appeal are joint bodies on which the Union is represented, and also of the point that because the strike was a breach of agreements entered into by the Union “it had no alternative but to honour its obligations and order a return to work.” He maintains that the agreements had been “at every stage approved by constitutionally elected lay committees of rank and file members” and concludes therefore that “there was no reason for the strike to start, and every reason why work should have been resumed immediately the appeal tribunal gave its decision.”

To all of this, as has already been indicated, the existence of bitter discontent in the minds of the men is a complete answer. They belong to and pay into the Union in order to be protected in disputes with the employer. They are entitled to get it even though their officials may think and tell them that the action they propose to take is unreasonable, unwise and unnecessary. They are, after all, likely to he the best judges of where the shoe pinches.

There is another and equally vital aspect of the dispute. The Labour Party does not believe that strikes are an inevitable outcome of the class-struggle which underlies the capitalist system. They have told us so often how a Labour Government would avoid strikes; by a policy of high wages and low prices, by arbitration and conciliation, by nationalisation which would “eliminate the profit motive,” by a wise and humane administration of industry including trade union representation on disciplinary bodies. These and other things were offered as an alternative to the Socialist remedy of abolishing capitalism and with it the wages system. Yet what happens in practice? Not high wages but “wage-freezing,” not lower prices but rising prices. Not the cessation of strikes, but over 600,000 workers involved in strikes (mostly unofficial) in 1947. Not industrial harmony but the invoking of the much-hated Emergency Powers Act. This is an Act that was passed under Lloyd George’s Tory-Liberal Coalition Government, in 1920. It was opposed at the time by the Trade Unions and the Labour Party. At the 1921 Labour Party Conference a resolution demading its repeal was carried. (It was moved by a delegate of the Dock Workers’ Union.) The Act was used by the Baldwin Tory Government against the General Strike in 1926. At the T.U.C. that year a resolution of condemnation was carried which held that at no time during the General Strike was it necessary to apply the Act.

Yet this is the Act invoked by a Labour Government in a relatively small dispute.

Of course they have their excuses ready: we live in critical times which necessitate wage-freezing; the people must be fed even if it means using troops and in effect smashing a strike; if you have capitalism and the wages system the Government cannot tolerate failure to keep agreements between workers and employers; and finally the Government administering capitalism must govern in such a way as to keep the system functioning. It is not worth while arguing about these various points. All they add up to is that the way to working class emancipation does not lie through Labour Government. No matter how much Labour Ministers may hope and strive through humane administration to “decapitalise” capitalism their actions are broadly determined by the necessities of that system. The road to crisis, class conflict and war is paved with the good intentions of Labour Governments.

Notes by the Way: What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders

Writing on the Dock strike Mr. Trevor Evans (Daily Express, 30/6/48) says that Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union “made the elementary mistake last Sunday morning of arriving at the gates of the dock where he was to address the strikers in a chauffeur-driven, impressive limousine.”

Mr. Evans thinks that the above is the kind of thing that has undermined Mr. Deakin’s influence with the members of the union. Doubtless he is right. On the same day, however, Mr. Alexander Werth, Manchester Guardian correspondent in Moscow, expressed the view that the differences of wealth between the poor and the privileged in Russia have no such effect. “There are,” he writes, ” no murmurs when a chief engineer or a general is given a three-room flat in a new block in Moscow.”

Mr. Werth may be right, hut perhaps it is merely that he didn’t hear the murmurs. As he explained (Manchester Guardian, 25/6/48) that ”many Russian town-dwellers still live in conditions of what we would consider intolerable squalor and overcrowding,” and that in Moscow u four or five to a room is not uncommon,” it seems much more likely that the privileges of the lucky few are resented even if it is not wise for the Russian worker to express his resentment aloud.

The Communists and Unofficial Strikes

Recently the Communists have been giving their support to “unofficial” strikes, as when the Dockers came out. It would be a mistake to think from this that the Communists have consistently done so. Until they decided to come out in opposition to the Labour Government, which they had supported at the General Election and for long afterwards, they opposed unofficial strikes and denounced the strikers as the following examples will show. On 26th November, 1945, Mr. Ian Mackay, Industrial Correspondent of the News Chronicle, quoted from a speech made by Mr. Harry Pollitt at the Annual Congress of the Communist Party held in London on 25th November. Mr. Pollitt said :

“I am going to face you with the direct issue. You are either in favour of the party line as set out in the report or the line that mass strikes are the only way to realise the workers’ ends. If you are in favour of strikes I warn you that you are playing with fire in a way that can help to lose the peace and reduce this country to ashes . . . You can get a coal strike in the coalfields tomorrow if you want it. But if you do will it advance the working-class movement of this country or the prospect of our nation remaining first rate in the family of the United Nations?” (News Chronicle, 26/11/45.)

While Mr. Pollitt was making his speech London gas workers were actually out on .strike.

