Labour Party trouble with the Co-operatives (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In “Labour Believes in Britain” the Labour Party says that since its foundation “the Party has been solidly based on our great Trade Union and Cooperative Movements.”

While the Labour Party was in opposition and had a free hand to defend the claims of the Co-operators in such matters as taxation, and to give general support to wage increases, this partnership worked fairly smoothly. Now they are in power rifts are appearing. On the one hand, the Government is antagonising trade union members by the policy of wage-freezing and refusal to allow wages to keep up with the cost of living; and on the other, trouble is brewing with the Co-operative societies on several issues.

First the Labour Government upset the Cooperative Society leaders by the threat to nationalise the Co-operative Insurance Society along with the rest of the insurance industry.

Reynolds News, the Co-operative Sunday paper, in an editorial (30.10.49) had the following:—

“We think it is neither good Socialism nor good sense to absorb the Co-operative system in a State scheme, as Labour proposes to do. A strong case can be made for leaving the Co-operative and State systems to function side by side, to the benefit of the community .”

Of course the Co-operative Movement is no more concerned with Socialism than is the Labour Party and what they are really troubled about is that if the Co-operative Insurance Society is nationalised it would be a bad stroke of business for the Co-operative Movement. A writer in Co-operative News (20th October, quoted in Manchester Guardian, 21.10.49) dealing with this aspect had no scruples about admitting this. He wrote: —“ Our own 'private' enterprise in this sphere of investment and activity has been a good money-maker.”

The same writer in the Co-operative News went on to doubt whether it would even be worth while to try to get special exemption from nationalisation, because the Government would be bound to lay down the condition that if the Co-operative Insurance Society remained outside nationalisation it would be on the basis “that all Co-operative insurance profits will go, after administrative and collecting expenses are paid, back to the insured persons.”

Like the ordinary capitalist industrialist and trader, what the Co-operatives are concerned with is profits.

The second row between the Labour Party and the Co-operatives started with a speech by a Labour Peer, Lord Shepherd, that the Government might in certain circumstances set up State retail shops—a threat to the Co-operatives as well as to private traders. Mr. Strachey hastened to soothe the Co-operatives’ feelings but the harm was done. According to the Co-operative News the threat of State shops had caused “ consternation in high-up Co-operative circles ” (Manchester Guardian, 14.10.49).

Not unnaturally, the Liberals and Tories have hastened to intervene and assure the Co-operatives that they, and not the Labour Party are their real friends. Lord Woolton (Sunday Express, 30.10.49) assured them that they would be safer under Tory Government; while a prominent Liberal, Mr. Arthur Seldon, writing in Co-operative News (27.10.49) implored his readers to desert the Labour Party for Liberalism.

But while the Co-operatives resent those parts of Labour Government Policy that cut across their profit-making activities in the world of capitalist trade and industry, they do not at all mind the Government’s attempt to keep down wages. On the contrary they have given it a warm welcome. The following appeared in the Daily Express (4.11.49): —

“More than a thousand Co-operative societies were urged yesterday by their National Wages Board to resist pressure for more pay. The Board accused some union organisers and branch officials of using tactics 'which do not square with the promise of restraint.’ ”

Covering the same ground the Co-operative Reynolds News (6.11.49) under the heading “Wage Tactics: A Warning," stated that the National Cooperative Wages Board had issued its warning because of “Local trade union pressure on Co-operative Societies, especially in the Central Midlands, to pay more than agreed national rates of pay."

The warning was that this practice might cause the negotiating machinery to disintegrate.

The whole of this Labour Party — Trade Union — Co-operative bickering is a row about the effects of the capitalist system, not about its abolition and replacement by Socialism. The trade unions, if they are to survive, must defend the workers against the employers, including the Co-operative employers, and the State as the employer in the nationalised industries. They must also oppose the efforts of the Labour Government to solve capitalism’s problems by wage-freezing. The Co-operatives as capitalist concerns have the same interest as other capitalists in striking a good bargain with the Government if their concerns arc nationalised, and in resisting trade union wage demands.

The dispute between the Co-operatives and the Labour Party about whether Socialism requires nationalised insurance or Co-operative insurance betrays the non-Socialist outlook of both sides. What insurance exists for is to protect the insured against some evil consequences that arise out of capitalism, that and nothing else. The idea that insurance will be needed under Socialism is ludicrous, an idea that could only be held by those whose talk about Socialism covers a neglect ever to think what it really means.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

'Labour Believes in Britain' was a draft programme published by the Labour Party National Executive in April 1949 for the next upcoming General Election.

