News in Review: British Transport’s big loss (1961)

The News in Review column from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Transport’s big loss

The British Transport Commissions 1960 deficit was good headline material for the Tory press. One hundred million pounds down the drain! Didn't that prove how inefficient nationalisation is? This may or may not be true. But there is one way in which nationalisation is very good business — for the people who are prosperous enough to have money invested in it.

B.T.C.’s loss of £100 million was arrived at after £45 million had been paid in interest and other charges. This makes its true deficit more like £55 million. Everybody knows that a private company which finds itself with a deficit in its accounts does not usually lumber itself with an even greater loss by paying out enormous amounts of interest.

But that is exactly what B.T.C.—and all other nationalised industries—must do, because their capital is wholly guaranteed, unlike the equity shares which make up the bulk of most private companies' capital. British Overseas Airways Corporation had a kick about this last May when they announced that their interest payments had transformed an operating profit of £4.75 millions in»o an accounting deficit of £1.7 millions.

A lot of people were taken for a ride when public transport in this country was nationalised, but the shareholders were not among them.

Berlin

It is not so very long ago that British, French and American workers were being killed in their attempts to blow Berlin to pieces. There is now a possibility that more workers will be killed in an attempt to put the German capital together again. This is what is called post-war progress.

The division of Berlin, and of Germany, has been a bone of great power contention ever since those same great powers decided to carve it up in 1945. At that time, the division was supposed to be one of the essentials of peace in Europe. Everybody expected the usual peace treaties to be signed within a few years.

The facts have disappointed these expectations. Whenever Mr. Khruschev starts talking about a German peace treaty, there is an ominous sound of the release of safety catches. Now the question has the nuclear powers grappling again—and who is to say that they are not edging little by little nearer the brink?

Perhaps Europe has never recovered its nerve from the 1948 Berlin blockade. Another world war could start before the last one has been officially signed into history. Who said that capitalism was fit for sane human beings to live in?

E.T.U. and the Communists

Nobody needed a long and expensive court case to tell them that the Electrical Trades Union was dominated by energetic Communists.

And no trade unionist needed the capitalist press to tell him that it was all his fault and that he must take a greater interest in his union's affairs. Such solicitous concern from such a quarter is, to say the least, suspicious. After all, when trade unionists become sufficiently active to organise a strike for higher wages, they have hardly a friend in Fleet Street.

Nowadays, the Communists are in the vanguard of trade union activity and for this they earn the disapproval of the press. But let us remember that they have been a nuisance to British capitalism only since Russia ceased to he Britain's ally. An upset in the international line-up could make Communist shop stewards useful to British employers, as they were during the last war. We should all be as active as possible in trade union work which is in working class interests. And we should all realise that trade unions should be the enemy of the capitalist class, instead of the docile hangdogs which the newspapers would like them to be.

Kuwait

General Kassem is only the latest of a long line of post-war bogey men in the Middle East. King Saud of Saudi Arabia used to be a bogey man, a fact which was played down when he sent troops to support the British landings.

British influence in the Arab states has been extensively undermined, and the Foreign Office policy of propping up one feudal despot against another has been a comprehensive flop. Most of the despots agree that, before most other things, they want the British to leave.

The oil-rich states are especially anxious to be "free," so that they can make the best of their natural wealth. This is the fact behind the newspaper blah about big brother coming to the aid of little boy set on by big bully.

Kuwait is the Middle East's greatest oil producer, with half of its main concession held by British Petroleum. Apart from its importance as a supplier to British industry, Kuwait is holding between £200 and £300 million in sterling. If this were transferred into some other currency, it could cause a lot of financial trouble to British capitalists.

The troops who have suffered the murderous heat of Kuwait must have guessed that they were not sent there for the good of their health. But it is improbable that they realised that it was all for the welfare of British capitalism.

Who'd be a politician? (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who’d be a politician? To be sure, there is glamour in the job: lots of pressmen to follow you about, your own personal ’bodyguard and (for the zanier ones) photographs with sizzling film stars. But politicians are, of course, men who have to work and, some of them, to worry.

First of all, what are politicians? Cut away all the hand-out material about their alleged brilliance and sincerity and we are left with people who are hard worked administrators of the detailed affairs of capitalist society. Whatever department a minister may have under his control, his twenty-four hour concern must be to protect the interests of the ruling class; all his decisions must conform to society’s capitalist basis. Because that, after all, is what the state apparatus is there for.

The unfortunate fact about this, though, is that capitalism can often be most difficult to administer. It continually thrusts up problems for its ministers to attend to. And when the ministers think they have settled a problem, they often find that capitalism has an ungrateful way of undermining their solution. In foreign affairs, the pressure is particularly strong—we can all think of prominent politicians who have been sent to an early grave by the persistent worry of trying to sort out the tangle of clashing national interests. Similarly, attempts at taming the economic waywardness of property society have virtually killed some ministers and reduced others almost to invalids. Yes, a politician, apart from needing to be cynical and industrious, must also be tough.

One of the acutist and most persistent of capitalism’s problems is the conflict of commercial interests. We do not need to be very observant to appreciate that the goods and services which contribute to our lives today—and even those which are completely essential to our lives—are turned out only to be sold. We know, for example, that nobody is allowed to use a motor car simply because he is a good driver: provided the necessary cash has been paid to the motor car manufacturers, the worlds most incompetent driver can take the wheel. But before the car gets into any driver’s hands, the commercial requirements of capitalism must be satisfied. The car, in fact, must be sold.

Now where the problem comes in is that selling capitalism’s commodities need not be an easy business. There are many motor car manufacturers after the money of our incompetent driver. They all point out the extra-super qualities of their car, prove that it accelerates better, runs faster, travels safer, uses less petrol, than the cars of their competitors. But, for that particular customer there can be only one satisfied car maker. The rest must be disappointed, and try extra hard to catch other sales. This is the competitive race which causes capitalism so much trouble.

The capitalist class regard the selling of commodities as vital because unless they are sold, the profit which the workers have built into them with their every working action can never be realised. The shareholders of the motor car industry would never invest their money in enormous factories, labour and costly machinery if it were only to make a loss. So, unless a profit can come from selling cars, none of them will be turned out. Motor cars, of course, are not peculiar in this. No clothes would be tailored, no houses built, no television sets assembled, if there was no prospect of a profit being realised somewhere along the line. Nobody would cut your hair, or put you up in an hotel, or entertain you. Even food production depends upon profit.

Here we have one of the current worries of British politicians. Barley growers in this country have every prospect of harvesting a record crop this year. Are they pleased about this? Do they look forward eagerly to the harvest festivities? They do not. For the French also have a lot of barley in the offing and so have the farmers in Western Germany. All of them have their eyes on the barley market in Great Britain. Meanwhile, the Russians have already shipped some of their surplus barley over here and, because they are determined to sell the stuff no matter how cheaply, they have knocked the bottom out of the market. (Let nobody assume that a commercial surplus of barley in Europe means that all human needs for it have been fulfilled. China, faced with famine, has been forced to ask Canada and Australia for shipments of it on credit. And she Russia’s ally, too.)

The result of unloading so much barley onto the British market has been to force the price down to less than £16 a ton— and it may fall further yet. Now, if farming was carried on for some other reason than profit-making, we might expect a measure of satisfaction that there is so much barley knocking about. But this is capitalism: we need not be surprised that the British farmer is anything but satisfied. The National Farmers’ Union, in fact, has asked for action under the Customs (Dumping and Subsidies) Act to keep out the foreign barley.