As recently as September. 1947, when the Grimthorpe miners were out on strike the Daily Worker featured a speech by Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, under the bold heading: “Horner Says Grimethorpe Men Are Wrong.” (Daily Worker, 9/9/47.)

The Daily Worker commenced the report of Horner’s speech with the following summary : “The 140 Grimethorpe strikers were accused yesterday by Mr. Arthur Horner. the Miner’s secretary, of holding their 700,000 mining colleagues to ransom and threatening to destroy all the benefits of the five-day week.” Mr. Horner’s argument was that the Union bad given a pledge to the Coal Board and Government that the miners would produce as much coal with the 5-day week as they did before in 5½ days. If they did not produce the output lack of coal can “bring down the Labour Government.” Of the Yorkshire men he said:

“The attitude of the Yorkshire miners was also wrecking the whole policy of reforms which the Union was aiming at.”

These were hard words for a Union official to apply to his own members and they contrast strongly with his remarks to Lord Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, made at Whitley Bay during the Mineworkers’ Conference. To Lord Hyndley who was on the platform, Mr. Horner said : “By and large we can say you have done well and we will continue to help you to do very much better.” The Daily Herald (9/7/48) reporting this, says it was made “with a slight bow to Lord Hyndley.”

Labour Government and Profit Boom

Under the heading ”Has the Profit Boom Ended?” a City Correspondent of the Daily Herald (27/6/48) wrote that “there is substance in the belief that for some companies the industrial profit boom is at an end, and lower earnings during the next year or two may mean dividends cannot be maintained at the current level.”

The Labour Government holds that it is not only practicable but necessary to plan the running of the social system. They have plans for everything and claim to be able to mould the system to their will. How then did it come about that there has been a profit boom? It would seem either that the boom in profits was in accordance with the Labour Government’s plan, or that it happened because their planning did not work. In either event it leaves them with some explaining to do.

Full Employment, for how long?

The Central Wandsworth Labour Party (Mr. Bevin’s constituency) has published a leaflet urging electors to join the Labour Party if “interested in maintaining full employment and all the other advantages that the Labour Government have gained for you.”

It also tells us that “unemployment is less than it has been since the first count 50 years ago.”

The conclusion we are asked to accept is that so long as we have Labour Government unemployment will remain at the present comparatively low figure of 300,000. It is very doubtful whether Mr. Bevin and the other leaders still believe that they can prevent capitalism from producing its periodic industrial crises, but whether they still believe it or not we shall in due course see unemployment jumping up to the million or two million mark again when the increased production campaigns here and elsewhere have run their course.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan on Tory vermin

In a speech at Manchester Mr. Bevan, Minister of Health, let himself go about the Tory Party. “They are lower than vermin,” he said. (Daily Mail, 5/7/48). For them he had “a deep burning hatred in his heart.”

It was not always so however. In 1940 when the Labour Party decided to enter into coalition with the Tory Party under a Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Bevan said:

“The Government have been in office for two weeks and like my hon. Friend the member for Llanelly . . . I felicitate them upon the way in which they have set about their task.” (Hansard, 30th May, 1940.)

The Press naturally made much of Mr. Bevan’s abuse of the Tory Party but actually a more revealing passage in his speech was one that attracted no comment. He said that Churchill’s policy would mean ”cinemas, mansions, hotels and theatres going up, hut no houses for the poor.” (Daily Mail, 5/7/18.)

It is the last phrase that is significant. Mr. Bevan and the Labour Party charge the Tories with seeking to meet the needs of the rich. The Labour alternative is to try to help the poor by building comparatively low rented (and small) houses for them. It is only Socialists who seek the abolition of both rich and poor, of both the property-owning class and the propertyless working class.

Edgar Hardcastle

. . . . Begger Man, Thief (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a well known spokesman of the Tory section of the British Capitalist Class, G. L. Schwartz seems to write the most incredible nonsense, especially when he gets on the subject of economics in his article, “Rich Man, Poor Man.” (Sunday Times, May 30th, 1948.) He is twitting the Labour Government for their caution in lifting controls, and says

“A thing is in short supply unless it is in absolute abundance like fresh air in the open or salt water at the sea shore. There is, a simple test, Has it a price? If it has a price even of one farthing per unit, there is a shortage.”

So presumably he is telling us that the Capitalist class put a price on commodities only when there are not enough of them to satisfy everybody’s needs. We rather wonder why capitalists have been known to burn tons of wheat, and dump other unsaleable, commodities into the sea, not because these goods had no price, but simply because the price was not high enough for them to realise their profits. Since these goods had a price they must have been in short supply, according to Mr. Schwartz’s theory—and yet they were dumped! Mr. Schwartz mentions two things, which are absolutely free—fresh air and salt water; we have an uncomfortable feeling that if it were at all possible to commercialise them, these too would have their price—after all if a man’s potential energies can be given a price why not?