Leadership and Lenin (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The idea of “ Leadership ” developed alongside the growth of private property; it was a reflection of class-divided society, and the leader or leaders always represented property interests. Behind the idea was the theory that a few are born to lead whilst the many are born to serve. Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, put the idea this way;—

“He who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject, and by nature a slave."

“And so in one point of view, the art of war is a natural art of acquisition, for it includes hunting, an art which ought to practice against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit, for war of such a kind is naturally just."

In the last century Thomas Carlyle, in his essay on Chartism, put the idea in a more polite form:—

"Surely, of all 'rights of man,' this right of the ignorant man to be guided by the wiser, to be, gently or forcibly, held in the true course by him, is the indisputablist. Nature herself ordains it from the first; Society struggles toward perfection by enforcing and accomplishing it more and more . . . In Rome and Athens, as elsewhere, if we look practically, we shall find that it was not by loud voting and debating of many, but by wise insight and ordering of a few that the work was done. So is it ever, so will it ever be."

As soon as the workers began to combine to try to obtain some amelioration of their conditions their Movement was also cursed with this idea of leadership, and a contemporary of Carlyle, William Lovett —a working man who drafted the six points of the Charter —complained bitterly about it: —

“They were always looking up to leadership of one description or another; were being swayed to and fro in opinion and action by the idol of their choice, and were rent and divided when some popular breath had blown that idol from its pedestal. In fact the masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to 'great men' (or to men professing greatness) rather than to great principles."

Despite Lovett’s complaints the leadership idea was firmly entrenched in the radical and social democratic movement, and became one of the pedestals of Bolshevism. Lenin, the most prominent of the early Bolsheviks, had a complete contempt for the workers, looking upon them as just pawns in the struggle for power. In a pamphlet written by him in 1902, entitled “What is to be Done,” he indicated the attitude that governed his actions. The following quotation will make clear what this attitude was: —

“We said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working-class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realise the necessity for combining in unions, to fight against the employers and to strive to compel the Government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. The founders of modem scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia." (pages 32-33.)

“The workers can acquire class political consciousness only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers." (page 76.)

Lenin was arguing against those who contended that only the trade union struggle mattered, but in doing so he showed his hand. It may be pointed out, in passing, that it was largely from the theories of French, German and English working men that Marx and Engels acquired the knowledge that they systematised into scientific Socialism.

Lenin was an opportunist struggling for power and when it suited his policy he glorified the intelligence of the workers (see for instance his arguments in favour of trusting “ the masses ” in “Lessons of the Russian Revolution," page 24) pouring scorn on the alleged intricacies of organisational functions; later on he was just as emphatic in the opposite direction. This whole organisational policy, however, was built upon the idea that only a few possessed the intellectual capacity to direct the masses, and this was his interpretation of the “ Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Let us just give an example of how he wrote when he was appealing for working class support:—

“Capitalist culture has created industry on a large scale in the shape of factories, railways, posts, telephones and so forth, and on this basis the great majority of functions of ‘the old State' have become enormously simplified and reduced, in practice, to very simple operations such as registration, filing and checking. Hence they will be quite within the reach of every literate person, and it will be possible to perform them for the usual 'working- man's wage.’ This circumstance ought, and will, strip them of all their former glamour as 'Government,' and. therefore, privileged service.

The control of all officials, without exception, by the unreserved application of the principle of election and, at any time, recall; and the approximation of their salaries to the 'ordinary pay of the workers'—these are simple and ‘self-evident' democratic measures, which harmonise completely the interests of the workers and the majority of peasants; and, at the same time, serve as a bridge, leading from Capitalism to Socialism." (“The State and Revolution," page 46.)

The above was written just before the Bolsheviks obtained control of State power; after this was accomplished the tune changed. To illustrate this change of tune here are some extracts from “Resolutions and Regulations of the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (29th March to 4th April, 1920) Published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International. Moscow, 1920." In considering these extracts it must be remembered that Lenin was the dominating figure in both the Russian Communist Party and the Communist International-

“The Congress makes it obligatory to all members of the party mercilessly to fight that particularly obnoxious form of ignorant conceit which deems the working class capable of solving all problems without the assistance in the most responsible cases of specialists of the bourgeois school. The demagogic elements who speculate on this kind of prejudice of the more backward section of our working classes can have no place in the ranks of the party of scientific Socialism.

Registration of individual output or productivity of labour and the granting of corresponding individual premiums must also be carried out in a way suitable to administrative technical staff. Better conditions must be secured for our best administrators and engineers to enable them to make full use of their capacities in the interests of Socialist economy.

A special system of premiums is to be established for those specialists under whose guidance the workers can attain the necessary qualifications to make them capable to accept further independent posts.'* page 16.)

