Cuttings and comments. (1905)

From the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Every man born on the soil of England had a right to claim work.” Thus the Lord Bishop of Ripon. But who disputes the right to claim ? Certainly not the Bishop’s friends of the capitalist-class. Why indeed should they ? The more men claiming the keener the competition and the lower the wages. Now if every man born on the soil of England put in a claim for the whole product of his toil and refused to allow the capitalist to non-suit the claim, there might, it is true, still be unemployment, but only because the worker would not require to work so hard nor so often. And as he would receive all the wealth he produced, there would be none left for my Lord Bishop, who would perforce have to work himself.

—o—

William Sotting, aged 74, shot himself, having been forced to the conclusion that “Old men are like old dogs, and ought to be shot when they are past work.” According to the dictum of American capitalism, when a man reaches the age of 40 he should be taken out and shot as useless for further profit-making. Here is a case in which the views of exploiter and exploited coincide. Ergo, there is no class war as Keir Hardie would say!

—o—

Referring to certain Trade Union amendments which he had heard were to be moved to the Government “Unemployed” Bill—that unqualified absurdity in which the S.D.F. have claimed their influence is apparent—the writer of the labour column in the Echo says: “It seems to be quite certain that Mr. Balfour will consent to none of these amendments, and, what is more, a Liberal Government would not assent to them either.” As the attitude of both Liberal and Tory Governments towards labour is the same, the Echo writer has doubtless spoken truly, although in speaking truly he is not following the precedent set by other Liberal scribes whose business it is to induce Trade Unionists to lend their support to Liberalism, on the ground that Liberalism is infinitely better than Toryism. If he gives the game away so inartistically, the Echo writer we fear, will not for long remain unacquainted with the order of the sack.

—o—

Mr. William Crooks, M.P., L.C.C, has been talking again, this time to a World interviewer. “There is no snobbish or social distinction when once you get inside the House of Commons” he says; only “wonderful and splendid kindness” for Labour members apparently. He did not add “so long as they do as their capitalist fellow members want them to do,”—the addendum necessary to make the statement entirely true.

—o—

Mr. Crooks also has a remedy for the overpopulation of cities and the misery resulting from unemployment. He unburdened himself of it to the World man thus :

“It is to be found on the land, the mother of us all. You go through England and see what vast stretches of beautiful and uncultivated soil there are. Why don’t some of these wealthy landowners say : ‘Hang it all, I will give up some acres or so to these poor under-fed devils, shove up some tin houses and train them in agriculture’ ? They are no good at first. They hardly know the difference between a brick and a lump of clay. But they can learn, and they can quickly pick up their strength, and turn into good farm labourers, worth their 2s. 6d. a day in England and their 6s. 6d. a day in Canada. The experiment has been tried on a small scale and has proved successful. But we leave it to the hobby of an American philanthropist, and our own wealthy classes won’t lend a hand.”

This “remedy,” though couched in unpolished and homely phraseology, hath an ancient and fishlike smell. We seem to have heard of the “shove ’em back on the land” cure, as Mr. Crooks would say, before. It is much the same as the reafforestation (or firewood manufacture) cure favoured by other ”Labour Leaders,” and pre-supposes capitalist production without a large army of unemployed. Which, as the youngest of economic fledglings would be able to show, is ridiculous. Mr. Crooks should read more and talk less.

—o—

” A Rose by any other name—

“A woman applied to Mr. Rose at the Tower Bridge Police Court for a pair of boots for her young daughter from the funds of the poor box. In refusing the application, Mr. Rose said he was averse to giving boots in the summer because he did not consider them as a necessity. Children could go to school without boots, especially this weather, or with canvas shoes, which could be bought for a shilling, or slippers.”

—o—

Mr. Rose is no doubt a most worthy person, and has spoken according to his lights. If his lights are not very bright or his sympathy with working-class want not over strong, the fault is not his. The brutality of his indifference simply reflects the training he has received, the atmosphere he has moved in from his youth up. It is a not unusual expression of the callous cult of capitalism.

—o—

Mr. Rose is not to blame, but his reply to the woman asking for boots is strongly reminiscent of the reply of Foullon, of unsavory memory, of whom it is recorded that, in the days which preceded the French Revolution, he replied to the people who cried aloud for bread that they should eat grass. Foulon was the product his time and was not to blame. But his latter end found Foullon hanging from a lamp-post his mouth stuffed full of his grass.

