Notes by the Way: Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford? (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford?

The opening words of “Let Us Face the Future,” the Labour Party's declaration on which the 1945 General Election was fought, were "Victory in War must be followed by a Prosperous Peace.” There was no must about it and the cessation of American lease-lend soon brought the Government face to face with the fact that capitalism has its own way of disposing of election hopes and promises. Since 1945 we have had to make the best of a series of “crises” all of which have been announced by the Government with an air of surprise as if they could not have been foreseen. The workers have been asked to put up with austerity and “work harder” campaigns on the plea that after all they would not last for ever. Now Sir Stafford Cripps has let the cat out of the bag. Speaking at a Press Conference in London on 11th November, he said:

“We are now and shall be henceforth for as long as we can see into the future, engaged in a competition in overseas markets which demands for our success every economy that efficiency and high productivity can give us. We shall not be able to relapse from this endeavour any more than our competitors in the world markets will. We require a universal and sustained effort . . ." (Italics ours.) 

(Times, 12/11/48.)

So it is as Socialists have always said it must be, an indefinite sentence. For the workers the capitalist treadmill will last for as long as the working class chooses to put up with capitalism.

The Football Slavery Business

“Janus” in the Spectator (5/11/48) comments on the recent troubles about football transfer fees:

“The protest of the Middlesbrough footballer, Wilfrid Mannion, against the price (£30,000) put on his head by his club focuses attention afresh on the extraordinary traffic in human beings which prevails in League football circles. The transfer fee system has, I suppose, grown up gradually because League football is now frankly a business in which it is essential to attract large 'gates,' large 'gates' will not be attracted unless the home team consistently puts up a reasonably good show, it will not put up a good show unless it has good players, and it cannot get good players except by buying them from another club or putting so high a price on them that another club cannot attract them away. Pages could be written about this. It is enough to say that what the player—whose normal wage is £12 a week—gets out of a transfer fee of £10,000 or £15,000 is £10 for himself. Professional football might take a lesson from professional cricket. A man, it should be added, who leaves the club with which he is registered against its will is barred from playing as a professional for any other club.”

The Edmonton By-Election

The Labour Party’s experience at Edmonton, where their candidate's majority was reduced from 19,000 in 1945 to 3,327, has encouraged the Tories and correspondingly troubled the Labour Party. The Local Labourites blame the turnover of votes on an “insidious doorstep campaign” alleged to have been conducted by the Tories, in which instead of dealing with major political issues and the record of the Labour Government, the canvassers are said to have raised issues of race-prejudice and to have exploited “our nation’s post-war difficulties.” (Daily Mail, 15/11/48.)

The Daily Mail suggests that the Labour vote fell because of “the sudden cut in the bacon ration,” while the Daily Worker says “ This is the fruit of Right Wing Labour policy, particularly its cuts in housing.” (15/11/48.)

What is really going on is the normal working out of capitalist politics, the old game of ins and outs. The Labour "ins” say "ask your Dad about pre-war unemployment under the Tories” and the Tories retort with "ask your Mum about pre-war food supplies, prices and no rationing.” Socialists say look around at capitalism and its effects and ask your Mum and Dad and your grandparents for evidence that capitalism was always useless and hopeless for the working class. Those who administer capitalism are rightly blamed for their responsibility in what capitalism produces, while the capitalist opposition naturally (and falsely) promises that if they get back again capitalism will be different.

The Labour Party got in on non-Socialist votes and when the voters find that things do not go as promised they turn round and vote for candidates who make better promises. A Socialist electorate could not be led away by race-prejudice or by propaganda about bacon rations.

The “Final Stage of Communism” in Russia

A Times correspondent in Budapest (Times, 13/11/48) quotes extensively from an article in the Cominform newspaper which sets out to describe what is meant by "the final stage of Communism” towards which Russia, according to Soviet propaganda, is moving. In the article Stalin is quoted as having said that development towards Communism depends on great increases of production (e.g., to 60 million tons of steel a year compared with 19 million tons in 1940 and rather more now), and that it will take from 15 to 20 years to achieve.

What is of more interest is the social structure of this “Communist” society. According to the Times correspondent the article abandons the Marxian principle that the State will wither away, and also the "free-and-easy” system “about which Engels dreamed,” and forecasts a disciplined society rather like present day Russia but with many more and much better consumer goods. Money will continue under this “Communism.”

The Times, which is interested in the struggle for world power between Russia and U.S.A., rather than in social theories, points out in its editorial that U.S.A. already produces more steel and coal than Russia plans to produce in 20 years’ time.

Solution of the Palestine Problem?

While the new state of Israel disputes for territory with the Arab states, and the Powers behind the scenes think of oil, pipe lines, Middle East strategy and the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, the “solution” of the problem of European Jewish refugees is now accompanied by the new problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine. A letter in the Times (13/11/48) from Mr. Marcus Shloimovitz, in which he appeals to the Israel Government to make a generous effort to help the new army of refugees, contains the following:

"A tragic situation is rapidly deteriorating into a tragedy of heartless abandonment of over 350,000 Arab refugees in Palestine to the ‘mercies’ of a winter without adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical supplies. A letter I received from a co-religionist in the Lebanon the other day says that they are existing under the most deplorable conditions of squalor and semi-starvation. The Israeli Government are in a position to solve the problem, as it should be solved, by allowing them to return to their former homes in Palestine without delay. I am convinced that this is the duty of the leaders of Israel to their faith. It would show that they are merciful and humanitarian, in accordance with the teachings of Judaism. Have human feelings been so dulled by the happenings of the past 10 years that a further 350,000 victims of war (two-thirds are under 18 years of age, nearly one-third are children under five, and one in 10 is either an expectant or nursing mother) are regarded as a minor and inevitable consequence of the Palestine troubles?”

Oil Millionaire

From the Evening Standard (10/11 / 48):

‘‘It will take months fully to unravel the financial affairs of Lord Bearsted. But there seems little doubt that when he died this week, aged 66, he left less than he inherited in 1927 from his father, first Viscount and founder of the Shell oil group.

“Lord Bearsted’s share of his father’s £4,000,000 estate was more than a million. He multiplied this fortune several times.

“But he gave away large sums to charities. In addition, during his last years, Lord Bearsted disposed of the bulk of his fortune by trusts settled on his three sons.”

