Which Exploiting Regime—U.S.A. or U.S.S.R.? (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade Union Leaders at Loggerheads

The 1945 Trade Union Congress witnessed an indictment of Russian trade unionism by Mr. G. Meany, delegate from the reactionary American Federation of Labour. The incident occurred during a discussion on the proposed formation of an International Federation of Trade Unions. Mr. Meany protested against the inclusion of Russia, on the grounds that Russian trade unionism was a sham. He said: 

  "We do not recognise that the Russian worker groups are trade unions. The Soviet worker groups are formally and actually instruments of the State.
  "They are official branches of the Government and of its ruling dictatorial party.
 "These trade unions actively support the Soviet system of worker black lists and deportation to labour camps that have resulted in virtual enslavement for millions of peasants, workers and professional people, who are confined to labour camps with no protection from exploitation end compulsory labour.
  "We have been in complete accord with our Government's military co-operation with Russia. We hope our Government may find ways and means to achieve similar cooperation in post-war years in the interests of permanent world peace. But in simple honesty we insist on recognising the so-called Russian trade union movement for what it is—a Government controlled, Government fostered and Government dominated labour front that denies to the workers of Soviet Russia the basic human freedoms that American workers hold are pre-requisite to a free trade union.
  "For us membership in a world organisation that would attempt to dictate to our Government on the conduct of its foreign relations is unthinkable. We do not want our Government to take over trade unions and we do not want our trade unions to take over our Government.
  "We believe in Labour co-operation along trade union lines in the international field." —(Daily Sketch, 13th September, 1946.)

The next day Mr. Tarasov, representing the Soviet trade unions, referred to Mr. Meany's statements as insults and lies. He made no attempt to prove they were lies, but said Mr. Meany's accusations "aimed at disrupting their common efforts to achieve unity of one international trade union movement. This feeling of resentment was demonstrated in the Congress itself by the indignant protests of many delegates."

Mr. Meany's accusations were aimed more at the form of government in England and Russia than against trade unionism as such in those countries. American bosses would be in complete accord with him. The resentment of Mr. Tarasov and the disapproval of the delegates sprang more from this aspersion on their respective governments than from any charge against Russian trade unionism. The delegates of all three countries were merely showing their loyalty to their national bosses.

Confirmation of Meany's statements came from a number of sources during the following weeks. On September 20th, the Daily Telegraph published an article by J. L. Garvin which comprehensively outlined the attitude of Russian leaders towards the working-class of that country, together with a survey of their spectacular rise to power. Among other things he said:—

  "Turn to the no less dynamic system of Russia, operated by other means. It derives from an original compulsion of unique circumstances. Not from the ancient doctrines and dogmas of Karl Marx, framed a hundred years ago, but from the personal and path-breaking genius of Lenin and Stalin.
  "On no subject are our Socialist Ministers and their rank and file more deceived. Russia to-day is neither dominated nor influenced by any idea concerning labour that appeals to the Trades Union Congress. The Soviet Union is a system of State Capitalism fundamentally based on compulsory and stimulated labour.
   "How did it arise? After the overthrow of Tsarism the economic problem was nothing less than to lift Russia from conditions like those of the thirteenth century to the level of the twentieth; and so to do the work of five centuries in one generation.
  "Lenin had definite conceptions of how to do it on the largest lines of modern technique. Stalin became the daring and mighty executant of that design—the demiurge of the incredible transformation effected by the series of Five Years' Plans. It has been a work made possible by the extent of Russia's undeveloped resources. Nowhere else on earth could its like have been achieved by the same means.
   "British labour would not stand for a single day that rigour and urge of compulsion or the lower standard of life.
   "The old Communist maxim was, 'From everyone according to their ability; to everyone according to their need.' Soviet State Capitalism is rightly so called because It has succeeded in the former purpose of compelling total and extreme exertion, but has not begun to attain the second ideal of plentiful distribution.
   "Owing to the successive necessities of political and economic revolution and of war, the low Russian standard of living is largely a sacrifice for a higher future of human welfare, as well as national strength. Stalin avowed years ago that his continuous aim was to create ultimately 'the happiest as well as mightiest society in the world.'
    "But let us make no mistake about the method. Its power at bottom depends on no Marxist nor any other theory, but—let us repeat it—on a practical economic policy of intensive work and maximum production emulating the similar aims in America."—Telegraph, September 20th, 1945.