—o—

Philosophic dissertations upon individual responsibility—or lack of it—have no great weight with the ill-educated striking against oppressive conditions. They personify the causes of their misery, and the persons selected are generally those who have been most brutally indifferent to the unhappiness of their position, or who have in some other manner been associated with the maintenance of the system spelling oppression : at these they strike.

—o—

We do not pretend to view this method of striking with favour. We are in existence as a political party in order to educate the working-class so that they may strike effectively at the ballot box without having recourse to the lamppost. The lamp-post has had its day. But the representative of capitalism who speaks as Mr. Rose has spoken, is none the less in a dangerous position, because he emphasizes the existence of the gulf which yawns between his class and the oppressed and poverty-stricken working-class, and so helps to prepare the material out of which the Socialist Party will fashion the weapon that shall presently sweep capitalism out of existence altogether—the weapon of a class-conscious, well organised, working class. Mr. Rose is therefore in the dangerous position of contributing to the destruction of the form of society upon which his position depends.

A. J. M. Gray

Finance and Industry: Back to the land (1962)

The Finance and Industry Column from the April 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Back to the land

Last month new information was published about small farms and holdings that is of interest because it recalls the puny results of laws that took years of hard campaigning by social reformers to put on the Statute Book.

Whenever the normal developments of capitalism produce new evils, the cry will go up for a law to be passed to stop, whatever it is that is happening. But the optimists who put their trust in this procedure should remember that if there are strong economic forces, and prospects of profit, behind the new development it will persist. The restraining laws will be evaded, defied, amended or allowed to be forgotten.

Back in the 1880's politicians and reformers were alarmed at the mass exodus of farm workers and farmers looking for a new life in America, Canada, South Africa and Australia, because they could not survive the competition of cheap food from some of these countries that was undermining British and Continental agriculture. So the reformers campaigned for legislation to promote a back-to-the-land movement, and the Conservative “radicals," Chamberlain and Jesse Collings, got Acts passed to create a new peasantry, under Codings' slogan, “Three acres and a cow.” It fitted in with their general philosophy of helping the “little man" against the big landowners and big combines, in agriculture and in industry. But capitalism just marched over them.

At that time there were in this country a million agricultural workers; by 1948 it was down to 890,000. In spite of laws and lavish government aid to farming it has fallen to 750,000 in 1951 and now to 600,000; so, too, with the small holders. The first enthusiasm for a new peasantry was trimmed to a more modest plan, after the first world war, to put ex-servicemen on the land as chicken farmers and fruit and vegetable growers. Later on in 1934 came the Land Settlement Association to put some of the unemployed into small holdings. Now the Association reports that its smallholders are doing quite well, but there are only 699 of them, and to get on the vacancy list you need five years agricultural experience and £500.

Two experts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Dr. Ashton and Mr. Cracknell, have been examining the statistics of land holdings. The official figures for England and Wales show about 370,000 holdings above 1 acre with an average holding of 70 acres. But their inquiries bring additional information. They find that 30,000 of the holdings are occupied by individuals who have two, three or more holdings, and that about half of the total (180,000) “are not strictly speaking farms at all,” but are occupied by people doing other jobs or who have retired from other occupations and have other sources of income. (Financial Times, 2/3/62.)

The fact is that agriculture, like industry, is more and more falling into the hands of individuals and companies who can afford to put up the increasing amounts of capital required to run them efficiently and with up-to-date machinery and methods. Government aid to farmers, costing £200 million to £300 million a year, may slow the trend of capitalism but can neither reverse it nor halt it.

And as a postscript, Mr. R. H. Turton, M.P., maintains that if Britain enters the Common Market, the Common Market policy of combining small farms into more efficient big ones will have the result that “more than 115,000 small farmers will be squeezed off the land in this country.” (Daily Mail, 6/3/62.)


Shadow over Steel

To the gloom over motor car prospects come worries over the future for steel.

1962 seems pretty certain to be a poor year and 1963 is hardly more promising with European competition likely to be making itself really felt. The Chairman of United Steel says that there is likely to be a surplus of capacity for some time to come, and the Chairman of Dorman Long talks about the present low order books in structural engineering being “ominous.”

