Entertainment and Profit (1962)

From the August 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Theatres, cinemas and football clubs have all recently felt the draught as their support and so their receipts fell. Pubs, Restaurants and Dance Halls have gone through the same agony. Where, they must have wondered, have all our supporters, patrons, clients, gone? Surely not all of them are televiewing?

One football club got so worked up about this recently that they took a census to find out the reason for their falling gates. They discovered some of their missing supporters in the strangest of places; in the local shopping centres, fetching and carrying for the wife. The wife, apparently, is at work all week and so she has to buy as much of the week’s food as she can in one go on Saturday afternoon. Who can blame her for cutting up rough if the old man wants to enjoy himself watching football while she has to push and shove her heavy laden way through the crowds? So no football, no dozing, no telly even for him.

Of course, there are any number of reasons offered for this. Some say that football, or the theatre, or what-have-you, are not what they used to be. Others say that they are not up to the standard of other countries (how unpatriotic!). And there are those who simply shrug and blame it all onto the telly.

These are at best the superficial reasons for changes in public tastes. To find the basic reason we must look at the motive for the birth and presentation of various types of entertainment. Today, we live in a Capitalist world in which all social endeavour in terms of research, invention, culture, service and work is carried on with the object of returning to the Capitalist more from his business than he puts into it. This is assured by the simple method of allowing the working class, who produce all the wealth, to receive only a part of it in their wages. But, sometimes, as we know, there is no profit in certain lines of business. One industry may be undermined by the development of a cheap substitute for its product. Another will fail because it cannot stand the pace of competition. So they decline, sometimes washed down with crocodile tears in the City columns.

The entertainment industry is no exception to this rule. It, too, must have, its profits—and it is often not too particular how it gets them. Jazz clubs, dance halls and coffee bars are not worried whether the working class teenagers who keep them going are missing their homework, or skipping evening classes, to do so. Publicans would rather see us drinking in their bars than attending a Political or Trade Union meeting, or a lecture on archaeology if it comes to that. And entertainment, with its various branches vying with each other for our custom, must keep producing the novel and alleged improvements to keep us interested.

Yet however interested we become, we can never avoid the fact that the biggest and best part of our day is spent in being exploited in the factory or the office to make huge fortunes for the lucky shareholders. This does not leave much time to enjoy our entertainment, however good or bad it may be.

Joe McGuinness

Mixing the drinks (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

CALIFORNIA, Saturday.—More than 124,000 gallons of beer have been pumped into the Pacific because a judge thought the brewery, involved in receivership proceedings, would not make profit if the beer was bottled.— Reuter. (From Evening Standard, 28/8/48.)

Cuttings and critiques. (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Mr. Ritzema, J.P., of Blackburn, recently delivered himself of a scheme to “Nationalise and suppress the Liquor Traffic.” So impressed is he with his scheme that he has had it printed, and the Socialist Standard has received a copy. Let me say at once that I also am impressed by the scheme—in spite of the fact that it was first launched upon a long-suffering public from Paradise Church, Blackburn.

#    #    #    #

The background having been laid on with the brush of a Stiggins, incorporating the usual denunciations of drink as a greater curse than war, pestilence and famine, the cause of 80% of crime. 50% of lunacy, pauperism, etc, Mr. Ritzema talks of buying out the brewers at about 300 millions, imposing a tax of 20s. in the £ upon all intoxicants, selling them at cost to the town and county councils—who will provide public-houses and managers out of their own funds, 9-l0ths of the cost of which, and the loss on the sale of liquor, the Government would refund. Of the profits stockholders would receive 4%, and 2% would be set aside to redeem the capital. This would leave large sums for social work, such as “finding immediate work for the unemployed,” the drink traffic would be gradually extinguished under the benign influences at work, the money diverted from beer would buy the workers bread and boots, trade would be stimulated, lunacy, crime, and pauperism almost obliterated, the churches saved, and a sober, educated, and intelligent democracy would be evolved.

#    #    #    #

A beautiful scheme, savouring of the scheme for old age pensions to commence 20 or 30 years after the potential pensioner is a box of cold meat. The poverty of the proletarian is due to his exploitation at the source of production, and from that exploitation all things flow. The investigations of Chas. Booth, the Tory, show 75% of drunkenness to be due to poverty and its inseparable conditions. It is the degradation wrought by poverty that expresses itself in alcoholic excess, and the righteous Ritzema, living under the normal conditions of the lower paid worker, might find the atmosphere of Paradise Church less congenial than the mild excitement of the “Pig and Whistle.”

#    #    #    #

These morality-mongers prefer to potter with effects; yet this question must strike the stupidest in the face, if drunkenness exists why is it? What answer has the blue-ribboned army to that? It is, they say, when they are not dumb, due to the opportunities that exist for drinking. Oh, blind and sons of the blind! Abolish drink tomorrow—what then ? Happiness, they say, prosperity, joy in living. Yet the most abstemious, thrifty, careful living people in the world are the most poverty-stricken—the people of India.

#    #    #    #

No ! it won’t do. If the conditions of existence drive people into deplorable excess, that excess, that craving for excitement, for some break in the hideous monotony of their existence, must manifest itself somehow. Close all the public-houses—have you then exhausted all the media through which the craving will express itself ? No !

#    #    #    #

I wish I had space to deal with Mr. Ritzema’s little scheme. It would be interesting to try and discover how his blue horror fades to a lighter blue when it is dispensed by town council managers rather than rubicund Boniface, and how the craving for drink is to languish and die out when the liquor is served in pewters engraved with the council’s arms, and how the deep damnation of the whole business is reconciled with the payment of the authors of it (the brewers) and its continued existence under the management of a government that regards it as an. unspeakably reprehensible thing, more accursed than war, plague, or pestilence.

#    #    #    #

At the recent bye-election for Montrose Burghs a Mr. Joseph Burgess sought election, claiming to stand for Independent Labour and Socialism. In the first paragraph of his address he said, “If I have the honour to secure your suffrages I shall consider it my first duty, as the representative of all classes and industries, to do all that lies within the power of a Parliamentary representative to advance the general interests of all the Burghs and their citizens.”

#    #    #    #

By “all classes” Mr. Burgess really meant all sections of the only two classes there are—the master class and the working class. He was therefore admittedly prepared to go to the Commons to represent the master class—the landlords, employers, financiers, lawyers, the officials of the army and the civil forces!

#    #    #    #

In his next paragraph he said, “all textile trade questions would find in me a zealous and intelligent Parliamentary advocate,” and in the following, “I believe I could be helpful to all who are therein concerned, whether they be employers or operatives.” So here you have an “Independent Labour Socialist” candidate endeavouring to convince the employing class that he could be of great assistance to them. Apparently Mr. Burgess is far from accepting the impossibility of serving two masters faithfully. How he can serve the interests of the masters without opposing or neglecting the necessarily conflicting interests of the workers Mr. Burgess does not say.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Burgess would, further, nationalise all forms of industrial capital, evidently thinking it better for the workers to be exploited by Government departments than by individual capitalists or joint-stock companies. It is the same to us whether we are robbed by the Post Office, or the L.C.C. Tramway Department, or by Sir Clifton Robinson, or the National Telephone Co. It is a matter of complete indifference to us that the distraint for rent is levied in the name of some local teetotaller or Bible basher, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or a Government Land Department. Capital is wealth used for the exploitation of labour. We do not wish to nationalise that exploitation, but to abolish it.