This does not mean that British farmers are always in favour of tariff protection for all British industries. Just like any other industry under capitalism, the farmers are interested in holding onto their own markets and in getting the best price they can for the goods they sell. When they buy goods, their attitude is rather different—they want them as cheap as possible, even if it means that foreign industries must be allowed to export cut price commodities to this country. For example, British farmers would like to see unrestricted entry allowed for fertilisers and farm machinery, and some for feeding stuffs. A couple of years ago, the chairman of the Farmers and Smallholders Association spoke bitterly of what he called “. . . the fertiliser monopoly . . .” making ". . . at least an extra £10 millions by charging the British farmers more than the European price for fertilisers. This racket,” he said, “Could be stopped overnight if the Government would remove the protective duties on imported fertilisers, and the taxpayer would immediately be saved £10 millions in farm subsidies.”

Presumably, the fertiliser firms have different views on the subject. Although they would not like to see the tariff wall which shelters them knocked down, they might perhaps be in favour of cheap barley and other foodstuffs, which might mean fewer wage claims for them to face. Now if you were Minister of Agriculture or President of the Board of Trade, how would you sort that one out?

Whatever you did, you could bet on it that there would soon be another, similar problem clogging your In-tray. For not only the farmers and fertiliser kings are in conflict over issues like tariff' protection. Capitalism, because it moves on its bearings of profit motive, turns up a multitude of opposing interests. It is the politician who must sort them out and must offer his solution to the voters as the sanest, surest method possible. Perhaps, at the previous election, he offered an opposite policy, which he said was also sane and sure. Never mind. The good politician has no difficulty in skating around that one.

And while the politicians are sorting and skating, what of the working class who so affectionately vote them into power time and again? They are the people who suffer, and are exploited as a result of the anomalies of capitalism. However hard the going a politician must endure, it cannot compare with the rough road of working class existence. So—who’d be a worker? There are millions and millions of them, and hardly one of them has any say in the matter.

Ivan

Finance and Industry: Chancellor's Pay-roll Tax (1961)

The Finance and Industry Column from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Chancellor's Pay-roll Tax

In the budget earlier this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would get power to levy a Pay-roll Tax to be used, when he thought fit, as a means of encouraging employers “to use more labour-saving machinery” and seek ways of cutting down the number of workers they employed. The amount proposed is 4s. a week for each worker, the tax to be paid by the employer.

It had a very hostile reception, not only from the Opposition but from many Conservative M.P.’s and employers. Nobody seems to have remembered that a “Keynesian" scheme very similar to this was agreed by the three political parties in the war-time national government and set out in a document called Employment Policy, which was to be the blue-print for maintaining full employment and for preventing prices from rising. It was to be operated by making workers and employers pay higher national insurance contributions when unemployment fell to a low level, and lower contributions when unemployment increased. The idea was that if demand for consumer goods fell and unemployment increased, reducing the national insurance deduction would encourage more spending: and if demand for consumer goods increased too much, some of the spending would . be halted by levying higher contributions. The suggested range was from a top-rate of 10s a week (workers 5s. 6d., employers 4s. 6d.) to a lower rate of 5s (3s. and 2s.).

Like many other plans it has never been used, so we have no factual evidence to show what result it would have had.

Discussion about the proposed Pay-roll Tax has however produced some interesting information about developments in industry that have been going on and would presumably be stimulated by such a tax. A contributor writing to the Financial Times (8/7/61) states that in the engineering and building trades there is an increasing tendency for work to be done by small contractors without any direct employees themselves:

  There are in the engineering trades today thousands of one-man firms or small companies where the entire labour force consists of directors and which have no pay-roll at all. These firms produce drawings or tools on a free-lance or sub-contract basis for the larger organisations. In the building trade there is a growing tendency for the craftsman, plumber, mason or joiner to employ himself and hire his labour out to the small builder who again may have no pay roll at all.

Impetus has been given to this by the development of small electrically driven machines which can be set up in home workshops and he says that on the Continent the idea has been extended to the point of operating a factory on the basis that the workers come in as self-employed master-men, hire the machines and sell the products to the management without any wages relationship. As the contributor points out, a pay-roll tax levied on the number of workers directly employed would be avoided by these methods.

Notes on Automation

Six years ago in these columns (September, 1955) the opinion was expressed that automation would not develop in this country as quickly and extensively as many people were claiming. It is interesting to look at some of the trends to see what has happened since then and is likely to happen. The prevailing mood of comment today is one of caution, allied with disappointment about the results of automation so far. Often there is contrast with the progress made in other countries, especially America.

Mr. F. Griffiths of the British Motor Corporation writes that in the motor industry “the pattern of automation . . . still remains mainly in the machine shop. Basic processes, such as the foundry and the forge have not yet been given any consideration to enable real automation to be installed.” (Electronics and Automation Supplement to the Financial Times (23/1/61). Mr. Griffiths lists the many technical and organisational problems that need to be solved before automation can become general in the motor factories. A scientific correspondent in the Financial Times (8/1/60) estimated that it might be 1965 before this development was completed.

In the field of electronic computers for commercial purposes, experience has been mixed. According to a correspondent writing in 1959 (Financial Times, 2nd April) many firms that had bought computers for commercial purposes bad found them a failure from the financial point of view. But in the engineering and scientific fields “there have been equally remarkable successes.”

And while automation and electronics manufacture have rapidly grown to “ big business,” employing nearly a quarter of a million people, there aren't enough orders for the home market and according to a report in the Times (29/11/60) almost every firm in the business is losing money on its manufacture of data processing equipment.

As regards the total numbers of workers employed, the process of automation in the past six years has had little effect, either in manufacture or in offices, though clerks in banking and elsewhere are becoming increasingly worried about the future, especially on promotion prospects. In factories and offices shift working and night work will increase.

With government encouragement, designed to prevent industry in this country falling behind its competitors, automation and similar innovations in factories and offices will develop at an increasing pace, but none of those who sweepingly claim that automation brings about enormous economies in labour and materials (productivity up tenfold, costs reduced 25 per cent. to 40 per cent—Financial Times, 8/1 /60) have explained why automation so far has had so little impact here or in any other country.

Why have not these alleged savings of labour shown themselves in falling prices? The answer in most instances is that even when the labour-saving is as high as stated it is effective only in a small part of the total process of production. If labour is reduced by say 40 per cent in processes representing a quarter of the total factory operation, the average for the whole factory operation is 10 per cent, and if production and transport of materials is not affected the overall reduction from start to finish may be less than 5 per cent And this leaves out of account the, sometimes, greatly increased amount of labour needed for production and maintenance of the automation plant.

Living in one room

Workers having a hard time in the country of their birth find it easy to accept travellers’ tales about the summer weather and the “gold paved streets" in some other part of the globe. Governments all try to counter these beliefs because they encourage discontent

Recent observers from both sides of the “curtain" have been commenting on housing conditions in Britain and Russia. First, we have Mr. Yur Fokin, a Russian broadcaster, who wrote in the Daily Express (13/6/61) giving his eye-witness impressions of this country. Mr. Fokin said he was surprised to notice in London “sharp differences in the type of districts where people of different classes live." He said it was very strange to Russian eyes because “in Moscow, for instance, there is no class distinction."