British manufacturers have been pouring vast quantities of capital into the industry, but some European countries have been modernising their plant even faster. They also seem to have been sharper at accepting the fact that in modern steelmaking conditions the plant must be sited on the coast so as to get the cheapest processing of imported ore.

The American industry has, of course, been working well below capacity for several years and business still shows no real sign of picking up. The Europeans, are also feeling the pinch and German production actually dropped last year. Even in France, where modernisation has been going on at a hectic rate, production in 1961 was only a few thousand tons above 1960.

There are anxious days ahead for all of them as competition inevitably begins to get fiercer. We may be hearing of some of the weaker ones going to the wall before long.


Liberals

A Liberal Party leaflet, Where Does the Money Go? dealing with the Cost of Living, promises that if the electors put in a Liberal Government, they could watch prices fall—unlike the years of Labour and Conservative governments with prices going up.

There were Liberal governments continuously from 1905 to 1915, with prices steadily rising. They rose about 11 per cent. up to 1914 when the War broke out and another 25 per cent. before Asquith handed over to another Liberal, Lloyd George, who headed a coalition. Before Lloyd George went out of office the price level was three limes what it had been in 1905.


Where there's Smoke

In a recent editorial discussing the recent spate of mergers and take-over bids, we mentioned that these were going on everywhere and that there were probably more big surprises in store.

The Common Market has in fact just been considerably shaken about rumour of a big motor deal between Michelin Citroen and Fiat. Under this deal it is reported that Michelin, the French tyre manufacturers, would sell their present controlling interest in Citroen to the Italian Fiat company so as to develop what is alleged to be a breakthrough they have made in synthetic rubber. Such a merger would make the new company the third largest motor car manufacturer in the world behind General Motors and Ford.

As is usually the case, the rumours have been promptly denied by all the parties concerned and there are in fact quite a few practical difficulties in the way of such a huge merger. But in spite of all the denials there is obviously something going on behind the scenes which might end up in trouble for other makers both cars and tyres.

We can remember some big Continental manufacturer (we think it was the Chairman of Renault) saying that it would not be very long before there were only three car manufacturers in Europe. He was taking a pretty long shot, but who knows that he might not turn out to be right?

One thing is certain in capitalism. The big get bigger — and the small get swallowed up.


Food and Farming

The best joke of the month must surely be, not what Kennedy and Kruschev said when they met, but what they were saying about food and farming in their own separate capitalist countries. While Kruschev was storming about low productivity and the urgent need to step up the production of foodstuffs, Kennedy’s administration was planning to reduce American farm surpluses. According to Kruschev everything would be well in Russia if the peasants would produce more, but in America Kennedy was trying to grapple with the disaster that too much production brings. As the Financial Times had it: “The basic problem about the American farmer is that he is too productive.” (Financial Times, 1/2/62.)

If Kruschev has troubles now, what bigger ones he will have when Russian peasants catch up with American productivity.


Printing of Bank Notes

When Lord Dalton died the Daily Mail said he had been a disaster because, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he went in for “the printing of paper, and other inflationary measures’” (Daily Mail, 14/2/62).

As far as increasing the Note issue is concerned, Dalton as Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible while in office. But his score was only £169 million, so what prevented the Mail from recalling other much higher scores? Butler's £400 million and Heathcote Amory's £250 million, and a total of £1,000 million since the Tories came to office in 1951?

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialism? (1908)

Book Review from the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism and  Agriculture by  Richard Higgs. I.L.P., 1d.

The title of this pamphlet is a mere catchpenny. The only heading it merits is that of "Capitalism and Agriculture," for the author's idea of Socialism is purely that of capitalist collective enterprise. The first word in the title might therefore with advantage be obliterated, for the discussion of wages, of present municipal farms, and of other aspects of capitalism is not the discussion of the relation of Socialism to agriculture, which, indeed, the author does not deal with at all. This is typical of the I.L.P. and of its publications; and its writers and speakers would be better employed in studying Socialism rather than giving that title to a certain phase of capitalism.

The author says "The Farming land is the key to the problem of poverty," and that when a considerable portion of farming land comes under the control of the people" a living wage will be paid ; a regular supply of skilled labour will be available at all seasons and a six days week and the eight hour day will become possible." This is the author's idea of Socialism. It is nothing but the old middle-class cry of "back to the land." At present it is the first duty of a Socialist to make Socialists, and that requires a knowledge that is lacking in the author of the present pamphlet and by the organisation that has published it.