#    #    #    #

Mr. J. W. Benson is the Parliamentary candidate for Pudsey Division, “at the unanimous invitation of the branches of the Pudsey Division I.L.P.” He claims that he is “an earnest student of the cause of poverty” and “convinced that Socialism is the only real and permanent remedy”; that “bad trade, unemployment, and poverty at present exist under a Free Trade policy, and therefore Free Trade is no remedy for these evils.” After this avowal one would expect (not knowing these I.L.P. chaps) that Mr. Benson would point out that Socialists took no part in the fiscal controvacy, being concerned only with the abolition of poverty, through Socialism, “the only real and permanent remedy.” Not so Mr. Benson. “I am in favour,” he says, “of the continuation of Free Trade.” So there you are. The evils of bad trade, unemployment and poverty exist under Free Trade, therefore let us have some more Free Trade. Let us hoodwink the workers into believing that it matters to them whether they are robbed by Protectionist crows or Free Trade kites. Such is I.L.P’ism.

#    #    #    #

In this respect, however, the I.L.P’s vis-a-vis, the Social-Democratic Party, has nothing to shout about. In a pamphlet written by its secretary on “Social-Democracy and the Zollverein” it pointed out that the great danger was that the working class might be induced to take sides. Agreed. And yet every S.D.P. candidate, from H. M. Hyndman downwards, has endeavoured to induce them to take sides, by declaring for Free Trade as against Protection. Take its very latest wild-cat candidature, in North-West Manchester. On the front page Dan Irving declared for “no tariff barriers to make dearer the food of the people,” although in the body of his address he described the Tariff Reform agitation as “a sham, political warfare on the fiscal arrangements of the country,” after which he said, “as a Social-Democrat I am in favour of Free Trade.”

#    #    #    #

Dan’s address was funny in other respects. “Whatever party may be in power,” he said, “I shall always be found giving my support to any measure which makes for the benefit of the people,” and then, in his concluding paragraph, “Workers, remember that in all times of industrial struggle” (which, of course, means every minute of day) “the members of the master class use the power you give them in Parliament and on public authorities to compel you to submit to their will.” And it is suggested by this “worker for the Labour Movement for twenty-four years” that the master class, possessing and using the power of compelling the workers to submit to their will, will introduce measures which make “for the benefit of the people”! Really, these fellows must be abysmal idiots or—— (missing word. Suggestions invited.)

#    #    #    #

“Do not the working class pay the rates and taxes ?” is a question asked in the “Catechism of Socialism,” and Messrs. E. Belfort Bax and H. Quelch, both of the S.D.P., answer “No.” The worker, they add, has “nothing wherewith to pay taxes, and whether these be high or low, and whoever has to pay them directly, his position remains the same.” Generally speaking, they say further, the reduction of rates is of no benefit to the working class, and to devote the proceeds of municipal undertakings to the reduction of rates is simply to use them as means for making profit for the propertied class. After which Mr. Dan Irving, in his election address, “in the interests of Labour and Socialism,” declared for the “Nationalisation of Education and Poor Rates so that the financially strong may help to bear the burdens of the weak.” Very ‘OT—what ?

#    #    #    #

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Lorebrun, member of the Liberal Cabinet, said at a dinner at the Newcastle Gladstone Club on May 29th, that “The Conservatives represent the constant apprehension that change will do harm to vested interests. YOU WILL FIND, IF YOU LOOK BACK, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VESTED INTEREST INJURED BY ANY REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED IN OUR DAY. You need never be afraid that things will go too fast in this country. In the last fifty years there has been an unparalleled advance in industrial progress and in the material domain of human effort, but nothing of the kind in the least degree corresponding has been done in regard to the improvement of the condition of the people.”

#    #    #    #

The Lord Chancellor has blown the gaff. No wonder that only one newspaper gave a full report of his speech. But what the frank Chancellor admits is undoubtedly true. No Socialist expects the master class to legislate against its own interests, and as we see, they do not so legislate. Hence the position of the S.P.G.B. Before the workers can get anything from the master class they must be able to take it. Therefore the work before us is to educate and organise the workers in these truths for the political supremacy of the workers. Then, and then only will the wealth producers find their burden lightened.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Ben Tillett, in an eulogy of the work of Tom Mann in Australia, writes, “the present leaders of the Labour Parties (of Australia) are blind to the revolutionary work going on apace and the trend of capitalism, falling back upon worn-out political shibboleths, fiscal fooling, sectarianism and religious intolerance and with the usual clap-trap of temperance opponents.” Well, Ben, what fooling, fiscal or other, beats your own fooling as emigration tout in England for the Australian Capitalist ? Was that fooling or something worse ?

#    #    #    #

The local Branch, S.D.P. indulges in Justice (6/6/08) in a great chuckle because they were able, by lying low and saying nothing, to secure that their nomination for the Leigh Union Board of Guardians should be the only one, so getting their man returned unopposed. They rejoice in beating Liberals and Tories at their own game, “and Lees is inside the board room, where we have not the least doubt that he will make his presence felt.” A victory for Socialism indeed—of the S.D.P. brand ! The educational effect on the workers locally must be stupendous !

Alegra.

Sheer cussedness. (1917)

From the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

It may be remembered that the commander of the American forces in France assured us, in a speech upon the occasion of the welcoming of some part of the American fighting forces on this side of the sprat puddle, that the men in America are “simply crazy” to be over here and in the game. And now comes full confirmation in the following, presented to us by “Lloyd’s Newspaper” August 5th :

ARMED RESISTANCE BY U.S. CONSCRIPTS EXPECTED

“It is estimated that more than 75 per cent. of the drafted are claiming exemption.

It is reported to the Department of Justice that armed resistance to the draft is in the highest degree likely.”

You see Americans have such a high example of veracity in George Washington that the truth bubbles from them spontaneously, like wisdom from Lloyd George.

——-0——-

This gentleman has the wisdom faculty of Solomon after he (Sol.) had subjected himself to a long dieting of serpents. Only this week he has been at it again, and the acumen of one particular statement of his reaches about the limit of human profundity. He is reported as having told the gaping world that “No one in in Britain, France, Italy, or Russia, or even in Germany or Austria has any idea how near to the summit of our hopes we may be.”

Not only in what was said is the speaker’s quality revealed, but even more so in what was left unsaid. One has but to add three little words, clearly enough suggested, to the statement in order to complete its immortal value, and launch one on a train of thought of peculiar depth and richness. Those words are : “or may not.”

That, of course, is the whole message which the Welsh Christ gave us in a moment of five-thousand a year inspiration—a sermon on the mount, since he was using a mountaineering analogy. “We do not know, nor does anybody else, how near or how far away from victory we may be.” True. The Prussian does not know how near or how far from a terrible licking he is. True again. Translated into the language of the people for the people, “Nobody don’t know nuthink.” Loud Jaws has told us so.

——-0——-

Talking of analogies, Mr. Lloyd George supplies us with a notable one. Some years ago he raised the water line of ships, and converted dry ships into wet ships. Now he has raised the water line of beer, incidentally converting dry sailors into wet ones. And, if he wants to complete the analogy, he has but to claim that just as he “with a stroke of the pen,” as was said at the time, added millions of tons to the carrying capacity of the mercantile marine, so, with a stroke of the pump-handle, he has considerably increased the carrying capacity of the mercantile mariner—or any other.

And this cuss is wondering whether Lloyd has got his money in breweries or water companies—or both.

The Cuss.