Gone was simplicity, election of officials, equality of wages and the rest of the support-catching slogans. In place of them the iron hand of dictatorship and of the “intellectual minority” was revealed. Many pages of the report were given over to arguments alleging the necessity and advantages of one-man management and responsibility. It is interesting to notice that the penalties to be imposed for failure to fall in line with labour discipline included internment in concentration camps. This shows that forced labour and concentration camps were used to bolster up dictatorship at the beginning of Bolshevik rule.

“The way to fight this labour desertion is to publish a column of desertion fines, the formation of labour detachments of deserters under fine and finally internment in concentration camps.” (page 20.)

The quotations we have given will show that leadership, an attribute of private property society, which has cursed the working class’ movement from its inception, was elevated into a guiding principle by the Bolsheviks, and sedulously followed out up to the present, bringing with it domination and the “flesh pots of Egypt” to the privileged minority whilst the masses suffer penury, hard labour, and the threat of the concentration camps or worse.

(All italics in the quotations arc in the originals.)

Gilmac.

Editorial: No socialist theories in the Labour Party (1949)

Editorial from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nobody can read carefully the speeches of Labour Ministers about Socialism and Capitalism without soon discovering that their minds are in a muddle about what they mean. And it all traces back to the fact that the Party was “founded by non-Socialists and has perpetuated among succeeding generations of members a tradition of avoiding inquiry into Socialist theory. This is not merely an outside criticism but a statement accepted proudly by the Labour leaders themselves. Mr. Attlee has often referred to it without any realisation that it can be other than a matter for self-congratulation. In 1938 he contributed to John A. Lee’s “Socialism in New Zealand,"  a Preface from which the following passage is extracted:

“ He (John Lee) recognises frankly the work of the Radical Governments which held power from 1891-1912. He acknowledges the Socialistic legislation of the Conservative Governments which held sway after the war. Indeed, he makes the point that these Governments were, despite all their prepossessions, compelled to adopt Socialist expedients in order to meet practical problems. This is an eminently practical book. There is little or no abstract theory. Like the British Labour Party, the New Zealand Socialist Movement is not doctrinaire. It draws its inspiration from the same broad streams of thought and emotion as in the Old Country. Its Socialism is the result of a common-sense endeavour to bring society into conformity with social justice." (P. VI.)

The same disregard for Socialist theory comes out iu an appeal for subscriptions and donations just issued of the Fabian Society over the names of Attlee, Cripps, Dalton, Laski, Morrison and others in the New Statesmen (5.11.49).

"Our full members are, and always have been. Socialists; but beyond insisting that our Socialism is ‘democratic,’ we leave them to define the word for themselves.”

As the individual members of the Fabian and Labour Parties may, and do, define the word how they chose, they can never agree on what they mean.

For most of them nationalisation as in the Post Office is Socialism; but it was Mr. Attlee himself who in the New Statesmen (7.11.1931) called the Post Office “the outstanding example of collective capitalism.” This was one of the few occasions when a Labour Party leader happened to stumble on the truth.

It was said at a time when the Labour Party was switching over (for vote-catching reasons) from the "Government Department” form of State capitalism to the “Public Board” form, now embodied in the nationalised mines and railways. But here again their past admissions rise up to smite them for in 1923 (Daily Herald, 30.7.1923) Mr. Herbert Morrison had admitted that the Public Board (he had in mind the Port of London Authority) is a capitalist device, to enable the capitalists “to do for themselves collectively what they and a number of private companies had been unable to do with success individually.”

Another statement by Attlee on the Labour Party's lack of Socialist theory can be found in his “Labour Party in Perspective” (1937, Page 36): —

“ It is characteristic of the British Labour Movement that the origin of the Labour Party is to be found in fact rather than in theory. The Labour Party was originally the by-product of Trade Union activity. . . . The Movement which resulted in the return of the first Trade Union representatives to the House of Commons in 1874 was far from being revolutionary, and the men themselves were not Socialists. They entered Parliament, not to overthrow the Capitalist system, but to win for the workers certain definite reforms. Apart from their specific demands on Labour questions they formed part of the Liberal Party.”

This brings us to the root of the matter in a manner not perceived by Mr. Attlee. The Labour Party does not work without any theory, nobody does, but with theories that are not Socialist.

And when we look at the result we see the force of the remark attributed to Disraeli, that men who boast of being practical are usually to be found practising the errors of their forefathers.

Notes by the Way: Bigger Armaments Under Labour Government (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bigger Armaments Under Labour Government

In the course of an explanation why taxation is so much larger than before the war, Mr. Douglas Jay, M.P., Economic Secretary to the Treasury, recently repudiated the view 'that it is solely due to expenditure on social services. He was speaking to the Westminster Savings Committee, and went on to tell them of another reason: —

“Equally important is the growth in defence expenditure (£750 million to-day, compared with £200 million before the war), and also in debt interest due to the war.” (Daily Express, 4.10.49.)