Another Communist Rift

Alongside the acrimonious dispute between the Tito Communists and the Russian Controlled Cominform another storm has blown up, between the Australian Communist Party and the British Communists. We are indebted to an Australian Comrade for a copy of the ”Communist Review” (Australian Communist Party, September, 1948) in which appears a long article criticising British Communist Party policy, together with an answer by the Executive of the British Party. The articles are far from friendly for the British Party accuses its Australian comrades of attributing to them ”various policies which we have never put forward, without giving evidence to substantiate the statements made . . .”

The British Party is accused of the “blunder of advocating the continuance of the reactionary coalition government, headed by the arch-imperialist and warmonger, Churchill.” It also showed “lack of understanding of the role of the social-democratic government,” failed to foresee the Labour Party’s victory at the 1945 General Election, and "failed to estimate correctly the position in Britain and the mood of the masses.” It is also accused of betraying a "class collaborationist outlook” because even as late as April, 1947 it was boosting the greater production campaign and the export drive.

The British Party in its reply denies ever having wanted a continuance of the war-time coalition government after the war under Winston Churchill, though they admit having proposed the formation of a government of ” National Unity,” but not under Churchill.

As, in 1939, the British Communist Party took the initiative of writing to Churchill and the Labour and Liberal leaders inviting them to form a coalition to oppose Hitler it is rather surprising that they should be so anxious to deny having wanted him as Prime Minister in 1945.

One revealing passage in the Australian party’s reply is the following about the British Communist miners’ leader, Mr. Arthur Horner:

"The language of Comrade Horner, in rebuking striking miners, is as fierce as that customarily used by the extreme right wing in Australia, and is headlined in the capitalist press in order to help break down strikes in Australia.”

A quotation from Mr. H. Pollitt’s booklet, "Looking Ahead,” is used by the Australians with telling effect in a charge that the British Party does not understand what is happening. Pollitt wrote: "I have no hesitation in declaring that the essence of the period we are now in is that of a transition stage towards Socialism.” The British party’s denial that this was meant to refer to Britain, is met by the production of other similar statements and the Australian Communist Party declares that "there can be no doubt that these statements have specific application to Britain and not general application, as the British leaders claim.” Altogether it looks as if some Communist “purges” are on the. way as soon as the Russian Party decides which party is toeing the line suitable to the Russian Government.

Communist Tribute to Rqoeevelt

The Daily Worker (11/11/48) announced a Peace Rally and an ex-servicemen’s march from Trafalgar Square to lay a wreath on the Cenotaph. The Rally was "called jointly by the Daily Worker and nine major trade union organisations.” The announcement goes on as follows:

“A delegation will also go to the Roosevelt Memorial with a tribute from the people of London to the late President ‘lover of peace’ and all those Americans following in his tradition.”

As Mr. Truman was Roosevelt’s Vice-President, and is his successor as leader of the “New Deal” Democratic Party this tribute presumably includes him. And why no Communist Tribute to Mr. Churchill, who, after all, was their choice as Prime Minister of Britain in 1939 and was brother-in-arms of Roosevelt during the war?

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Capitalism was Necessary (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter criticising the article in the October Socialist Standard entitled "Will ‘The Last Hottentot’ hold us Back?"

Dear Sirs,

Capitalism is Necessary.

Gilmac, at the beginning of his article in the October Socialist Standard, chiding those who talk in a superior way of backward races, writes the word “backward" in inverted commas, as though its use is unjustified. Later he uses the word without quotation marks, as though its use is justified. We gather that peoples can be backward in one way and not in another; they are good enough mentally but backward socially. In his own words, they lack the “social conditions favourable to the development of Socialist ideas." By social conditions he obviously means capitalist conditions. So it seems we have got to wait for the Hottentots after all.

Once the backward peoples “take part in building up capitalism on their own account," he says, “then they cut the cord that ties them to the past." So that is what they need, says the Socialist—Capitalism. "Everywhere native populations are stirring restlessly, struggling to cast off the shackles of the past in order to enter the heritage of today"—that is, the heritage of Capitalism.

Gilmac says: “India is undergoing the birthpangs of a capitalist state which will soon transform its primitive village economy," and “the primitive agricultural communities of India will soon be overwhelmed as India gets upon its capitalist feet." India must have Capitalism, implies Socialist Gilmac. Capitalism is necessary in India. And while the Indians are enjoying the necessary Capitalism, Gilmac will presumably say: "Capitalism is horrible; away with it and replace it by Socialism."

I can imagine a S.P.G.B. seaman disembarking at Bombay this week and meeting an Indian steelworker. As he would be anxious to spread Socialist propaganda the following dialogue might take place:

Socialist: Comrade, you have a miserable life. You are born in poverty, you live in poverty and misery and you die in poverty. Capitalism is the cause of this.

Indian worker: Yes, I am poor and miserable. What would you substitute for Capitalism?

Socialist: Socialism! Under Socialism all would work and all would share in the wealth produced, so we would all be well off.

Indian worker: That sounds fine to me. We must have that.

Socialist: Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare you for Socialism.

Indian worker: You tell me Capitalism is awful and that I ought to do away with it and have Socialism, but you also say I can’t have Socialism until I have had more Capitalism. You are telling me mutually contradictory things. If I must have Capitalism, as you say, I will put up with it, and not waste my energy grousing about it.

I should like the S.P.G.B. answer to this question: If Capitalism is necessary and inevitable in the evolution of human society towards Socialism, why grumble about it?

If you print this letter, I suggest you keep my heading, if it states your position correctly. It will, however, look somewhat peculiar in a Socialist journal.

Yours faithfully,

G. Davies

London, S.W.17.

Reply.

Mr. Davies makes no attempt to deal with the substance of the article he criticises, nor does he deny that Capitalism is rotten and produces wars, poverty in the midst of plenty, degrades the wealth producers and causes a host of other evils that spring from the particular type of class ownership in which it is rooted; his only argument is that if Capitalism is a necessary evil why grumble about it? He forgets that most of man’s conquests of natural forces have been accompanied by necessary evils, and that it was only by "grumbling" about them that these evils were eventually either eliminated or considerably reduced. In the social sphere the horrors of the early factory system, which degraded, demoralised and decimated the factory population, were responsible for fierce protests that helped to bring about changes in factory methods. The protests were just as much a necessary product as the factory system itself. According to Mr. Davies’ curious ideas of necessity there should have been no protests, and children from the age of six or seven years of age ought still to have been abandoned to the unbridled lust for profit and exploitation of people like the cruel factory owners of the middle of last century, who battened upon human misery.