To understand fully the attitude, or acquiescence, of the Russian workers, we have to remember that their leaders claim to be Socialists planning to achieve Socialism. Their names are often coupled with that of Marx, who is regarded as a mere theorist; while Lenin and Stalin are supposed to have been translating his theories into practice in accordance with the changed circumstances of to-day. In addition, of course, there are the concentration camps for those who disagree, or fail to work energetically for the five-year plans.

The nationalised planning in Russia and England and the boasted private enterprise of America have all the same objective: trade supremacy based on exploitation. of the working-class. In all three countries the workers are being urged to tighten their belts and work harder and faster. In Russia the workers are hypnotised by Stalin and Co. In England and America trade union leaders have no ideas beyond bargaining with the masters for concessions here and there. Their protracted and ineffective efforts inevitably lead to impatience on the part of the workers and numerous unofficial strikes; leaders and masters then invariably demand a return to work as a condition of further consideration of the men's demands.

Futile as this procedure is, trade union leaders have no desire for a change. They have established themselves as responsible links between capital and labour, and the importance and permanence of each side must be maintained in order to preserve their status, and of course, their jobs..

It must be obvious to thinking people that trade unionism can do nothing for the workers beyond putting up organised resistance against the masters on the questions of wage reductions and greater speed and intensity of work.

Among those who had a ding at trade unions, following Mr. Meany’s charges at the T.U.C., was “Candidus,” of the Daily Sketch. Among other things he said:—

  “For Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism, whereas capitalism is the fly-wheel of trade unionism. Capitalism and trade unionism stand or fall with each other."—Daily Sketch, September 17th, 1945.

Because of his habitual confusion over nationalisation and Socialism, "Candidus” inadvertently proclaims a profound Socialist truth. To be the antithesis of capitalism. Socialism must be opposed to it on fundamentals. Which it is. Capitalism, the thesis, is based on class ownership of the means of wealth production. Socialism, the antithesis, proclaims ownership of these essential things by the people as a whole. But the antithesis can only be realised by the working-class in opposition to the master-class. The workers’ are wasting much time and energy struggling against them on the industrial field. A little thought would show them the limits of this struggle, and a little more thought would convince them of the necessity to understand and work for Socialism.

F. Foan

Donations To Party Funds (1945)

Party News from the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: Some Facts About The Dock Strike (1945)

Editorial from the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hypocritical Attitude of Labour Spokesmen

A great deal of cant has been spoken and written about the dockers' “unofficial ” strike which ended on November 5th, but with the threat that they will come out again if the negotiations now resumed do not give them satisfaction. The line taken by the daily Press and by the spokesmen of the Labour Government has been that there can be no recognition of “unofficial” action not endorsed by the central executives of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the other unions involved. The pious attitude of the newspapers would be more convincing if there was the slightest reason to believe that they would have given their support if the strike had been official,—but experience shows that if it had they would have opposed it just the same. After the last war the same problem arose of the attempted stabilisation of wages at war-time levels, and there were innumerable strikes, official and unofficial. One of the biggest official strike# was of railway men, and it took place after long negotiations. The strike was widely condemned by the newspapers, though it was official, and Hr. Lloyd George’s Government refused to negotiate while the men were on strike. That is the typical attitude of the employers, the capitalist press and governments. Trade union officials, who are quite familiar with it, ought to have something better to do than lend themselves to sidetracking capitalist propaganda about unofficial strikes. If members of the unions think that negotiations are being needlessly prolonged by the employers, or if delays and lack of contact exist because of the unwieldy machinery of huge composite unions like the Transport Workers, with its million members and dozen separate trade groups, or if there is a suspicion that the men's interests are being sacrificed in order not to embarrass the Labour Government in its task of administering capitalism, trade union officials cannot justifiably disown responsibility.

If the Press has been hypocritical so have the Labour Ministers. Many of them in the past have been engaged in activities likewise denounced by the capitalist Press or by the men who at that time controlled the Labour Party and trade unions. Some of them on occasion have been active in unofficial strikes and have incurred the displeasure of the officials they were repudiating.

Many of them were associated with the national strike of 1926 and would be wise to remember how the politicians and lawyers denounced it as “unconstitutional." Mr. Shinwell, as Chairman of the 40-hour Committee in 1919, was charged with inciting to riotous conduct and imprisoned for five months, and Miss Ellen Wilkinson was once a fiery advocate of “direct action." The Labour Government should also explain how they square their use of thousands of troops to do the work of striking dockers with their traditional opposition to the use of soldiers in industrial disputes. Have they forgotten that on May 12th, 1939, when the Government was introducing the Military Training Bill to conscript young men for the coming war, the Labour Opposition moved an amendment which would have freed the conscripts from liability “to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment.’’ It was Mr. Shinwell, now Minister of Fuel and Power, who moved the amendment and said that his Party would “resent very strongly the use of conscripts who might be employed . . . . either to assist in supporting men who were on strike and bringing the dispute to an end, or to take their places in any particular department of industry."—(Hansard, 12th May, 1939. Col. 690.)

