The Passing Show: Young—in a hurry—going nowhere (1964)

The Passing Show Column from the May 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Young—in a hurry—going nowhere

Old age is no criterion of wisdom. Neither is youth. This point at least is worth noting from the fourth national conference of The Young Socialists—a misnomer to start with—the Labour Party's second offspring, and somewhat more bad tempered and difficult to bring up than the old League of Youth ever was.

Held appropriately enough at the Corn Exchange, Brighton, over the Easter weekend, the conference had before it an agenda of no less than one hundred and sixty-six resolutions and forty-five amendments. The subjects ranged far and wide, from a plea to change the parent party's name to “The Social Democratic Party'’ to attract middle class support (Resn. 9), to a demand that May Day be legislated a public holiday by the next Labour government (Resn. 166).

If we are to judge by the press reports it was a stormy conference indeed, with Mrs. Braddock at one stage pitting her mighty lungs against jeers from the floor. The results of the voting on all the resolutions is neither here nor there; the agenda itself is fitting evidence of the hotchpotch of confusion which the Labour Party has sired in its young. “Let us nationalize the arms industry," is the plea from a number of branches—cold comfort to the poor devil whose life is ended by a government-made bullet instead of one made in a private arms factory (under government contract). And of course, we are treated to the usual stuff about support for U.N.O. and world government, both of them conspicuous non-starters from the word “go!"

Nationalize banks, building societies, land, basic industries; don’t go to Spain for your holidays (your tourist revenue helps bolster the Franco oppression, they say); review the penal system; abolish capital punishment, blood sports, the Monarchy, House of Lords, and smoking in public places. The list is formidable as these boys and girls lay about them with misguided ferocity. Just about everything comes under the hammer—everything except the Capitalist system, the thing which really matters. According to press reports, the Trotskyist element was prominent at the conference, and the only result of their efforts at “boring from within’’ has been the addition of their own ignorance and confusion to that already existing.

Futility of the Welfare State

Socialists were never impressed by the extravagant claims made for the ideas of the Welfare State by the various parties in 1945. By then, we had already issued a couple of pamphlets analysing the Beveridge plan and the proposals for family allowances, and we said that they would make no essential difference to the workers' position as the exploited section of the population. Because of this, we felt sure that the worry and insecurity that is life for most of us, would continue. Social security was in fact a gigantic misnomer.

Nineteen years and almost five elections later, we still see no need to alter our claim. The Labour Government’s measures were pushed quickly through parliament and have been the basic structure on which later governments have worked. Yet here was deputy Labour leader George Brown telling us, in a radio broadcast on April 7th, of the insufficiency of hospitals and other vital things (he blamed the Tories of course), The plight of the old age pensioners has been a scandal for years, and the housing problem weighs as oppressively as ever on workers. The welfare state has not—could not—change the basic poverty position of the working class, although this would perhaps, be contested by the superficial observer.

He would point proudly to the four million new houses, forgetting that old ones are decaying faster than they can be replaced. He mentions the millions of car users, disregarding the enormity of the traffic problem and the fact that for many workers cars are more of a necessity than a luxury. He might agree with Conservative assurances of how well-off we all are, but then he could not surely have read the Gallup Poll results (Sunday Telegraph 5/4/64), which estimated that nearly |our million workers do spare time jobs and another five millions would like the chance.

The antics of the modern teenager hurt and bewilder him; he is disturbed by the Clacton punch-ups, but cannot see that violence is a commonplace of capitalism, and that other countries have the same problem. And that anyway teenage fights are symptomatic of the dreary unfulfilling life which the welfare state has not altered. Drug taking is another aspect and that has increased alarmingly among youngsters to recent years.

Multiply, then, our superficial observer by many millions and you have the reason for the continuation of the swindle of the welfare state, in fact the whole of capitalism.

Eddie Critchfield

Blogger's Note:

See also 'Labour's young lions' (May 1964, Socialist Standard.)

Is the gap between rich and poor narrowing? (1946)

From the April 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “But what is necessary is a very great reduction in our present economic equalities.
  “This implies that, while the average level of wellbeing must be greatly raised, the rich shall become poorer and the poor richer.
  “The span of individual incomes in this country runs from well over £50,000 a year to much less than £1 a week, a ratio of much more than one thousand to one. This is grotesquely wide.”

(“Practical Socialism for Britain,” Hugh Dalton, pp. 319.)

Is the gap between rich and poor narrowing?

This is the monotonous theme of both Conservative and Labour propaganda—and Liberals as well. In fact, all reformists—busy reforming capitalism—keep telling the workers how much good their reforms have done.

The Conservatives have published “How Conservatives Have Helped the British People,” listing 94 pages of Acts passed by the Conservatives, showing “that the bulk of the social and industrial legislation for the benefit of the people since the beginning of the nineteenth century has been passed by Conservatives.”

Pamphlets like “Labour on the March,” by the late Geo. Ridley, start by describing the appalling conditions of the last century and proceed to enumerate the Bills introduced by the Labour Party as the reason for the “great” improvements.