Mr. Davies refers to the phrase the “heritage of today" as if it simply meant the Capitalist social organisation itself, but it meant more than that; as the article makes clear it also meant the ideas that develop out of Capitalism, the opposition to Capitalism from which springs the desire for the common ownership of the means of production that will involve the disappearance of clashes, of trading, of money, of the exploitation of man by man and of all forms of social privilege except those which are accorded to the young, the old, and the infirm. By giving birth to ideas like these, and by demonstrating that it is incapable of bringing comfort and security to the mass of the world’s population, Capitalism of necessity digs its own grave.

Capitalism became a necessary evil once sections of mankind had got upon the track of the advantages to be derived from privilege but it also, in its time, conferred benefits as well as evils upon mankind. In the general march towards Socialism it has played a valuable part. Capitalism has been both revolutionary and reactionary. It was revolutionary in the sense that, at considerable cost in human suffering, it developed the productive forces to a pitch where it became possible to guarantee comfort and security to all, relieving mankind from blind dependence upon natural forces; it is reactionary in the sense that, being founded upon privilege, it is now a barrier to the achievement of this comfort and security. Socialism, a necessary product of Capitalism, will absorb all the valuable productive achievements of Capitalism but it will abolish class ownership of the means of production and, at the same time, the multitude of evils that spring from this class ownership; it will abolish privilege, thereby leaving the way open to a free, full and happy life-for all. Capitalism has taught mankind the value of associated labour on a world scale; the profit motive which is its central idea, sordid though it is, sent people scurrying all over the earth, and delving deep under the earth, to make the earth fruitful; it developed marvellous machines and methods of production, but now, as far as the advanced nations are concerned, its work is finished and its fruit has become rotten; what remains to be done is to take advantage of its accomplishments and turn its achievements from means of causing suffering to means of bringing happiness.

Now let us turn to the imaginary dialogue between an Indian worker and an S.P.G.B. seaman which Mr. Davies regards as so devastating to the position we take up. We preach Socialism to the Indian worker, to the Hottentot and to every other worker; we recognise, however, that, regardless of our desires, Capitalism is still continuing to develop in India and elsewhere and that the Western workers have not yet decided to establish Socialism. We further appreciate that though India cannot at the moment jump straight into Socialism without a considerable development of industry and ideas yet it can learn from the advanced nations, learn both industrial methods and socialist ideas, and that it can do so comparatively rapidly. If India does happen to lag behind when the workers of the advanced nations establish Socialism then, for the reasons outlined in the article criticised, India would have no difficulty in becoming absorbed into the new world social system, the advantages of which would be obvious from the outset and would be easy to absorb.

Where backward people “take part in building up Capitalism on, their own account” they do “cut the cord that binds them to the past." It is also a fact that this development, as we have already shown, brings them nearer to the achievement of Socialism. On the basis of this Mr. Davies argues that we should advocate Capitalism to the Indian worker as a stepping-stone to Socialism. What he overlooks is that Capitalism is already well developed in India, in spite of areas of backwardness, and that Socialist ideas are already spreading there. It is, therefore, the Capitalist who advocates and builds up Capitalism in India and the Socialist who advocates Socialism and builds up the Socialist movement. The Socialist does not say to the Indian worker “Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough of Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare for Socialism.” What he does say is: You can have Socialism as soon as the majority of the Indian workers understand Socialism and want it! Therefore study it and work for its achievement.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Mr. Davies’ suggested heading is wrong; Capitalism was necessary but is no longer. That, however, will not prevent it from undergoing a hothouse development in areas where it has not yet made great progress. On the basis of Mr. Davies’ argument there would have been no social evolution; chattel slavery and other forms of social organisation would still be flourishing because nobody would have "grumbled” about their evil consequences. Unfortunately for his argument they did "grumble,” just as, no doubt, he grumbles when Capitalism pinches him in some directions. It is certainly astonishing to find someone cavilling at grumbling after the fearful consequences of the first world war, the last world war and the prospect of still more terrible experiences in the new war that is foreshadowed ; wars that were and are a necessary consequence of the Capitalist social order. Mr. Davies seems to have been blinded by his logic and, like the imaginary Hottentot, is out of touch with developments in the world in which he lives. 

Gilmac.

". . . And too dear" (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is some months now since the present Government started its "More production” poster propaganda campaign. The first, and perhaps the most notorious, of this series of posters, was the one headed. "Work or Want.” Many workers dubbed this the "Work and Want” poster. There followed the "Ten-per-cent” poster, being an appeal by Mr. Attlee for a 10 per cent, all round increase in production. Since then there have been a number of similar large bills, pictorial and otherwise, decorating the hoardings.

The recent one carrying the doggerel:

"Some make big stuff, Some make small,

    More from each means more for all.” 

gave rise to wisecracks and humorous comment from some workers. Popular was the parody,

"Some make big stuff, some make small,

   But the boss sits around and makes sweet nothing at all.”

The latest edition in this poster campaign is far from funny. It sounds a note of warning. This poster boldly announces that it is issued by "His Majesty’s Government.” In view of the speeches and writings of some of the members of that Government in their less palmy days, one can only conclude that, either they are indulging in downright lying propaganda and know it, or else they are so stupid and ignorant of the manner in which Capitalism operates, that one can only marvel that they should have achieved their present position. 

The poster reads:

"Jobs. The danger to full employment is not producing too much, but producing too little —and too dear.”

The fact that it has been found necessary to make such a statement as this is an indication that the real cause of unemployment is fairly widely appreciated by the working class. It is fast becoming apparent to the workers that, when goods have been produced in such great quantities that the markets of the world cannot absorb them, then production will cease, or, at least, slow down. In either case it spells loss of employment to many.

The warning of the approach of that day is contained in the final phrase on this poster. “ —and too dear.” No longer is there a “sellers’ market.” The post-war day is almost past when the demand for goods is so great that extravagant prices can be asked—and obtained—for them. Governments in all parts of the world are urging their respective workers to hustle, to produce more, to work harder, to work longer, to abolish restrictive practices, etc. All are striving to make the most of that wonderful market, that dwindling market which provides such remarkable profits. And with the wealth of goods that the workers are producing, the market is becoming saturated. It is less easy to sell now. Competition is becoming more keen. That means that prices will be cut in an endeavour to undersell competitors. Lower prices mean lower profits, unless the cost of production can be lowered also. Lowering the cost of production means that, either fewer workers are to be employed to produce a given amount; the same number of workers must produce more at the same cost; or the same number of workers must produce the given amount at a lower cost. And that word "cost” means “wages” to the workers. It is, of course, the second alternative that is being urged at the moment, with just a suspicion of a hint at the third.

We note that the employers in the Ladies’ Hairdressing Trade are saying that the present price cutting war in that trade will mean that they may he unable to meet their employees’ wage demands. This line of argument will not be confined to one trade alone.