As it happens an Englishwoman. Mrs. Reita Ovsyannikov, married to a Russian, has just returned to this country after thirty years in Russia. In her article in the Sunday Telegraph (9/7/61) she notes the contrast that Mr. Fokin did not see. She writes that "even to this very day, most Russian families have to make do with one room," but because her husband belongs to “the managerial class" and she also had a highly paid job: “We enjoyed a far better standard of living than the great majority of Soviet citizens. For the last ten years of our life in the Soviet Union we had a flat of our own, a car, and all the money we needed. It was not luxury by Western standards, but we were comfortable."

Many visitors to Russia have commented on the large number of families compelled to live in one room and nobody, not even Mr. Fokin, believes that Krushchev and the other V.I.P.’s or the “rouble millionaires" live in one room. Mr. John Cole (Guardian, 7/6/61) also noted “the very limited living space compared with that expected by English families," but he described the comparison “misleading" because “The Russians like the Swedes and French attach less importance to homes than the English." The implication is that “Russians" and Swedes and French don't mind living in overcrowded conditions. If this is so, why doesn't Mr. Krushchev live in one room? And why was the Englishwoman quoted above glad to be able to afford not to?

The truth is quite simple. It is nice to be rich in any country and if you are rich you don't have to put up with the conditions suffered by the poor: which includes the Glasgow home visited by the Queen on 30th June—a man. wife and four year old son living in one room.

Not belonging

The double-talk of politicians, newspaper editors and business men is sometimes so odd as to be hardly comprehensible. as witness an editorial in the Daily Mail on 1st July.

Just about the time that there was an "unofficial" strike at Ford Motor works called by the shop stewards, the firm's chief medical officer was at a conference on automation telling the delegates the secret of “good labour relations." He said that “all employees need to have a feeling of belonging to the company," each one “must feel he counts as a person.

These events inspired the leader writer of the Mail to try to explain to the Ford workers what is the true shape of things:

 The war cry of one of these shop stewards is worth recording. “Nobody here", he shouted, “wants to see the Ford Motor Company win “
  But who and what is the Ford Motor Company if it isn't the 20,000 workers he was talking to? Are they not as much the Ford Motor Company as Mr. Ford himself, or any of his directors or executives?

Of course, legally the Ford Motor Works and all its properties belong to the company, in effect the shareholders, to whom also the £18 million profit in 1959 belonged. And last year when the American Ford company bought out the 45 per cent, of the shares that they did not already hold, for £129 million, they paid the money (£7 5s. 6d. per share) to those shareholders. The English company now therefore belongs wholly to the American Company. The 20,000 Dagenham workers who, according to the Mail are the Ford Company as much as Mr. Ford himself, weren't even asked whether they wanted the sale to go through, much less paid for handing over what the Mail thinks is their own company.

And is it surprising that the strikers wanted to win their wage-claim? They no more wanted to see Fords win than the Ford's management wanted to see them win. The strikers and the management both see plainly that there is a conflict of interests between them.

Which brings us to the firm's medical officer who worries because the workers don’t feel that they belong. Why has it not occurred to him that perhaps that is just what irks the workers at Dagenham and elsewhere? They feel very strongly that they are treated as if they do belong to the firm, as if they were part of the equipment, along with the machines and trucks and typewriters; instruments for making profit.

If the medical officer ever happens to meet one of the Ford family or other owners he should watch them closely to note if they, too, suffer from any feeling of frustration or sense of. “not belonging." Then the secret will be revealed to him. He will find that they “belong" all right, because Fords belongs to them.

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Ford might also tell him more about the £100,000 they spent recently on a party for their daughter (reported in the Sunday Telegraph, 25/7/61. Just one daughter, one party, one hundred thousand Pounds.

Edgar Hardcastle

Master and Worker (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

How often has it been proclaimed that the planning of constitutions and the founding of leagues of nations have been for the purpose of establishing equality among all men. Yet, as long as capitalism exists, the equality of men can be nothing more than a Utopia, or, at best, just a fancied reality. Laws may propose that employer and worker have equal rights; that just as employers have the right to employ or not to employ, so have the workers the right to work for whomsoever they please. But do these rights exist in fact?

On the employers' side, there exists not only the "right," but the power. This may not apply to those who, by their own desperate struggle and long hours of work, manage to run small businesses with a return hardly higher than the wages paid to an outside worker. These are not capitalists, but men forced to work, very often more arduously than most other workers. They may delude themselves that they are “ upper class," but actually they are of that vast army which must toil in order to live.

When Socialists speak of the employing or the capitalist class they refer to that small class in current society which, enabled to employ and to exploit the workers by its ownership of the land, factories, mines, railways, etc., is, if necessary, able to live without working upon the proceeds.

This, then, is the capitalist class: the class of employers, of masters. At the sweet will of this class men can be employed. exploited, dismissed. And in each of these eventualities the right and the power of the capitalist are plainly visible.

From the very first appearance of a working-class applicant for employment the whip-hand is held by the capitalist. He is seeking a worker whose energy, applied to the tools and material which he, the capitalist, has made available, will create a mass of commodity values and. in due course, blessed and well-loved PROFIT.

This is the sole purpose for which a capitalist employs workers. But, yearned for though they are, profits are not essential in the preservation of life. Their diminution or failure to rise above a certain level may mean for capitalists a check upon expansion, and a drop in interest, even a curb upon luxurious living. But that is all. Only profits are at stake—not the essentials of life itself.

For the working-class applicant for employment the case is very different. Dependent upon his success or failure is the problem of whether or not he will be able to provide for himself, his wife and family without recourse to assistance boards and the like. Should he fail, will the matter of the new clothes he had promised the children have to be forgotten? Will his wife have to go out to work? Will they have to cut down on the food bill—have marge instead of butter, buy cheaper milk? Must the washing be done by his wife instead of being sent to the laundry? Must he cut out his daily pint and smoke fewer cigarettes? Will he have to take the telly back?

Thus does the encounter between prospective employer and prospective employee show the inequality in the "master and man" relationship. It is further shown when the new worker is absorbed into industry. The “governor" himself is seldom seen in the factory for there is no real need for the presence of one who takes no part in production, and who possibly knows nothing of the working side of the industry. But ever present are the works manager, the supervisor, the foreman, the progress chaser those members of the working class who, for somewhat higher wages must see, on behalf of "the governor," that production is carried on speedily, conscientiously, and as profitably as possible. This overseership, whether tyrannous or not, reveals the existence of someone at the top; of an individual or group with something to gain from working-class exploitation.

And where is equality when capitalists, in depressed trade conditions, are unable to sell their commodities? Where is the evidence, then, that working men may work for whomsoever they please — that they need even be employed at all? Where is the “right” to work when the introduction of machinery renders certain workers redundant? Experience shows that wholesale sackings and dismissals are the accepted order of the day as soon as the employment of workers is not profitable enough. It matters not that these dismissals might mean for the workers involved long spells of unemployment, a depression of living standards already far from satisfying, and minor—or even major—domestic tragedies. For such is the accepted pattern of master-class behaviour in capitalist society. That it is accepted—and not least by those who suffer most therefrom —is the most pitiful feature of modern life.

F. W. Hawkins

The Passing Show: Public Opinion (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Public Opinion

Our rulers must despise us. Only sixteen years have passed since the end of the war, and yet the governments of the world keep publishing more and more material revealing how far the real Allied war aims were from the “truth, justice, democracy," and so on, which were the professed objectives. They would scarcely do this if they believed that the working class could learn from past mistakes. They seem to have no fear that the workers, having been shown how much they were fooled in the second world war, will refuse to be fooled in the third.