Mr. Jay was seemingly content with his explanation but he should now answer the question “What has happened to the Labour Party’s promises that when they came to power they would know how to settle international problems peacefully and drastically cut down the Armed Forces?"

Instead they have to accept responsibility for peacetime conscription—opposition to which is now left to Tories and Liberals—and for maintaining the Armed Forces at far greater strength than in 1939. The number now is 765,000, just over twice as many as before the war.

One consequence of the Labour Party being responsible for running capitalism and keeping its Armed Forces up to standard is that that Party moved far away from the vague pacifist sentiment of the nineteen twenties. When recently the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union published in the Union journal an article appealing to young members to consider joining the Auxiliary Forces he made the comment below:—

“When 1 first became an officer of this union, an article on the Armed Forces of the Crown (unless it had been the purpose of the writer to condemn them as the tools of outworn imperialism, deplore their existence, and dissuade young men from having anything to do with them) would have been unthinkable in the Record. (Record, September, 1949.)

The Nationalistic German Social Democratic Party 

Just as the Labour Parties of the world pay lip-service to Socialism without in any way giving up their real aim of administering capitalism in the form of State capitalism or nationalisation, so they all pay lip-service to internationalism while remaining strongly nationalistic.

The German Social Democratic Party has just issued the opposition platform on which it will oppose the new German Government. It refers to “socialisation’’ of industries, meaning nationalisation, but makes no reference at all to Socialism and is a document similar to the programme of the British Labour Party. It does, however, include a new phrase, “The S.D.P. rejects all forms of nationalism . . ." But any one who thinks this is to be taken seriously need only look at various nationalistic demands elsewhere in the list of demands. One is, the Party rejects the present German frontiers and wants to re-occupy territory in the East annexed by Poland, and the Saar region in the West.

No doubt the S.P.D. leaders will say that they seek these ends by peaceful means, but those who seek to change or to defend the territorial arrangements of the capitalist world must logically be prepared to go to war, and in practice all the Labour and Communist Parties are prepared to do so.

And if any Labourite supposes that the British Labour Party is different he should take note of the utterances of that one-time opponent of conscription and war, Mr. Shinwell, now Minister of War.

The lion’s tail is flying high and we don’t care who knows it.” (Speech to Territorials,. Manchester Guardian, 26.8.49.)

”. . . Commonwealth unity is a reality. It has survived two great wars and is as vital to the economic and political interests of Britain as European unity. I am not prepared to abandon the British Commonwealth for all the tea in China.” (Daily Telegraph, 5.9.49.)

A Leaky Umbrella for the Unemployed

One of the claims of the Labour Party is that they “led the fight against the mean and shabby treatment’’ meted out to the unemployed by Tory Governments in the years before the war. And when they came to power they promised to fix higher rates of unemployment pay to provide proper social provision “against rainy days.” (“Let us Face the Future,” Labour Party, 1945.)

They are proud of what they have done as was shown recently in the House of Commons by Mr. J. Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance. A Labour M.P., Major Bruce (North Portsmouth), asked how much was spent on unemployment benefit in 1938 and was told it was £52,400,000. (Hansard, 18th October, 1949. Col. 460.)

He also asked how much the Government would have had to spend in 1938 on employment benefit if the benefits at that time had been at the higher rates now paid by the Labour Government.

Mr. Griffiths replied that “If current rates of unemployment benefit and family allowances had then been in force the disbursements would have been rather less than £90,000,000.”

Here, surely, is a cast-iron proof of the benefits of Labour rule? A Tory Government gave the unemployed £52½ million, and a Labour Government would have paid them £90 million. Shall we say "good and faithful servant,” or has Mr. Griffiths overlooked one small detail in his arithmetic? He has; and we can complete the sum for him.

The detail is that the cost of living has gone up by about 80% since 1938. What could be bought with 20s. in 1938 now costs at least 36s. So that the seemingly higher rates of unemployment benefit now in force have to be heavily reduced in order to compare them with the rates in force in 1938 when money bought more.

Mr. Griffiths’s “rather less than £90 million” will actually buy only as much as could be bought with £50 million in 1938, and that is “rather less than” the amount that the Tory Government paid out to the unemployed.

So all that the Labour Government has done is to raise the scale of benefits to a point which will nearly, but not quite, compensate for the rise in the cost of living and now the cost of living is rising again.

Capitalism it is

In the House of Commons on 27th October there was an exchange of views between Churchill and Attlee about the system under which we are living. Both of them talked nonsense but as Churchill managed to be right on one important point the victory goes to him. Attlee was hampered by things he has said in the past.