From the Watch-Tower. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Like Mr. Chamberlain, he (Mr. Lloyd George) is essentially a middle-class statesman . . . Wales looks sorrowfully on. He has passed out of its narrow sphere. The Parnell of Wales has become the Chamberlain of England. The vision of the young gladiator fighting the battle of the homeland has faded. … It is proud of its brilliant son—proud of the first Welsh-speaking Minister to enter a British Cabinet, but it waits with a certain gathering gloom for its reward. Is it not thirteen years since he led a revolt against the Liberal Party on Disestablishment, and is he not now a chief in the house of Pharaoh ? Once it has been on the point of revolt; But he had only to appear and it was soothed.”—Daily News, April 11th.

* * *

The wirepullers of the capitalist parties are too astute to allow promising leaders of dissatisfied factions within their ranks to remain such. When they cannot cajole them, when they do not find it convenient to throw them a sop in the shape of a so-called reform, they find them a job and use them, whether it be the Lloyd Georges, or the Isaac Mitchells, to bully or to soothe those whom they once led.

* * *

It is very sad, but there is some hope, in view of events in the A.S.E., that the working class will shortly throw over these misleaders.

* * *

Mr. W. R. Trotter, of the Canadian Trades Congress, writing from Dragon Parade, Harrogate, sends to theYorkshire Post copies of two letters received by him from the President of the British Welcome League of Toronto (Mr. A. Chamberlain), and an excerpt from the report of the Municipal Committee of the Toronto District Labour Council bearing on the emigration controversy.

In the first letter, dated February 21, Mr. Chamberlain says labour conditions in Toronto are worse than he has seen them during the 22 years’ residence there, and he asks Mr. Trotter to “tell the workers of the old country to go slow about coming to Canada until those already here can be found something to do. Tell them from me not to listen to agents, or even the Salvation Army, for they would not be in the shipping business if it was not for the dollars they make.”

* * *

In the second letter, dated March 6, Mr. Chamberlain says the labour conditions have not changed, and thousands are still out of work. He enforces this statement by mentioning that in reply to a test advertisement inserted in a paper for one day only by the League’s secretary, 1,500 men wrote that they were prepared to go to farms in British Columbia. “My own opinion is,” added Mr. Chamberlain, “that a halt should be made for a while, and an effort made to place the people already here into work before advising others to leave their homes in England to come to Canada.”

* * *

The excerpt from the Municipal Committee’s report calls attention to the unemployed problem in Toronto, and says : “Your Committee would further recommend that this Council places itself on record as holding the Manufacturers’ Association and the Salvation Army jointly responsible for much of the unnecessary suffering among the unemployed of the city, many of whom are victims of the misrepresentation of these two organisations.”

* * *

We also learn that the “Army” are appealing to the charitably disposed in Canada, to relieve the distress there, meanwhile they are advertising to take emigrants to Canada because of the employment to be there obtained. The same old game. And the “unspeakable Stead” says the head of the Salvation Army, General Booth, is a Socialist! What, has Mr. Stead’s friend, the Czar, done that he should be left out in the cold?

* * *

“May I draw the attention of I.L.P. branches to the fact that after 14 years the (Licensing) Bill provides for Local Veto, which has so long been advocated by the I.L.P. ? And may I also urge branches to at once take the matter in hand and follow the example of the Selby I.L.P. in support of this strongly democratic measure.” -W. Farley, Selby I.L.P. in Daily News.

* * *

According to the program of the I.L.P. that body “demands” the Municipalisation and public control of the drink traffic, neither of which will be secured by the Government’s Licensing Bill, either now or in fourteen years time. But probably the I.L.P. wire-pullers fear that if they oppose this “strongly democratic measure” they will lose some of the fat jobs they now secure talking twaddle in Nonconformist pulpits.

* * *

“Modern industry reckons on a reserve of the partially employed.” Daily News leader, 14/4/08. Winnow a full column of the chaff of capitalist-nonconformity and a two line grain of truth is saved. But this grain of itself damns for evermore the Liberalism the Daily News is concerned to maintain as a dominant factor in the political arena. “The partially employed,” is an endeavour to soften the harshness of the term, “unemployed.” A reserve of unemployed is necessary to modern industry. Liberalism is the political expression of modern industry. Lloyd George, the bright particular star and the fiercest democrat of the present administration, has emphasized this sufficiently. Therefore it follows as the night the day that Liberalism, by standing for modern industry, must stand for the maintenance of the reserve of unemployed upon which modern industry depends. Thus we arrive at the unalterable position of Liberalism upon the question of the unemployed, with which, among other things, the present Government proposes to deal at some time or the other. The value of its proposals in this connection may therefore be very adequately appraised beforehand. They represent the exact equivalent of nothing.

A Look Round. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to “Bradstreet’s” there were 964 business failures in America in October, with assets 124 million dollars and liabilities 139 million dollars. In October, 1893, the failures were 1,753 with assets 36 million dollars and liabilities 55 million dollars. Thus in 1893 the average liabilities per failure were 31,375 dollars and in 1907 they were 144,200 dollars. But of the latter twenty failures account for 114 million dollars, leaving only 25 million dollars for the remaining 944.

* * *

The S.D.F., I.L.P., and the Labour Party were well represented in the signatures to the Memorial, relating to the employment of barmaids, submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month. They included Miss Margaret Bondfield, Rev. R. J. Campbell, A. H. Gill, M.P., A. Henderson, M.P., J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., and D. J. Shackleton, M.P. The memorialists claim that from the advertisements in the trade papers it is evident that the great majority of barmaids are engaged on account of their attractiveness to men customers, whilst the record of the magistrates and other courts gives convincing statistical proof that the career of the disproportionate number of barmaids ends in drunkenness, immorality, misery and frequently suicide.

* * *

Now, if public houses are such demoralising and terrible places as these people would have us believe, why do not they take up a logical position and advocate their immediate suppression ? And why do they suggest that the wives and daughters of publicans should be permitted to continue to work in “surroundings which carry with them special dangers and temptations” ? Do they consider the publican has a right of private property in his wife and daughters so inviolable that he is to be permitted to employ them in a career that “ends in drunkenness, immorality, misery, and frequently suicide” ?

* * *

But the memorialists would even permit barmaids now employed to continue in what they consider such vile surroundings provided they have a licence from the Government. They would “protect the young girls of the nation” but those who have already entered upon this horrible career are to be permitted to go down to their end “in drunkenness, immorality, misery, and frequently suicide” if they have taken out a licence !

* * *

The Government is to place it on record that public houses are places where no decent woman should work. The publican’s wife and daughters are not to count. I suppose the worst surroundings are too good for them, according to the ideas of the memorialists. Licences are therefore to be granted to other men’s wives and daughters, and no doubt the fortunate holder of such a badge of slavery will be regarded as one who has either proved herself able to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, or is so low and depraved that it does not matter what happens to her.

* * *

No one denies that the barmaid’s lot could be improved, particularly in regard to her hours of labour, but in many respects it is vastly superior to that of other women workers. As a rule, she gets plenty of food and good food, which is more than can be said of the girls employed in such highly respectable occupations as millinery and dressmaking, often working for nothing and usually for only a few shillings a week. If they live at home the financial effort required for clothing prevents them from being otherwise than semi-starved all the time, and many of them exist in a condition of chronic anaemia which in due course has its effect upon their offspring. If they “live in”—well, Miss Bondfield, who wishes to abolish the barmaids, being an official of the Shop Assistants Union, has time after time denounced the system. And it is said that there are large establishments in the shopping centres of London where the girls who live in are allowed to stay out all night, provided they pay a fine of ten shillings in the morning. Such a system cannot be charged against the publicans. And as to the alleged immorality, it must be admitted that there is nothing drives women on the streets so much as inability to obtain food and clothing for themselves and their dependents. The barmaid, at any rate, is secured against this.

