Pillars of the State, (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

or

We all go the same way home.

During the great fight to secure seats in the House of Commons, the superficial observer might have been misled into thinking that a tremendous gulf separated the rival factions. Upon closer examination the differences are seen to be of quite minor proportions and mainly concerning details, but there exists a curious unanimity of purpose. Whilst the National crowd claim to have a monopoly of patriotism and national interests, and predicted dire results in the event of a Labour Government being returned, this was hotly disputed by the Labour Party, who themselves claim to be just as patriotic and considerate of National Interests as their opponents.

The victory rested with those who had the most megaphones, and made the strongest appeal to working-class political inexperience.

The Church (of course) was on the side of Sanity, and the Bishop of London (a follower of the Prince of Peace, who urged the workers to shed their blood in the masters’ interests in the shambles of 1914 to 1918) again did his little bit for his masters when addressing his Diocesan Conference, predicting as a “solemn truth” that “If the verdict of the country goes wrong the pound will fall to five shilling’s in twenty-four hours, one shilling within a week, and one penny in a month.” Note the dogmatic exactness with which he prophesies the decline.

Cardinal Bourne, whilst differing from the Bishop of London on questions of Theology is on the same side when it comes to a question of serving the masters’ interests. Speaking at a meeting at the Victoria Palace, London, he said,

“It was the duty of Catholics to promote national peace, and most of them rejoiced that for the time being there was a weakening in the country of that rigid adherence to party which had been the cause of so many evils in the past. It was part of their duty to exorcise all that was evil in party spirit, and make its service as much as possible for the good of the nation. They had also to work for social peace. Nothing in the nature of class war might be fostered or encouraged by Catholics.” (“Eccles Journal,” October 30th.)

Dear, dear ! Whether they were really perturbed at the possibility of the return of a Labour Government we don’t know; but they needn’t have been alarmed.

Let us call the spokesmen of the Labour Party to give evidence against themselves. In an interview with the “Manchester Evening Chronicle” (Oct. 28-31), Mr. Clynes said,

“My conviction is that the Labour Party has stood as the most effective bulwark between revolution and a deep underlying discontent with economic and industrial conditions. The destruction for the time being of the Parliamentary Labour Party may well release forces for dissatisfaction which may assume the most ugly forms in the absence of the political power which the Labour Party welded.”

While Mr. Henderson in the “Daily Herald” (Oct. 29-31) referred to “Labour as the only bulwark against reaction and revolution.”

These are not merely individual views but are representative of the official party attitude as is shown by the “Daily Herald” leader (Oct. 30th),

“The Labour Party in Opposition, as in office, will do its duty to the Nation. The Government’s proposals will be carefully considered and judged purely and simply on their merits. Where they are considered to be wise, just, and designed for the advantage of the Nation they will be cordially approved, and every aid will be given in carrying them out.”

The term “National Interests” is generally construed as meaning the interests of the whole of the people. Let us see. In society as at present constituted there is a class which owns the means of wealth production and distribution, and draw their incomes simply because of this ownership.

On the other hand there is another class which constitutes the majority, who, because of the fact that they do not own the means of wealth production are compelled to work for those who do, on terms dictated by the owners. Between these two classes there is a diametrical opposition of interests, so that there can exist no national interests in the generally understood sense. National interests, upon examination, are found to be ruling class interests, and all parties standing for national interests are obviously supporters of the existing order no matter what labels they impudently give themselves. To quote the “Daily Herald” again (Nov. 3rd), while claiming that their object is Socialism, they define it as “a common-sense plan for the rationalisation of the system in which we live.”

The Socialist Party of Great Britain represents the interests of the working class, as opposed to the interests of the capitalist class, and does not pander to popular prejudice in order to secure seats in Parliament, or to get a following. Its constant aim is to get the workers to realise the necessity of a revolutionary change in the basis of Society and ending the present “system in which we live.”

The Labour Party is lined up along with the Liberals and Tories in defence of capitalism, and is an obstruction in the path of the workers in their struggle for emancipation ; an obstruction to be kicked out of the way. The I.L.P. members in a belated attempt to justify their title have decided not to sit with the Labour members on the grounds that: “Our experience with the Labour Party and the Labour Movement in recent years, has been such that we cannot possibly put our political actions under their control until we have some evidence that there is a general return to Socialist principles.” (“Daily Herald,” Nov. 4th). It would be interesting to know what were the Socialist principles once held by the Labour Party, and at what date Maxton’s peculiar crowd think they deserted them.

The I.L.P.s claim to be Socialist is just as impertinent as that of the Labour Party, and its principal achievement is that it gave to the Labour Party, Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden.

Out of the election results, one thing is made evident. If, in the event of another war, the workers are stampeded into support of it, the Labour leaders will again do their bit for their masters as recruiting sergeants.

Fellow-workers, why dally longer with these cheap-jack vendors of political shoddy; with reforms that do not reform ; with palliatives that do not palliate? Why support parties that are bulwarks of the present system when that system can only exist by keeping you in a subject position? Why follow leaders who are hoping to receive decorations from the enemy for services rendered—to the enemy?

The three “traitors” are no more and no less subservient to capitalism than the present leader has in the past proved himself to be. Organise along with us in the Socialist Party for the purpose of establishing Socialism, and leave these leaders without a following, when they can no longer be a danger to you nor useful to the capitalist class.

J. L.

Letter: Are We Wrong About Capitalist Crises? (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are We Wrong About Capitalist Crises?

A correspondent (“Robbo,” Croydon) has been digging into year-old articles published in the Socialist Standard, and wants to know if we have changed our mind about capitalism’s crises. He writes as follows : —

“In spite of your evident contempt for the “doctrine of collapse,” I think there is at least an outside chance (notice, I do not say a certainty) of a breakdown, before we have time to make the Socialists. In this connection I have been studying the article, “Will Capitalism Collapse?”, in your April, 1927, issue. There you refer to a previous criticism (February, 1922) of the same doctrine, pointing out that “half the allotted time” had passed, and that all the essential signs of a collapse were lacking. May I now point out that the “other half” has passed, and although, to be quite fair to you, the actual collapse has not yet taken place, it is significant to notice that almost all the features which you postulated as acceptable indications of collapse, and which may have been lacking in April, 1927, are now present in overwhelming force.