The latest revelation of what went on behind the scenes in the war comes in some American diplomatic papers recently released by the State Department. Marshal Stalin rejected a suggestion that the peoples of the three Baltic states should be allowed to vote on whether they wanted to join the Soviet Union, saying that when the Baltic countries had belonged to Russia before the First World War "no one had raised the question of public opinion, and he did not quite see why it was being raised now"(The Observer, 18/6/61). In other words, the Communist leader defended himself on the ground that he was only doing what the Czarist tyranny had done before him. President Roosevelt rejoined sympathetically that "the truth of the matter was that the public neither knew nor understood."

Having settled—without asking them —the fate of the people of the Baltic countries, the three leaders proceeded to settle the future of the Poles. Stalin wanted a slice of Poland, so proposed to compensate the Poles with a slice of Germany. Roosevelt agreed, remarking he "would like to see the eastern border moved even farther to the west and the western border moved even to the River Oder," although he added that "he could not publicly take part in any such arrangement at the present time" because "there were in the United States from six to seven million Americans of Polish extraction, and, as a practical man, he did not wish to lose their vote." Mr. Churchill concurred; he said that "as far as he was concerned, he would like to see Poland moved westward."

It seems a far cry from this secret carving-up of Europe to the public support for "democracy” and "the rights of small nations."


I did not suggest

So far from telling the workers the truth about what was going on, they weren’t even honest with each other. In 1943 Roosevelt sent a message to Stalin through Joseph Davis, the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow (The Times, 19/6/61):

  I want to get away from the difficulties of large staff conferences or the red tape of diplomatic conversations. Therefore, the simplest and most practical method I can think of would be an informal and completely simple visit for a few days between you and me. . . . this summer. A problem is where to meet. Africa is almost out of the question in summer and Khartum is British territory. Iceland I do not like because for both you and me it involves rather difficult flights and in addition, quite frankly, would make it difficult not to invite Prime Minister Churchill at the same time. Therefore I suggest that we could meet either on your side or my side of Behring Strait.

Churchill got wind of this and sent a message to Roosevelt protesting strongly against being left out in the cold. So Roosevelt replied to Churchill:

  I did not suggest to Uncle Joe that we meet alone, but he told Davis that he assumed (a) that we would meet alone, and (b) that he agreed that we should not bring staffs to what would be a preliminary meeting.

So much for the standard of truthfulness of one of the "leaders of the free world.”


Larger moral issues

Despite the steadily declining influence of the Churches, they continue to give what support they can to the ruling class. The Rev. Dr. Maldwyn L. Edwards, in his presidential address to the Methodist Conference, spent much of his time denouncing the wickedness of the workers (The Times, 4/7/61):

   Dr. Edwards said the need was to realize man's spiritual identity and to halt the discounting of God. The view that man had only himself to rely on had spread into such present day issues as industrial disputes and sex and family life. This wrong philosophy of human nature showed itself in industry, in lack of discipline or interest in work; absenteeism, excessive attention to short hours and long pay packets, and the quick readiness to strike for private interests regardless of the larger moral issues involved or the public suffering caused.

Dr. Edwards counters the fact that most workers spend their lifetimes in monotonous, boring tasks, or in single, meaningless operations not by condemning the society which organises production in such a way, but by blaming the men for “lack of interest” in their work. And how can employers be sure of their profits if there is absenteeism or lack of discipline, or if the men are prepared to strike to defend their standards of living?

Dr. Edwards went on: "It is not only necessary for management to play fair with workers and workers with management, but both must play fair with the community from whom they get their living and whom they are meant to serve.” This is quite erroneous. Capitalist production continues so long as a profit can reasonably be expected: that is its sole objective, not serving the community. And, of course, this fine impartial-sounding phrasemaking about both sides playing fair with each other is, in the context of our society, not impartial at all. It is exactly on a par with the church in a society based on slavery calling on the slave-owners and the slaves to play fair with each other. What is wanted in such a context is not fair play, but an end of slavery: and what is wanted in our society is not "fair play" by the capitalists towards the workers, but the end of wage-slavery.


Happy and useful life

In parliament recently Mr. Ramsden, for the Government, announced that the Vickers machine gun was going to be retained by the regular army until 1965, and by the Territorial army even longer. This produced what Punch (7/6/61) called a "sentimental scene." Colonel Bromley-Davenport roared his approval, and Mr. Ramsden "with a.tear in his eye" paid tribute to "this extremely good gun." The Labour Party was not to be outdone. "Mr. Mayhew from the front opposition bench wished it many years of happy and useful life."

From Conservative M.P.s, belonging to an avowedly capitalist party, this is only what one could expect. But those people who still confuse Labourism with Socialism would do well to ponder Mr. Mayhew’s benevolent wishes for a machine-gun.

Alwyn Edgar

Those bonus shares (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

From time to time, announcements appear in the Press saying that a company is to make a free issue of shares, a bonus or scrip issue. This means that existing shareholders will receive an additional number of shares without having to make any payment for them (it differs from a “rights” issue when shareholders receive the right to buy shares at a price below the market price).

Scrip issues are made when a company has accumulated large reserves and decides to “capitalise” them. The result in the balance sheet is that the reserves are reduced and the capital correspondingly increased. If the company decided to issue one £1 share for each existing £1 share, each shareholder would have his holding doubled. If he held 100 £1 before the issue he would hold 200 £1 shares afterwards. It does not mean that the shareholder receives a cash payment.

On the face of it this would seem to be very pleasing for the shareholder: he appears to be twice as well off as he was before. And some observers imagine that it is so. For example, in 1959 when the Westminster Bank capitalised £3½ million from reserves and issued 3,500,000 new £1 shares the Daily Worker (16/7/59) reported it under the heading “£3½ Million Gift to Bank's shareholders,” and the Daily Herald (24/5/55) had the following comment on British Petroleum's issue of four new shares for each share held

  Did you happen to buy a few hundred shares in the British Petroleum Company last year? No? Bad luck. It would have been well worth it—worth it four times over, in fact. In November the company handed out £80 million from its reserves in the form of a 400 per cent share bonus—that is four new shares of £1 for every share held. Easy to make a tax-free fortune here—if you have the money to start.

It sounds too good to be true. It also presents a problem for the Marxist, who knows that profit, rent and interest come out of the unpaid labour of the workers and cannot suppose that between one day and the next, by means of a piece of manipulation in a balance-sheet, surplus value has become five times as great.

There is, of course, a catch in it, because the stock-exchange price of each share immediately falls in approximately the same proportion as the number of shares increases. Recently the Limmer and Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co., Ltd., made an issue of shares (and also an adjustment of the nominal value of each share), with the result that the shareholder who on 22nd June, 1961, held one hundred 10s shares with a stock-exchange price of 60s. each, found himself a few days later with three hundred 5s. shares with a stock-exchange price of 20s. each. The total price at which he could have sold the one hundred shares was £300, exactly the same as the price at which he could afterwards sell the three hundred shares.

The British Petroleum shareholder, referred to above, saw his shares fall from a stock-exchange price of £18 2s. 6d. each on 16th December, 1954, to £3 14s, 4½d. on 21st December. So the Daily Worker’s statement on 4th November, 1954, that the “oil kings get £80 million,” implying that the shareholders had suddenly become richer by that amount, was pure phantasy.

The real explanation is that, apart from the fluctuations of stock-exchange prices due to other causes, including general waves of buying and selling and varying estimates of the future profits of the company in question, stock-exchange prices are determined by the amount of profit the company has been earning and the amount they have been retaining for paying out as dividends. If profits are high and go on rising a share of nominal value £1 may be selling at say £3, and no capitalising of reserves will make any appreciable difference to the stock-exchange valuation of the total of the company’s shares.