Churchill led off with his one true statement: “It must he remembered as we sit here to-night that Britain is a capitalist society, and that 80 per cent. of its whole industry is in private hands.” (Hansard, 27.10.49, Col. 1625).

He followed with the amplification, “. . . what we have here now is a capitalist society on which we are dependent for our daily life and survival. . .”

This was, and may have been intended as, a rebuke to woolly-minded Conservatives as well as the woolly-minded Labourites; but he followed it with numerous absurdities. He repeatedly described Attlee’s party as “The Socialist Party” and his Government as a “Socialist Government,” charged it with making a “deliberate attack on the capitalist system,” and then informed the M.P.s that under Communism “society is reduced to a strong hierarchy and army of officials and politicians by whom the proletariat are ruled under a one-party system.” What he meant by the last phrase was Russia; but had he viewed the Russian economic system as clearly as he views the British he would have seen that there is no Communism (or Socialism) in Russia and that all the main features of capitalism are robustly in operation there.

Mr. Attlee had to reply and took the line that “we live in the days of a mixed economy.The Right Hon. gentleman is quite wrong when he suggests that this is a purely capitalist economy. It is neither purely capitalist nor purely Socialist, but a mixed economy in a transition period.” (Col. 1633.)

The only mixture is not the economy, which is capitalist through and through, but Mr. Attlee’s conception of it; and the answer to him is to be found in Labour Party literature and in his own writings. “Socialism and Peace” (Labour Party, 1935) declared that the choice is between a vain attempt to patch up a rotten capitalist society “or a rapid advance to a Socialist reconstruction of the national life. There is no half-way house . . .” (Our italics.)

Now Mr. Attlee is trying to justify “the half-way house,” which he believes to be partly capitalist and partly Socialist but which is nothing but Labour Party administration of capitalism. And in his own “Labour Party in Perspective” (1937, page 123) he admitted that it would not be a Socialist Party that could administer capitalism:—

“The plain fact is that a Socialist Party cannot hope to make a success of administering the Capitalist system because it does not believe in it.”

And here are a few more statements that Mr. Attlee will find difficult to square with his own present declarations.

He thinks now that we are in a mixed economy. Only a few months ago he told an audience at Walthamstow that “The social reforms which we introduced have not been patchy; they have represented a new social order . . . We have had a great experiment in democratic Socialism.” (Manchester Guardian, 12.1.49.)

And Mr. J. Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance still thinks we have got rid of capitalism for he declares “I believe the people of the world have made up their minds not to go back to the old crazy capitalist system of poverty, conflict and insecurity.” (Daily Herald, 7.4.49.)

The Doctor Blames the Patient

Some of the Labour leaders are becoming spiteful—at least in their attitude to the workers. Mr. Alfred Barnes. Minister of Transport, speaking at Chatham said: —

“I don’t think the men of this country have played the game since the end of the war. Wc carried out our mandate against adverse conditions, and we are entitled as a Labour Administration to call upon the great mass of men workers to turn out a greater quantity of goods than are at present pouring from the factories.” (Daily Mail, 24.10.49.)

It is a curious situation and prompts the question whether Mr. Barnes thinks that the workers go into politics for the benefit of Mr. Barnes.

The Labour leaders offered themselves to the working class (at a price—Mr. Barnes draws £5,000 a year as Minister of Transport) with a promise to cure them of the economic ills from which they were suffering; and the doctors certainly didn’t start off by saying that the cure consisted of prolonged austerity, repeated crises, harder work, more armaments, higher prices and no wage increases. Now, after four years, the doctor turns on the patients and blames them for not making things easy for the doctor!

How refreshing it would be to see a Minister resign his job with a frank admission that the Labour doctors were wrong from the outset and that they can’t make capitalism tolerable for the workers.

The 1931 Economy Cuts over again

In 1931, when MacDonald formed a National Government to deal with the crisis and the bulk of the Labour Party went into opposition, economy cuts were imposed, most of which had been agreed to by the Labour Government before its resignation. In some respects the present cuts in Government expenditure are similar to those of 1931, e.g. cuts on armament expenditure, and on education, but the supporters of the Labour Government are insistent that they are not following the example of the MacDonald Government by reducing Civil Service pay, and cutting unemployment benefit by 10%.

The difference is quite illusory. In 1931 when the Government cut unemployment pay and gave a lead to the employers to reduce wages the cost of living was falling, the official index figure falling from 155 at December, 1930, to 148 at December, 1931, and 143 at December, 1932.

This time the cost of living is rising and the Government is trying its utmost to prevent wages from rising in keeping with the cost of living. The effect is just the same as in 1931.