It is however rather comforting when one is feeling weak at the knees about the task of converting the world’s millions to Socialism, to find Mr. Schwartz putting over a point which the Socialist Party is always making. Supporters of the capitalist class are fond of telling us that Socialism won’t work, because human nature being what it is, certain greedy people would not be content with taking just what they need, but would proceed to grab as much as possible, and here is one of their own spokesmen making the point for us : He says,

“Gloves and ties are coming off the ration. They are still in ‘short’ supply for they still have price tags. Now let’s see if the rich buy up the whole lot, Here’s a chance for my Lord Croesus to fit glass cases in his bedroom, and collect ties by the thousands including first editions.”

True he is only making a point for the capitalists’ pet squabble at the moment about which controls to lift, but you see even capitalists (known to be the greediest specie) can only wear one tie, and one pair of gloves at a time. Mr. Schwartz also has a very queer idea about equality. He tells us a little story. About 50 years ago he used to get a penny a week pocket money, and the grocer’s son got tuppence. Well he so hated this inequality that he knocked all the boy’s sweets out of his hand into the gutter. He speaks of this as his “early essay in equalitarianism” of which apparently he is rather ashamed ; but he comforts himself by saying that he might have been in the present Cabinet if instead of sublimating his inhibition he had bottled it up until it was sour. Well this is not even the Labour government’s idea of equality. Their idea is not to knock the sweets right out of the hands of the owning class but merely to abstract a few (just a very few, mind) and pour them into the hands of the very poor. As far as we are concerned in a Socialist system someone will not come, along and say “Here’s two for you and two for you and two for you !” This is not equality—it is absurdity. Under Socialism each shall have according to his needs, be it one or two or three or more, and despite what Mr. Schwartz says about a perpetual shortage, there could he enough and to spare even now, and still more reason to suppose there will he under Socialism, when everybody capable of it is doing a useful job of work instead of a large proportion of them doing useless jobs like ticket collecting, rent collecting —and peddling false notions of economics in Sunday newspapers.

E.D.

SPGB Meetings (1948)

Party News from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• The SPGBer speaker for the debate with the IWW was Bill Waters. There was a report of the debate in the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard. It'd be interesting to know how big the IWW was in Britain in the late 1940s.
• I'm intrigued about the notice for the special meeting of Party members on the subject of "Socialism and Violence". I wonder what prompted the meeting? I cannot see any report of the meeting in later issues of the Standard from that period,
• I included details of the Dublin Socialist Group 'cos it gives me another excuse to post a link to the obituary for Mick Cullen from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard. Another stalwart from our tradition. Sounds like an incredible bloke.

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hackney Branch have now their own Speakers Class at Bethnal Green Library on Friday evenings. The aim is to develop a team of speakers for North and East London. This area has a number of excellent outdoor stations and it will ease pressure on the Central Propaganda Committee considerably if the branch can feed the stations with their own speakers. At present outdoor meetings are being held at Stamford Hill on Monday evenings, and at Fulbourne Street, Whitechapel Road (facing the London Hospital) on Wednesday evenings. The results are very encouraging.


Outdoor Meetings generally now need the support of party members more than ever before. The Conservative Party is making a great outdoor propaganda drive with many meetings all over London. They start their meetings with a big nucleus of supporters, which makes it much easier going for the speakers. Our members are urged to get to our meetings early and give them a good start off.


A Special Edition of bound volumes of five of our pamphlets is being prepared for public library use. These have been solidly bound and lettered in gold “Collected Socialist Pamphlets.” They are not for sale to party members or the public, but are reserved exclusively for public and university libraries. Wide-awake librarians will not miss this chance of adding a well-bound 307 page volume to their shelves containing objective socialist facts and views to place alongside the pseudo socialist literature of “ Communist” and Labour authors. The price is 8s. 6d.


The B.B.C. still refuses us time on the air. Our efforts have so far been fruitless, and we decided that the time had arrived to use some kind of pressure, or at least get publicity, in another direction. So we wrote to the Manchester Guardian and they published our letter on June 18th. We said in our letter that while there appeared to be fairly general agreement in principle that minority political views should be heard, in practice the B.B.C. interpreted the principle in a narrow and exclusive way. Mr. Burke, a former Assistant Postmaster General said in 1947 in the House of Commons that the minority should be given a fair chance and that to put only one aspect was to falsify the whole truth. The view put forward by the Socialist Party of Great Britain was not expressed by any of the majority or minority political parties selected by the B.B.C. for a hearing on the air, but in reply to our many requests to the B.B.C. we have been invariably told that they were unable to arrange a discussion in which we could be heard. This was in spite of the fact that two members of Parliament (one Labour and one Conservative) had told us of their desire to take part in a joint discussion with us. The B.B.C. were informed of this but they made it clear to us that in no circumstances would they allow us to broadcast. We concluded our letter to the Manchester Guardian by saying that it would be interesting to know on what ground the B.B.C. decided that certain minority views were to be permanently excluded. An allocation of only a small amount of time would be reasonable, but with this absolute ban it appeared equally reasonable that they should declare the ground on which it was based. We are not aware of any results from this letter and it is probable that the B.B.C. have decided to keep quiet.