For instance (front page), “Where, now, are the unemployed organisations?” May I suggest, very much in evidence. Again (page 114), “Barring the failure of the natural physical basis of human life, it (the capitalist system) cannot fall,” and (also page 114), “The system does not cease to function.” Again I suggest that these things are happening. The physical basis is failing, and the system has almost ceased to function. Also (page 115) you say, “Since 1921 unemployment . . . has been almost halved, currency problems . . . have been . . . satisfactorily solved, and no one now supposes that the war debts present any special difficulty.” In the light of present conditions, comment on the latter statements is surely superfluous, and a re-reading of your own article should give you “furiously to think.”

Reply:

The late Mr. Bonar Law once retorted to a political opponent who had been making wild prophecies about the effects of a certain policy, “It is no use trying to argue with a prophet: one can only disbelieve him.” Fortunately one can do more than Mr. Bonar Law was disposed to do in that case. One can ask the prophet to state the grounds of his belief.

For the benefit of other readers we must first explain the references made by our correspondent to earlier articles in this Journal. In 1921 and 1922 the Communists were busy preparing for the breakdown of capitalism which they believed to be imminent. One of them said in reply to a question that 10 years would prove or disprove the soundness of that theory, on which the whole Communist movement was built up. In February, 1922, and again in April, 1927, articles by the present writer appeared in these columns criticising the assumptions of those who founded their policy on the supposed collapse of capitalism. In April, 1927, attention was drawn to the fact that half of the allotted ten years had passed, without the promised collapse and the world revolution which was to accompany it. What our correspondent “Robbo” asks us to believe is that even if the Communists misjudged the situation in 1922 and 1927 they have not over-estimated its seriousness to-day, because factors then lacking are now present. Let us consider these factors one by one.

In 1921 and 1922 the organised unemployed who were trying to force concessions from the Guardians and the Government by means of demonstrations, deputations, and the seizing of public buildings, were said to number hundreds of thousands, and the Communists claimed that they had the leadership of them. By 1927, with the passing of the worst of the industrial depression, the unemployed organisations had simply melted away ; hence the remark, “Where now are the Unemployed organisations?” Our correspondent; replies that in 1931 “they are very much in evidence.” But he quite mistakes the point of the remark to which he refers. The intention was to show the uselessness of the Communist theory of so-called “mass organisation.” Instead of building up a party of Socialists understanding Socialism, they believed in building up a loose organisation of vaguely discontented workers. Our criticism was that no permanent organisation could be constructed on such a base, and that anyway it could not be used for the achievement of Socialism because the members did not understand Socialism. We were right. Apathy and a decline in the volume of unemplovment destroyed the unemployed organisations and robbed the Communist Party of the bulk of its own members. The same thing will happen again. Our correspondent must not imagine that we believe the capitalist system to be in danger from the activities of organised unemploved even if they do number hundreds of thousands. The capitalist class can always deal with such situations by the joint method of police action and the giving of more unemployment pay and other concessions. The Communists themselves were compelled to admit that this is so. Their official organ said in 1923 : —

“The unemployed have done all they can, and the Government know it. They have tramped through the rain in endless processions. They have gone in mass deputations to the Guardians. They have attended innumerable, meetings and have been told to be “solid.” They have marched to London, enduring terrible hardships. . . . All this has led nowhere. None of the marchers believe that seeing Bonar Law in the flesh will make any difference. Willing for any sacrifice, there seems no outlet, no next step. In weariness and bitter disillusionment the unemployed movement is turning in upon itself. There is sporadic action, local rioting, but not central direction. The Government has signified its exact appreciation of the confusion by arresting Hannington.

The plain truth is that the unemployed can only be organised for agitation, not for action. Effective action is the job of the working-class as a whole. The Government is not afraid of starving men so long as the mass of the workers look on and keep the ring.” (“Workers’ Weekly,” February 10th, 1923.)

The next point is the conditions under which capitalism might come to an end. The passage referred to is as follows (S.S., April 1927, p. 114)

“Capitalism might conceivably be rent asunder and destroyed in a long-drawn-out struggle for mastery between contending classes, but, barring the failure of the natural physical basis of human life, it cannot fall and cannot be revolutionised except by the actions of the men and women who compose it.”

To this our correspondent retorts, “The physical basis is failing, and the system has almost ceased to function.” (Italics his.)

This statement is amazing, and our correspondent should himself have recognised the need for evidence to justify something so utterly out of keeping with the obvious facts of the present situation. The physical bases of human life—food, clothing, and shelter—were never so plentiful and so easily produced as they are to-day. The world is overburdened with supplies and the means of producing more of them. Yet in face of that our correspondent says that “The physical basis is failing.” Like the late Mr. Bonar Law one can only disbelieve him.

Then we are told that the system has “almost” ceased to function. There must be much virtue in that “almost” in the eyes of our critic. The production and distribution of wealth goes on with no more difficulty than it did 10, 20, or 50 years ago. The number of workers actually in employment now is more than 1,000,000 above the level in the 1921 slump. In many respects the capitalists are now better informed and better able to make adjustments to the constant demands of their system than in the past. As regards the political side we have just seen the capitalists get a new mandate for the retention of capitalism in spite of all the causes now operating to make the workers discontented. Perhaps “Robbo” will enlighten us as to what he means by “almost ceased to function.”

The last passage referred to by our correspondent is the following :—(S.S., April, 1927, p. 115.)

“Again, allowance should have been made for the familiar recurring depression which is a century old feature of the system. Such a depression, affecting almost all the world in 1921, no more justified the prophecy of ruin and collapse for British capitalism than depression did in pre-war days. Since 1921 unemployment in this country has been almost halved, currency problems in most European countries have been from a capitalist standpoint satisfactorily solved and no one now supposes that the war debts present any special difficulty.”

Our correspondent says about this, “In the light of present conditions, comment on the latter statements is surely superfluous, and a re-reading of your own article should give vou furiously to think.”