The late Sir Oscar Hobson was quite correct when he wrote in the News Chronicle (1/2/51):

  Shareholders who vote to capitalise reserves of their companies and convert them into new shares for distribution among them in proportion to their existing holdings give themselves nothing which they do not already possess. . . . The issuing of bonus shares does not and cannot add to the value of a company's assets or to its earning power. It does not add to the market value of a company’s shares.

A recent issue of the Daily Worker (17/6/61) repeats its old delusion, though so qualified that it really gives away the main case: having roundly declared that it is “nonsense” to say that doubling the number of shares would be accompanied by halving the stock-exchange price of each share, it lamely concludes:

  The total shares owned by the firm's shareholders after a bonus issue are almost always worth more—and often considerably more—than they were before it.

This qualified statement is indeed partly true. The B.P. shareholder who at first had one share quoted at £18 2s. 6d. later had five shares quoted at a total for the five of £18 11s. 10½d., a gain of 9s 4½d. The reason why there is sometimes a small total gain is that a bonus issue is usually read as a sign that the directors are optimistic about future prospects.

It may then be asked why do directors go to the trouble and expense of making such an issue? One reason is that directors do not want to make their dividends look very large because, or so they believe, this encourages workers to press harder for higher wages. The directors think that paying out dividends of £100,000 in the form of 20 per cent. on 500,000 £1 shares does not look so tempting as paying out £100,000 in the form of 10 per cent. on 1,000,000 £1 shares. An additional reason for bonus share issues is that some companies see advantage in raising their issued capital up to the £1,000,000 required by law to qualify their shares to be held by those responsible for the investment of Trust Funds.

Edgar Hardcastle

Crisis in the Car Industry (1961)

Editorial from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although the car industry has managed to make some recovery from last year’s slump, its effects are still being felt. In spite of all the optimism a few months ago it is now clear that output is not going to get back to the previous high levels for some time to come. As for exports, the outlook is not bright at all and much of the manufacturers’ former confidence about prospects has evaporated.

The pre-war seasonal sales pattern, high in the spring and summer, and low in autumn and winter, seems now to have re-established itself. There may well be further difficulties later this year, therefore, as the graph turns downwards. Nor are manufacturers reassured to hear of the various dire measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is said to have ready once the 1961 Finance Bill has become law—an increase in the purchase tax on cars is hardly likely to improve their sales prospects.

A further worry is, of course, the Common Market. If Britain stays out it means the end of any hopes to step up sales in Europe since the ever-increasing tariff against countries outside the Market will put British prices completely out of the running. If Britain goes in, the position may hardly be any better since British cars will be open to the full blast of European competition.

Even the second-hand car market is feeling the pinch. Recent large-scale hire purchase defaulting has made the finance companies jittery. Deposits have gone up and interest rates are due to follow. The result has been that many firms have gone out of business or are on the point of doing so.

The situation is hardly different elsewhere. American car production is still bumping along the bottom, with little sign of an upturn. Output in France and Italy is down. In Germany, Volkswagen is still apparently doing well, but Borgward has run into difficulties and may be forced to go out of business altogether. The tempo everywhere has slackened off compared with the hectic scramble of 18 months ago when the U.S. market in particular was wide open to the exports of the European small car manufacturers. This is the present situation. What of the future? It is certainly going to see many bitter struggles.

Like Britain, every one of the other major national producers has large-scale expansion programmes ahead. Some firms are already far advanced with their plans and almost ready to go into production —Volkswagen in Germany, Citroen in France. Fiat in Italy. Others, such as Renault in France and Lancia in Italy, have also actually started work on their big new projects and until recently, at any rate, were pushing them ahead with all speed. Further to these. Alfa-Romeo in Italy has just begun building an important new plant near Milan and Peugeot in France has recently bought a large piece of land near Mulhouse for a further factory. No doubt all these firms are wondering, like their British counterparts, whether all this projected expansion is going to be worthwhile.

At the same time, every manufacturer without exception is working hard on the production of up to date models, constantly introducing new developments in techniques and design All of them are striving continually to discover the secrets of their competitors and to go one step further. If they do not do these things they will just be left behind in the race.

The Daily Mail recently interviewed Sir Leonard Lord, the Chairman of the British Motor Corporation. One of the things they said to him was: "You are raising capacity from 750,000 to 1,000,000 cars a year. Do you think next year you will be able to sell 18,000 cars a week”? He smiled broadly, raised both his hands, and showed two sets of crossed fingers. Which, come to think of it, is a pretty apt comment on not only the car industry—but capitalism itself.

Branch News (1961)

Party News from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bloomsbury

Bloomsbury Branch will not be holding meetings during August as Conway Hall closes for that month. Meetings recommence on Thursday, September 7th at 8 p.m.

Ealing

There have been several successful outdoor meetings at Earls Court. More support from members would be welcome as this is an excellent outdoor station, and experience proves that with such regular support these meetings will prove most valuable. Literature sales in particular have been most encouraging.

All members are asked to note that the Branch will close down for its summer break this month. There will be no Branch meetings on 18th and 25th August and 1st September. The outdoor meetings will be maintained during this period.

Glasgow

Kelvingrove Branch has been working very hard and taking advantage of the good weather. Nine outdoor meetings were held during June—four in Edinburgh. Average audience 125 with literature sales of £1 11s. 0d. and over £2 in collections. In Glasgow, five meetings were held—average audience 50, literature sales and collections over £2.

Wembley

Wembley Branch will not be holding a meeting on August 7th but will resume their meetings on August 14th. A Branch lecture is being held on Monday, August 2lst.

Literature Sales

The new Literature Sales Committee has gone into orbit with great success. One of the first assignments was to have a group of comrades outside the Russian Exhibition at Earls Court. Comrades have been there all day, each day, armed with Party literature, in particular the pamphlet Russia Since 1917. On one day alone 120 pamphlets were sold—90 of the Russian pamphlet—and on Tuesday evening, July 11th, an urgent call was received at Head Office that they had sold out and urgently needed fresh supplies. A comrade was hastily despatched on his motor cycle with fresh supplies and a call was made for branches to return any spare copies they may have had of the pamphlet. The archives at Head Office were also raided so that all available pamphlets could he sent to Earls Court.

The Literature Sales Committee are now regularly attending political meetings with literature, and comrades are urged to contact them at Head Office giving details of when they are able to sell literature at such meetings. The hackneyed phrase ‘Nothing succeeds like success' certainly applies to this aspect of Party activity. As the written word is our major form of propagating Socialism, all comrades can participate in distributing Socialist literature and so help the Party and themselves to bring about a greater understanding of our case by our  fellow workers.

Phyllis Howard

50 Years Ago: Australian Labourism (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour Prime Ministers and Labour leaders of Australia have been prominent in Great Britain of late owing to the Imperial Conference and the Coronation. . . .  All the enemies of Labour have gathered together to do honour to 'these men who have risen from the plough'. Amidst the eulogies of Asquith, Balfour and the rest of the holy capitalist family, they have toured the country urging the propertyless wage slaves to emigrate to the scene of 'Labour's triumphs', and so escape from the sufferings they encounter here.

#    #    #    #

The State ownership of such services as are already nationalised has been a mixed blessing to the toilers. New South Wales is the State of Labourism's greatest advance, yet the capital (Sydney), will be remembered as the centre of the great strike of State employed tramwaymen for ‘a living wage'. State ownership is the refuge of the business man being crushed by the trusts.