Ealing Branch’s Debate with Christopher Hollis (Conservative M.P. for Devizes) at Ealing Town Hall was the most successful indoor meeting held by the Branch in Ealing. The hall was packed and numbers had to be turned away. H. Young was the party’s representative, and he dealt very adequately with Hollis’s somewhat original interpretation of Conservative policy. A collection of over £10 was taken.


A Manchester Comrade is giving us a very inspiring example of how the party literature can be sold. During the last two months he has disposed of over thirteen hundred copies of the pamphlet “Socialist Party—its Principles and Policy” by personally interviewing residents in various parts of Manchester. He has sent us a long and interesting letter describing the methods he adopts. He is keeping a record of all purchasers and passing it over to Manchester Branch for them to follow up.


An attractive new poster to advertise the “S.S.” is now at the printers. It will he found useful at meetings and for newsagents display boards. A specimen copy will be sent to each branch as soon as they are ready.

Debate with Trotskyists: “Is Russia Capitalist?”
On July 1st at Conway Hall D. Fenwick for the S.P.G.B. debated with R. Tearse for the Revolutionary Communist Party. In his opening half-hour Fenwick carefully defined Capitalism and Socialism in the usual Marxian terms and argued that the existence in Russia of a propertyless working class living by selling its labour-power for wages, and producing commodities for sale on the market shows that it is not Socialism but a form of State Capitalism. Admittedly it had not developed exactly on the lines of capitalism in the Western countries. Trotsky in “The Revolution Betrayed” had asserted that the term “State Capitalism” is meaningless, but certainly Lenin did not think so for in his “The Chief Task of Our Times” he had argued that State Capitalism would be a step forward for industrially backward Russia. The contrasts of riches and poverty in Russia and the growth of bondholding are features of Capitalism not Socialism. What is the interest paid to the bondholders if not surplus value resulting from the exploitation of the workers? Fenwick emphasised that the achievement of Socialism presupposes a socialist working class, it cannot he imposed by a dictatorship.

R. Tearse in reply claimed that the S.P.G.B. is wrong in describing the 1917 revolution as a bourgeois revolution. It would be a peculiar capitalist revolution that expropriates the capitalists. The S.P.G.B. idea of all the workers moving together towards Socialism is wishful thinking, and the notion of Capitalism and Socialism being divided by a sort of Chinese Wall is erroneous. In the introduction to “Civil War in France” Engels had conceived of a whole new generation after the working class seizure of power before it would be possible to have fully-fledged Socialism. The R.C.P. never claimed that Socialism exists in Russia. Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, when they wrote of revolutionary measures such as steeply-graduated income tax, and the centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, obviously envisaged the continuance of the wages system and commodity production in the transition period after the workers had gained power. The first essential step for the workers is to secure the centralisation of large-scale industry in the hands of the State as had been done in Russia. Inequality exists but this does not prove the existence of Capitalism. The rich in Russia are the artists and writers but in the S.P.G.B. pamphlet “Socialism” it is claimed that these better-paid workers are still members of the working class.

Bondholding is a very small feature in relation to the whole economy. The bondholder does not control undertakings. The bureaucracy may receive parasitic income from the exploitation of the working class but accumulation of capital through the individual capitalist and the resulting capitalist crises of boom and slump do not exist in Russia. What social group constitutes the capitalist class in Russia? He challenged Fenwick to answer. As regards the R.C.P.’s willingness to support Russia in war, this is justified because there you have a progressive economy based on the nationalisation of the whole economy.

In further contributions to the debate Fenwick referred to Marx’s statement of the possibility of the workers overthrowing the bourgeoisie and of this merely serving the development of the bourgeois revolution itself as happened in France in 1794 (quoted in “State and Socialist Revolution” by Martov). He also quoted from “Socialism, Utopian, and Scientific” where Engels showed that the nationalisation of industries does not lessen their capitalist nature. Russia was in fact affected by the 1931 crisis like other countries. He referred to the change in the law which allows holders of State bonds in Russia to bequeath them to their heirs and quoted Trotsky’s statement in “Revolution Betrayed” that if any such development occurred it would be a victory for the bureaucracy and would mean their conversion into a new ruling class. The measures at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, showed that at that time the immediate establishment of Socialism after the capture of power was not entertained by Marx or Engels; but industry and knowledge had undergone great development since then. In 1872 Engels had said that the passage in question would have been very differently worded under the different conditions existing at the later date.

R. Tearse repeated his argument that wholesale nationalisation is different in kind from the nationalisation of sectors of industry as in this country. In Russia nationalisation would form the basis of Socialism after the transition period. The 1931 crisis did not affect Russia in the fundamental way it affected other countries. It was not the result of the accumulation of capital in the hands of private capitalists. As regards the quotation from “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific” about the capitalist nature of nationalised industries, it should not be overlooked that in the very next sentence Engels argued that though the capitalist relation is not done away with it is “brought to a head, it topples over.”