  “What I have so far written has been an attempt to show that the great social changes in the last forty or fifty years have been due to the growing powers of Labour in every sphere of its activity . . .
  “Up to 1906 the Statute Book, was almost barren of social legislation . . .
  “Then there came a most perceptible change. Labour was on the march. . . .
  “Great changes have resulted—in all directions. The young, the aged, the unemployed have all greatly benefited by these changes. . . .
  “These changes, however, have done no more than relieve the worst evils of our social and economic system.”
(“Labour on the March,” by G. Ridley, M.P., Published by Labour Party. Pages 10 and 11.) 

Quite apart from every working-man’s own personal knowledge an array of facts refute the claim that the social position of the working class is being “improved.”

  “The total value of property in Great Britain has been estimated by Mr. H. Campion to be about 13,090 millions in 1911-13, 24,570 millions in 1926-28, and 25,560 millions in 1932-34. About 90 per cent. of it was privately owned.”
("Facts for Socialists,” Fabian Society, p. 18.) 

“Eighty per cent. of the private property of the country is owned by 7 per cent. of the population.” Sir William Beveridge. 

Further, the Economist of December 30th, 1944 (requoted in The Socialist Standard of July, 1945), showed Mr. Campion’s estimates proved that
  “The problem of the rich and the poor, the inequalities of wealth have not been eliminated. . . .

  “These estimates show that whatever levelling up at the bottom may have taken place and however the relative share of the middle class may have increased, the property structure of society has not altered fundamentally.”

The Economist also very soundly pointed out the futility of comparing incomparables, which is what reformist propaganda does.

  “Indeed, to draw any detailed comparison between conditions in 1844 and 1944 would be a 'waste of time’ . . . People lived and worked under primitive and barbarous conditions, herded together like cattle in their tenements; they were illiterate, half-starved, filthy and diseased. The only relaxations were liquor, horse-play and sex. Typhus and the yellow fever spread through the infested dwellings, but the toll of life was no matter because workers were plentiful and cheap,”
(Economist, 30th December, 1944.) 

The abolition of these conditions is, even in the absence of an organised political Labour Party, the normal process of developing capitalism. It has nothing whatever to do with Socialism—and does not lead to it.

Many competent employers have introduced Welfare Schemes, free Medical and Dental Treatment, thrift Schemes and educational courses, entirely on their own initiative.

Modern employers do not want drunken lecherous hooligans, they are inefficient and unprofitable.

“Social legislation” is really for the maintenance of the supply of efficient, healthy value-producers.

Every “improvement” in the position of the wage-earner, as wage-earner, merely makes him a better producer of surplus value—and therefore more profitable.

This is all that the Labour Government’s elaborate nationalisation schemes will do, resulting eventually in greater unemployment and “miserable poverty” than ever.

Some indication of the vast “improvement” in the position of the workers as a result of both Tory and Labour social legislation is provided by the “evidence” advanced by these parties in their propaganda.

Thus the Tories, in “Forty Years of Progress,” declare that:

  “As long ago as 1934 over 4,000 cinemas, each the product of the century, were providing seats for nearly four million people at round about the rate of one seat per night among every 12 persons. And the money freely circulating in dog racing, horse racing and the football pools, patronised in the main by those who rank as the poorest among us, indicates clearly the large amount of free money available in the country.” (pp. 8.)

While the Labour Party in Hampstead listed as one of its main election slogans in the recent Municipal Elections—the “Provision of a local Employment Exchange to avoid travelling and inconvenience for workers.” (As though one can be a worker without “inconvenience.” 1).

From all of which it appears that the worker intent on “improvements” without abolishing capitalism can vote Tory for “More and better dog tracks,” or Labour for “Bigger and Better Labour Exchanges.” Even a modern electronic microscope fails to reveal any real difference basically between Labour and Tory programmes.

Mr. David Stelling, in “Why I am a Conservative,” published officially by Conservative Headquarters (1945), says:

  “The Conservative approaches new problems—and today they are all new—with an open mind . . .
  “If nationalisation of a public service—or national control of an industry—appears to be the best course, he is prepared to adopt it.” (pp. 14.)

As time proceeds the normal course of the “Ins” and the “Outs” will operate, with Tories becoming more “concerned ”than ever about improvements for the workers to get votes, and Labour Ministers “rising to their ministerial responsibilities” to prove that it can’t be done—until they’re “out.”

No wonder Mrs. E. M. Braddock, now Labour M.P. for Exchange, Liverpool, declared at the 1944 Conference of the Labour Party that

  “I have been trying during the whole of this Conference to discover some difference between our policy and the policy of the Conservative Party. Every White Paper issued up to date has had the complete agreement of both sides and I cannot for the life of me understand how we are going to fight a General Election when we are in practically complete agreement with the Conservative Party.” (Conference Report, pp. 167.)