But comment is not superfluous, it is just what is needed, and in its absence we are left wondering what is our correspondent’s point. Between 1921 and 1927 unemployment fell from 2,500,000 to about 1,250,000, and now with a larger insured population it is back to about the same percentage as in 1921. But what does that signify to our correspondent ? To us it signifies that capitalism is behaving in very much the same way as in all the crises of the past. As regards currency problems our correspondent need only refer to contemporary political and economic journals to find that in the years just after the war the currency muddles of the European countries were far more disturbing than anything the world can show to-day. This country has now returned more or less to the currency position it occupied in the years from 1918 to 1925. Does that portend collapse? Obviously not. And has our correspondent forgotten that several times during the 19th century financial crises forced British Governments to suspend the Bank Charter Act governing the gold backing for the Bank of England Note issue ?

If “Robbo” believes that the war debts do present some special difficulty,” all he has to do is to tell us what feature there is in the present crisis that cannot be paralleled in one or other of the pre-war crises, when war debts did not exist in amounts comparable with the present debts. We can see no such additional feature. What we can see is the German capitalists using the depression as an excuse for getting rid of their burden of reparations. They have also used reparations as their excuse for reducing the pay of Government employees. But our correspondent has only to look at the other countries to see that reparations are a convenient excuse, nothing more, for the British Labour Government and practically every Government in the world has used the fall in prices and the depression as an excuse for reducing civil service pay. Wage reductions were of course a feature of every pre-war depression also.

In conclusion it may be of interest to point out that the idea of the imminent and certain collapse of capitalism, with its fatal effect on serious Socialist study and organisation, is far older than the Communists, who are indeed only carrying on the theories and tactics of the reformists in the Social Democratic Federation. In the ‘eighties and ‘nineties of last century unemployed organisations, demonstrations, deputations to the Guardians demanding “work or maintenance,” conflicts with the police, the seizing of public buildings, all of these things were in full blast whenever unemployment became acute. And then, as now, the reformists thought that capitalism would collapse and that the discontented non-Socialists in the unemployed organisations could be led to establish Socialism. And then, as now, there were the half-educated so-called “intellectuals,” who had misread Marx, assuring the workers that this theory is Marxian, and that it is true although it fails to fit the facts. The late Mr. Hyndman had perhaps some excuse in 1884 for holding this unsound theory of the collapse of capitalism. He wrote in “Justice,” in January, 1884 :—

“It is quite possible that during this very crisis, which promises to he long and serious, an attempt will be made to substitute collective for capitalist control. Ideas move fast; the workers are coming together.”

Later on he suggested 1889 as the probable date for the revolution. (See “Rise and Decline of Socialism,” by Joseph Clayton, p. 14.)

Edward Carpenter, in “My Days and Dreams,” says :—

“It was no wonder that Hyndman, becoming conscious as early as 1881 of the new forces all around in the social world, was filled with a kind of fervour of revolutionary anticipation. We used to chaff him because at every crisis in the industrial situation he was confident that the millennium was at hand. . . .”

Hyndman continued to see the revolution “round every corner” until the date of his death, although, ironically enough he bitterly hated the Communists who are only carrying on in Hyndman’s own earlier tradition.

His successors in the I.L.P. and the Communist Party have no such excuse as Hyndman had. They have no excuse for their ignorant assumption that Marx supports their view, nor for their failure to acquaint themselves with the easily accessible facts of past experience and the theories Marx based upon them, which show how capitalist society actually works, and how it may be replaced when, and only when, the workers want Socialism and will organise politically to obtain it.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Socialist Forum: Ourselves and the Russian Five-Year Plan. (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ourselves and the Russian Five-Year Plan.

Mr. W. Langham (W. Ealing) writes as follows :—

“You often condemn the Russian Five-Year Plan as not being Socialism, and being apparently a wrong method of attaining Socialism, but according to the ideas of the S.P.G.B. Socialism must come through Capitalism, it could not come through any other economic system, and as Russia under the Czars had been kept industrially backward for many years, it follows that the Five Year Plan is a necessary step towards Socialism. At least State Capitalism will make the change over much easier than from the Individualistic Capitalism which exists in other European countries.

You also condemn the I.L.P. for advocating Nationalisation, but this if brought about would tend to put the whole control of industry into the hands of Parliament, and production and distribution would at last become subject to the direct will of the people. Surely the fact that such services as the Post Office being of no advantage to the workers at present, only proves the necessity for taking over all services of production and distribution, and not make one pay for the inefficiency of private enterprise. It seems to me that this must be the way Socialism will at last come.”

Reply:

Our correspondent is in error. We do not “condemn the Russian Five-Year Plan” ; what we do is to condemn the Communists here and in Russia for propagating the falsehood that it is Socialism.

The further question about the technical development of Russia is answered by the condition of things in Great Britain, Germany, the U.S.A. and elsewhere. It is true, as Marx pointed out, that a country cannot jump from a backward, pre-capitalist, stage of development straight into Socialism; and we condemned the Bolsheviks for attempting to do this. But it is also true that something more than mere industrial efficiency is required in order to establish Socialism. Otherwise we would have had Socialism in the advanced capitalist countries decades ago.

State capitalism may, in certain circumstances, bring about the development of industry more rapidly than if it were left to private capitalist enterprise. It is, however, useful to remember that State capitalism has been little resorted to in the U.S.A.—a country which the Bolsheviks are taking as their model for industrial efficiency. There are, too, many observers who doubt whether State capitalism in Russia has achieved this end more quickly or more efficiently than would have been the case if private capitalism had been given greater freedom.

The more important point is, however, the argument that State capitalism “will make the change-over much easier.” It is an old argument, but is there any foundation for it? Germany and Australia are two countries in which vast experiments in State capitalism have been tried out over a long period. Have they in consequence made greater strides towards Socialism? We know of no evidence whatever to that eflect. We challenge our correspondent to prove this assertion.

May we also point out that the question of nationalising industries is one which the capitalists themselves will continue to decide so long as they remain in power, and they will decide it in their interests, not in ours. During the past ten years the process all over Europe has been in the direction of handing over State capitalist concerns to private corporations. Almost the first action of the late “Labour” Government was to ratify the agreement transferring State cables and wireless services to Imperial and International Communications, Ltd.