* * *

Again, the atmosphere of thousands of coffee shops is much more immoral than the bar of a public house is ever likely to be, and the girls employed have no protection. Customers may use vile language concerning the food (as it is called) supplied in these places, and this language the waitress has to listen to. A remonstrance on her part to her employer would probably result in her getting “the sack,” as the competition is too keen, and the profits too small, particularly in the poorer districts, for the “guvner” to be able to afford to quarrel with his customers. But if a customer in a wicked public house uses vile language to a barmaid and the manager or proprietor overhears or it is reported to him, the culprit is either warned, or put out and sometimes forbidden the house altogether. And the conditions of the girls in these coffee shops, as to hours, wages, and food, are certainly much inferior to those of the majority of barmaids.

* * *

Of course the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., through their members who signed the memorial, are being made the tools of the most bigoted section of that nonconformist conscience which they have so often denounced. These pharasaical humbugs really wish to prohibit the sale of alcoholic liquors, but lack the courage to openly declare themselves.

* * *

According to the Daily Chronicle’s Rome correspondent between 50,000 and 60,000 Neapolitans have formed a passive resistance movement, and for six months have refused to pay rent or quit their tenements. The Government are taking the usual course. Controlling, as they do, the armed forces of the nation, which armed forces they will continue to control so long as they are politically dominant, they are using those forces against the workers. In the early part of December ten thousand troops from various cities had been despatched to reinforce the Naples Garrison preparatory to evicting the working-class families concerned.

* * *

Once more “the impracticability of the Socialist schemes” has been demonstrated, this time by a Mr. Moreton Frewen. He says that the total accumulated capital in the country is estimated at £9,000,000,000, which invested at 3½ per cent. would bring in about 5d. a day per person. The total income from all sources Mr. Frewen estimates at £1,500,000,000 annually, equal to about 14s. per head per week. “Thus,” says our oracle, “the Socialist ideal of happiness would result in every individual in the country being possessed of a revenue of 16s. 11d. per week.” And Mr. Frewen adds that this would not be “a very prosperous state of affairs.”

* * *

16s. 11d. per head per week, says Mr. Frewen, will be the income under Socialism. It is computed that the average family consists of five persons, so that each family would receive £4 4s. 7d. per week. But it is known that the working class have larger families than the well-to-do section of the population, and the amount would therefore be increased for working-class families. And this “would not be a very prosperous state of affairs” !

* * *

Well, if Socialism really meant dividing up what is known as the National Income, it would mean the trebling, at least, of the income of the mass of the working class. Chas. Booth has shown that 1,250,000 of the population of London are in receipt of a wage of one guinea or less per week per family, and in commenting on the Railway dispute the Daily Telegraph pointed out that, in the event of a strike, an enormous number of men would be willing to blackleg at £1 per week. “Twenty shillings a week is no luxurious wage we admit,” said the Daily Telegraph, “but it is better, alas, than many thousands of workmen in both, town and country can secure.” So that the “prosperity” of the working class under capitalism is represented by one-sixth or less of what, according to Mr, Frewen, they would receive under Socialism, And this proves “the impracticability of the Socialist schemes ” !

* * *

It is not surprising that opponents get the idea that Socialism merely means the equalisation of income or wages when those professing: to be Socialists endeavour to popularise the same idea. Recently I heard a Mr. Dean, on the I.L.P. platform in East Ham, inform a questioner that “of course, it would be quite possible for anyone to save up his money under Socialism, if he preferred not to spend the wages paid to him each week by the State. But he would not be able to employ anyone else with the money so saved. He would be a capitalist, but unable to use his capital.” And after delivering himself of this he read the titles of pamphlets which he advised the audience to buy and study, some of which explained that the wages system would be abolished with the abolition of the capitalist system and the establishment of Socialism.

* * *

This misconception of Socialism arises largely out of the advocacy of palliatives by both the I.L.P. and the S.D.F. So obscured is the issue, even to members of these bodies, by their talk of the “right to work,” “better wages for the working class,” “free maintenance for children” etc., that they appear unable to conceive of any system where the hooter shall not sound the time for commencing and leaving work, and where the people shall not be the wage-receiving slaves of the machine industry that they are to-day. They would merely “humanise” the conditions of employment.

J. Kay

Good health? (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

Some of the beer now being consumed by the public is alleged to contain injurious chemicals. It has been noticed lately that the beer spilled on the counters in bars is having a burning action on the wood. — Daily Mail (1.11. 1921).

That, taken in conjunction with what G. H. Roberts, M.P., said at the Brewers’ Exhibition luncheon recently, explains a good deal.

He told them that when he was Food Controller during the war, the Government caused the beer to be diverted to places where industral unrest was most acute, in order to induce the workers to maintain their output.

“Although some members of the Government were staunch teetotallers, they were obliged to face the fact that if they had not had that beer at their disposal, our gallant men in various theatres of the war might have been hampered in their great task.”— Observer (30.10.1921). So we can be told now that it was a mentality induced by bad beer that won the war !

[From “Jottings”, Socialist Standard, December 1921]

A Look Round. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

John E. Williams has been elected a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians. Whilst avoiding in his election address many of the pitfalls usually associated with S.D.F. candidatures, he could not refrain from promising that which he knew he could not perform. “I say frankly,” he declared, ”that if elected I go to the Board to force my former colleague in the Dock, the Rt. Hon. John Burns, M.P., to do his duty to the countless poor of Canning Town.” Fiddlesticks ! J. B’s “duty” is to the folks who gave him his present job.

—++—

On the day following his election, Williams was congratulated at Tower Hill, and informed his hearers that one of his first steps would be to call a conference of all the Poor Law authorities with the object of pressing the Government to nationalise the Poor Rate. But if the working class do not pay the rates, and if, to quote Mr. W. Thome, M.P., it would make no difference to the working class if the rates went up to 20/- in the £, what concern is it to men who “have nothing to lose but their chains” whether the Poor Law is nationalised or not ?

—++—

There is one thing the advocates of this “reform” never mention—the question of control. If the central government will consent to the abolition of local rates, to the raising of all charges for the Poor Law, Education, etc., out of national funds, is it to be expected that they will permit such funds to be administered locally ? Not a bit of it. And so with the nationalisation of the Poor Rate must come the withdrawal of all local spending powers and the extension of the L.G.B. to deal with the funds. Is this what Mr. Williams is aiming at ?

—++—

Even if the Liberals have discharged men from Woolwich, say Liberal papers, the Tories were as bad and worse. What are the facts ? Between June 1st, 1902, and November 30th, 1905, 4,567 men were discharged, an average of about 108 per month. Between December 1st, 1906, and June 22nd, 1907, the discharges numbered 2.473, equal to about 370 per month ! There is no doubt that Codlin’s the friend, not Short.

—++—

In a statement issued by the committee “formed to protect the holders of Debentures secured upon Breweries and licensed properties,” Sir John. Ellerman, chairman of a large London Brewery Co. is reported to have said: “Capital is a shy bird and, if unduly oppressed, it has a knack of seeking employment in other countries where the capitalist is more fairly treated, to the benefit of the country where it is employed.” Now, why can’t the people whose security is threatened by the introduction of a time limit present their case without twaddle of this sort?

—++—

Imagine a Brewery Company, for example, shifting its Brewery and plant to, say, Germany, where the people are quite satisfied with the German brew. Of course the thing is impossible. Before they could withdraw their capital they would have to sell out and they could only sell out, at ruinous prices, to others, on whose behalf the businsss would be continued as before.

—++—

Mr. Lever, says “P.W.W.” in the Parliamentary column of the Daily News, “makes no pretence that the building of Port Sunlight was an act of benevolence or philanthropy. ‘A successful business,’ he explains, ‘must have physically efficient workpeople.'” Quite so, Mr. Lever is a cute capitalist.