Socialism is not “making the rich poorer and the poor richer.” It is not reducing the gap between riches and poverty. It is the abolition of riches and therefore poverty. Unless this principle is first understood there can be no Socialism.

Horatio.

A Labour leader looks back (1964)

Book Review from the April 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Braddocks by Bessie Braddock, M.P., Macdonald, 30s.

When Labour achieved its landslide victory under Attlee in 1945, one of its leaders (Mr. Greenwood, father of the present "shadow cabinet" minister) made a speech to the jubilant crow of M.P.s at Westminster saying what a fine varied lot they were: barristers, solicitors, doctors, business men—as well as trade union leaders and the sons of toil. We do not recall that he said anything about noticing any Socialist among them; but no doubt this might be because it was taken for granted that they were all Socialists.

One thing, however, that it would be difficult for anyone to dispute about these hundreds of Labourites rubbing their eyes in surprise at finding themselves in the House of Commons is that they were as humdrum and anonymous a crowd of non-Socialists as you could find anywhere, and few of them made much of an impression in their new and elevated surroundings. Possibly it is because of this dull background that Bessie Braddock stood out so conspicuously.

This book is her life-story, intertwined with that of her husband Jack (who collapsed and died just after the book came out), and it is of some value in the picture it gives of working-class life on Merseyside and particularly of Labour and Communist activities there in the decades after the ending of the first war-to-end-war in 1918. The background is typical—poverty, strikes, police brutality—and set against that the typical reactions of the less apathetic workers like the Braddocks, trade union agitation, activity in the Communist and/or labour parties, cycling Sundays, reading Blatchford's Clarion and in general believing in fighting for as many reforms as possible, for as much of the "something now" as you could hope to get. They thought somehow that these things added up to Socialism and would change the face of society.

In the case of many of the Labour leaders who achieved a certain amount of eminence as a result of their political activities one tries in vain to resist the feeling that they were mainly interested less in the "something now" for the working class which they knew to be a futile chasing of your own tail than in "What's in it for me?" With both of the Braddocks one gets a feeling of honest effort misapplied. It is difficult to see how anyone could imagine that the policies of the Labour Party could have the slightest effect on the position of the workers as members of a property-less class forced to take their chance on the labour market. It remains true that most workers in 1945 (and no doubt just as many today) could not see things in the way a Socialist does. And from the evidence of this book the Braddocks qualified fully for the role of blind leaders of the blind. But at least they seemed to do so with more sincerity and less of the tongue-in-cheek attitude than some of their kind. The chapter by Bessie entitled "Surgery" seems to prove that.

Like so many Labour M.P.'s she fondly imagines that her regular "surgery" at which she would hear the special problems and complaints of her constituents were a meaningful exercise in keeping the sea of capitalism's problems from beating around working-class doors. No doubt she could help with free advice which could be of some use at times. But then this applies to "poor man's lawyers" (or even to the surgeries run by Tory M.P.'s). To anyone prepared to look a little below the surface the very name "surgery" should have been a warning of futility. For how often does it happen that a doctor will use his skill and his science in trying to cure his patients, knowing that they leave his surgery to go back to the very conditions that causes the illnesses—poor food, bad housing, the worry and neurosis caused by keeping up with the rent or the mortgage or the latest speed-up at the factory. But the Braddocks of this world seem to close their eyes to the real truths of our way of life.

Two matters of special interest in this book are worth the reader's notice. The first is to do with the fact that the Braddocks were at one time members of the Communist Party and leading members at that. Consequently they were in a good position to see how that party was used merely as a mouth-piece for Russian state-capitalism—with the communists, having got rid of the notions of patriotism which bedevil most workers, merely replacing them with what might well be the slogan "My Russia, right or wrong." A particularly illuminating item tells that in one period in the twenties (when the pound was real money) the income of the C.P. from contributions was £7,500, while the amount of funds received direct from Russia in the same eighteen months as no less than £85,000, a truly staggering sum for those days.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain (amongst others) often said that the CP was not a party that was supported entirely by working class contributions and that there must clearly be a Russian piper playing the time; there never was any other feasible explanation as to how such a small party could possibly afford the tremendous expense of running the Daily Worker.

The other point concerns Bessie's opinions about Bevan who, at least since his death, has become almost beatified even by his opponents in the Labour Party. She retells the story of the arrest and prosecution by the Labour Government of three dockers from Merseyside—for the crime of striking! Sir Hartley Shawcross was the Attorney-General who ordered the arrests and Mrs. Braddock alleges that Bevan engineered him into that action so as to discredit a rival candidate for the post of Foreign Secretary to the place of the ailing Ernie Bevin. Yet Bevan himself told Shawcross: "The strikers are on their knees; now is the tim to strike them." (P. 105).

Still, Bessie goes on being a Labour M.P. and by all appearances remains as blissfully unaware of the sheer ridiculousness of it all as the workers who vote for her. She remains a likeable character: if only she would think a little more deeply and then throw her weight into the scales on the side of Socialism.  

L. E. Weidberg