We certainly do condemn the I.L.P. for pretending that nationalisation and public utility corporations are Socialism, or are steps to Socialism; and our correspondent admits that we are justified in so doing, when he confesses that State ownership as in the Post Office is “of no advantage to the workers at present.” Socialism can only come when the workers have become Socialists. The I.L.P. and the Labour Party have made the work of propagating Socialism infinitely harder by pointing to nationalised industries as instances of Socialism. The worker who believes the Post Office to be a Socialist institution and who observes, like our correspondent, that it is “of no advantage to the workers,” quite naturally looks without enthusiasm at Socialist propaganda. Before we can get the workers to listen to our propaganda for Socialism, we have to undo the harm wrought by the I.L.P. and Labour Party.

To talk about putting industry under the “direct will of the people” by nationalising it is absurd. Is the Post Office under the direct will of the people? It is one of the most bureaucratic and hidebound bodies in existence. The unfortunate postman is hedged about with ancient and stupid regulations which most private capitalists have abandoned long ago. He may not even unfasten his collar in a heat wave ! Is this the will of the people?

Parliament is the dominating factor in the situation for all industries, not only nationalised ones. When the workers determine to do so they can control Parliament and, consequently, control the whole situation. The need is to get the workers to have the will to establish Socialism, not to interest them in minor questions about the form of capitalist control. Converting the workers to Socialism is still in its infancy in Russia as in other countries.

Ed. Comm.

The Socialist Forum: War and the collapse of capitalism. (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

War and the collapse of capitalism.

A correspondent objects to our statement made in the September issue that it is a hoary fallacy to suppose that capitalism will collapse of its own accord. He asks, “How is it possible for it to survive another world war? And under capitalism another war seems inevitable. Such a war would smash past repair the financial systems of Europe.”

To this question we would reply by asking another : “How was it possible for capitalism to survive the last war?” It is certainly true that capitalism did survive it, in spite of the hysterical prophecies of the believers in that hoary fallacy that it would collapse “past repair.”

What our correspondent overlooks is that no matter how great the damage a war might cause to parts of the capitalist system, the survivors of the war, unless they are Socialists, will turn to and build it up again. There is no way of getting Socialism without Socialists.

Ed. Comm.

The Socialist Forum: A question of gold and prosperity. (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A question of gold and prosperity.

Editor of Socialist Standard.

Sir,—Your notion that the relation between gold and trade depression is “an illusion,” and that it can be “easily dispelled” is erroneous. The relation is not, as you seem to imagine, such that the stock held by individual countries can secure their prosperity in face of world depression. The relation is between the rate of increase of the world’s stock of gold as against that of other primary products, and the statistics for the period 1850-1913 show that when this relative gold supply was increasing primary prices rose, and that when it decreased their prices fell—vide the figures and chart of Professor Cassel and Mr. Kitchin re-published in the first interim report of the Gold Delegation of the League of Nations. The ill effects of a downward trend of prices upon industry and employment are well established, and the relation between gold and trade depression is now only disputed by those who are concerned to maintain a deflationary policy, or who are ignorant of Professor Cassel’s work.

Geoffrey Biddulph.

Church Street, S.W.7.

October 18th, 1931.

Reply:

Mr. Biddulph “corrects” a notion which we do not hold. That he attributes it to us can only be due to careless reading of the article in question. We made it quite clear that we were concerned (as indeed, we always are) with the main problem of the workers, not with the problems of different sections of the capitalist class.

The difference between Mr. Biddulph and ourselves can be illustrated from his notion that rising prices, due to an increasing supply of gold, mean prosperity. We do not deny that prosperity may come to the manufacturing and trading capitalists : but what of the workers?

The table to which Mr. Biddulph refers us, and from which we have ourselves quoted recently, shows a very great increase in the world supply of gold from 1890 to 1914. Do we, then, find the workers prosperous? In 1901 Mr. Seebohm Rowntree found a third of the workers below a very meagre level of existence which he called the poverty line. In 1903 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman endorsed Rowntree’s findings and declared that “about 30 per cent. of the population is living in the grip of perpetual poverty.” In 1904 Sir Leo Money (then Mr. Money) ascertained that 96 persons out of every 100 died owning less than £100, while the other 4 out of every 100 possessed an average of over £9,000 each. He found that about one-seventieth of the population owned far more than half of the entire wealth of the United Kingdom.

If this is what Mr. Biddulph means by-prosperity—i.e., prosperity for the few—we do not dispute it. But we repeat our statement that the main problems of the workers have nothing to do with the supply of gold.

Ed. Comm.

Rationalising the Petrol Industry. (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Miners complain that petrol has helped to deprive them of their jobs. The developments of the petrol industry are at the same time reducing the number of workers required there. Many improvements in the distribution of petrol have been made since the War.

The substitution of the old horse-drawn wagons by motor-lorries has enabled the petrol companies to close down a large number of depots, involving the dismissal of drivers and vanguards in each case, as the motors can cover a larger area. Where depots have not been closed, a thorough revision of the vehicle routes has enabled lorries, drivers, and vanguards, to be dispensed with at nearly all depots.

The replacement of the petrol can by the petrol pump has resulted in the displacement of still more workers. Petrol can be run into a tank-wagon and out again into the retailer’s underground storage much more quickly than when it was necessary to load the cans on to a lorry and then to unload at the retailer’s, and then to load what empty cans had to be returned to the depot for unloading there. Then, of course, there was the filling of the empty cans at the depots, all of which took a considerable time. Vanguards were generally employed to assist in loading cans, but now they have largely been dispensed with, and the larger number of retailers who can be supplied by one tank-wagon has resulted in the elimination of further vehicles and drivers on this score. The large amount of labour involved in the manufacture and the periodical cleaning and painting of cans is no longer necessary. Motorists were induced to change over to pumps by quoting a lower price ex the pump.

Chiefly as a result of these changes in the method of delivery, in one firm alone 2,000 workers have been sacked during the past two years, and for the whole industry in the United Kingdom the number would probably be round about 6,000.

A casual inquirer might ask why, instead of dismissing so many workers, the hours could not have been shortened all round, or more holidays given, or, seeing that there is a like facility of production in the manufacture of cars and motor-cycles, why society could not have provided them with motor-cycles or cars in order to use up the surplus petrol.

The capitalist form of society, however, knows of no such solution. Goods are not produced primarily for use, but in order to make a profit, and when competing capitalists bring down prices in order to undersell a competitor or to force their entry into a price combine, the others are bound to follow suit, in order to retain their profits, cut down the number of their workers to the absolute minimum, and if that is not sufficient, reduce wages.