Those words "—and too dear” are indeed a warning, maybe even a threat.

W. Waters.

Another Anti-War Committee (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why the S.P.G.B. will not join in

We received an invitation from the London Division of the I.L.P. in which they ask if the S.P.G.B. “will agree to a working committee together with ourselves, the Common Wealth Party, Peace Pledge Union, Anarchist Federation and/or any other body with the exception of the Communist Party, that is interested in an anti-war campaign.”

The purpose of the Committee, as set out in the letter of invitation, is “to cover the present drift towards a Third World War and, if possible, to put forward suggestions that we may have in common for future activities.”

The invitation was declined, the I.L.P. being informed by the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B. that we are not prepared to ally ourselves with our political opponents for any purpose.

This attitude will not be understood by the well-meaning people who are forming the committee and therefore it merits some explanation.

We accept the view that the world is drifting towards another war—though to be more precise it is not enough to speak of a drift; rather it should be said that certain factors are at work actively promoting international conflict. What are these factors? They are the ceaseless efforts made by all the countries (including, of course, those ruled by Labour Party Governments and Communist Party Governments) to capture foreign markets for their exports, to control trade routes and strategic points, and to acquire or hold territories rich in raw materials.

The only way to remove the cause of war is to remove capitalism, and the only method is for a working class won over to Socialism, democratically to gain control of the machinery of government for the purpose of establishing Socialism. In relation to this object the setting up of Anti-War Committees while leaving capitalism intact is a sheer irrelevance, futile because it cannot abolish war and dangerous because of the illusions it fosters.

Where do the various organisations stand that are to set up this Anti-War Committee? The I.L.P. and Common Wealth have a record of activity, not of seeking to abolish capitalism and establish Socialism, but of supporting reforms of capitalism and of propagating the false notion that nationalisation or State Capitalism is Socialism or is a means to achieve Socialism.

The Peace Pledge Union has members in all the non-Socialist parties and is not concerned as such with abolishing capitalism which is the cause of war.

The Anarchist Federation adds its quota of confusion by denying the need for the control of the machinery of Government and by pretending that the failure of Labour and Communist State Capitalism is a failure of Socialism.

In these circumstances to talk of forming a joint committee based on what the S.P.G.B. has “in common” with these other bodies is an absurdity. The S.P.G.B. unites with Socialists to achieve Socialism but will not help to perpetuate the error that sham unity with the opponents of Socialism, however well-meaning they may be, will help the working-class or the Socialist movement.

When we come to examine the proposed committee in detail the truth of what is said above will be apparent. The Committee is to unite all parties that “are interested in an anti-war campaign “—with one exception, the Communist Party. But the Communist Party, in between supporting various wars, is more interested than any organisation in running anti-war campaigns. It is one of their most fruitful methods of tricking the working class into serving as tools for Russian Government policy. Indeed, they are running such a campaign now (simultaneously with supporting various wars, as in China and Palestine), and among the speakers at the Anti-War Rally that they organised in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, 14th November, was at least one prominent member of the Peace Pledge Union, Miss Sybil Morrison. (See Daily Worker, 11/11/48.) So the Anti-War Committee is to include the P.P.U. and exclude the Communists, while a P.P.U. speaker associates with the excluded Communist Party! The new United Committee has demonstrated its lack of unity before it even held its first meeting. It will end like the scores of earlier attempts on the same lines— they flourish in peace and disintegrate when war comes.

Ed. Comm.

Common ownership of jumble sales (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arise ye starvelings from your slumber. It won't be long now. Christmas is coming accompanied by the Daily Worker Bazaar Organiser. Our old Comrades Communist Association are feeling the pinch. The price of whitewash for the decoration of garden walls and railway bridges has gone up. If you want the Revolution unimpeded and such slogans as “long live the Working Class” or “fight for peace” rally to the rescue. Dig out mother-in-law’s old “what’s its” your father’s old thingamybobs and peace be with ye! Dame Rumour has it that the Red Dean will convey the odour of sanctity by donating half-a-dozen old cassocks and two sets of surplices. Old socks and Union Jacks will be democratically assembled in patchwork quilts, rag rugs, and soft dolls with soft heads.

The big day is in December, when the “day to day struggle” begins on the “Jumble” front. Special competitions better than the News of the World crossword will occupy the grey matter. This year’s competition is “What is our Policy?” What’s that? Oh, we have it wrong. That was last year’s competition, we stand corrected. We understand from King Street that the competition will be “What has the Daily Worker got that the others haven’t got?” By way of a few clues they kid us along by a process of elimination. Listen to this bizarre bazaar handbill.

“Look through a week’s issue and you’ll see it’s got everything the other papers have got: All the news from home and abroad — cartoons — features for women — a strip for the kiddies — reviews of films, books, theatre, radio, art, hints on gardening, handicrafts and bringing up children— a page of sports by a team of experts—Yes . . . it’s all there.”

The Jumble Sale leaflet does, however enlighten us a little further. In answer to its own question about what it is the Daily Worker has that the others haven’t got we read: “ Well—it’s no great secret . . . it’s the Fighting Fund That makes it different.”

Wot, no Communism?

“Silence, fool, or suffer excommunication!”

J.D.

Cheaper food—less wages (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the firm of Harry Ferguson, Ltd., of Coventry, producers of the Ferguson Tractor, comes a booklet containing an alleged solution to the rising cost of living. By reducing the cost of food and thereby preventing demands for higher wages, the farmer, so he is assured, can prevent the “vicious, mounting spiral of inflation.” But let Harry Ferguson, Ltd., speak for themselves:

A paragraph headed : “Industry’s Prime Cost’’ proceeds:

“The prime cost of all industry is the cost of maintaining human beings. Human beings cannot he maintained unless they are paid enough to ensure that they get sufficient food to keep them fit to do their jobs; and they must also have, at the very least, a reasonable margin left over to enjoy other things.

“If, therefore, food prices can be stabilised, wages can be stabilised too.”

The writer delicately refrains from carrying his argument to the next logical step—that if food prices can be reduced, wages can be reduced too.

This booklet has not, as you may guess, been produced for the purpose of introducing the employees of Harry Ferguson, Ltd., to Marx’s theory of Value. It has as its object the sale of tractors and carries the popular two fold appeal to the potential customer—the assurance that “costs” will be cut, backed by the patriotic appeal to assist the “National effort.”