In Russia industry as a whole has been taken over by the State and the anarchy of private appropriation of surplus value does not exist. The defeat of Russia in war would be a defeat for the working class and a further lease of life for capitalism. There must be a transition period between capitalism and socialism and during this period capital and wages would exist but this alone does not make it capitalism. Though in 1872 Engels had said he and Marx would not in the changed conditions lay special stress on the measures proposed in the Communist Manifesto Engels never said the measures were wrong and he continued to call them revolutionary measures.

The debate was well-attended and the audience showed the closest attention to the by no means simple clash of argument. A collection of £10 15s. was taken up.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Letter: Money Will Go (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a letter criticising the article “Money Will Go.” published in our February issue. The letter and reply are printed below.—Ed. Comm. 

To the Editor,

Dear Sir,

I must take strong exception to your argument regards non-payment of services in the armed forces, referred to in the Socialist Standard, issue dated February, 1948.

The indisputable facts are that the soldier was forced to pay direct fares for his recreational journeys (worked on a mileage basis), for his haircuts (3d.), entertainment (according to rank), barrack-room damages, lost articles of kit and clothing and certain medical treatments.

Also you stated that—because the soldier did not pay direct cash for certain services—he did not take advantage of those services. The truth is the very opposite. The authorities were at their wits’ end to stamp out waste and duplication caused by this laxity —pointing out that “if the soldier did have to pay for them in direct cash—he would have a more healthier respect for his kit and clothing.”

I have pointed out that a soldier paid for his haircut. I would also like to point out that if he wanted a decent one it was wise to tip the barber . . . If you wanted your boots repaired nicely—then ‘‘drop” the regimental cobbler . . .  In fact, the distribution of leave, food and duties were all worked on a racketeering basis—as any old soldier will tell you.

The reason for this criticism of your article is (firstly) to get your facts right and the inadvisability of using a half-baked argument and (secondly) to compare your method of reasoning to the troubles that confront us now.

The S.P.G.B. does not factually enjoy the sole rights in relation to its beliefs in a classless, democratic, Socialist society. Nine out of ten Socialists and Communists believe in the same dictum—as the ultimate goal of the peoples of the earth.

Nobody—other than idiots—believes that people accepting (however knowingly) socialist beliefs are turned automatically into little angels.

Even if the S.P.G.B. were returned to power (the wide world over) its theories, on the abolition of money being practiced, would be determined—not by an aim— but by the suitability of the people in honouring and working the theory in question.

And, for the S.P.G.B. to admit that, just how goods, food, houses, travel and aeroplanes, etc., would be distributed—‘‘ we cannot say ” (thus evading the whole point of the article, i.e. a practical alternative to money) is a fine exposure of your self-satisfied, noses in the air attitude to realism, that has rightly earned you the nick-name of—"Armchair Philosophers.”

E. H. Seymour

Reply:

The article to which our critic objects set out to show that the popular belief in the necessity of a monetary system to secure distribution is unfounded. It pointed out that (even under capitalism) men and women in the Forces ‘‘did not have to put their hands in their pockets and produce money in order to eat, dress and sleep.” It did not go further than that. It pointed out that the army form of distribution is not ‘‘an example of socialism in operation,” and further pointed out that in the army “all things are not freely available.” Our critic, without challenging the main items, now gives us some relatively minor examples of the things that are not freely available and has overlooked the fact that the article itself covered the point.

We would not dispute that under those conditions there was some waste but we question whether it was anything like so widespread as our critic believes when he says that “the authorities were at their wits’ end” about it. We are also quite well aware that there is a considerable number of “rackets” and ‘‘fiddles.” These points, however, do not affect the carefully limited use that was made of the army form of distribution in the article in question.

Our critic then goes on to say that the “S.P.G.B. does not factually enjoy the sole rights in relation to its beliefs in a classless, democratic socialist society. Nine out of ten Socialists and Communists believe in the same dictum—as the ultimate goal of the peoples of the earth.” This assertion is very wide of the mark. What he says of Socialists is true of all of them not merely of nine-tenths. If, however, by ‘‘Socialists” he means “Labourites” it is quite untrue as Labour Party literature and the actions of Labour Governments sufficiently demonstrate. As for the Communists they claim that Russia is already a “Socialist society” and even our critic must be able to see that it is not a democracy but a dictatorship and is not Socialist in the sense used for generations by the pioneers of Socialism.

We do claim that convinced Socialists when Socialism has been achieved will behave like responsible members of society. What the phrase about being ‘‘turned automatically into angels” has to do with it we do not know.

When our critic asserts that under Socialism Socialist ‘‘theories” would be determined by “the suitability of the people in honouring and working the theory in question” he appears to be a victim of the ancient illusion of the Communists that Socialism can be imposed from above on a non-Socialist population. How could Socialists be anything else than ‘‘suitable” to administer society on the Socialist basis of common ownership and democratic control?