The principal cause behind the present dispute is the reduction of earnings with the ending of the war. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (3rd October), writing on the dockers at Liverpool, states that “during the war they have been working hard and drawing good wages—£8 to £10. . . . Now they feel that they are faced with a peace-time cut to about half that amount." Overtime has ceased and the dockers are seeking to offset the big reduction of earnings by claiming a daily wage of 25s. in place of the present 16s. (15s. in smaller ports). What helped to aggravate the situation was the fact that at Liverpool 500 dockers had just been discharged as redundant—a bitter pill that fine words about “full employment" did not make any sweeter.

One aspect of the dockers' dispute is of general application and deserves the closest attention of trade unionists, that is the dependence on leaders. They found themselves denounced and opposed by their own elected officials, men whose salaries are paid by the men's contributions. Leadership is of no use to the working class movement. Officials should not be made, or allowed to make themselves, into leaders. The members should decide themselves exactly what they want done and see that the officials carry out their instructions. What counts in the last resort is the pressure that can be exerted on the employers by the strike, and the object, time and duration of strikes should be solely in the hands of the union members. There is no magic art of leadership or negotiation that will take the place of the workers' strike weapon. Lastly, the workers should realise—and if they don't, experience will teach them—that nothing essential is changed because a Labour Government is trying to run capitalism. Long ago the Daily Herald (then only an “unofficial" Labour organ) stated the truth of this. If the price of nationalisation is giving up the strike, then “under capitalism a nationalised industry would actually be worse off than those left in private hands" (13th September, 1922).

Again the Herald said:—

  “We do not believe that there is any fundamental distinction so long as the wage system exists between the relationship of a private employer to his workers and the relationship of a municipality or State to its workers. In each case the latter sell their labour-power and their capacity to sell it at a fair price depends on their capacity, through their trade unions, to refuse to work."—12th April, 1924.)

There is particular point in this in view of the fact that dock work at present is to a large extent under the control of the Government, and that some of the dockers are employed by the Port of London Authority, a body once denounced by Mr. Herbert Morrison as a “capitalist soviet," but now used by him and his Government as a model for nationalisation, and wrongly described as “socialism."

Those who fancy that employment by the State or by a public utility corporation is the solution of the workers' problems should think over the action of the P.L.A. when its workers came out on strike. “A notice warning Port of London permanent labourers that they would be 'deemed to have left the service of the Authority without notice' if they did not return to work . . . was posted outside the Royal Albert Dock yesterday."—(Daily Herald, 13th October, 1945.)

Capitalism runs true to form even if a Labour Government chooses to pretend that it is different because it now runs under different colours!

Letter: The Change Over From Capitalism To Socialism (1945)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (A. Outram, Dagenham) asks the following questions about the coming of Socialism :—

"It is reasonable to presume that one of the companion parties will be elected to office in advance of the others. In such circumstances would the party administer capitalism under government supervision, at the same time passing laws to alleviate the workers' suffering, and using its influence to carry on intensive Socialist propaganda amongst the workers of other lands, who by this time would be well advanced on the road ho Socialism?

"With the wages system finally overthrown in the advanced countries, how would the distribution of food, clothing, etc., be arranged in the early days of Socialist administration? By coupons issued according to a man's needs? I presume that the transition from capitalist to Socialist methods would not take place overnight."

A. Outram, 

Dagenham

Reply.

Does Socialism make headway in all countries at the same rate?

Our correspondent's first question turns on the rate at which the Socialist movement grows in different countries. At present the Socialist movement is small in all countries though large and increasing numbers of workers are sympathetic to the general idea of Socialism. They have yet to convinced of the truth that Socialism cannot be brought about by "Labour” Governments put into power by the votes of the discontented, who want to improve capitalism by means of reforms but are so far unable to understand that capitalism needs to be abolished. The experience the workers are having of "Labour" Governments in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and elsewhere, will hasten the process of winning the workers from Labourism to Socialism. Whatever differences there may be now between the spread of Socialist ideas in one country and another will become smaller not larger as the Socialist movement grows, because of one factor which is operating with more and more effectiveness from year to year. That is the extent to which the workers in one country observe and profit by the experience of workers in all countries. Workers in Britain do not need Fascism here to appreciate its uselessness to the working class, they can learn from what happened in Italy and Germany. Likewise workers in countries under Liberal or Conservative or "Communist" Governments will learn not only the uselessness to them of these governments but will also more and more appreciate the inevitable failure of Labour Governments from what they observe takes place in countries with Labour Governments. Capitalism is forcing the workers to take an international view of the problems of the working class.