Nevertheless, although the composer of this stirring appeal may never have read a line of Marx, no Marxist could quarrel with his analysis of the prime cost of industry. (The additional margin to “enjoy other things” is a novel, if somewhat vague touch and should merit close attention if some economist can be persuaded to come forward with the formula by means of which this margin is calculated!)

How often have the workers refused to accent this analysis from the Socialist platform? Will they accept it now, from the pen of their masters’ hirelings?

Let the worker consider carefully the implications. The farmer is urged to buy agricultural implements to enable the worker to enjoy a more substantial or varied diet. but, in reality, to facilitate a general reduction in wages. Nor is this stupid and vicious economy confined to the land. Everywhere that so-called “labour-saving” machinery is installed, whether in mills, mines or factories, whether in warehouses, offices or hotels, the object is never to save labour hut always to save wages.

This is inevitable under capitalism. The capitalist class is forever striving to reduce wages, whether by direct action in the workshops where labour-saving machinery enables production to be maintained or increased with fewer workers, or indirectly where the cheaper production of the necessities of life enables a reduction to be made in the basic wage.

The solution? A social system wherein the use of machinery on the farm as in every other sphere of production, has as its two-fold object the genuine saving of labour (with its accompanying increase of leisure and energy to enjoy that leisure) and the production of articles solely, simply and sensibly for—need. In a word—Socialism.

H.J.G.

Blogger's Note:

There's a strong chance that 'H.J.G.' was Howard J. Grew. My reasoning is twofold: Howard was a member of the Birmingham Branch of the SPGB, and the article refers to a firm in the West Midlands; and, secondly, he joined the Party in 1947, so his membership and this article overlap.

Howard's obituary appeared in  the September 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard.

The National Health Service (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

On July 5th, 1948, an ever-benevolent Labour Government bestowed yet another of its infinite blessings on the working-class of this country— this time in the guise of the National Health Service.

Doubtless on that happy day many working class wives and mothers, whilst in the process of scraping together a few meagre rations to sustain their families through their day of wage-labour, thought with deep thankfulness that now they and their children, as well as their husbands, could have as many bottles of stomach mixture as they liked without having to pay for it!

Much controversy raged amongst the workers as to whether or not this new Act was a good thing, but as to how many penetrated to the root of the matter—that is a different story.

Did it really seem to you, Mrs. Wage-Slave, as you sat (if you were lucky) for approximately three hours in that most fertile of all bacteria-breeding laboratories —the doctor’s waiting-room, that the fact that now you could obtain your tins of health salts and your packets of cotton-wool without passing cash over the chemist’s counter was a blessing that would make life more full and abundant for you? Can this National Health Service supply you with the means of preventing your husband's stomach trouble—your own nervous condition and your children’s chest complaints? Is it going to give you an abundance of the right kinds of food— a home that isn’t damp—and a set of conditions that will make the weird disease that you euphemistically term “nerves,” things of the past? You know that this is not the case and no-one would pretend that it was, but of what real use is the attempted cure without the prevention?

One point that you might raise is that now the managing director of your firm is, even more than in the past, helping to pay for your own particular dope. You may also think that you are paying for his, should he care to take advantage of the fact. But he won’t, knowing that by a little extra payment far more interest will be taken in his aches and pains than in yours.

The consumption of allegedly therapeutic medicine in this country is still steadily increasing. Consider only the numbers of B.B.C. announcements relating to lost drugs, usually of the sedative type. These are an everyday occurrence now, and are treated with as much contempt as the weather forecast. The laws governing the supply of these drugs may be enforced more strictly, as indeed they have been recently, but nothing can alter the fact that increasing numbers of people are having to rely more and more on artificial aid to bring a few hours of rest and relief from the harassing life inflicted on them by the present system.

Neither has the sale of patent medicines diminished. With blind faith in advertisement the working class still buy their weekly supply of pills and liniment, and with scorn and disbelief born of superior knowledge through experience, vehemently support their own pet brand of bilgewater, even when told it is so much rubbish.

Many people might say that in faith lies the basis of healing. Possibly, but it will take more than faith to battle with the conditions that impel us to resort to these palliatives. Within the framework of our present society there can be no cure for the illness that besets us. A broken leg can be mended but the countless complaints that take what little enjoyment we might have from our lives are part and parcel of the present set-up and can only be abolished along with the entire system.

Only under Socialism can every individual achieve a healthily working mind and body. Under a system where production for profit is a thing of the past, when the innumerable good things are freely available to all, health bills and kindred reforms will be relegated to a museum of forgotten capitalist paraphernalia to be puzzled over by the generations that will be born under Socialism.

Think then upon the deeper implications of the National Health Service before you accept it as a necessary part of your lives. No reform can ever solve your problems. Do not blindly dismiss it as a good or a bad thing but none the less inevitable. Nothing is inevitable, unless you choose to make it so. Think of what life is, compared to what it could be—to what, indeed, it will be when you and millions like you have awakened to the understanding of what Socialism is and have united to work for its achievement. 

D. M.

'Some Tell Big Lies . . .' (1948)

 From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Some make Big Stuff,

    Some make Small;

More from Each

  Is More for All." — Govt. poster.

Some Tell Big Lies,

  Some Tell Small;

The one above this 

  BEATS THEM ALL!

 

Blogger's Note: 

For more background on the government poster reproduced above, see this article by Bill Waters from the same issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1948)

Party News from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

With regards to the Bethnal Green meetings listed, 'R. Coster' was  Robert Barltrop's 'party name' during his period of membership from 1945 until 1960. Joyce Millen's obituary appeared in the March 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bloomsbury Branch  received a letter last May from Max Aitken, M.P. accepting a challenge to debate with the Party. This letter, dated 14th May, 1948, was a reply to one that had been sent to Mr. Aitken, and in it he said “. . .  I am quite willing to debate on any subject with a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain . . .” Subsequent letters dated 29th May and 5th June, were sent to Mr. Aitken suggesting the Holborn Hall as a venue, a subject for debate, offering to make and pay for all arrangements and giving a choice of dates. A request for a reply to these letters was sent on June 18th. There followed a reply from Mr. Aitken’s secretary who said that, as soon as Mr. Aitken returned from abroad he would bring the correspondence to his notice. A letter of acknowledgment was sent. On August 10th, when it was learned that he was back in London, Mr. Aitken was sent a further letter asking him to name the day. On September 11th, yet another letter was sent to him by registered post asking for an early reply. Bloomsbury Branch is still waiting.

It appears that we must add Mr. Aitken to the list of M.P.s who have valiantly accepted debate with us and then found that they were a little chilly below the ankles.