—++—

A Blue Book has been issued giving the report of the Textile Factories (India) Labour Committee appointed in December, 1906. The Committee recommend that the hours of labour should be reduced to 72 per week !

—++—

The Liberal Press in particular is still booming our growing trade and alleged unprecedented prosperity, due to Free Trade. It is, therefore, somewhat unkind for Sir James Crichton Browne to declare that “except as an occasional luxury, meat is beyond the reach of the working class of this country and it is therefore necessary that they should be taught what is the best substitute for it.” He declared himself, at the Mansion House on June 26th, a firm believer in the value of the mutton chop, and would like to see a sirloin on the Sunday dinner table of every family in the land.

—++—

After this it is easy to understand why a movement to improve the health of the people by abolishing luxuries from the table is to be started in Bethnal Green. The Simple Life is somewhat of a chestnut there.

—++—

And now a par from London Opinion will not be amiss : —

“I see it stated that the keepers of City restaurants find their meat bills decreasing owing to the lighter luncheons which are being taken by the clerks and other office workers. The fashion for commercial men to take only the lightest of meals is alleged to be increasing. I do not believe a word of it. Whenever an Englishman has money in his pocket he is prepared to eat meat, and if City workers abandon it, that is simply because of the want of money. How some of the toilers manage to buy a lunch at all is a mystery to me.”

—++—

Sir Jas. Crichton Browne also said that he would like to see all proved adulterators of food electrocuted. One of these days the working class may remember his words. But if a Socialist were to advise that those who are battening and fattening upon the misery of the poor should be shot, or hanged, or electrocuted, he would be charged with inciting to murder and sedition.

—++—

As a property-owner, writes Mr. George Cadbury in the Daily News for July 16th, I have no fear whatever of the success of Labour men . . . I believe that so far as this country is concerned the stability of the Throne and of the institutions of our country will be secured, not by resistance to ameliorative measures, but by doing justice to those who produce its wealth.

—++—

In these sentiments Mr. Cadbury, who is a member of the I.L.P., expresses the feelings of many of the members of that body. The “institutions of our country” are the State, the Church, the Law, etc. These capitalist institutions are not to be abolished, but secured, if only the other capitalists will become as cute as Mr. Cadbury and Mr. Lever and introduce “ameliorative measures.” Instead of working for the establishment of a community of free citizens, co-operating as social equals, contributing, according to their ability, to the necessary work and enjoying, according to their needs, the good things of life, many of those posing as Socialists are merely striving after the establishment of the rule of a benevolent plutocracy, under which the workers may be well-fed, well-housed, and well-clothed, but will still be wage-slaves, subject to a master class.

—++—

That such a state of affairs may develope out of existing capitalist conditions is not at all improbable. The persistent advocacy of palliatives by the S.D.F., I.L.P., and other reform parties, the growth of the Garden City movement, the increasing number of capitalists who recognise that it pays to take “an interest” in their wage-slaves, the establishment of “model” factories, “model” villages, etc., all tend in this direction, and unless the issue is kept clear, the workers will be side-tracked again. Hence the need for the S.P.G.B.

—++—

The merchant princes of the Cardiff Docks, says the Evening News correspondent, have decided to inaugurate a fund for the purchase of an annuity for the “Labour” Knight, and have subscribed £1000. Mr Clifford Cory, M.P., being at the head of the movement, which is certain to succeed, Sir William Crossman being a most popular man by reason of his moderation as an advocate of labour. . . . The idea now is to get sufficient money invested to ensure him a reasonable annuity. The new knight does not fear going back to work, but, naturally, he would prefer an annuity. What ho!

—++—

"The great political struggle of the future will be a struggle in which the Radical party will have no place. The issues will be fought out between the principles of Socialism on the one hand and Imperialism on the other."—Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Campbell, K.C., M.P., at United Club banquet.

—++—

Mr. Churchill, replying to Mr. Myer in the House of Commons, said in April last there were in the Transvaal mines 17,886 whites, 114,470 coloured labourers, and 53,114 Chinese. For April, 1906, the figures were 18,035 whites, 93,793 coloured, and 49,832 Chinese, showing a decrease of 149 whites, an increase of 20,731 coloured labourers, and of 3,282 Chinese.

And this is eighteen mouths since Sir H. C. Bannerman declared “we have abolished Chinese labour” !

—++—

The industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, and brings up his family with affection and care, is a real national asset, he is, indeed, among the most valued possessions of any country, and since it is almost impossible for him to put by enough money to ensure his livelihood when work is no longer possible, he has a moral right to demand from the community comfort and sustenance in the evening of his days.

—++—

Thus the Pearson Paralyser. But what becomes of their argument that the Post Office, Building Society, Co-operative Society and other deposits represent working-class thrift, if it is almost impossible for the industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, to put by etc. ?

—++—

A few months ago capitalist politicians and writers were holding up their hands in pious horror at the revelations with regard to “graft” in America, declaring that English politics were so pure, you know.

—++—

Yet the letter of Mr. C. H. Lea, Liberal member for East St. Pancras, compelled some of them to make admissions. Mr. Lea accused the Government of selling peerages and other “honours” for contributions to the Party war chest. This war chest was used to help poor candidates whose votes, if elected, are looked upon as secure, “no matter what the issue, or what pledges may have been given to the constituents.” To us it was no wonder that these practices of the Liberals should have been defended by the Tories, whose mouthpiece was Lord Robert Cecil.

—++—

Commenting on the debate the Daily Graphic said : it is an open secret that those who want titles must contribute to the Party funds. . . Any respectable citizen who contributes handsomely to the fundsof one or other of the political parties may, in the fulness of time, claim a title and get it. … We have established what we call democratic institutions, and we can only keep the machine running by the sale of aristocratic titles.

—++—

The Daily News also said: The practice of rewarding those who pay heavily to the party funds by giving them honours is not confined to one party. It is a recognised and rather squalid phase of the normal political game.

The Advance of Machinery. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

There have been installed at the Shobnall maltings of Messrs. Samuel Allsopp & Sons two machines that are calculated to ultimately effect a saving of labour to the extent of 50 per cent. The machines, for which patents have been obtained, are the result of several experiments on the part of Mr. F. Griffiths, maltster at the works mentioned. The appliances are known as “the Burton automatic grain sacking apparatus” and “the Burton grain bulking machine.” The former has been working for some little time, but the latter has only just been perfected.

Formerly the unloading of grain from railway waggons and bulking it into heaps six feet deep has been entirely performed by manual labour, at a cost of between 6s. to 8s. per 100 qrs., and the total cost of removing 450 qrs. per day has been about 13s. 4d. This appliance, however, can put barley in bulk to a height of six feet at the rate of 400 qrs. per day from any distance in the granary, with the aid of the necessary number of boys, at a cost of 1s. 4d. per day per boy. Where grain requires moving from one part of the warehouse to another the sack-filling machine can be employed to lift it into sacks or tip barrows, and the bulking machine deposits it where it may be required. The method generally in use for putting grain into heaps on the arrival of a large consignment (though in some cases maltsters use their own particular system) is by means of men carrying the material in sacks, running up a plank and pitching it over. But in this way a lot of labour is entailed, and the work is arduous, seeing that each sack contains 16 stone weight.