#    #    #    #

The taxation of Land Values is a prominent feature of the Labour programme. Its existence in the Commonwealth has led to it being boomed here, and in view of Australia being the pet example of the 'good' effect of land taxes, it would be well to show their real character and influence.

The great merit of land taxes is said to be the releasing of the land and bringing it within the means of the poor man. But the Labour Premier, Mr. Andrew Fisher, told a deputation from the London Chamber of Commerce that 'land sold at prices quite as high as, if not higher than, those realised before the tax was passed.' and the report (Manchester Guardian 14/6/11) goes on to say that 'he asserted that since the tax was passed Australian credit had been higher than for many years before.’

From the Socialist Standard, August 1911.

A place of your own (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the prime necessities of life is shelter. A lot of people make a living by letting rooms whilst others augment their weekly wage by doing the same thing. Here in Britain at the moment quite a number of people because of their poverty are living in furnished rooms. This can be dear enough but they have got to pay up and like it. The same also goes for the people who are “lucky" enough to find unfurnished accommodation.

There are also the Council houses and flats built specially for workers. Surely the nice newness and smarter surroundings of a modern self-contained flat with all amenities should have been the means of bringing about a happy carefree attitude among those tenants? But the struggle over the St. Pancras council flats, the Kenistoun House barricading shemozzle, along with the other unhappy incidents up and down the country speak for themselves.

Another side to this housing tragedy is revealed by those who find themselves in the position of having a bit of surplus space in their houses and who, instead of utilizing the roominess for their own comfort, are stricken with a kindness of thought and let their rooms to the more unfortunates at two, three or four pounds a go. The kind of room in which you can clearly walk around the table is classified as a “double room", compared with the one in which, when you open the door, you trip over the bed. This obviously becomes a “single bedsitter", and it’s amazing the number of people who cook, eat, sleep, wash, read and attempt to entertain in such quarters. Yes! 1961 and all that.

The Guardian recently told of a Londoner walking through Berkeley Square with one of the African delegates from the Rhodesian Conference, listening to him talk about the problem of low wages in so many parts of Africa. Wages are so low the Guardian  reported the African as saying, that in his own territory the African worker had to have subsidised housing, as in so many cases the bread-winner earned only £6 per .month.

After they had parted the Londoner made his way across the Square. Something in the window of an estate agent's office caught his eye. It was a modest sign advertising a mews cottage in Knightsbridge at150 guineas. He found on enquiry that it contained two maids' bedrooms and a dressing room as well as two ordinary bedrooms and was furnished in antiques of impeccable pedigree. The rent—£150—per week. The figure, the girl agreed, was high but it broke no record.

But remember this. Even if the worker were to live rent free in one of the Stately Homes with its own approach and the forecourt framed with iron wrought gates, and surrounded by North, South, East and West lawns—if he still had to work for a living he would be no better off. As Engels said so long ago,

    Let us assume that in a given industrial area it has become the rule that each worker owns his own little house. In that case the working class of that area lives rent free, housing expenses no longer enter into the value of its labour-power. Every reduction in the cost of production of labour-power, that is to say, every permanent price reduction in the worker’s necessities of life is equivalent “on the basis of the iron laws of the doctrine of national economy" to a depression of the value of labour-power and will therefore finally result in a corresponding drop in wages. Wages would thus fall on an average as much as the average sum saved on rent, that is, the worker would pay rent for his own house, but not, as formerly, in money to the house-owner, but in unpaid labour to the factory owner for whom he works. In this way the savings of the worker invested in his little house would in a certain sense become capital, however not capital for him but for the capitalist employing him.

Joe McGuinness

Ye Daughters of Israel Weep (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The State of Israel, now thirteen years old, has, by Jewish custom, come of age. It is timely, therefore, to attempt an assessment

(i) The Zionist Movement

The assumption underlying the Zionist movement was that to establish a "national home for the Jewish people” was the only way to end their age-old persecution, especially under the yoke of the Tsars. This closely mirrored the aspirations of other thwarted nationalities such as the Poles, the Czechs, the Finns and the like. There were, of course, workers who were taken up with this cause but very few of them prior to the first world-war. Cramped into a narrow strip of the vast Russian Empire, the Jewish millions lived almost entirely in the towns, where they formed the majority of the population. They were skilled and unskilled workers; some on the land, more in the factories and workshops; they were porters and cart drivers. Only a minority were merchants of any substance, bankers and factory owners. In this background it was the idea of Anarchism and Social-Democracy that gained the greatest acceptance. The Jewish Labour League, the Bund, which was affiliated to the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, had as its purpose Jewish cultural autonomy within a Social-Democratic Russia. They saw that on the principle of divide and rule the Tsars had actually fostered anti-semitism. They were convinced that the Jewish problem was a by-product of the private property system and would end with the end of that system. They did not think in terms of a return, to “the promised land” as a solution to their problems. Neither did the Anarchists.

Emigration to the freer and relatively more prosperous West, the Russian Revolution, and the rise of Nazism, affected Jewish opinion overwhelmingly. In the new conditions Anarchism died a natural death. Faith in a Social-Democratically reformed Capitalism withered in the face of the anti-semitic mass hysteria that was being harnessed to the needs of the German ruling-class. Faith in Bolshevism, on the part of others, was likewise to vanish when the Soviet reality became clear. The end of the second world-war saw Zionism reaping a harvest of disillusionment and despair.

Out of the ruins of war, emerged the Jewish survivors. Despite the brutally callous turning back of their ships by the British Labour Government, many joined with the pioneers to oust the British and set up the Jewish State, under a Labour Government strangely enough. Few who had witnessed the holocaust of the Jews could fail to be moved by the determination of the survivors to have a home of their own, to live in a land where they could walk with heads held high, where they could till the soil and make the desert bloom and little by little heal the wounds of two thousand years. But national ideals and political reality have never been compatible and never can be. True to form, the territorial demands of one set of Nationalists were diametrically opposed to the demands of the other set. The “solution” of the Jewish problem turned out to be its transference from Europe to the Middle-East.

(2) The Arab States

The Arabs, too, had national aspirations that had been thwarted by Turkish domination in the first instance and by an Anglo-French carve-up of the region subsequent to that. The Arabs were divided into several different states each of which was subservient to external forces. They were puppet states, mandates and protectorates. In order to weaken Germany’s ally Turkey, Britain had deliberately cultivated an Arab sense of national identity during the 1914-18 war. Once victory was won, this policy no longer served British Capitalism and it was dropped. Henceforth, playing off one oil producer against another, one tribal dynasty or one community against another, paid better dividends. Once created, however, Arab nationalism filled a need and the Pan-Arab capitalist class to be saw to it that not only did it survive but that it flourished. In Palestine, where a majority of Arabs had lived for centuries, the territorial demands of Jewish and Arab nationalism proved utterly irreconcilable. When the clash came the Zionists, who were then militarily superior to the combined Arab armies, gained a victory sufficient to set up a state, but with less territory than had traditionally been demanded. The price, in human terms, entailed an entire new exodus.” A million Arab refugees subsist to this day on the verge of starvation, caged like animals, within sight of Israel’s borders. They refuse to move. They, too, insist on going home.

The popular insistence on an eventual "ingathering of the exiles” does not, in fact, explain why the Arab governments have left the refugees idly by the frontier, breeding and hating. With the calculating cynicism normal to ruling classes, they are seen as an invaluable political weapon.