We can therefore state confidently that by the time a majority of workers have become Socialist in one country there will be majorities or near-majorities in all the industrialised capitalist countries. Moreover, the Socialist parties will constitute an international body acting harmoniously together as a single movement. At that time the capitalist parties and governments will ho longer be in a position to offer serious opposition to the world Socialist movement either in the countries with Socialist majorities or in those where the Socialists, though strong, are not quite in the majority. The time for action to establish Socialism internationally, and the steps to be taken to deal with the weakened remnants of capitalist parties and governments will be matters for decision by the international Socialist movement as a whole, and the capitalist remnants will be unable to interfere effectively. There is no need to envisage a long marking-time by a Socialist majority in the first country where Socialists gain political control.

Distribution in the period immediately after Socialists have gained control.

Certain economic problems would require immediate attention since it is not possible "overnight" to produce the larger quantities of useful articles that would be needed for the world’s population, but this does not mean that "the transition from capitalist to Socialist methods" need be delayed if by Socialist methods is meant the abolition of the wages system and of production for profit. The introduction of a Socialist system would involve the immediate abolition of capitalist ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. The working class would simply continue production but for the benefit of the whole community. Short-term scarcity of certain articles may exist while, for example, the ex-capitalists (and the workers now engaged on financial operations needed only for capitalism), are being brought into useful occupations, and while armament factories are being turned over to the production of useful articles. What administrative method may be used to secure satisfactory distribution of the articles temporarily in short supply is a minor question, to be dealt with at the time. The important factor will be that the Socialist majority will make the decision with full understanding of the nature of the problem and will carry it out with a full realisation that distribution will be made in the interests of the whole community and not in the interests only of a section.

Editorial Committee

Glasgow Branch Municipal Election Fund (1945)

Party News from the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Glasgow Branch of the S.P.G.B. reconsidered their organisational strength for such a venture, and decided to withdraw from the Glasgow Municipal Elections. Members and friends who contributed to the election fund, and wish to have their donations refunded, should apply to the Secretary, S.P.G.B., 13, Maryhill Road, Glasgow, N.W.

Failing applications being received before March, 1946. the Branch will transfer all monies in the Fund to the S.P.G.B. Parliamentary Fund. -

Thos. A. Mulheron. Organiser.

Religion, Ethics or Socialism (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The usual line of defence put up by the secularists when faced with the assertion that their movement is trivial and unreal beside that of Socialism has always been that Socialism could make no headway with the workers until religion had been eradicated from their minds.

We have never belittled the power of religion when used by an unscrupulous ruling class to befog the minds of those they ruled. Furthermore, we assert that it has been consciously used as a bulwark to discourage active thought by the workers on the why and wherefore of capitalist supremacy and privilege. We do not dispute the fact that Socialism cannot be achieved by a working class that believes in the supernatural. Socialism is based on the scientific interpretation of history. Religion is part of that history, and is the result of man's ignorance of natural forces. With their progress in the knowledge of Socialism the workers must, therefore, shed their superstitions and become materialistic in their outlook.

Years ago it was pointed out by Paul Lafargue and others that modern industry was rapidly performing that process. That the materialist outlook was the natural result of man's progressive understanding of nature. Lafargue pointed out that the capitalist relied for his income on stocks and shares that fluctuated in value from day to day from causes over which he had no control. He was consequently susceptible to all forms of superstition. On the other hand, the worker in his everyday life dealt with material things, their sequence and interaction. He had no belief in miracles. If something unusual happened in some industrial process, it was not luck or mischance—it was perhaps misjudgment, and he looked for the cause. That is not to say that the workers have already become materialistic. The forces at work in their everyday life are pushing them along that road. The majority have become largely indifferent to religion. In a letter from a parson which was given prominence in the Daily Telegraph, July 14, 1945, we read the following about an Englishman's religion:—

   "It is a religion of unconscious assumptions imposing no severe obligations and retranslating the behest, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' into a loose belief in tolerance and withheld judgment.
    "We shall recognise this quotation from a recent book as a substantially accurate description of the basis upon which perhaps 70 to 80 per cent. of English men and women conduct their lives."