The method of the new apparatus is simple. The contents of the sacks are shot into a receiver, and the grain being conveyed up an elevator in cups, is finally distributed where required from a shoot. In regard to the automatic sacking apparatus, the saving effected is placed at between 50 and 60 per cent. In the majority of granaries most of the grain is bushelled or otherwise lifted by hand into sacks. The machine under notice entirely obviates this, and is capable of “sacking up” from 500 to 650 quarters per day of nine hours, with the help of three boys. It is entirely automatic in its movement into the grain, and can be driven off any existing shafting by either a special rope drive or by a motor of any description fitted to the machine, thus making it entirely independent. This is an ingenious contrivance. It is placed at the side of a heap of grain, and in the front part there is a worm which works the grain to the centre. As in the other machine, the barley is then taken up over the elevator in cups on an endless belt, and thrown into the hopper, from which it passes through the slide and into sacks at the back in charge of lads.

The most intricate and vital part of the machine is, perhaps, the eccentric and ratchett arrangement, which pushes the machine forward into the grain. This part, when one bag is full, is automatically thrown out of gear by the contact of two buffers at the front with the grain. The lad then puts down the slide and stops the grain while he takes the full bag away and opens the slide at the mouth of the other bag. With this machine only one strong boy need be in attendance, to hang on sacks for filling. The cost depends somewhat on the distance the sacks have to be taken for loading into railway trucks. The total cost per day for filling 500 qrs. into sacks and loading them into railway trucks has been 15s. 8d., against 9s. or 10s. and upwards for every 100 qrs. by hand labour. The machines are in daily use at Messrs. Samuel Allsopp’s maltings, and it is claimed that they will in all probability revolutionise the method of dealing with grain at maltings in the course of time.

Burton Evening Gazette.

The Passing Show: Social revolution in Japan (1963)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Social revolution in Japan

Under the above heading The Times told us recently of changes in Japan brought about by the war. But if the reader expects to learn that the wealth producers, the Japanese workers, have taken over, he will be disappointed though he should not be surprised. What in fact the article deals with primarily is the rise of new propertied group and families in place of the old.

The richest man in Japan has an income of 440m. yen (£440,000) a year. He is Mr. Konosuke Matsusha, chairman of the Matsusha Electric Industrial Company. His declared income is nearly twice as large as that of anyone else in the country. According to figures based on tax returns for 1962. the 20 richest men in Japan have incomes ranging from £121,000 to £440,000. All but one are industrialists. Some of the names in the list are almost unknown to the general public and the famous pre-war names—Iwasaki (founders of the Mitsubishi combine), Okura, Mitsui and Sumito Mo—do not appear anywhere.

Of course, there has been no social revolution for the other Japanese, those whose names are always unknown. The latest figures published by the International Labour Office show average earnings in Japanese manufacturing industries, ’’including family allowances and end-of-year bonuses,” as 22,834 Yen, or about £22 16s. 8d. a month.

Bigger and Fewer Breweries

Official figures published in the April issue of Economic Trends showed how far take-overs have gone in industry as a whole. In eight years, 1954-1961, £1,600 million was spent on take-over bids, but of this total nearly half came from the 98 companies each with assets of £25 million or more, though they represent only a tiny proportion of the 2,600 companies whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchanges of this century. Altogether 3,400 companies were taken over (most of them not quoted on the stock exchange).

One industry in which amalgamation has gone far, but with more to come, is the brewing industry.

In place of a multiplicity of breweries many of them small and local, a writer in the Financial Times (May 25) writes of the industry now being dominated by six major groups.

What the boards aimed to achieve by take-overs was to consolidate brewing and distribution in large regions and thus achieve big economies and larger profits. Local breweries are being closed down and a considerable number of the local ”milds, bitters and light ales” are disappearing, ”no longer worth producing in small quantities.” Standardisation of a smaller number of nationally advertised brews is the order of the day for capitalism in brewing. It is ironic to recall the old argument against Socialism that it would deprive us of the variety of choice that capitalism gave us. Maybe the local varieties were no better (or worse) than the TV advertised popular brands, but that is not what drinkers were told before the change took place.

Common Market under a Cloud

When the drive for British entry into the Common Market was in full and hopeful flood the line taken by its advocates was to say that all was well inside the Six and British industry must be in to share in the benefits.

It was equally to be expected that immediately entry was blackballed by De Gaulle, they should nearly all have a change of heart and say that it really did not matter after all.

Now a few months have passed and some of the earlier arguments have begun to look rather thin. In place of the supposed absence of labour disputes we have seen massive strikes in France and Germany. French farming interests which were partly responsible for the objection to British entry have now brought the French and German governments into conflict, and both of them into conflict with American farmers over the entry of their exports into Europe.

The bloom has gone off the German industrial and stock exchange boom, because of falling profit margins and stronger pressure for wage increases.

At the same time, helped by some industrial recovery and rising profits, many British capitalists and politicians are thinking that they can do better out of Europe, and British exports into the Common Market have increased, as also exports to Russia.

The fact is that both before and after, the arguments were based on wrong or too limited assumptions. The European Common Market carries no more guarantee of permanent rapid expansion than any other large or small region of capitalism, and no more able to escape wage disputes and fluctuating profit margins.

And what happens to one industry inside or outside the Market is not necessarily the experience of other industries. . While motor car exports to Europe have been rising, and the Ready Mix Concrete Company claims record sales on the Continent, one firm, Wilmot Breedon, producers of motors, aircraft engines and domestic appliances, reports that the profits made in Britain were overshadowed by the heavy losses of its French subsidiary.

So for the moment the Common Market is rather out of favour.

What Mr. Profumo did to the Stock Exchange.

One of the emptiest dreams of the capitalists is to imagine to themselves how happy they could all be if only they could go on making, profits without the constant interruption of “politics." One of a cloudless sky politics keeps blowing up. On Monday, June 10th according to the Evening Standard, the London Stock Exchange had its biggest slump since Cuba—not this time the work of one of the K’s, but of Mr. Profumo. “Dealers, nervous about the eventual outcome of the Profumo affair, marked share prices down all round."

The same issue of the Evening Standard had an article asking whether Mr. Profumo, out of politics, can hope to find an outlet for his talents in business. The argument raises diverting side issues:

A man in public office has to have a high moral character and appear totally incorruptible. . . In business, however, standards are not always that high . . . But the business world doesn’t think much of a liar, especially if he gets found out

The writer of the article, the City Editor of the Standard, asks: “If he came knocking at your door would you give him a job ? ” But there is no urgency about it:

The ex-Minister of War comes from a rich family. The Profumos have for many years controlled the £34,000,000 Provident Life Association of London.

Most of the shares are held by trusts in which Mr. Profumo has an important role. In 1961 the trusts sold some £1,000,000 worth of shares for cash in a public issue. But they still own around two-thirds of the company’s Ordinary share capital, Worth some £3,700,000 at current market prices.

Mr. Profumo, of course, is only one of the beneficiaries. But he must draw quite a useful income from the investment.

Last year Provident Life paid out £120,000 in Ordinary dividends, of which the trusts must have received a considerable share.

Edgar Hardcastle

Finance and Industry: The end of the publican (1963)

The Finance and Industry Column from the September 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

The end of the publican

Reference was made in these columns recently to the concentration of the brewing industry in a smaller number of large firms. According lo the Evening Standard (6/8/63) the process is continuing and taking new forms. One of these is that as the big firms find they can make more profit by having the public- houses run by their own paid managers, they are more and more getting rid of the houses run by tenants, as leases fall in. Some experts are forecasting a big fall in the number of publicans who run their own business, and those who remain are finding their freedom of action more restricted. Having been tied in respect of the brands of beer they could sell, they are now finding themselves limited in their choice of wines and spirits, and even cigarettes and mineral waters. The Evening Standard City Editor thinks that the big brewers, who launched their own brand of gin in opposition to the existing brands, will follow this up by producing their own brand of whisky.