Kingston Branch has, at last, found a branch room in Kingston. The room is warm and comfortable and the situation convenient. The address is 9, Vicarage Road, enter by the door in Wood Street, facing Bentalls Stores. The first meeting at Malden Library was not an enthusing success, due, in part at least, to the fact that the branch’s advertising efforts were spoiled by the bills being covered with opponents’ posters. All the same, despite a small attendance, the literature sales were very good and the audience showed its appreciation of our case by contributing a bumper collection to defray expenses.

In Manchester a comrade has, during the past six or seven months, been engaged on a one-man literature drive. Going from door to door in the Manchester district, he had, at the end of October, sold 2,440 pamphlets. sales amounting to over £40. He expects to be well past the £50 mark by the end of the year. We understand that he has mainly concentrated on selling the pamphlet, “Principles and Policy of the Socialist Party” and he tells us that next year he will take the whole stock of ”Is the Labour Government the way to Socialism,” some four to five thousand copies, and he ‘‘will shift the lot.” This is a wonderful job of work, but the comrade tells us that he is really only just scratching the surface. Given a team of five or six assistants he considers that he could really “make things hum” around Manchester. He further recommends his scheme to London branches. "It is a method,” he says, “’that must be relentlessly followed up week after week. If some London branches co-operated to work in a chosen area and had every house 'taped’ for several calls, at the end of six months, I think you could really expect things to develop. Is there any possibility? When I see what a puny slice of the real possibilities rewards my labours, I want a hundred pairs of legs . . .” From figures given in his letters we learn that from October 16th to October 23rd he sold, single-handed, 110 pamphlets, and that the figure would have been higher had it not been for poor weather and lengthy discussions with some of the workers at their homes when he called on them. This is undoubtedly a great job well done and the greatest compliment we could pay this comrade would be to attempt to emulate his example.

The W.S.P. of U.S. send us some encouraging news. A new local is in the process of being organised in San Francisco. Also at Chicago local members are going about the job of organising a new local with determination. The Detroit local, formed last year, has made considerable gains. New York local is holding regular classes and discussions. Some ”members at large” (members who reside in districts where no branch exists, as our Central Branch members) are extremely active. An instance is given of one in Ohio who has recently collected $15 for Party funds, obtained 20 new subscribers to the Western Socialist and puts the Socialist case at local forums and discussions. Los Angeles local is also conducting regular activities. Boston is as active as ever—attracting large audiences resulting in fine literature sales and a number of new contacts. Headquarters at Boston is ‘‘open seven days a week from early morning to, frequently, late at night.” From some standpoints the Western Socialist has made advances, ‘‘but, 'Red scares,’ thought control propaganda, etc., have had some effect on contacts and subscribers. Also, some of the locals and Companion Parties have cut their W.S. orders.” The paper is now badly in debt. S.O.S.

The Dublin Socialist Group reports further progress. There was recently formed in Dublin a Civil Liberties organisation. At a meeting of this organisation held at the Mansion House, Dublin, our comrades spoke from the floor with such effect that they were reported even in The Cork Examiner which spoke of them as being "well briefed” and an "advanced Socialist Group.” Their meetings at The Boilermakers Hall are still a success. They have now held over 30 consecutive meetings in this hall since the group was formed in the early part of this year. A sixth member of the group has now made his public speaking debut. Like all Socialist organisations, they have to count their coppers before they embark on any line of activity. Irish readers please note.

The Publicity Committee reports that enquiries have been received from individuals who have read the volume of "Collected Socialist Pamphlets” in their public library. Is this Party publication in YOUR public library? It should be !

Paddington Branch is making arrangements for the kick-off for the election campaign. The campaign will be opened with a meeting at the Metropolitan Theatre this month.

An ex-Comrade (deceased) made the Party the beneficiary under his will for the sum of £1,400. The General Secretary has reported that ho has received a cheque for £1,276 17s. 10d., this being the sum remaining after the deduction of death duties.

Two New Discussion Groups have recently been formed, one at Derby and the other at Barking in Essex. Interested readers will find the respective addresses on other pages.

In Africa we have a number of comrades who are anxious to get on with some Socialist work. They reside as far apart as Nigeria and Natal, The Gold Coast and Rhodesia, but all are in contact with one another and are eager to correspond with, or otherwise contact, all readers of the Socialist Standard living on the African continent. The following is from a letter received from a comrade who tells us that he is "a full-blooded African ”:

   ”. . . The idea of a World Socialist Party appeals strongly to me. It lifts the ideal of Socialism above national boundaries and sovereignties. The difficulty, as I see it, is organisation, and organisation means finance. The unequal fight between a Capitalism hoary with age and triumphant with remarkable successes, and nascent Socialism, is disheartening to contemplate. We see how even the S.P.G.B.'s activities are being seriously hampered by lack of funds. Centuries of unrestricted growth have sent Capitalism’s roots deep down into the fertile soil of societies. The tasks confronting Socialists in Africa are even more formidable.
    “But the work must be done — and done doggedly and tellingly. To this end those of us who dream dreams and see visions have to address ourselves.
   “Africa is calling all writers—all those who have some gift or claims to self expression—to sing of the triumphs and failures, joys and sorrows of this continent which is now stirring with all the vim of centuries of suppressed energy. It would be of great advantage if Socialists take this tide of African Renaissance now in its flood . . . . you can count on my full co-operation in anything that lies within my power.”

African readers can be “linked-up” by writing to the Overseas Secretary of the S.P.G.B.

Journals and Papers are requested for overseas comrades. In particular we are asked for weekly issues of newspapers. Any member or friend who has copies to send can be supplied with addresses to which to send them.

W. Waters.

Editorial: Nationalisation of Iron and Steel (1948)

Editorial from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The last of the big schemes of Nationalisation to which the Labour Government was pledged during the life of the present Parliament, the Nationalisation of iron and steel, is to take effect in 1950 under the terms of the Bill now being discussed. The scheme differs in various ways from the organisation set up for coal and transport and the attitude of the Government in explaining the Bill suggests that, with an eye on the next General Election, they are anxious to emphasise that it really will not make a very great difference. The Government is to take over the shares of 107 of the largest companies and place the industry under the ultimate control of the Iron and Steel Corporation but in such a way that the Corporation concerns itself with ‘‘planning the overall efficiency of the industry” without interference with the day-to-day management of each works. Unless the Corporation considers that certain directors are inefficient the existing managements will remain. Mr. Strauss, Minister of Supply, who introduced the Bill emphasised these aspects in his speech on 15th November. According to the Times (16/11/48) he described it as a way “to combine all that is best in private enterprise and public ownership.” The individual companies whose shares the Corporation will take over will retain their present identity and continue trading under their existing names. The Minister explained that "on the morning after the vesting date the only difference for them would be that the ownership of the securities had changed hands.”