The writer then argues that while this is highly commendable and much to be thankful for, it is not religion. We agree. The Christian religion is belief in a personal god and a life hereafter, plus worship, prayer, ceremonial and intercession, etc. Social conduct and relationships have no real connection with those beliefs, though priests have always claimed that authority in these matters comes direct from God. They also claim that belief is an added incentive to good behaviour. That the omniscient presence has a deterrent effect on the would-be wrong-doer.

To link ethics with religion has been the policy of the church after Aristotle. The essence of religion being a belief in spiritual life independent of matter, it follows that it can have no concern with material conditions. Ethical standards are independent of spiritual beliefs. Moreover, ethical standards are part of the social superstructure erected by man on the economic foundations already in practice. They are modified by every considerable change in the means and methods of producing and distributing wealth. Thus the ten commandments of Moses was a patriarchal code. The Runnymede charter a feudal code, and the Franchise and Trade Union Acts, which largely dominate modern thinking, have become part of a code that could only arise in the peculiar conditions of advanced capitalist society.

Almost from the beginning of social life men have thought and planned for an ordered relationship in their dealings with each other. But a changing environment has always defeated them. In their struggle with nature for the necessaries of life, the discoveries they made always changed the nature of the problem. There could be no resting place. No period in history where they could truthfully say, "There will be no more history." Where conditions were static and man's relations within society could be determined once and for all. This has always been the dream, not only of Utopians, but of every despot and every class, throughout the ages, that has achieved power. Their dreams and plans have passed with them. Has the present ruling class any hope of achieving stability? Does society at present show any signs of being able to control and regulate the production and distribution of wealth on lines satisfactory to all? Emphatically no.

The prediction that capitalism is destined to dig its own grave is working itself out. Capitalism produces the conditions that destroy capitalism. Capitalist industry trains the working class in logical materialism. That training cannot be confined to industry. 70 to 80 per cent,.are indifferent to religion. They are not concerned with the controversy between atheists and Christians. They are looking for a solution to their own problem: poverty alongside unlimited powers to satisfy their needs. We have that solution—the object and principles of the S.P.G.B. The harvest is ripe. Go to it, reapers.

F. Foan

The Foreigners in Our Midst (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

A young G.I., who seemed to think that he owned the earth, was behaving rudely to a tough-looking bus conductress. Instead of ticking him off as a rude young man the angry girl commenced a lengthy and colourful attack on all Americans. The "Yanks," so it seemed to her, were responsible for most of the evils of this unhappy world. This unpleasant incident is typical of thousands that are occurring all over England and Europe to-day, and it is not only the Americans who are indiscriminately attacked.

Under the most unfavourable circumstances the workers of many countries have mingled. German, Russian, British and American conscripts have in their turn performed the unenviable duties of armies of occupation. Individually the conquerors and conquered cannot hate one another, and "fraternisation," an old word with a new meaning, has been inevitable. But only the most romantic optimist can imagine that a real basis for international understanding can be established on the love-affairs of lonely and sex-starved British soldiers with the hungry women of Berlin. Armies of occupation cannot be ambassadors of goodwill.

But one might imagine that the mingling of allies might have more fruitful results. Let us look at the position in this country and judge for ourselves. For a decade or more England has become the permanent or temporary home of many opponents of Nazi Germany. First came the Jewish refugees, Germans, Austrians and Czechs who fled to avoid death, the Ghetto or the concentration camp, then the remnants of defeated armies, the Poles, the French, the Belgians, Dutch and Norwegians, and, lastly the American "champions of democracy." Most of these men and women came to this country not on a heroic mission but because they had no choice. Individual friendships between some of them and the "natives" have grown up, but on the whole many British workers (who are not alone in this respect) still retain their illogical and almost unconquerable aversion to foreigners.