Hence we see that, all round, increasing facility of production of foods and commodities of all kinds only means an increase in the poverty of the workers.

No modification of capitalism can alter this condition of affairs. The solution is to abolish capitalism. Capitalism is only one of the many forms of society which have evolved, and Socialism is its only logical successor. Only by the establishment of Socialism can the poverty of the workers be abolished. Read our Declaration of Principles and see how this can be brought about.

RAMO.

SPGB Meetings. (1931)

Party News from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

• There is more information about Hull Branch's Dan Billany at the following link.
• J. Horner, the speaker at the Sheffield meeting, was Joseph Henry Horner. A former member of the British Socialist Party, he was a member of the SPGB from January 1930 until lapsing his membership in March 1933.
• D. Goldberg was David Goldberg. He joined the Hackney Branch of the SPGB in March 1925. He joined the armed forces whilst a member during World War II, and was killed in action during the Italian campaign. He is briefly mentioned in Barltrop's The Monument.
• David Lamond of Edinburgh first joined the SPGB in April 1926, and possibly rejoined in March 1930. (No mention of why he may have left the SPGB in between those years.) There is an all too brief obituary for him in the February 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard.

To Our Readers. Please Note. (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Interesting to note that Standard with primarily available in the east part of London.

"The House of Industry." (1931)

Book Review from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The House of Industry by S. G. Hobson (Pub. P. S. King & Son, Ltd., price 1/-, 112 pages).

Mr. S. G. Hobson, who has in turn been a member of the I.L.P., a Fabian, and an advocate of Guild "Socialism" has written a book in which he advocates workers’ control. This is to become effective by superseding the House of Lords by a "House of Industry,” which will have full legal authority from the House of Commons to control "all industrial processes, including banking, finance, credit and insurance; and in which labour will have a permanent majority.” The members of the "House of Industry” are to be elected by economic groups and to be representative of all factors. Needless to say Mr. Hobson does not propose dispossessing the capitalist class. He proposes that shares should be changed into "some form of debentures” bearing a fixed rate of interest.

The problems of Capitalism are very simple matters to the "House of Industry.” Unemployment will be solved by "increasing wages, adjusting economic factors, by co-ordinating industry and controlling credit.” How it is going to be done or how the details will work themselves out we are not told. We are left to believe that the magical formulae, "Control of credit ” . . . "finance” . . . "co-ordination of industry,” etc., etc., which are repeated almost on every page, will perform the miracle.

The most interesting part of the book is perhaps the foreword contributed by two prominent Trades Council officials, A. M. Wall and A. A. Purcell. Concerned because the Labour Party has forsaken its policy of Nationalisation (see June S.S.) in favour of Public Utility Companies, they advocate support of Mr. Hobson’s proposals for "workers’ control” through a "House of Industry” as outlined in his book.

"The politicians,” they say, "are actively engaged at this moment in legislating away their control over industry . . .  We need only instance the creation of the Electricity Commission and the proposed new authority for the passenger transport system of London as illustrations of this tendency on the part of Parliament to give away its control of economic affairs.”

They continue:—

   The indications are that a decade of legislation under Labour Governments will give us a whole group of independent corporations of this type, administering railway and road transport, electricity supply, the cotton textile industry, and probably others. These concerns will not be, as the Post Office organisation is, under Parliamentary control, administered by Government departments, and with responsible Ministers at their head. If the proposed new transport authority in London is to be taken as a model, questions of wages and conditions of employment will be handled by these new bodies in exactly the same way as any powerfully organised capitalist-controlled industry handles them now. Trade Unions will negotiate with these boards of Commissioners as they now negotiate with employers' organisations; and the policy of the board in dealing with the Unions cannot be any more effectively challenged in Parliament than the policy of any capitalist organisation of employers can be challenged to-day. Labour members who are returned to the House of Commons at the expense of the Unions by working-class votes as Members of Parliament, will be as powerless to protect the interest's of their organisations whose members are employed under these corporations, as the group of miners' M.P.s are to protect the workers in the coalfields under capitalist ownership. Our Labour members, in fact, who are consenting to the creation of these corporations, are not only voting away their usefulness as Union watchdogs : they are legislating against the workers' control of industry. And if anybody alleges that the principle of workers' control will be safeguarded by the inclusion of one or two prominent trade unionists among the commissioners we can only say we do not agree. We take leave to say further that anybody who thinks the appointment of a Trade Union representative on one of these boards is a step towards workers' control understands neither the meaning of workers' control nor the purpose of Trade Unionism.

It will be seen that Mr. A, M. Wall and Mr. A. A. Purcell both vigorously denounce Mr. Morrison’s and the late Labour Government’s London Passenger Transport Bill. They represent it—quite truly—as the abandonment of the Labour Party’s old policy of Nationalisation. But is there any fundamental difference between these proposals? The difference is merely one of form. In the case of Nationalisation control is vested in a State Department; in the case of the Public Utility Trust in a Committee of business men who are responsible to a State Department. In the case of "workers' control,” on the lines of Mr. Hobson’s proposals, control would nominally be in the hands of elected officials. In each case, however, the capitalists still retain ownership, and perhaps more securely than ever. Instead of their shares being liable to considerable fluctuations in the open market and to possible complete loss, they are to receive a fixed rate of interest on bonds having Government backing.

Public ownership in any of these forms is capitalism in a new garb. The defect about these schemes is that they do not so much as touch the fundamental problem of the workers. What is the problem? It is that we live in a world where the means of production and distribution are the private property of the capitalist class. The workers produce everything that is necessary for the sustenance and continuance of society; the capitalist class own it. The workers receive wages based roughly on what it costs them to live and be efficient, and bring up families. The capitalist class keep the remainder. It has been calculated by a Liberal economist, Professor Henry Clay, that one-twentieth of the population own between them five-sixths of the accumulated property, land, buildings, shares, etc., and retain every year nearly half of the total product of industry. That is the workers’ problem. That is why they are poor. There lies the cause of unemployment and wars. The solution is that the means of production and distribution should be made the common property of society as a whole. When that has been done there will no longer be a working class, producing wealth but not owning it, and a propertied class owning-wealth but not producing it. That will be Socialism. Nationalisation, Public Utility Companies, etc., do not solve that problem. They leave the property owners still in possession of their property rights, still able to live at the expense of the producers.