The official cost of living index figure has risen from 100 in June. 1947, to 112 in September, 1949. The effect is that the purchasing power of unemployment pay has been cut by 12% since June, 1947, so that in terms of 1947 prices 26s. a week benefit is now worth about 23s.

One similarity between the two crises is the Government’s action over devaluation. In 1931 the Labour Government declared over a period of months that they would save the £ and not go off the gold standard—then MacDonald went off the gold standard. This time it is Cripps (instead of Snowden) who devalued after saying for months that he wouldn't.

One difference between the two cases is that the MacDonald Ministry did have the grace to reduce the salaries of Ministers and M.P.s; by 20% on salaries of £5,000 and over, 15% on £2,000 to £5,000, and 10% below £2,000. including M.P.s.

Edgar Hardcastle

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Glasgow now has a second Branch of the Party, Kelvingrove Branch having been recently formed. At present, they are co-operating with Glasgow Branch in the running of the winter indoor lectures, where already two of their members have taken the platform in the Central Halls. They are running a Study Class with lectures on Public Speaking, Logic and Economics to which all members and sympathisers are cordially invited. It is hoped that this class will bring forth new members and especially, new speakers. Most of the members of this Branch are in the 25/30 age group and have an average of five year’s membership. They have a hard and thorny path to tread but there is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm which will lighten their task. All the members of this new Branch have been very active in past years in the Glasgow Branch and it is hoped that this new venture will prove highly successful.

Our Educational System. Our Education Committee has submitted the second part of its report dealing with the 1949 Conference resolution which recommended the Executive Committee to review the entire education system of the Party. The Committee has reviewed the various suggestions that had been raised by the Executive Committee and by Conference, decentralisation of classes, correspondence courses, etc., and is not at present in favour of them. The Committee holds the view that expansion of the present scheme is in the hands of the members and that it is premature to review the system until it has developed beyond its present stage.

The Growth of our Party will, in time, necessitate that we appoint full-time paid officers. As our membership increases we shall find it impossible to continue as at present with all posts filled, and all jobs done, by voluntary effort. The special committee set up by the Executive Committee to examine this position has reported and has stated that in considering full-time posts of paid propagandists the E.C. should endeavour to find comrades with a good grounding in Socialist knowledge and Party work and that such comrades should be coached for the position, the training to be in line with that already laid down by the Party and to be for a period of six months.

Bloomsbury Branch is concerned with the disadvantages of holding meetings at the Trade Union Club, Newport Street, Leicester Square, London, W. The main disadvantage is that the hall available is not large enough to accommodate with comfort the audiences that gather on Sunday evenings. A search is being made to find suitable alternative accommodation but without success up to now. All members are appealed to for information regarding suitable halls in Central London for hire on Sundays.

Belfast Branch of the Socialist Party of Ireland continued its outdoor Sunday meetings up to October 16th and the meetings have been reported in the Irish News and the Northern Whig. The local Communists tried to out-do them and steal their pitch on High Street on Sunday afternoons but failed miserably and have not been out since. On Sunday. October 16th, the Irish Labour Party tried to muscle-in on the pitch, complete with a Member of Parliament, councillors, banners, microphones, “and the plough and the stars and all.” But they also failed. Our Belfast comrades challenged them from the S.P.I. platform, with two speakers and their own microphone. The report of this duel in Belfast High Street was headed in the Irish News (17.10.49), “Battle of the Microphone.” The Belfast lecture series has been running for some weeks. The lectures have been advertised and have been satisfactory. The prospects are, that audiences will grow as winter sets in.

The Dublin Branch of the S.P.I. also reports successful activities. A lecture by Comrade Walsh on “Russia ” on October 9th, was a record success— audience, collection and literature sales. The Secretary reports:—“We had a grand night into the bargain, as we were 'honoured’ by the presence of one of the Communists’ leading 'Marxists,’ Mr. O’Higgins, a Trinity College man (step aside for the intellectual!). Well, I can assure you that we merely used the poor fellow as a dish cloth . . . honestly, it would have moved you to tears, and sympathetic outpourings, to have seen the Collegiate squirm and wriggle to get out of the fire he’d so rashly jumped in! ”. . . "Last night I had the pleasure of handing out three application for membership forms with prospects of another two soon. If we can continue this winter lecture activity (and there is no reason why we shouldn’t) we should be well and truly ready, and equipped sufficiently well, to tackle next summer’s outdoor campaign with success.”

Dublin comrades also attend other organisations’ meetings but do not often get time allowed for discussion. Efforts are still being made to get literature into the Dublin public libraries, but without success. The Irish Association of Civil Liberties will not touch the business—outside their province, they say. In addition to these activities we receive regular bundles of cuttings from Eire newspapers bearing letters from members of the S.P.I., expounding, discussing and arguing the Socialist case.