He thinks the disappearance of the “free” publican a matter for regret and a positive danger, but does not explain how the all-round powerful drive concentration in industry and trade is to be halted. Governments may promise to turn back the clock by legislation, but capitalism has a habit of largely ignoring it. It was not only the Conservatives who said they were opposed to any form of monopoly, but there was a time when the Labour Party, too, wanted a large number of small capitalists in preference to a small number of large ones.

In any event it seems that the British worker to whom the Conservatives promised “full personal freedom and power of initiative” isn't going to be allowed to exercise it in his choice of pubs, beers, whisky, etc., quite apart from the limiting factor of his ability to pay.

Down with money

As a small by-product of the £2½ million train robbery the Daily Mail in its issue of August 10 had a full-length leader with the caption “Down with Money.” How bold and refreshing? Nothing of the kind: just the usual inanities of the newspaper editorial mind. The theme was that the robbers of the mail train would find it very exhausting trying to spend so much money and would soon discover that “ money is a nuisance and a bother.” So why not abolish it altogether!

After that daring promise of an idea came the flat triviality of the actual scheme: “Why do we not become a credit card nation, and free everyone from the necessity of carrying bulky pockets full of paper? ”

This, according to the leader writer, would save us all a lot of trouble. No money changing hands and being transported about or locked up in safes. Just Bank of England Computers giving everyone a statement each week of what they had spent and what they had left. All accounts would be settled by cheque. The writer conceded that we might still need a few metal discs for slot machines. “But for the rest let us just sign our names and give our numbers for everything from bus tickets to bingo games. ’ 

We may pause for a moment to contemplate the spectacle of millions of busy shoppers, and travellers signing their names and giving their numbers at shop counters, in buses, ticket offices, etc., and may well wonder whether they would consider it any less tedious than handing out notes and coin.

But there is a catch that the writer overlooked. His brain child all began with the £2½ million train haul and he closed on the note that “there would never again be another train robbery.” But if he thinks that as credit cards come in the opportunity for theft goes out he has overlooked not only the possibility of signing someone else's name and number but also of stealing or forging credit cards.

But let us invite the writer in the Mail to give his mind to a really bold and constructive idea. Let him ask himself why bullion, coins, notes, cheques and credit cards are in use at all; whose interest they serve; and whether they are really necessary?

The theoretical justification for the continuance of a monetary system is that it enables those who lawfully possess goods to sell them, and use the money to buy whatever they choose, when and where they choose. Seemingly a very admirable and convenient arrangement (even if it does get upset much and often by robberies). But it serves to mask the realities of production and distribution which from the point of view of the majority of the population are far from admirable. How do the lawful possessors of (the products of the factories, workshops, farms, and so on, come to be in that position? Because they have laboured to produce what they own and sell? Not at all. Just the opposite in fact. The one undeniable feature of the world we live in is that wage and salary earners who are employed to produce the goods are never the owners of them after production. The owners and the non-producers, simply by virtue of the fact that they are already the owners of the factories, either directly or as shareholders.

So the money arrangements are merely the cover for the legalised exploitation of the mass of the. population, serving primarily the interests of the owning class.

Of course, it needs boldness of thought to consider the fruitful possibility of all the people of the world simply producing what all need, and distributing it directly, without any monetary arrangements (and newspaper leader writers are notoriously timid, and fearful of thought) but having made a small start could not the leader writer of the Mail be induced persevere?

Wage restraint

Mr. Harold Wilson has shown candour in saying again, as he has said before, that any future Labour Government will count on the trade unions accepting wage restraint as part of a policy of restraint of profits, rents, etc. Amid some mild expressions of approval or disapproval, Mr. Hill, general secretary of the Boilermakers Society, got into the headlines by declaring his emphatic opposition to any form of wage restraint. So the battle commences: Hill versus Wilson. And how will the issue be settled? Shall we end with wage restraint or without wage restraint? The answer is that, so long as we have wages, the efforts by workers to push them up and by employers (backed by governments) to push them down will continue: nothing will be settled.

The trouble is that those who argue for and those who argue against wage restraint are not really arguing about whether it should exist or not, but only whether its existence should be admitted in words.

Take Mr. Hill, for example. If, correctly reported, he does not want any form of wage restraint and presumably thinks that if a declaration of “ no restraint” is made, the situation will be different. But, of course, it will be altered hardly at all. For years, indeed for generations, and long before a Labour Government invented the term “wage restraint” to describe its policy, there have been workers and trade unions which have demanded higher wages, and fought bitterly by strikes to get them: and have never got the wages they demanded and thought they ought to have. They have not been restrained by the words “ wage restraint,” but by the resistance of the employers and the power of the government—in the last resort, military power.

What has Mr. Hill to say about his own Union. He has never accepted wage restraint, but he has repeatedly had to accept the fact that his Union members could not get the wages they were asking for. What has Mr. Hill done about it? He has done what he could, but that did not include getting rid of the fact of wage restraint.

As remarked earlier, this is bound to last as long as the wages system lasts, and most people, including apparently Mr. Hill, unfortunately will not get round to recognising that the wages system could and should be got rid of along with the rest of capitalism.

The role of gold

In an address to the Transvaal and Orange Free State Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg recently, the President, Mr. P. H. Anderson, reviewed the prospects of gold mining in South Africa. He stated that in the last 15 years output has more than doubled. It reached a record of 25 million ounces in 1962, and the first five months of 1963 showed a further 10 per cent. increase, but with the exhaustion of mines and in spite of the development of new areas it may now have reached its peak. Employment in the mines has begun to fail from the 1961 peak of 40,000 Europeans and 400,000 Bantu.

The working profit from the gold mines in 1962 was £123 million with a further £21 million from uranium, and dividends of £55 million.

One of the factors stimulating gold production and profits was the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1949, and the South African gold interests have for years kept up incessant propaganda for a general devaluation of world currencies, including, above all, the American dollar. In spite of repeated assurances by the American government that they have no intention of doing this, Mr. Anderson states that a number of South African mines are continuing in operation, though making losses, in the hope that devaluation will sooner or later come to their aid.

As is the way with all vested interests looking for means to increase their own profits, the South African gold interests, backed by a number of economists, argue that it is in the interest of world trade in general, and in particular that it would help the “West” against “Communism,” meaning by the latter the Russian government.

One of the counter arguments from the United States has always been that revaluing the dollar from its present rate of 35 dollars to an ounce of gold to some higher figure (50 dollars is often mentioned in the propaganda) would help the Russian Government since Russian gold stocks would automatically be worth more dollars in the world market.

It has often been claimed that Russian gold production is only second to that of South Africa and rising rapidly (a figure of over 17 million ounces was claimed in 1958). But some of the gold experts outside Russia have been sceptical about Russian output and the size of its gold reserves.

“Lombard” in the Financial Times has recently mentioned various estimates of Russian output, but dismisses them all as no more than “ intelligent guesswork.” But, he claims, if total output and stocks of gold in Russia are not known, what is known is that since the early nineteen fifties Russian gold has been coming into the world market at the rate of something under 7 million ounces a year.

His conclusion is that this figure probably represents something approaching total output and that the supposed enormous gold reserves of the Russian government are mythical—unless the Russian government, like the South Africans, is also waiting for the day when the American government devalues the dollar in terms of gold.