Over the past thirteen years the situation within the Arab states surrounding Israel has not remained static. The Zionist claim that hostility towards Israel was fostered by corrupt feudal potentates out of fear that their peoples would demand similar living standards and civil rights obviously has some truth in it. But this is less the case now than hitherto. The United Arab Republic and Iraq have both undergone substantial changes in social organisation. Many of the kings who had been propped up by foreign and feudal interests have been swept away. A rigorous process of national capitalist development is taking place. Today, a key reason for continued hostility to Israel is an external one. In facing the pressures of both western and eastern imperialism, a show of Arab unity is of no mean value in the bargaining chamber of the United Nations. Conflicting as their economic interests are, hostility to Israel presents the one issue on which they can all agree. Had Israel not existed, the Arab states would have had to invent it!

It would be a mistake, however, to forget the real possibility of Israeli expansion which would inevitably be at the expense of the Arab states. If increased to any extent, the pressure on land and resources is bound to become explosive if Russia was to permit the emigration of any number of her two million Jews, for example. Meanwhile, Israel’s governments being subject to the wishes of an increasingly nationalistic electorate, cannot afford to ignore their expansionist demands.

In the sort of way that the Russian Revolution was able to command a great deal of passionate though misplaced devotion, so Israel could never have been established without tragic sacrifices and self-less idealism on the part of many of its people. But as in all cases where it has been argued that the end justified the means, it is the very idealists who are most bitterly disappointed by the outcome. Self-styled Socialists, whose working-class solidarity was suspended “for the duration” in order to slaughter their Arab neighbours, are shocked that what was begun as a tactical measure has become a permanency. Militarism, even trigger-happiness at times, has come to stay. A flag-wagging mentality, convinced that one Israeli is worth any three Arabs, is easier to pound out of the propaganda machine than the former subtle distinctions between reactionary Arab rulers and misguided soldiers who were but pawns in the game. Strikers have learnt that Jewish truncheons wielded by Jewish policemen feel just as unpleasant. They even have a Jewish problem in Israel, what with pietists who deny the authority of a man-made Jewish state which profanes the language of the Bible by every day usage, and the religious discrimination against Indian Jews as regards marriage rights.

(3) Communal Farms

For the Zionist who had ideals, the bitterest pill of all is the changing rôle of the Kibbutz. The pioneers regarded these communal farms, this utopian Socialism of a kind, as the pattern of the future nation. Just as the American “wild- west” was penetrated and peopled in the first instance by dissenting communities of one kind or another; just as they imagined they were building Christianity or Communism all by themselves, so the Kibbutznik has extended and strengthened the national horizon to see, on arrival, the growth of a way of life the very antithesis of all that he stood for. Who but ascetics or visionaries could have built a city at Salt Lake or planted a forest in the Negev? Yet they pave the way for class divided capitalism of one kind or another.

If the heirs to the mighty Russian Revolution were to be forced by the exigencies of their historic and economic situation along paths not of their choosing, how much less realistic were the hopes of those who saw in a “national home" an end to struggle and to strife? Israel’s international position, a tiny state among the giants, illustrates their dilemma. What Jew would have believed thirteen years ago that Israel-made machine guns would be used by the German Army? Did the Zionist, on the morrow of statehood, think it possible that his country’s subsequent dependence upon French aid and arms would make him victim of the same moral degeneration which France itself has suffered under the weight of iniquity in Algeria? Which of their Labourites could have foretold an alliance with the British Tory Government over Suez?

(4) The Eichmann Trial

And now in this year of reckoning, year thirteen, Eichmann, demoniac scourge of the Jews stands, as Torquemada never did, in the dock at Jerusalem before the judges of Israel. Underlying the whole structure of bourgeois law is the maxim that “might is right.” But if we were to accept its claim to dispense a timeless “justice” to all men it would be hard to deny the monumental appropriateness of the exterminator’s trial before his surviving victims. However, we Socialists spread throughout the world as we are, hold that for justice to be done the entire social system would have to stand trial and be found guilty. But what can we say of Capitalist morality which sanctifies the annihilation of Hiroshima or approves the crushing of Budapest but heaps all wrath on the head of one of its creations? Courts of law are not competent to judge the barbarity of our present social system. They are there to condemn those who lose the struggles that go on within it. Then all sense of common guilt, all sense of common responsibility that weighs so heavy on the conscience of man in Capitalist society, can be relievingly focused on some now helpless perversion of a man.

As to the why and wherefore of this latest show-piece of the prevailing quality of moral standards, we strongly suspect an element of political manoeuvre. Ben-Gurion faces other contenders for power as the recent “Lavon Affair’’ showed. With French backing he was able to take up an intransigent attitude towards his enemies. Despite General de Gaulle’s assurances to the contrary at their recent meeting, once France has made peace with Algeria her enthusiasm for Israel is likely to wane. Friendship with an oil producing Arab Algeria will have far greater rewards to offer. With diplomatic relations re-established with Nasser, Israel cannot expect supplies of arms from Britain. Nor does Kennedy have the slightest intention of jeopardising the interests of the class he represents for the sake of Israel, however much it grieves the New York Jewish voters. His aim is to woo the “uncommitted” nations, most of which side with the Arabs.

An increasing fear of military isolation in a situation where Russian training and arms have immensely strengthened the Arab armies has resulted in pressure from some Israeli quarters for some sort of compromise with the Arabs. If Ben-Gurion, by staging a show-trial which by its ghoulish racital of the most hideous details of Nazi crime, can raise a wave of nationalistic frenzy, he will ride it to victory at the polls.

The evidence is with us. Zionism has failed to achieve its objectives. Inevitably so. So long as there are Jewish workers attached in any numbers to the divisive and anti-working-class national idea, so long as their (and our) Arab brothers believe likewise, so long will strife ensue, so long will their respective ruling classes remain in the seat of power. The Jewish problem remains with us. It is an Iaspect of the working-class problem which has no solution outside of world-wide Socialism.

Eddie Grant

A Letter from Weymouth (1961)

Party News from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

I am managing to get out quite a bit of propaganda. I emphasised this to the local comrades along with the suggestion that we get together and have a concerted bash at all West Country papers.

My greatest joy was in finding that the local people are not as behind as people in a place like London might think. They are absolutely caught up in the whole tempo of Capitalism. Their moans and groans have exactly the same ring as the workers anywhere.

I am, as you know, here on my own and I am managing perfectly well to carry out as much party activity as could be expected from any one member, no matter how staunch he may be. We have got to start emphasising this to other members strewn all over the place who feel they are living in political isolation. I would like to see a reminder go out to all of them, saying that there isn't anything preventing them from writing in the Socialist Standard, selling the S.S., distributing propaganda leaflets, or seeking openings in the correspondence columns of their local papers.

I can appreciate the fact that Socialists will endeavour to speak to people about our case. This just isn’t sufficient! We must be busy in more ways than one if we expect to impress and forge ahead. When I approach anybody or any organisation I do not feel lonesome; I act and speak just as if we had a branch, nay, just as if the whole machinery of Socialist organisation was down here beside me. After all, what is a 100 or a 1,000 miles these days, I ask you?

I’ve written a couple of letters to both Weymouth's local papers. One is still being considered by the editor of the Dorset Evening Echo, whilst the other has been published by the Southern Times.

The next move, if it comes off, will be meetings on the beach. The corporation will let me know after their committee meeting on July 15th.