The World Socialist Party, U.S.A., has sent the report of its 1949 Conference held at Boston during the first week in September. The matters discussed included a proposal to remove the National Executive Committee to Detroit. The proposal constitutes item No. I on a referenda ballot sent out to members of the W.S.P. The second item on the ballot is of particular interest to us. It appears to have been the main "bone of contention” at the Conference. The 1948 Conference elected a committee to consider suggested revisions to the Declaration of Principles, and the committee reported to this Conference. The revisions suggested are a re-wording of Principle No. 1, a new Principle No. 2 dealing with State Capitalism, a re-wording of the present Principle No. 2 to constitute a new Principle No. 3 and a re-arrangement of the thoughts in the present Principles 3 to 8. but including them all in a different order in new Principles 4 to 8. Following the carrying of resolutions to adopt most of these suggestions it was moved and carried "That final approval of the re-worded Declaration of Principles be contingent upon approval of the live Companion Parties.”

A number of amendments to the W.S.P.’s constitution were discussed and form items to be voted on in the referenda ballot. It is proposed to hold the 1950 Conference in Detroit. Figures are given in the report, showing a decline in the circulation of the Western Socialist between August, 1948, and August, 1949. We hope to see a reverse tendency before the next Conference; the W.S. is a splendid journal and deserves every effort to get it into the hands of workers in all parts of the world.

The Socialist Party of Canada, unable for financial reasons to engage in the 1949 General Election in Canada, has published a leaflet entitled, “The 1949 General Election—The Issue for the Workers.” We quote the first two paragraphs:— —

‘‘An election campaign is on again and the politicians are once more in the fore displaying their virtues. Peace, progress, democracy and freedom are being solemnly promised by people to whom these terms have questionable meanings. Liberals praise themselves for taking us out of the depression of the Hungry Thirties, forgetting that they also took us into it. Conservatives offer the extravagances of Mr. Drew, hoping these will be as effective in gaining votes as were the antics of Mr. Bennett at the turn of the Thirties. C.C.F. members offer all the good things that are alleged to have come to Britain under the Labour Government, but are awkward in their comments on the continued 'austerity' suffered by the British Workers. Communists rail against the imperialism of the Western World, but pretend that Russian imperialism is wholesome and attractive.

Politics has been described as a dirty game, and it must be difficult for the observing bystander to watch the conflicts of the candidates without feeling sick at the wretchedness of what he sees. Generations of Liberal and Conservative Governments are the political background of existing conditions in Canada. Three periods in office for the British Labour Party without release at all from the widespread want in Britain, have not taught the C.C.F. the uselessness of its own program. Thirty-two years of Bolshevik dictatorship, brutality and mass poverty still find the 'Labour-Progressive Party' offering a similar dictatorship here. Wherever one chooses to turn, the loudest voices to be heard are the voices of confusion and deceit.

But politics is not to be condemned because it is associated with so much that is foul. The rottenness of Capitalist society is bound to permeate its politics. . . .”

Our Canadian comrades in Winnipeg have at last managed to acquire premises for a Head Office.

The Socialist Party of New Zealand sends us a brief report of events in that part of the world:—

"The referendum for compulsory military training for the 18-year-olds resulted in a three to one victory for the proposal with about 60 per cent, of the electors on the roll exercising their votes. Another result of the ‘Victory' was the resignation of the Labour representative for Roskill electorate, Mr. Langstone. This was followed by three Roskill branches of the Labour Party going into recess. The victory was also closely followed by the withdrawal of the Labour Party candidate for the Hurunui seat, Mr. H. A. Kilpatrick. His withdrawal was accompanied by scathing remarks about our Parliamentary representation. It is his opinion that they are the biggest collection of political rabbits, yes-men and phobia-ridden politicians in both Parties that has ever been elected in New Zealand.’ He added that what New Zealand wanted defending against ‘is the present collection of subservient, bankrupt politicians, who can see no other way out of the world’s difficulties than to train young men for destruction.' With the exception of the Christian Pacifists the anti-conscription group were not opposed to conscription but merely to the form it was taking. The Russian Nationalists—pardon—the New Zealand Communist Party, were prominent but they stated that if the same conditions prevailed in New Zealand as prevailed in Russia then conscription would be quite alright. The T.U. representatives opposed it owing to the likelihood of the conscripts being used as strike breakers, which is something they have good grounds to fear as this has already been done by the Labour Government in 1944-45. Also Mr. Fraser has pointed out that should a similar position arise in New Zealand as pertained in Great Britain and Australia, the same measures would be adopted here. Like the man who likes to get drunk but does not like the hangover, the Christian Pacifists want Capitalism but not its hangover. War and all the conditions that go with it.