For Socialists it has its own lessons. In spite of the nonsensical forecasts of some alleged experts that the devaluation of the Pound in 1932 would be the end of gold, it still plays its old role in capitalist international transactions, just as much for capitalist Russia as for the rest of the capitalist world.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letters: Karl Marx and Russia (2003)

Letters to the Editors from the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx and Russia

Dear Editors,

I would like to discuss the issue of “the necessity for capitalism to have been achieved for socialism to occur” (“Desai on Marx”, Socialist Standard, November 2002).

Desai suggests that Russian Communism was wrong to use the principles of Marx being as Russia was a backward country. Then he goes on to suggest that Russian Communism developed a capitalist economic model as it developed the Russian economy and industries. What could be wrong about the development of a backward country under socialist principles? What would socialism look like if it only ever occurred in capitalist countries?

Desai appears to suggest that only an economically wealthy country, developed through capitalism can support a socialist system. Does he mean to say that socialism, should it succeed, should stagnate and decay as it devours the capitalist system of economics of its predecessors. A progressive, organised socialist party should enable economic growth to sustain socialism within one country but also to develop new industry and technology under its guiding principles. How is it possible to totally eradicate capitalist consciousness when socialism is developed that relies heavily on its economic principles for stability?

Socialist policies should inform the new methods of economics and seek to build a set of new socialist methods of production, in short a socialist economy based on Marx. This is not merely a question of graduated taxes, but a fairer system with a socialist aim, and cultural and aesthetic values that reflect the working class and encapsulates socialism.

Marx states that socialism should occur out of a capitalist economy because he thought that the working class were the intrinsic factor in a communist revolution; and the working class were common to developed countries under capitalism.

If socialism is to succeed, the party must win the support of the working class who desire to see an end to the current ideology of world capitalism.

In order to eradicate capitalism completely the Socialist Party must have a firm vision fixed in its mind, that by adhering to its principles, must revolutionise the consciousness of the people in areas of politics such as: economics, the environment, foreign policy and culture; in order to achieve power, not for a bureaucratic system (the fault of Russian Communism) but to achieve equality and fraternity among the working class.

G. Cubbage, 

Bolton, Lancs

Reply:

We define socialism as a society without private property, money, wages, nation states, where production is for use, not profit. In order for socialism to be successfully established, capitalism would need to develop industry to the point where a society of common ownership would be possible. Along with this, a modern working class would need to emerge that understands and desires socialism. It is clear that neither was the case in Russia in 1917. It was a predominantly agrarian country where the industrial working class were in a minority of the population.

It is true that Marx and Engels in the introduction of the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto raised the possibility that Russia could, through an old system of common ownership of land maintained by the peasantry known as the Obshchina that existed in Russia at that time, could pass directly to socialism, without the necessity of developing the capitalist mode of production. However this could only be possible if the Russian revolution ignited a revolution in the West. This did not happen in 1917. Although working class uprisings did occur in the West, such as in Germany, they were more expressions of discontent arising from the First World War than a conscious desire to bring about socialism.

The Bolsheviks did not rise to power on a programme of genuine socialism, but to provide relief to a war-weary population and distribute land away from the large landowners to the peasantry. In fact, Lenin admitted that only state capitalism could be established in Russia at that time. As he wrote in The Chief Tasks of Our Times: “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about State Capitalism in a short time it would be a victory for us”. We also believe that the Leninist theories of the Bolshevik Party are prescriptions for state capitalism: the belief that socialism can only be brought about by a party of professional revolutionaries leading the working class and the establishment of a centralised state under the theory of so-called democratic centralism. We insist that the establishment of Socialism require the political actions of a socialist conscious working class without leaders.

Therefore, we agree with Lord Desai that only state capitalism could have emerged from the Russian Revolution. However, we part company with him when he insists that we need many more years of private capitalism to raise the level of society’s productive forces. We maintain that globally the size of society’s productive forces today would allow for the establishment of socialism.

Our definition of socialism above implies that it can only be established on a world-wide basis. Clearly a society where there is common ownership, money has been abolished and production is for human use cannot co-exist with countries where there is still private property, buying and selling and production for profit. Many of the measures that Marx and Engels outlined in the Communist Manifesto, including the call for graduated taxes, were based on the assumption that the working class would take power in Marx and Engels lifetimes. They would be necessary to develop the means of production to levels required for the establishment of socialism. However, since then, capitalism has done the job for us and there is no longer any need for these measures.

We can only agree with the last two paragraphs of your letter. If you study our object and declaration of principles, we hope that you agree that the Socialist Party fits the bill–Editors.

 

The urgent need for Socialism

Dear Editors,

Here we are, having finished the twentieth century which saw many advances in science and technology. Yet despite the potential to satisfy world-wide human need, there are still millions of people suffering from hunger and human misery. Unhappily our social organization has not changed in a way that would enable the human race to reap the full benefits of the useful advances—and abandon the harmful ones. Instead science and technology are commodities produced for sale and profit—they serve the needs of the market system. Presently the only access to the means of life is through money and for the majority this means employment of some kind. However, jobs only come when there is the prospect of profit. Also the standard by which men and women are judged is their material possessions. In every country a minority win out at the expense of the majority. Oh how apparent is the most urgent need for the Earth to belong to its entire people! Then, freed from the shackles which sale and profit places on human endeavour, there will be sufficient resources for everyone to have a satisfying way of life.

Justus Weijagye, 

Kabale, Uganda

 

Castle Breweries Kenya Limited

Dear Editors,

It was June last year when Castle Breweries Kenya Limited ceased its operations in the country. The company had been in operation in Kenya for only five years. A total of 1015 employees were affected by the closure. They, their children, families and relatives were left without any means of earning their daily what is famously called “bread”.

What led to the closure of the company is perhaps illustrative of how capitalism works. Castle Breweries had only one competitor—Kenya Breweries Limited. The South African company thus found it easy going at first but not so during the subsequent years.

Barley, an important ingredient in the manufacture of bee, is grown by a clique of farmers who are contracted by Kenya Breweries for their beer. Most of these farmers are either relatives or associates of senior officials of Kenya Breweries Limited. And thus any other person, or brewer for that matter, had to buy the barley at a higher cost. The only alternative is to import the barley. And this is what Castle Breweries used to do.

Since in its inception in Kenya, their idea or main motive was for profit making, Castle Breweries found it uneconomical to brew and sell its beer at the same price as the competitor, so the company vigorously campaigned for a tax waiver from the authorities.

Kenya Breweries, who had enjoyed monopoly for more than 70 years, found their existence being threatened and thus had to bribe the then President, Daniel Arap Moi. There was to be no tax waiver and in fact in his budget speech, the then Finance Minister Chris Obure increased the taxes on beer from 25 percent to 30 percent.

And thus Kenya Castle Breweries closed its brewing factory at Thika in June 2002 and went ahead at the same time to open others in the USA. The whole thing is Castle Breweries Limited had no intention of remaining in Kenya as long as there were no profits to be made. The welfare of the company’s 1015 employees was far from the concern of Castle’s ‘Bosses’.

The world will continue to witness cases of such nature as long as the so-called investors have only one goal when they are establishing their investments—profits. They go to any lengths to maximise profits and leave the conditions of those making the profits to be the same—Judas wages and salaries and slavery conditions of work.

We, the workers of the world, need to understand that no matter how much money you are paid, you’ll not be able to make ends meet because the wages or salaries are never commensurate to the profits made by the company, organisation or group you are working for. We need to know that the amount of time spent working for profits could be utilised elsewhere working for the welfare of the whole society. Our unity is vital and the capitalist way of doing things will end once we organise and work for the good of all. This will entail us going for political power and make it easy for capitalism to be replaced. Let’s unite to establish the system that caters for the needs of all the members of the society—Socialism.

Patrick W. Ndege,

Nairobi, Kenya