The only difference is that they exchange shares in a private company for shares in a public utility company, or for Government securities. The workers are more or less where they were before, getting just enough to exist on, and faced with all the harrowing problems of how to make ends meet. Changing the form of capitalism from private companies to State-controlled concerns is a problem of interest to the capitalist class, the form of whose property is being changed, but it is not a question that is worth the attention of the workers.

Harry Waite

The Basis of Socialist Organisation. (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Lesson of the Election

The one thing that most clearly marks off the Socialist Party of Great Britain from the other organisations which claim an interest in Socialism, is our view that the only possible basis for a Socialist Party is an understanding of socialist principles. When the founders of the S.P.G.B. decided on our present Declaration of Principles as the minimum condition of' membership, they had already had long experience of alternative forms of organisation. They had seen the disastrous results of bringing together people without socialist knowledge who were attracted merely by one or other of a long list of political and social reforms. Such an organisation cannot be more advanced than its members, and therefore cannot take action for the furtherance of Socialism. Indeed, it can take action at all only with the greatest difficulty, for it rarely happens that all the members are agreed upon any one of the reform demands. Every attempt to be definite provokes internal friction or secession movements. The electoral success of such a party is its aim and also its undoing. For with office comes the demand from the members that steps be taken to fulfil all the promises. Of course they cannot be fulfilled; capitalism stands in the way. The elation of victory gives place quickly to angry criticism of the men or the programme. So every such party meets its fate sooner or later at the hands of the workers who gave it life and strength. The last election, coming after more than two years of Labour Government, shows us the internal contradictions of the Labour Party, working out to their necessary conclusion. Those who still cling to the belief that an organisation of non-socialists, brought together upon a programme of reforms, can work for Socialism should ponder over the Labour Party’s collapse.

"Forward," the Scottish I.L.P. journal, in its issues dated November 7th, 14th and 21st, published articles from a large number of Labour candidates in Scottish constituencies telling why they lost seats and votes. The collection is a very powerful justification for the position of the S.P.G.B. Below we give some brief extracts:—

Mr. Thomas Johnson (West Stirlingshire) : “We lost, inter alia, because about 15 per cent, of our abnormal vote in 1929 transferred itself to our opponents.”

Mr. T. Henderson (Tradeston) gives as one of the reasons for his defeat, “warring elements within the movement.”

Mr. Michael Marcus (Dundee) says: “Recent events prove conclusively that our first task is to convert certain socialists to Socialism.” He records that panic at the thought of a Labour victory seized even the poorest workers who had not so much as a few pounds in the Savings Bank.

Mr. James C. Welsh (Coatbridge) tells that the unemployed and their wives voted against him, although, as he complains bitterly, “ I think I can claim that nowhere have the unemployed had better services given them.”

Mr. D. N. Mackay (Inverness-shire) confesses that the electors voted for the National candidate because they still regarded MacDonald and Snowden as “typical Labourists ” and “their views were accepted as final.” But what a confession to make! To admit that the party supporters had been recruited simply on the name's of its former leaders.

Mr. John Winning (Kelvingrove) says that working-class voters, employed and unemployed, after two years of Labour Government, flocked to the poll "to protect their few pennies in the Savings Bank and Post Office from confiscation by a Labour Government ”: not only the old and decrepit, but also "the young and vigorous." He finds it a chastening thought, and wonders what is wrong with the Labour Party’s "socialist” propaganda.

Mr. R. Gibson (N. Edinburgh) found that the unemployed voted Tory because they were promised jobs, and, it seems, were more impressed by this than by the Labour promise to look after their unemployment pay. It is a saddening discovery for reformers that the workers positively dislike their particular brand of reforms. Mr. Gibson had the support of the local Liberals, and paints a touching picture of a "Liberal woman . . . pleading with a Communist to vote Labour.”

Mr. J. S. Clarke (Maryhill) says "Prominent members of the I.L.P., including the Glasgow organiser, not only abstained from voting for the Labour candidate, but conducted a virulent campaign against him.” Mr. Clarke is one of those who in the past have told us that we ought to get together with the great united Labour Party. But even if we wanted to, how could we now that it is "united” into several furiously battling fragments?

Mr. J. Pollock (Kilmarnock) attributes defeat to the Labour supporters having been won over to tariffs, and to the deadly blow administered to the local Labour Party in 1929 when the Labour Head Office forced a particularly anti-working class Labour candidate on the division.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Leith) says that in his constituency the workers felt that they had had just about enough of Labour Government "and it was time to see what another Government would do.” That is confirmation of our own often expressed view of the results of Labour Government.

Mr. J. Sullivan (Bothwell) lost his seat because he had quarrelled with the other reform party, the Communists, and they ran a candidate against him.

Mr. G. Mathers (W. Edinburgh) relates that certain of his own dissatisfied supporters, instead of helping him, came to his meetings "trying to concoct trick questions.” He saw with surprise that the unemployed, the teachers, and others who were affected by the National Government’s economy plans, nevertheless voted "Nationalist.”

In South Ayrshire, Mr. James Brown suffered from the effects of his own party’s propaganda. The Labour Party, having decided to be Free Traders, were promising to keep prices down, so the farmers and fishermen—who wanted high prices, not low ones—voted against the Labour Party,, which was expecting to get their votes.

Dissatisfaction With Labour Government.

Mr. F. Martin (E. Aberdeenshire) gives the following reasons for the shrinkage of the Labour vote :—

  The general scare; support for Ramsay MacDonald, which caused a certain number of Socialists to vote for the Conservative, and which also induced many abstentions; dissatisfaction with the record of Labour in office.

The chief Tory asset was, in Mr. Martin’s view, the prospect of tariffs.

In Galloway, Mr. H. McNeill was beaten by a combination of factors. There was a Mosley candidate preaching "scientific capitalism” (and seemingly some voters thought this must be better than capitalism badly run by the Labour Party). Numbers of Co-operators voted Tory "to save the pound, and at the same time their divi” from their Labour friends.