Our critic’s final paragraph shows that he has not troubled to read what the article actually said. Having given in broad outline the basis of distribution that necessarily will go with society based on common ownership of the means of production and distribution and having shown that the money system which goes with private ownership would have no place, the article pointed out the truth that should be self-evident, that we are unable to forecast such "details” as whether people will wish to eat in public halls or in private dwellings. Perhaps our critic thinks he can make that forecast; if so it is for him to fill in the details. But if, like us, he cannot do so then, like us, he should see the uselessness of drawing up blue-prints about the details of the future Socialist society.

W. Waters

Holiday Meditation (1948)

A Short Story from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

He lay stretched out on the beach, and felt the warm glow of the sun and the faint sea breeze on his skin. To his left he could hear the murmur of conversation, and in the distance the delighted shrieks of children playing on the sand and in the sea. The sea mirrored the cobalt blue sky, and the foam was white where the waves broke. An occasional gull dipped on the waves, and flew off with a morsel of food. He felt that he was beginning to live. He looked searchingly at the scene before him, and sank back, closing his eyes, his thoughts lost in meditation . . . 

People seemed different on holiday: for a week or a fortnight in the year they were carefree. He contrasted in his mind the worn and worried faces that he saw in the tube trains every morning and evening going to and from work. Those dead pans were the same people who on holiday were happy. Of course he was no different. He would have to spend a lifetime at a monotonous job, with an occasional glimpse of what life could be like. Yet no doubt a life of leisure could also be monotonous, but there were such long stretches of work ahead, and at the end of it, what?

Work seemed to crush out any creative inspirations. He smiled grimly as he recalled having escaped to Epping Forest on Saturdays with his brushes and paints in order to attempt to catch on paper the changing shades of the green foliage. Yes, it was an attempt; that is all he could say, but the effort was worth while, because it prevented him from getting into a rut—of becoming a work beast. Of having no interest in life except work.

Why was. it that he hated work? He recalled that when he was young, life seemed like an adventure. Then he was fired with ambition. “Work hard, my boy, and you will reach the top of the tree,” was the advice of his father. Well, he had always worked hard . . .  He had long ago learned that efficiency did not increase his earning capacity. It is true that he had been grudgingly given a rise when he had married, but he still had only enough to eke out week by week, and this applied to the other chaps on the job. Did he hate work because a lifetime was expended doing the same routine, and of being denied the right to enjoy and have the good things of life. Or was it because of the mental conflict of holding a job he disliked, in order that he could exist. He had noticed of late that he had become more irritable. To him his future seemed hopeless. Yet there were thousands in a similar position to him. What did they think and feel? Or had they become part of the machines they tended? This was the machine age and the machines had left their mark. This was the age of despair, and the future seemed grim and dark.

He shuddered slightly. Overhead a seagull circled and dipped and gave its strident call as if to mock him.

S. W. C.

The World's Wealth (1948)

Book Review from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World’s Wealth,” by W. G. Moore, published by Penguin Books at 1s. 6d., is a worthwhile ‘‘buy,” containing in a handy, compact form much useful information about the world’s material resources, as they actually exist at present, and as they are capable of development in the future. The author covers a vast amount of ground and the book naturally suffers from his effort to cram as much information as he possibly can into the short space of 250 pages. All attempts at compression can only succeed at the expense of the less important details and in this case pruning has had to be ruthless. Nevertheless, it can be said that in “The World’s Wealth” the author has succeeded in producing a summary that is most useful and which, at the same time, has been clearly and interestingly written.

The plan of the book is straightforward, little space being wasted on non-essentials. After a short introduction, the author proceeds immediately to examine the resources of the earth, dealing with them in separate, self-contained groups. Several chapters are devoted to the food requirements of mankind—what foods are eaten, where they are eaten, and their chief sources of supply. In similar manner he deals with man’s requirements in the way of drink and clothing. Further chapters deal with trees and their various products, sources of power, metals and other minerals, and transport. In a special chapter he traces the development of industry throughout the world from the time when Great Britain was its “workshop” to the present period of dominance by the United States. He comments also upon the ever-growing importance of Soviet Russia, and the book as a whole strikingly illustrates the preponderance of these two powers within capitalism today, and for some time to come.

The last chapter comes as something of a disappointment, though it is fortunately short. In it. the author sums up briefly what has already been said, commenting upon the wide divergences between the standards of living of the various peoples' of the world, and condemning in particular imperialism and its effects upon the conditions of the subject peoples exploited under it. At the same time he attempts to answer the inevitable question of how these resources of the earth can best be used for the full benefit of its inhabitants. His remedy does not appear to be a very effective one, nor does he state it with much conviction. After remarking, rather piously, that

   “It appears to be now generally agreed that such maldistribution of the world’s wealth as we have briefly reviewed must not be permitted in the post-war world, that acute shortage of the essential commodities of life must not co-exist with the improvident wastage and destruction of resources caused by an ill-adjusted world economy, that widespread poverty and hunger must not remain when greater riches than the earth has yet known await exploitation.” 

he can only express the hope that

   ". . . if there emerges from this situation the general recognition that it is wrong, and the determination that it shall be repaired, then soon, and for the first time in world history, the terms ‘peace’ and ‘plenty’ may become synonymous for every member of the human race.”