B.

Smart. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class struggle having been satisfactorily disposed of by Messrs. Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier who have now proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the interests of the capitalist-class and the working-class are (more or less) identical and cannot by any chance breed conflict (except now and again), Mr. Russell Smart also of the I.L.P., not to be outdone, rushes into print to show how very easy of solution the unemployed problem really is when tackled by a member of the "practical" school of political economy. All that is required is to round up the existing unemployed and put them back to work on the land. As the machine in the factory turns out more, put them, back on the land also. When they have acquired that degree of efficiency necessary to enable them to enter into effective competition with the established agricultural worker, then take the men displaced and put them back on the land! Put. 'em all back! and then the problem will be solved and everybody will have work, and there shall be no more sighing and all tears shall be wiped away ! It is all so simple that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not make a mistake. No wonder Russell Smart raises an indignant voice of protest against the absurdity of the contention of illogical, irresponsible, not to say ill-informed Socialists who with purblind fatuity hold that nothing short of Socialism will dispose of the problem adequately and finally. They are bringing discredit upon the movement. They have forgotten "the land." They talk as if the capitalist system were based upon profit; as if profits were affected by the existence or otherwise of a surplus of labour on the market; as if the elimination of competition for work would mean the diminution, of profit; whereas it is well known that the very reverse is the case. It is well known that the capitalist system is not concerned with profit; that if it were the profit has no relation to the amount of competition for work; that as a matter of actual fact if the demand for labour were greater than the available supply—if, for example, there were 2 jobs for every one man—if the profits were affected at all they would he greater for the simple reason that worker, seeing the difficulty of the capitalist to get the work covered ; knowing that if the work was not done there could be no return on the capital, which would mean that the capitalist would commence to consume his reserve of wealth and would presently be entirely without means; knowing further that Capital and Labour are brothers (vide Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier): knowing all this the worker would, for the good of trade, the glory of the flag, and the honour of the empire, gladly enough do the work of two men for the price of one (or one and a half), finding sufficient happiness in the unwonted possession of plenty of work to recompense him for all the extra expenditure of energy involved.

Obviously, therefore, the extremists who hold that unemployment is inevitable under capitalism are quite out of court in the eyes of all practical and fair-minded men. Luckily, they (the extremists, not the practical and fair-minded) are but few, otherwise it would be necessary to take steps to combat their imbecile heresies.

A. J. M. Gray

Editorial: Camping Out (1906)

Editorial from the September 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been popular with a section of the unemployed this summer to try the simple life by camping out on vacant land, and, though the rôle of leaders of fashion goes oddly with the desperate efforts of the unemployed to avoid starvation, who knows but that their action may have some connection with the fact that (according to a contemporary) “Society”—another section of the unemployed—is going into camp next summer, and would this year were not the season so far advanced ? However that may be, it is certain that the unfortunate unemployed have had more serious business in hand, for, in addition to calling public attention to their existence and exciting the sympathy of the charitably disposed, they have been led to believe that it was only necessary to tickle the surface of the land to bring forth abundance. Unfortunately for them, eviction has followed eviction, and the sickly lettuce and despondent cabbage have been left to their fate as camp after camp has “fizzled out.”

It has been said that, although the camps have not been of long duration, nevertheless they have achieved their purpose of calling the attention of the public to the problem which awaits solution. We would point out that whatever truth or worth there may be in this is entirely discounted by the fact that these camps of unemployed call into notice at the same time a manner of dealing with unemployment that is utterly futile and indeed even harmful to the workers themselves. To seize upon land which has been left waste (precisely because it does not under present conditions pay for cultivation) and to endeavour with unskilled labour and without the machinery and stock which are essential to success, to inaugurate a “back to the land” crusade by precept and practice, is surely the height of folly. Even without the interference of the powers that be the camps could not possibly have lived.

It is, perhaps, a pity that the camps were not allowed to die a natural death, so that the “back to the land” pill for the disease of unemployment may have been used by the unemployed on such a scale that even its pseudo-Socialist advocates were forced to recognise that the only remedy for the unemployed evil is the abolition of capitalism.