In Motherwell, which the Communists used to declare had a solid Communist majority (although they won it on the usual Lib.-Lab. reform programme), the Rev. James Barr was up against a Liberal who is chairman of the local football club, and therefore popular. Then, it appears, the electorate failed to realise that a National victory meant protectionist capitalism instead of free trade capitalism, and “they paid no heed to the warning of the 'Manchester Guardian.’ ” The Liberal candidate won other votes by declaring that the rich are having a bad time; he "gave out grossly inaccurate figures as to additional burdens imposed on surtax payers.” And finally he tried to take away Catholic voters from the Protestant Rev. J. Barr.

May we offer to this Labour candidate what would seem to be a simple but certain road to victory next time? Let him become chairman of a football club, declare himself a Protectionist-Free-Trader and a Catholic-Protestant, and train all his supporters to read the Liberal "Manchester Guardian.” Then, no doubt, we shall soon have Socialism!! The chief obstacle from the Rev. Barr's point of view is that, if he discovers a vote-catching stunt, his opponents will use it too.

Mr. J. Gibson (S. Lanark) was defeated because, among other things, the workers did not like what they saw of Labour Government. He says :—

   The Labour Government did not help us. It had attempted to operate capitalism only to find itself faced with a crisis that demanded Socialist action.

Mr. Gibson does hot explain how, having been elected to operate capitalism, they could have taken socialist action even if they know what it is and wished to do so. It was only the disgust of the voters that prevented Mr. Gibson from being returned like the others “to operate capitalism." That was what he was offering to do.

“They Had No Savings."

In Berwick and Haddington, Mr. G. Sinkinson had a different experience from some of his colleagues elsewhere. He found that the miners solidly resisted the panic about Savings Banks, “for the very simple reason that they had ho savings." Mr. Sinkinson does not explain what the Labour Government had been doing for over two years that the miners should have been thus pauperised.

Mr. J. Rankin (Pollok) describes the “huge Labour majorities of 1929 melting like snow upon the desert's dusty face." The fall in the Labour vote was due to the following: “The ongoings in the Labour Cabinet during the crisis." At every meeting he was asked, “Did your own Cabinet not agree to nine-tenths of the cuts you are now opposing?" He describes the election as being “simply a vote of confidence in MacDonald"; and like others who for years and years had been telling the voters to trust blindly in MacDonald, Mr. Rankin was caught in his own trap.

Miss Jennie Lee, in N. Lanark, failed to get the votes of electors in a new district, and suffered from “the general disappointment caused by the spirit in which the Labour Government had applied itself to its tasks." It will be recalled that Miss Lee, when she was elected in 1929 on a programme of reforms which did not so much as mention Socialism-, claimed her election as a “socialist " victory. Of course, neither her victory then nor her defeat now had anything to do with Socialism.

In West Lothian Mr. Shinwell expected the shale oil workers and miners to be disappointed with the results of Labour Government whose “reforms" had, in fact, worsened their conditions. He saw the miners voting for a royalty owner, and Catholic workers voting for a Protestant Orangeman.

In Shettleston the Labour man was beaten by Mr. McGovern, who fought with the backing of the I.L.P. and its leaders (and the Catholic Press). The I.L.P. parent trying to kill its own overgrown child, the Labour Party!

In Bute and N. Ayr, Mr. A. Sloan attributed his defeat, partly at least, to the spectacle of the Labour Government putting its programme into operation.

  Frankly, I must say that the action or in- action of the late Labour Government had quite a lot to do with it. There was resentment in the minds of the workers that they had been badly let down by the Labour Government.

The Labour Government's "Means Test."

With regard to accusations against the Labour Cabinet that they had agreed to the economies, he says :—

   I have yet to see, hear, or read any reasoned reply to the accusation. I also struck the first fruits of the Anomalies Act. . . It is a means test of far reaching effect imposed by the Labour Government.(Italics his.)

Mr. Sloan gives it as his view that the Labour Government, if judged simply on its merits, would have had an even worse defeat at the polls. Only the unpopular National Government economies saved the Labour candidates some loss of votes.

In East Renfrewshire, Bailie Strain had to fight the “fighting marquis of Clydesdale," a popular sporting man, and also the I.L.P. The branch of the I.L.P. not only decided to take no part in the election, but refused to lend or hire out its hall for Labour meetings, this being done as “a protest against the actions of the Parliamentary Labour Party."

Bailie Strain, who was the Co-operative nominee, found himself up against Cooperative opposition. He says :—

   The Tories undoubtedly took full advantage of the elements, hundreds of motor cars and fine- dressed ladies, among whom were many prominent co-operators, helping to rush the electors to the polls.

Mr. A. Fraser Macintosh, at Montrose Burghs, gives a fine illustration of the dangers of depending upon leaders. His party has always told the workers to trust in MacDonald. So large numbers of Labour supporters continued to do so in this election. You cannot unmake a god in a few weeks. Other Labour supporters had become apathetic and would not vote, because the Labour Government had "let them down.’’ All that Mr. Macintosh and his helpers could do was to say that it was not the Labour Party which had betrayed the workers, but only its leaders. To which, as Mr. Macintosh confesses, the workers replied that you could not separate the leaders from the Party.

   Our little band showed them, but it was of little avail—we did not count, it was the leaders who counted, and they had let them down and would do so again.

The Labour Party cannot have it both ways. If they build a party on its leaders, they must put up with the devastating consequences when the leaders desert.

Reforms Which Hit The Miners.

Mr. J. Westwood (Peebles and S. Midlothian) was up against the opposition of the miners, whose sufferings had been aggravated by one  of the Labour Government’s "reforms.”

   There was also a feeling of bitterness amongst the miners at the inadequacy of the Coal Mines Act to deal with the problem of the mines, made more difficult by the short time worked, low wages received and recent reductions applied to our men in the Scottish coalfields.

There was also strong anti-Labour feeling, because of the Labour Government’s Anomalies Act, withdrawing unemployment pay from married women.

Helen Gault, the I.L.P. candidate for East Perth, lost 4,500 votes as compared with 1929. In that year she was official Labour candidate, and had the benefits of having MacDonald on her platform, and "generous financial assistance” from the trade unions. This time her official Labour Party endorsement was withdrawn, and with it the trade union money. She says  that the greatest factor in causing former voters to desert her was the action of the Labour Government—"My greatest handicap was undoubtedly the record of the Labour Government.” She makes the frank admission that, although she and her helpers knew that the charges against the Labour Government were true, they carefully refrained from admitting it.