A very nice sentiment, no doubt, even with its “if” and its “may,” but it does not get us very far. Mr. Moore ends his book at this point, leaving many things unsaid, which is unfortunate to say the least. We would have liked to have heard more from him, and in more precise terms. This being impossible, we just recommend the book (the last chapter excepted), as a very useful source of “ background knowledge ” of present-day capitalist production and trade.

Stan Hampson

Must There Be A Transition Period? (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The word “Socialism” has been used by so many people to mean so many different things that, to most workers, it has no clear meaning. We have heard of “National Socialism,” "Christian Socialism,” "Guild Socialism,” "State Socialism,” and a number of other varieties. The fact is, of course, that none of these things are Socialism at all. They are all conditions of Capitalism, or experiments within Capitalism, to which the name Socialism, with a suitable adjective, has been applied. The result has been to sow confusion. Hence, the Socialist finds that he must devote much of his time to explaining what Socialism is not, before he can make clear what it really is.

Not all of those who have. contributed to this confusion have done so with malice aforethought. Many are quite convinced that Nationalisation is Socialism or that the sermon on the mount was a Socialist lecture. Others will claim with conviction that the condition that prevails in Russia is Socialism or that workers’ control of industry is another variety.

One thing is common to all these confusion mongers. Without exception they do not understand the operation of Capitalism and, in consequence, they do not appreciate what Socialism implies. They do not agree that it is necessary for the majority of workers to understand and desire Socialism before it can be established. They consider that it is only necessary for a sufficient number of people to support the political party that advocates their particular brand of so-called Socialism to put that party into power. The party can then start serving out Socialism slice by slice. From the time that the party takes power until the last slice is handed out is a period that they consistently refer to as the “transition period.”

We are told that we cannot have Socialism overnight. There must he a period between Capitalism and Socialism is the argument. Then, the problems created by Capitalism are paraded and we are informed that this transition period is necessary in order to solve these problems before we can have "Complete Socialism.”

The Communists have been driven to substitute the word Communism for Socialism and then to explain away the present stage of Capitalist development in Russia as Socialism, this being, they claim, the transition period between Capitalism and Communism.

The Labour Party idea is that, with political power they can reform Capitalism, step at a time, until it is such a benevolent system to all members of society that it is nothing short of Socialism. On the strength of this they call themselves Socialists.. The step by step process is, for them, the transition period.

The Trotskyites. and others who would set themselves up as the revolutionary vanguard of the Working Class, attempt to so popularise themselves that the workers will, sooner or later, at the ‘‘psychological moment,” put them in a position of power. They will then establish the rule of the Working Class, more popularly known as The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. During this period of dictatorship (which would in reality be the dictatorship of their party) all the transitional problems would he ironed out.

These are the main points that lie behind the arguments, and the drawn-up plans for a transitional period. Not one of them is tenable if we recognise the fundamentals of Capitalism and Socialism.

Capitalist society is based upon private ownership of the means and instruments of production and distribution of the amenities of life. From this ownership comes the relationship of wage-labour and capital. Those who own, invest their wealth with a view to making profit. That is capital. Those who do not own must sell their ability to work for a wage—wage-labour. And from this condition of affairs flow poverty, unemployment, overwork, wars and all the subsidiary problems. Whilst the private ownership remains, these problems will follow naturally from it. There is no means of abolishing the effects whilst the cause remains. Attempts to do so are like trying to bail out an overflowing bath with a spoon whilst the tap is still running. The first necessity is to turn off the tap—remove the cause.

The first essential, then, is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. This is a legal ownership. The law guarantees both the ownership and the privileges that are derived from it. To trespass on another’s property, to damage another’s property, to steal another’s property, to in any way infringe on another’s property rights, will bring the law on to the trespasser, the thief or the infringer. Government, national and local, passes the laws, and the police force, the judges and the jailors, the soldiers, the airmen and the sailors, these all attend to the enforcement. Ownership of property is legal. The majority of the Working Class accepts and upholds this legality. It respects property rights.

Whilst the majority of the workers are prepared to support a system based on private property we shall have capitalism in some form or another. Whatever trimmings may be used to decorate it, whatever bluff may be used to hide it, whatever name may be used to disguise it, it will still he Capitalism. Industry can be Nationalised and it can be called “State Socialism,” poverty can be levelled out and it can he called Christian Democracy, the state can control almost every aspect of living and it can he called the transition to Communism, but if the ownership of the means of life is in the hands of a section of the community, the remainder will he a subject and exploited class.