In the uncertain days of peace national prejudice increases. With the end of Lease-Lend, grumbles against the Americans became louder; a Scottish town council urges the Government to send the Poles home; 3,000 residents of Hampstead want the aliens living among them expelled; the shadow of unemployment draws near and thoughtless workers voice the fear that foreign Jewish workers will steal their jobs, forgetting that in 1931, when there were more than 2½ million unemployed, the refugees had not arrived. The foreigners in our midst are blamed for the housing shortage, and the Evening Standard (by the way why doesn’t Beaverbrook return to Canada), always quick to turn working-class discontent into reactionary channels, gives prominence to a series of articles dealing with the number of houses and flats still occupied by refugee Governments in London. These houses are mostly in Mayfair, Belgravia and Kensington, and one wonders if the homeless workers of Stepney and Wandsworth could afford the rents which will be charged for them when they are evacuated. The Evening Standard does not complain of the waste of space in British Government offices, of unnecessary buildings such as Banks, income tax offices and Labour Exchanges, and it does not point out, for example, that one member of the British ruling-class with quite a small family does not need a vast town mansion as well as country residences at Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor.

No, acquaintanceship at close quarters and under capitalist conditions with foreigners, however charming and well-behaved they may be, does not seem to further international friendship. But must the workers of the world always have feelings of suspicion, hatred and contempt towards each other? We Socialists do not think so. We are normal human beings, but we do not blame the strangers in our midst for all the minor and major evils of capitalism, and we address these words to our fellow workers for their consideration.

Workers must learn to think with their heads and not be guided by their feelings. They must understand, and they will do when they become Socialists, that there is a bond that unites them with their fellow workers, whether they are “enemies'' or “allies". This bond is not the superficial one of the same language, the same colour of skin, the same shape of nose, the same habits or allegiance to the same capitalist state, but the fundamental one of class interest. The workers of the world have one great task: to overthrow the system of their respective capitalistic masters and establish a world Socialist commonwealth, where the word “foreigner” will have no meaning.

John Moore

Socialism and the Labour Party (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party, in the pamphlet, “What is this Labour Party?" states that: “The Labour movement is not a narrow restricted thing. It goes outside trade and class. Anyone can be in it. The test is simply political allegiance. If you believe in Socialism, then support the Labour Party." Take the basic national object of the Party as set out in the Constitution:—

  “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

“That's Socialism," says Mr. Phillips.

“That’s nonsense!" says the Socialist Party, especially when Mr. Phillips adds "and the method by which its objectives can be fully attained is Public Enterprise,” which turns out to be the old Labour Party gag “Nationalisation,” vide “Let us face the future,” the Labour election fairy tale.

Let us briefly analyse the “Object" of the Labour Party. First, “To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry.”

We have never yet discovered anyone who can use his hands without using his brain, neither has biological science. It is possible to use the brain without using the hands, but most work is done by both in consonance.

It is utterly impossible to “secure the full fruits of their industry ” to “the workers.” “The workers” can only mean the working class under capitalism—“the workers” will be transformed into members of the Socialist community by Socialism—under capitalism “the workers” will always secure wages—which can ONLY be a small fraction of the wealth they produce. Even under Socialism the producer will NOT receive the full product of his toil, as Marx indicated to the German Labour Party seventy years ago—all organised society necessitates certain social charges on the social wealth, education, hospitals, maintenance of the aged, administration, etc. (Gotha programme). What the “most equitable distribution” of the “full fruits” of the “worker's industry” is supposed to mean, nobody knows!

If it is meant to mean that, under Socialism, everybody will receive an exactly equal share of the social wealth— that non-smokers, for example, will get a “share” of cigarettes daily, or vegetarians be compelled to take two pork chops in the week, it is not Socialism, but “crude equalitarianism,” denounced by Marx and others in the last century. Socialism does not mean the abolition of personal divergences of individual taste—it means free distribution according to the single test of NEED. Indeed, individual taste will secure real recognition for the first time in history.

If it means "equitable distribution” under capitalism— i.e., what the Labour Party flogged when it was OUT of office—a re-distribution of existing wealth in the workers' favour (capital levy, etc., etc.), this is NOT Socialism—but moonshine.

But the cream of the joke is the Labour Party s frantic attempt to acquire a "Socialistic" flavour by its formulation of its object as the “common ownership of the means of production, distribution, AND EXCHANGE."

We defy Mr. Phillips, the Secretary, or that pompous little gasbag, Professor Laski, the Chairman, or Mr. Greenwood, the Treasurer, or any member or official of the Labour Party to tell us what this means!

It is utterly and completely meaningless!

Let us patiently explain all over again. Exchange is a social relation of private owners. Socialism abolishes exchange by free distribution. Socialists under Socialism will ALL commonly OWN. Whom Mr. Phillips will find to exchange the full fruits of his industry with, under Socialism, we can't think!

Common ownership of the "means of exchange" means precisely "common ownership of private ownership.” In other words the subject cancels out the predicate—it is a perfect contradiction meaning nothing—which is what the Labour Party really stands for (except jobs for leaders).