The Corporation and the Nationalised Companies taken as a whole will have to pay their way like any other trading concern and will, in fact, be in competition with the smaller firms that are not being nationalised. The Iron and Steel Corporation will consist of a Chairman and from four to ten other members all appointed by the Minister. The workers employed by the Nationalised firms and their wholly owned subsidiary companies will number about 300,000 but there was no suggestion that their position will be essentially altered any more than it was when coal and transport were nationalised. The main arguments used by the Government spokesman in favour of nationalisation were that not only “prosperity” but also “security and influence on world affairs” are bound up with the production of “cheap steel in ample quantities” and these requirements cannot be met if the existing ownership and organisation continue. On the question of cheapness Mr. Strauss made the point that costs of production in this country are generally higher than in U.S.A. ‘‘in spite of the fact that American wages were much higher.” (Times, 16/11/48.) He laid emphasis on the argument that 30 per cent. of the existing industry is using antiquated and inefficient plant and that it would not be possible to secure 100 per cent. efficiency without centralisation—‘‘to rationalise the industry properly and to get the maximum efficiency a single owner must replace many . . .” Naturally the shareholders are more concerned with the amount of compensation (£300 million) than with arguments about organisation. The City editors of daily newspapers have all more or less agreed with the line taken by the Sunday Express (31/10/48) that the shareholders are being swindled because the Government “will pay £300 million for assets worth at least £600 million.” The Minister’s reply to this was to point out that the compensation is based on the prices quoted for the shares on the Stock Exchange and that “nearly all shareholders who had bought their shares any time during the last 10 years or so would receive in compensation more than they paid for them.”

Once the shareholders have received their compensation stock they will continue to receive interest on it in good times and bad while the steel workers, as in the past, will be dependent for their employment on the state of trade. The Minister incidentally let out that he at least does not count on good trade lasting for over. He claimed that in planning for the amount of steel to be produced the Government need not be as cautious as private capitalists would have to be “as soon as the present boom conditions fall off ” and he argued that it would be less disturbing to the industry to nationalise the companies now “when trade is good, than in a period of world depression.” (Daily Mail, 16/11/48.)

The Tories are opposing the scheme and threaten to undo it if elected in 1950. We need not concern ourselves with the argument whether this, or some Tory scheme of State control without State ownership, would better serve the interests of British capitalism. We can be quite certain that neither scheme will alter the wage-slave position of the workers.

Just Once A Year (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

They come in their hundreds; they come in their thousands. Train loads, bus loads and coach loads, besides all those who make the journey on foot. Each town, village and suburb within a radius of miles, pours out its contingent.

It is the great annual trek to the shops of London. It is the prelude to the so-called festive season.

In Holborn and in Oxford Street; in Regent Street and in Piccadilly they jostle and push one another along the sidewalk, passing from shop window to shop window.

In this window there are fine coats made from the furs of rare animals, and in that one there are gorgeous gowns of rich materials. In the next are sparkling gems in gold settings and in the next are ingenious toys rivalled only by the mechanical wonders they are made to represent. And so on, passing windows tastefully displaying choice wines and expensive refrigerators, works of art and dainty lingerie, elaborate furniture and costly perfumes. At each window all heads are turned to gaze admiringly at the contents. But the crowds pass on.

At last a certain emporium is reached. Here we see a continuous stream of people passing in by one door and out by another. What is this place? Surely it must be a marvellous shop, or the many people who have passed all those other inviting stores, would not quicken their steps to gain admittance. Let us go in! It is indeed a large shop and it is crowded almost to suffocation. The goods displayed on the open counters are small and not as costly as those others we have seen. Had we looked before we entered, we should have seen the name of the store. Above the windows, in golden letters against a red background, we should have seen, “ F. W. Woolworth.” And, maybe, where the red background was a little faded, we should have seen, faintly showing through, the marks of figures that were removed during the war years: “3d.'' and “ 6d.”

But all these people; who are they? What are they ? They are the workers with their families. These are the men and women who have toiled to make all those costly comforts and luxuries that they have just been passing. These are the people who, for the last fifty weeks have delved and spun, hewn and drawn, fetched and carried and toiled to produce the best of food, the finest of clothes and the grandest of buildings.

These same people have scraped a few coppers each week from their meagre wages to pay in to clubs in order that for one brief period they may spend on luxuries. Now they seek their “luxuries” in Woolworths. The portals of Galleries Lafayette or Liberty’s do not invite them and the plate glass windows of other shops keep them at a respectful distance. Even here, in Woolworths, the shop detectives mingle with the crowds—just in case some individual temporarily loses his respect for the property of others. Workers who have plied needle and thread to make fine raiment may now gaze at their handiwork—that is their portion. Those who have sweated to produce choice viands may now stand in the smell from the kitchens of the Piccadilly Hotel and sniff—it is their share.

And on December the 25th they may possibly have one good blow-out. Chicken and pudding and port-flavoured wine. Just for one day in the year they may kid themselves that they are hitting the high spots. Then, back to the grind.

Some day they will awaken from this stupor. They will set about the task of ridding themselves of an obsolete social system; a system that prevents them from enjoying the fruits of their labours. They will take the land and “all that in it is” from those who now own it and will work to produce the necessities and comforts of life for all. No need then to produce cheap articles for the many and super goods for the few. No need then to taste the good things just once a year. The best can be produced for all for always.

W. Waters

A Policeman's Club (1948)

Quote from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

"When a policeman's club descends thick and heavy on a worker's skull during a strike if he listens intently he will hear ringing in his ears, the echo of the vote he cast at the last election."
— Eugene Debs

Bavaria Revisited (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We publish the following letter from a reader dealing with conditions in Germany. The writer is an American now studying in Switzerland.—-Ed. Comm.

On the train, rattling eastward from Buchloe, I recalled three previous visits to Munich . . .  in 1925, 1945 and the Spring of 1948. In more than two decades the surrounding countryside had undergone little change. There were still the same rolling meadows, broken by the quilt patterns of crops and dark patches of forest. White-walled, red-roofed villages dotted the landscape and clustered more thickly as the capital approached. The countryside had changed little, but the city was battered by war beyond recognition.