The Same Thing Over Again.

The above extracts from "Forward” should serve to show what the workers actually think about the Labour Party, and how little they understand their class position and the socialist case. Here we can see the falseness of the I.L.P. and Labour Party belief that you can lead along non-socialist workers by giving them the "practical benefits” of Labour Government. Labour administration of capitalism antagonises the workers, just as speedily as Tory or Liberal administration. 

An incredible amount of work has been devoted to building up the Labour Party and I.L.P. on a basis of reforms, and when they have their chance of giving effect to their programme, capitalism simply smashes their fiddling schemes out of all recognition. It is obvious that in the election the complex jumble of plans and promises contained in "Labour and the Nation” had little effect on the voters.

They simply voted on what they conceived to be the issue of the moment. The Labour Party had been thrust through the natural unpopularity of being the Government, or had manoeuvred itself, on to the wrong side as regards electoral success. Now they are taking stock and preparing to get back again into office when the National Government also fails to solve the insoluble problems of capitalism. But the Labour leaders are not learning the real lesson of the election. They are not even aware that it has proved once more that the only basis for a Socialist Party is an understanding of Socialism. All they are doing is to mix up another mess of reforms, calculated to capture the largest number of votes.

Edgar Hardcastle

Overproduction Baffles the Capitalists. (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Times" on September 5th, had an editorial on the present world economic situation that was strangely frank and illuminating, as the following extracts will show:—

   How disastrously the financial machinery of the world is out of gear was strikingly illustrated the other day, when, in order to effect an exchange of commodities, the Brazilian Government and the Federal Farm Board of the United States had to resort to the primitive method of direct barter. They signed an agreement exchanging 1,050,000 bags of coffee for 25,000,000 bushels of wheat. That method of meeting the situation is, at any rate., better than some of those which have been adopted. In Texas and Oklahoma the military took charge of the oil wells, not to prevent any interference with production, but to stop production, and in Kansas orders were given to stop production in specified areas  . . .
    The cotton growers of the Southern States were recently urged by the Federal Farm Board to destroy one-third of their crops, and, though they indignantly rejected this suggestion, they themselves are seriously considering proposals to prohibit the growing, gathering or ginning of cotton next year. In Brazil hundreds of thousands of bags of coffee have been draught and destroyed by the Coffee States Council.  . . .
     Every one knows that there is over-production in the sense that there is more cotton, more wheat, more sugar, more coffee, and, apparently, more of every kind of food and raw material on the market than the consumer is able to buy at prices remunerative to the grower. . . .
    Over-production is hard to imagine in the sense that more wheat, for example, is being grown than the world can use. At any rate it cannot be said to exist so long as there are people who cannot get enough bread to eat.  . . .
    Half a dozen professors of political economy, discussing the practical questions on which their studies should enable them to throw light, can disagree among themselves as wholeheartedly as any half a dozen business men in a railway carriage. But somehow or other, with or without the aid of the scientific economist, answers will have to be found for the economic riddles over which the world is now bewildered. Until they are solved, or, perhaps, solve themselves, there can be no general return to prosperity.

Detailed comment would spoil this picture.

Too much of everything, but we are poor because we can’t buy! America can’t sell so she takes to barter. The owners in the producing industries have taken fright and are destroying or restricting production! The sum total of opinion in Tory, Liberal, Labour and T.U.C. camps is that the only way out for this country is a general cut in wages or an increase in prices—a reduction in buying power! Under it all is the hope, frankly expressed above, that somehow or other things will straighten themselves out.

The capitalists, their guides and scribes, are impotent in the face of productive machinery so prolific that the wealth turned out is clogging and weighing the system down. The only real answer they have is to find a means, satisfactory to the bulk of their class, for restricting production and parcelling out markets.

Gilmac.

Editorial: Futilities & Tragedies. (1931)

Editorial from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Each year that passes brings out with greater clearness the contrast between the professions of the League of Nations and its accomplishments. Organised for the avowed purpose of solving international tangles by arbitration, and thus doing away with the recourse to force, every dispute it has set out to settle has demonstrated its utter ineptitude.

The latest manifestation of the League must be food for infinite laughter to all who have a sense of humour. The League holds numerous and heated meetings; its delegates sit day and sometimes till late at night; first-class diplomats from all nations represented make hurried trips in aeroplanes to its meetings; frenzied notes are sent out to Japan and China to cease fighting and arbitrate. And the result?—Japan goes marching on to protect the £200 millions her capitalists have invested in Manchuria.

The central fact is the permanent condition of capitalism. Where a group of capitalists are aiming at markets for their goods they are always prepared to use force to accomplish their object if cunning is not sufficient, and if they believe they can safely do so. The only deterrent factor is the fear of superior force. The permanency of force should have been made sufficiently clear by the abortive disarmament conferences and the way in which Germany, when restricted in the size of ships and weight of armour, succeeded in producing in smaller form as destructive ships of war as formerly.

The final and most effective reason for the maintaining of an armed force by each capitalist State is the enemy within its gates — the working class —who, at times when the burden of poverty and oppression becomes too much to be borne in silence and weakness, tends to revolt blindly and fiercely, and threaten the foundations of capitalist wealth. Although blind revolt cannot build a new society, it could damage or even destroy an existing one.

The amount of money willingly spent by various nations on the futile and fatuous work of the League of Nations is in striking contrast to the niggardliness of the expenditure on inside matters that affect the life and welfare of their workers. In factories and mines, and elsewhere, thousands. of workers lose their lives every year in the work of piling up wealth for the capitalist. When an event occurs that is outstanding and .cannot be conveniently ignored, the papers are full of tales of the heroism of workers and the cheap sympathy of those who profit by the workers' toil. One such event has occurred in England this week. At the Doncaster Colliery thirty-four miners have been killed and many injured in a disaster that has been a common feature of the mining industry.

Yet these very miners have been fighting for years against reductions in their already meagre wages, and in the forefront of the sympathisers are those who use the powers of Parliament to force down the miners' standard of living. Once again it has been shown that coal mining is an exceedingly dangerous occupation, but when the trouble has blown over this fact will be forgotten and all attention centred on the “League of Nations" and similar futilities.