The final phrase of the Labour Party's object, "the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service," is pure rhetoric.

It might be asked, if what has been said is true, how is it that a large party like the Labour Party, with many quite clever members, can formulate its objects so stupidly? The answer is, firstly, that it is by no means so silly as it might seem.

To understand how the Labour Party Constitution and Object has been formulated one must investigate the history and character of that organisation.

Briefly the present Object of the Labour Party has evolved grown-up, with the times, and is an attempt to combine attracting enthusiastic class-conscious workers, who have got to do the local spade work of the Party, by convincing them that it stands for Socialism, and catching the votes of ordinary electors, who just want something NOW ("full fruits," etc.).

The "common ownership" phrases were introduced at Margate and Edinburgh after the last war. The discussion around them was the same as always take place, for instance, on Compensation at Bournemouth. The "responsible leaders" tell the conference that it is not "practical politics"—that it "will prejudice the Party’s future," etc.; in other words— that it may lose votes. The same debate took place on full versus partial nationalisation. Every Socialist party propagandist knows the look of blank incredulous amazement which comes over the countenances of well-meaning Labour Party members, who sincerely believe the statements of Morgan Phillips and the Executive that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party—when the object of the Party is analysed.

It is only equalled by the expression of dumbfounded astonishment on the Socialist’s face when the Labour man says finally, "Well, what does it matter, anyway!"

People who wouldn't dream of calling in a "doctor who had not a scientific training, or let a "dentist" put a drill in their mouths who did not know the name of one tooth from another, trust their social welfare to politicians whose real aims they never closely examine. The Labour Party does not stand for Socialism. Its declared object is a meaningless phrase.

The best comment on it was made by Lord Snowden :—

   "It (the Labour Party) gained its former political strength neither from its Socialist idealism nor its election programme. It was an electoral refuge for a vague discontent.
   The old political parties had failed. Here was a new party which made the social condition of the people its claim to popular support.
   Millions of men and women who know nothing about Socialism, and who have never read the Labour programme, vote for Labour candidates because they believe that this is a party which is going to do something—they don’t know what—to improve their condition.
    I have been in this programme-making business for forty years. I have always realised its futility. Every programme in which I have had a hand I have seen discarded and another put in its place, later to share the fate of its predecessor."—(Snowden, Sunday Express, October 16th, 1932.)

Horatio.

Fine Words (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

"There must be a change of heart, if Peace is to become something better than an uneasy interval between wars."

The above is a quotation from a speech by the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, before the T.U.C. Conference at Blackpool, as reported in the Star (September 12th, 1945).

We have heard it all before somewhere, and it is in fact a political-cum-religious gramophone record which apparently still has plenty of life in it.

Whenever working class conditions under capitalism are aggravated by particular crises within the system, such as wars and depressions, then the master class or their representatives bring the full force of their propaganda machine into play to befog the minds of workers and to distract them from the real causes of their problems. As we see from the above, the Labour leader is no exception; in fact we find that he develops the hypocrisy still further by stating that, “however perfect a machinery we may devise, it cannot be worked without the power of the spirit. A new world order cannot be made by Governments."

This is particularly interesting when we recall the eloquence of Mr. Attlee and his associates in claiming, prior to the election, that a Labour Government could and would cure everything from poverty to war.

Continuing his speech, Mr. Attlee said: “There is only one principle that can save the world, the principle you practise in your great movements, the Christian principle that all men are brothers one of another.” Strange words indeed from the man who actually participated in the direction of the war in which 30,000,000 workers were slaughtered, strange words indeed from the man who presided over the meeting which launched upon the world the indiscriminate destruction of the atomic bomb.

All history has been full of such “fine words.” Plato used them over 2,000 years ago to keep down the murmurings of the chattel slave community at Athens; in 1945 Mr. Attlee uses them to keep down the murmurings of the wage slave community in this country.

Just as the “fine words" of Plato were a means to an end, the end being the perpetuation of the City State and the domination by the aristocratic class of all other classes, so Mr. Attlee's “fine words” have a similar end, namely, the safeguarding of the private property institution and the maintenance of the master class as the dominating class in modern society; and this domination and privilege of the master class can only be maintained by the exploitation and oppression of the only useful section in society, the working class.

So the message of Socialists to their fellow members of the working class is, “Beware, 'fine words' "; the history of class domination is full of them.