How to change this? Parliament is the institution that attends to the law-making and controls the law- enforcing machinery. Political parties are organisations forgiving expression to class interests by striving to gain control of the law-making and enforcing machinery in order that the laws may be favourable to the class that is represented by the particular party. When the workers recognise the need to abolish this system of class ownership they must organise in a political party for this purpose. When they thus gain control of the governmental machinery they can, at a stroke, wipe out legal ownership. The claiming of property rights in the means of production and distribution can be rendered illegal. It will not require a transition period to do that.

With the machinery that was used to enforce recognition of lawful ownership taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by a working class that understands and wants Socialism, the Capitalist system is finished. There are then no longer owners of the means of. production to employ workers for wages. The relationship of wage-labour and capital is ended. Capitalism is dead. Socialism is established.

Organisations, such as Trade Unions, Stock Exchanges and Banks, which arose essentially to serve the needs of Capitalist society will dissolve immediately. New forms of organisation for the administration of society will be substituted. Other social institutions will also be adapted to the new economic basis.

All barriers to the solution of such problems as housing, unemployment, malnutrition, poverty and a host of others, will have been removed. Socialist society can then tackle the job unfettered by the claims of property, of profit and of class interest.

The technical process of production will continue to evolve, freed from the retarding forces of reactionary, Capitalist interests. Industry will continue but without wage-labour, without capital and without employers and employed.

Today production is social but distribution is not. It is necessary to harmonise production and distribution by making the wealth produced available freely to society as a whole. Standing in the way of this are the reactionary interests of the Capitalist class. The revolutionary act of dispossessing the capitalists and placing the means of production in the hands, and under the democratic control of society, will allow of this harmonising and social evolution to go forward at an accelerated pace.

The act of severing the bonds that keep the working class in subjection as an exploited, wage-earning class is practically instantaneous. When it is accomplished new productive processes that are stifled by capitalism, will be freed. Labour saving machinery that today serves to intensify the labours of the workers, will really be labour saving. Poverty will disappear. Housing schemes will no longer be subject to the dictates of capital. Social services will not have to be adjusted to the cost that a ruling class is prepared to pay. The solution to all will be real and permanent.

No clique of intellectuals will ever be able to shepherd the working class, via a transition period, to Socialism. A working class that knows its class status, that understands and desires Socialism, knows that “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.”

A warning to fellow workers. Those who talk to you of transition periods do not credit you with sufficient ability to understand and act in your own class interest. They seek to lead you. They want your un-class-conscious support in order that they may gain political power. Whether they know it or not, if they get that power they will have to use it to operate Capitalism. That is what their transition period will turn out to be; Capitalism, with them in the saddle. You will have exchanged one bunch of exploiters for another. And it will be a case of “out of the frying pan into the fire.”

W. Waters

Deep in the Heart of Texas (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the many despised racial minorities in the United States are the Mexicans. Many of them are actually American citizens, descendants of those who happened to be on the spot when the United States extended its frontier to the Rio Grande after the Mexican War.

During recent years, however, many Mexicans have taken to migrating across the border into the U.S.A. to work for Southern farmers and planters, mainly as cotton pickers and also to help in the harvesting of seasonal crops like vegetables. They have usually been hired on a contract basis, returning to Mexico after the harvesting has been completed, although a small minority have remained as semi-permanent residents.

The Mexican Government has always kept a watchful and jealous eye on these workers and during the war was able to take advantage of the labour shortage to insist upon certain minimum conditions for them, which the farmers were forced to accept. Realising that it has still got the economic whip-hand, the Mexican Government has now thrown the farmers into a panic by announcing that it henceforth intends to forbid the entrance of Mexican workers into the United States unless Texas (one of the chief states involved) suspends social, educational, and economic discrimination against Mexicans and Mexican Americans in 38 specified school districts.

Says the American correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (6/7/48), obviously enjoying the joke:

“Thus compelled by a foreign Government to live up to the Declaration of Independence, which  Texans have been celebrating as lustily as any other group of Americans, the Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association has promised to go around every one of these districts and persuade farmers and business men of the beauties of tolerance.”

Extra humour is added to the situation, the correspondent points out, because this crusade to impress upon Texas farmers, the virtues of racial tolerance happens to coincide with the Democratic Party’s Convention at Philadelphia which is meeting to decide whether to run President Truman for a second term of office. Truman, who always seems to be dropping bricks, somewhere, has dropped yet another by submitting to Congress a series of laws against racial discrimination. Having done this without apparently first finding out what the rest of the Democratic Party thought about it, he has now asked them to incorporate these laws into their electoral programme. Unfortunately for Mr. Truman, all the Democrats, particularly the Southern Democrats, are very far from seeing eye to eye with him on this issue, and the whole Party has been set into a ferment. As for the Texas delegation, which represents among others the interests of the cotton growers, and other big farmers, they must be suffering from an even bigger headache than the rest. What are they to do? Renounce their prejudices and save their crops or stand by their prejudices and run the risk of losing their crops?

Life must indeed appear hard to the racialist when he has to choose between his pocket and his prejudices.

Stan Hampson