Joe McGuinness

The Shankill Campaign (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 13th June, 1961, Belfast Branch nominated Comrade W. Skelton to contest a municipal by-election in the Shankill Ward of Belfast. Shankill is a very safe Unionist (Govt.) Party seat, but we also expected candidates from the Labour Party (which organisation has put in a lot of the usual “ward-healing” work in the area and contested the seat many times) and the Ulster Protestant Action. A Labour nominee did call at the City Hall and collect Polling Registers where he learnt of our definite intention to contest the ward; the fact that on Nomination Day candidates from the Unionist Party and the W.S.P. only were nominated would seem to indicate that our presence dulled the fervour of the Labourites.

Faced with a straight fight with the Unionists we had to make doubly certain that our propaganda in the ward was as far-flung as possible in order to ensure that we did not get the usual Labour and anti-Government vote. In spite of the fact that our opponent (a certain William Christie, owner of a well-known local chain of wallpaper stores) stated that he would hold no public meetings but would conduct a campaign with the assistance of a large team of door-to-door canvassers we decided on a full programme of public meetings.

Christie did indeed use a large number of canvassers and several loud-speaker-bearing vehicles to tour the ward nightly: everywhere the message was the same: “A Communist has dared to stand in this loyal ward of Shankill—give them their answer!” Such a message in such an area created difficulties for the reception of our case but, as well, to anyone knowing Shankill and the “answer" usually forthcoming from there, it seemed a direct appeal to violence. We challenged Christie to repudiate these statements or meet us in debate before the electorate and present his evidence of our “communism” but true to the role of cowardly master of a cowardly campaign lie answered us with silence.

Night after night during the campaign eighty per cent of our membership turned up to support the meetings and, when these concluded, give out election Statements. Nearly ten thousand Statements, plus five thousand leaflets, were given out in this way and in addition to this large posters were pasted on walls in the ward. Mostly 2 or 3 a.m. was “quitting time” and towards the end a few hardy members had a couple of all-night sessions. As in our last campaign, from which we had scarce recovered, the great majority of our comrades worked splendidly.

Polling day was a dull affair for us. We were unwilling and unable to “man the polling booths” and we contented ourselves sitting convenient to a few of the larger ones suitably identified, in the hope that some people would want to discuss with us. Very few people came on foot to vote and though many did vote for us it is unlikely that they would have run the risk of publicly identifying themselves with us—in view of the considerable show of numbers the Unionists had on duty around their expensively hired caravan Tally rooms at the different polling booths. The Socialist voter living in an area like Shankill has to be very discreet indeed! Between eighty and one hundred cars were in service by the Unionists and bands of women workers plied the streets in the ward trying to keep those cars occupied. In spite of this, however, most of the cars sat for very lengthy periods and often when active it was to convey a single voter. Obviously, in their traditional stronghold, the Unionists were having difficulty in achieving what they cynically refer to as “pulling them out.”

With polling over we went to the City Hall for the count. Each candidate had a ticket to attend and a further seven tickets was available to each for the purpose of providing scrutineers. As our candidate was working that evening (at this stage the “count” does not justify loss of earnings—even if the work to that end does!) we had only seven present. The Unionists, on the other hand, must have had several hundred present—by virtue, apparently, of being “visitors” of other Aldermen and councillors, and these conformed with the usual standards of a Unionist mob—mean and vicious, very stupid, and very, very noisy.

When the Returning Officer announced the result, Christie 3,800, Skelton 454 (“the Socialist candidate forfeits his deposit”) Christie arose to the howling of the mob but contented himself with thanking the R.O. and staff and claiming that the result “speaks for itself.” The mob then began to shout “Where’s Skelton?” and it was pretty obvious that they were not bent on sympathy. This cry changed to “God save the Queen,” sung lustily, and at this we began the business of leaving with all the speedy dignity we could in the circumstances command.

Looking back at the result we are encouraged. Unlike Duncairn each voter had only one vote; the Catholics in the ward did not vote at all, the few “commies” in the area would be naturally hostile and Labourites deliberately abstained or. in some instances, adopted our method of marking their ballot paper (thus: N.l. Labour).

Certainly it is pleasing to think that our existence as a Party caused the Unionists to bring out their Party machine and spend anything from £700 to £800 (in a local government election) to keep Socialism out of a ward they could truly claim to “own.” As a result of our campaign we have become very widely known as a political party and this must augur well for the future—even if it creates precedents which necessitate the establishment of an election fund and the promise of much hard work to come!

Richard Montague.

General Secretary.

News From Wales (1961)

From the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The principality continues to provide events and talking points for that section of its people (alas, still the great majority) who see no further than the day to day controversies of those personalities and organisations whose business is to carry out the function of maintaining capitalism. The unimportance and—in some cases—the absurdities associated with the comings and goings of the various individuals who make up our Council Chambers can only be appreciated by the Socialists among us who are still much too few to have an effective voice in affairs.

Pride of place must be accorded to the local elections. The usual candidates representing the usual parties, with one or two exceptions, took the field. Labour managed to attract a good deal of support especially in industrial areas though, in rural areas mainly, the Independent and Welsh Nationalists got a fair number of votes. In the Llanelly area the Welsh Nationalist candidate made great play in his election address on the question of local rates and “abuse” of public funds. The Swansea branch SPGB made a fairly detailed statement on the question of the effect of bigger or smaller rates and tax demands and challenged the participating candidates to show how the raising or lowering of rates and taxes, etc., in any way affected the working class. The challenge was met with a blank silence.

Another point of discussion has been well aired recently, namely, the question of Sunday Opening. Despite the virulent attacks of various religious organizations, the position appears to be well on its way to a final solution—the possibilities being that in the none too distant future one will be able to have a pint of one's favourite on a Sunday. Socialists again see this question in its true perspective and only point out that the “new freedom” when it comes may be such that pub managers and servers, etc., may have to forego a day off. Naturally such workers may be prepared, like so many more, to sacrifice more and more leisure for more and more money in order to catch up with more and more living costs.

The Report of the Committee on the Re-distribution of Boundaries, etc., has created quite a stir. Roughly, the Welsh Counties are to be amalgamated to form five large counties which will presumably cut down costs in administration, Glamorgan being the exception. This again is an example of fiddling with trivialities.

What has concerned many of the steel and tin-plate workers of the Swansea and Llanelly areas recently was the “Lock-Out" that took place at two of the Steel Co.’s of Wales strip mills. Briefly, sales in tinplate have been falling off, with increases in stocks as a result. This forced the Company to reduce the working hours with a resultant loss in wages for the workers. . The workers' reply to this has been to operate a “go slow” policy which resulted in the Company closing the factory gates. Now, however, the workers, through their Unions, have informed the Company that “We are prepared to work immediately they call us in.” It should be perfectly plain to the workers now that not being owners of the means of production, they have no right to work or be on the premises unless they are wanted. The law, of course, would, if necessary, have fully supported the Company.

We were also to have been treated to a visit from “God Incorporated,” the Billy Graham menagerie. Billy, it seems, was taken ill, but the meeting took place despite this and attracted over 30,000 delirious hymn-singing workers. Some scenes bordered on fanaticism. It may be significant to note, lest one becomes too despairing over the scene of 30,000 workers chanting for “pie in the sky” while the Steel Company locks them out, that a report in the Western Mail points out that more and more churches in South Wales are closing down and that there is a shortage of young blood entering the Ministry.

Perhaps we shall be in a position to report in a short while on the German Panzer troops in Pembrokeshire. In the meantime, the invasion has not yet been fully arranged. When it has been then the Welsh contingent of the Polaris army at Holy Loch and elsewhere can “fight” nearer home. As for Socialists in Wales, we try to reach the brains of our fellow workers with all the means at our disposal.

W. Brain