Ronald L. Griffin

Doctors are Wage Slaves (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many of Marx’s statements appear more strikingly true to-day than they did in his lifetime; the greater development of the capitalist mode of production has seen to that. In the Communist Manifesto Marx stated:— 

  “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.”

The effects on the man of science are readily seen by reflections on the atom bomb; on the priest, in the churches' justification of the recent war; and on the physician in his increased employment in the military and industrial forces of the capitalist countries. The use of the physician in war and peace has been found by the capitalist class to be a very profitable proposition. It has at the same time occurred to many workers now to view the doctor in industry in the role of an employer’s man.

The correctness of this is well illustrated in a recent copy of The Lancet (October 6th, 1945) by the very materialistic approach given to new aspects of disease by the medical profession.. Three papers in this issue are devoted to the exposition and treatment of lumbago. This condition has hitherto been regarded as a rheumatic manifestation; now it is being realised that strain may cause a displacement of part of the spine and bring about the characteristic signs of lumbago. In The Lancet editorial this discovery is related to industry and the Services, and the comments of two American doctors employed by an insurance company dealing with workmen’s compensation are given. These medical men point out that strain is now regarded as a causal agent and may occur during working hours; the onus of responsibility may be thrown on the employer.

Medical discoveries have now ceased to be of primary interest to the sufferer and are considered mainly from a monetary aspect with the doctor eager to serve his employer, as anyone unfortunate enough to have beheld the undignified spectacle of conflicting medical witnesses in compensation cases will realise.

The function of the doctor in the Services and in industry is well summed up by the editorial when it states: “The factory physician or the unit medical officer is mainly concerned with palliation and return to duty. . . .'

However earnestly the young doctor may start out after qualifying, he soon comes to grips with the system under which he must practise in order to live. He may be loath to recognise it and may make various vain endeavours to put back the clock such as his resistance to salaried service like the National Health Service, where the State would pay the doctor on the basis of work done.

As capitalism operates through commodity production, service becomes a commodity, whether it be banking or medical attention, and is purchasable. The employer of the industrial medical officer purchases the doctor’s labour-power. The doctor gives the service of medical attention and the employer sees to it that the attention shall serve the employer’s interest.

Thus we see that all who must sell their labour-power in order to live do so at the dictates of capitalism, though men and women in many professions imagine they are exempt. Capitalism is a levelling force, and makes the interest of all workers one. The sooner that workers, be their tools the stethoscope or the carpenter’s saw, the test-tube or the power-driven tools of the factory, realise their common interest and strive together to overthrow their common enemy, the sooner will men of science and medicine not have to prostitute their knowledge. Only under Socialism will their knowledge be used for the benefit of mankind as a whole, unhampered by monetary considerations.

W. P.

The Demand for "Workers" Control (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reynolds News (4th November, 1945) published the following letter:—

   "I am surprised that Mr. Shinwell says he does not subscribe to the doctrine of workers' control of industry. Surely this has always been one of the basic principles of the Trade Union Movement.
   It appears that, instead of applying Socialism, many of our leaders are endeavouring to find a way out of or around the problem. Only a planned economy of workers' control can realise a full Socialist State.

B. Darke

London, E.9.

Mr. Darke's view is that of many supporters of the Labour Party.

It is completely divergent from the intentions of the Labour Government.

The idea has also been expressed by strikes recently.

The idea is a plausible one: simply this, that if a Government of "workers' representatives" (Labour leaders) are in office it is "Workers' control" of industry.

That therefore things will be run increasingly to the benefit of the workers—correspondingly to the detriment of the capitalists, realising, eventually, planned economy in a "full Socialist State".

Wherein lies Mr. Darke's error? First of all, workers' control is not Socialism. Socialism abolishes classes and therefore the working class. Socialism is democratic control of production by the whole community—not by a section of it.

Secondly, and more importantly, neither is a Labour Government "workers' control."

First, "workers control" in the sense of operating production is universal to-day. But if by "workers' control" is meant control of the ownership and distribution of the wealth the workers produce, it obviously cannot be under capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on private ownership; so long as capitalists own, they control.

Where Mr. Darke is confused is that he believes, like so many workers, that a Government composed of men who one worked with their hands, Labour leaders who are ex-dockers, miners, grocers' boys and milk-float drivers, necessarily makes the policy and intentions of that Government different. It does not.

The Labour Party is elected on a programme for the retention of capitalism. It has deluded many electors that its nationalisation schemes are Socialism. They are not.

It urges the workers now to work harder and tighten their belts to increase exports as a step to "Socialism." It is not.

Horatio.