In 1925, despite war, hunger and inflation, Munich was still the German Paris, with its wide, tree-lined avenues, sidewalk cafes, spacious squares and well-groomed parks. The green Isar was a kind of Seine, meandering through the town past villas and heroic monuments. Munich even had its Quartier Latin—the suburb of Schwabing—where artiste and writers from all German-speaking countries (Rilke, the Zweigs, J. C. Heer, O. M. Graf) came to live and work. The Wittelsbach kings had been admirers of the Bourbons, and their capital became a symbol of this admiration.

In the Summer of 1945 we slid slowly into Munich in a U.S. military train. The great arched station had been gutted and wrecked . . . the sky was visible through the girder-skeleton. As an ironic touch, a huge rusty sign proclaimed Munich “The Capital of the (Nazi) Movement.” In 1925 one had to walk half-an-hour from the Bahnhofplatz to see the great Frauenkirche. Now its twin towers, with their onion-domes, were visible from the station steps. Round about was a sea of rubble . . . bricks, plaster, wooden beams and twisted girders, with jagged roofless walls alternating with houses miraculously spared. Gaunt, seedy throngs . . . Germans and a dozen other races . . . swarmed through the littered streets. Jeeps, army trucks and command cars were the only traffic. Shop windows were bare. Munich, 1945, was a skeleton picked clean.

In the Spring of 1948 the rubble had been cleared from the streets. It was now piled up in the empty lots, behind the jagged walls, and grass was growing between the bricks and beams. The great squares were more spacious than ever, lined by hollowed buildings that resembled skulls. The streets were still crowded . . .  the influx of refugees from Eastern Germany had swelled the population to 800,000. There was more civilian traffic. The small, egg-shaped Volkswagen, for which the Hitler regime collected down payments, had appeared at last. The shop windows were a little fuller, but many of the goods were clearly marked “Samples Only.’’ There was some evidence of rebuilding, mainly repairs on the less damaged structures. But thousands of families still lived in air-raid shelters and cellars and would continue to do so for a long time.

In mid-October, 1948, Munich, along with Western Germany, had gone through last Summer’s currency reform. The new Deutsche Mark, issued for ten of the old, was in circulation. Its appearance had worked a miraculous change in the street scene. Now the shop windows were crowded with goods of all kinds— household utensils, clothing, radios, shoes, leather goods, books, paper, luxury items. Even groceries and butcher shops displayed wares most of their customers had not seen in years. In the midst of Munich’s moon-crater landscape it was possible to sit down to a meal of eggs, meat, fish or poultry. For a slight increase in price the food coupons were waived on rationed items. A correspondent for the Paris Herald-Tribune wrote an enthusiastic article about the success of the “Währungsreform,” pointing out that a duck dinner cost less in Munich than in New York or Glasgow, that a German Leica camera, which costs 450 Dollars in the U.S.A., can be bought for 175 in Bavaria. Surely the western occupation powers had worked a modern miracle.

There is only one thing wrong with this glowing picture. The German masses, having lost over 90 per cent. (the frozen bank deposits were recently reduced again) of their savings, cannot afford to buy most of the goods so temptingly displayed. Our Herald friend forgets that his 175 Dollars, at 15 Marks to the Dollar, represents seven months’ pay to the average German worker. His duck dinner, at six or eight Marks, is a days’ wages to a German clerk or carpenter. Once again, as in the early Twenties, Germany will be a playground for the well-heeled tourist. But what of its citizens? Recently the American consul at Munich announced he would accept applications for visas. He got over two million replies.

We had missed Munich’s famous “Oktoberfest,’’ which, we were told, was celebrated this year with something of the old lavishness. (Among other things, there were fried chickens at 12 Marks apiece.) As a partial compensation we visited the annual Fall Fair at Memmingen, a western Bavarian town of 20,000 near the foothills of the Alps. The old streets and squares were lined with booths and jammed with farmers. People rode in on hay wagons, buses and tractors to this post-currency Jahrmarkt, to feast their eyes on the pottery, cloth, dishes, toys, farm implements and luggage. Laughing children and young people rode the chutes, swings and merry-go-round. This was almost back to normalcy. But here, too, high prices and empty pocketbooks put a damper on gaiety. With a toy ballon at 2 Marks, a “Lebkuchen’’ heart at 2.50, a 100-gramme bar of inferior Czech chocolate at 5.50, a set of dishes at 30, many a youngster and housewife had to be content with “window shopping.’’

Like all other attempts to patch up a rotting system, the West German currency reform will be a long-term failure. Repercussions are inevitable. At this writing the workers of Heidelberg are on strike against high and rising prices. As Winter comes, signs of discontent will grow. With them will grow a knowledge on the part of the German proletariat (now truly have-nots) that the road pointed out by their old teachers—Marx and Engels—was the right one, after all. There is no substitute for Socialism.

W. Weber.

Labour Government Lock-Out (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Evening News reports (29/9/48) that 2,000 miners employed at Betteshanger colliery "may face the sack unless they reach an agreement with the National Coal Board over a wage dispute . . . "

"The men were told that if they fail, the Board will consider closing Betteshaanger colliery, and 2,200 men will have to seek work elsewhere. The negotiations were being conducted by the Kent Mine Workers' Association and the Board's headquarters in London. The South-East Regional Coal Board were acting as 'forwarding agents.'"
"Neither side would admit more than that secret negotiations were in progress.
"It appears that the colliery had been running at a loss for some time, and the Board was believed to have told the men bluntly that costs must be cut if it is to continue in operation."

Here then is one more proof that the workers fare no better under Nationalisation that promised "full employment" and an end to the "bad old days of the private owner." It is also an answer to those Trade Union leaders who would assure the workers that the "boss" is no more, they're "our" mines and railways, etc., now. The threat of closing Betteshanger does not seem to differ much from the lock-out used by the former private owner when resisting wage demands. There is one little difference though, and certainly of no interest to the worker, that whereas formerly the mineowner would close down and lose, now, under Nationalisation, as a former stockholder, his investments are secure, backed by the workers' "very own Government." Whatever happens at Betteshanger, it will perhaps prove an object lesson for workers, who have clamoured for Nationalisation, thinking that such schemes would better their conditions, and believing that Labour Governments can run capitalist industry in the workers' interest. One thing is certain, that they must "pay their way," this meaning at a profit, for investors in Government stock, and as Alfred Edwards, M.P., who recently left the Labour Party, said when speaking of the possibility of steel Nationalisation: "If the Government bought a steel works for a million pounds the owner would still be  getting his three per cent. interest on that million if a depression came—but the workers would be walking the streets."

Workers should remember that they are only allowed to work and be exploited in the interests of profits. No profit, out on the street, whatever Government is running Capitalism.

G. Hilbinger