There has been a temporary lull in the strife on the New Zealand waterfront with the watersiders returning to the 59-hour week. The Minister of Labour has sacked the Union representatives from the Commission, for as the Minister would have us believe, their misconduct. As watersiders all over the country do not appear inclined to accept the Minister's ruling we can expect another flare-up at any moment, though probably the Moderates in the Union may manage to stay proceedings before the election in November. Their overtime strike proved one thing to many watersiders, and that is that they cannot live on money earned in a 44-hour week.

The last 14 years of Labour rule here has been a substantiation of what the S.P.G.B. pointed out so many years ago about Labour Governments and social reforms. They have been a practical example of the claim that the use of the name Socialism as a vote catching device makes the propagation of Socialism far more difficult Naturally, The Nationalist Party members are seizing upon every anomaly and blunder and are broadcasting them as evidence of 'Socialist' mal-administration. Making hay while the sun shines, as it were. The Government in its turn is blaming the Communists for everything and warning the workers against the 'Red Menace.' Owing to the stupid actions of the Communist Party members in the past, this line has had its effect and it is probable that the three to one majority on the conscription issue is a manifestation of it.

There is no doubt that the enthusiastic idiot is a far greater menace than the avowed enemy."

“Socialist Standard” articles have recently been reprinted in “The Socialist Forum,” Johannesburg, South Africa and in “John A. Lee’s Fortnightly,” Auckland, New Zealand.

W. Waters.

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labourite on Profits

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . I think that to be attacking the profits is to start at the wrong end; I think that we and the trade union movement ought to be gunning for the firms who are not making any profits. That is our problem in connection with prices, and one which arises out of our success at achieving full employment. We are protecting the inefficient. The big gap of prices is the one which has to be closed, and, therefore, we ought to gun for the fellow not making profits." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

And Another on Capitalism

Mr. Chamberlain (Labour, Norwood): ". . . Then the hon. Member said that the Government are pledged to destroy capitalism. So far from that, they have made it clear again and again that whereas a certain proportion of our economy is to be nationalised, yet the major part of it will remain the province of private capital enterprise, and surely nobody suggests that we should destroy that large part of our economy which is recognised as an essential and important section." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Income from Foreign Investments

Mr. Awbery asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of foreign investments and the income from them for the years 1913, 1920, 1938 and 1945.

Sir Stafford Cripps: “The figures are as follows: —In 1913, total value about £4,000 million, income £210 million. In 1920, total value £3,200 million to £3,700 million, income £200 million. In 1938 nominal value £3,692 million. These are all private estimates. Gross income from interest, profits and dividends in 1938 is estimated at £205 million and payments at £30 million making a net income of £175 million. No figures are available or the values of investments in 1945, but proceeds of sales during the war amounted to £1,118 million. Gross income in 1945 was £170 million payments £73 million and net income therefore £97 million. (Question Time, 8.11.49).

Nationalisation—A Tory Viewpoint 

Mr. Raikes (Conservative, Liverpool, Wavertree): “. . . Nationalisation is now a fact, and I say quite frankly, speaking from this side of the house, that it is the duty, of all sides to try to make the National Coal Board work, and to work effectively." (National Coal Board Debate, 10.11.49.)

It’s News to Us

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . The weakness of some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is that they do not realise that much of their propaganda—and it may be some of the legislation—springs from the time when we were dispossessed instead of being the ruling classes as we are at the present time." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Better Than Nothing!—The Standby of all Labour Governments

Mr. Younger (Under Secretary of State, Home Office): “. . . Reverting for a moment to high explosive defence, I believe that in broad terms it is the expert opinion that it is three times better to be in a house than to be in the open; and it is five time better to be in an ordinary brick surface shelter than to be in a house. That is to say, it is 15 times better to be in a shelter than in the street. It is not complete protection, but it is better than nothing . . ."

“. .. The suggestion that the fact of a person being in a shelter would make no difference at all is contrary to the advice I am given. I am advised that there is a radius from an atomic explosion at which these shelters could be helpful, and they are better than nothing."

“. . . I should not want it to be thought that anything I am saying is to be taken as suggesting that the expert view of the Government is that the 1945 standard of protection is either adequate against the atomic bomb or against what could be expected in the matter of high explosives. All I do say is that, pending further provision on a tremendously increased scale to meet the country’s requirements, it is very much better to have what we have got than nothing at all." (Demolition of Air-Raid Shelters, 28.10.49.) 

Stan Hampson

Story for children—The Three Gardens (1949)

A Short Story from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there lived a young man called Albert. He was just like other young men, except that he couldn’t help feeling puzzled. Every morning he awoke and thought. “Perhaps to-day I shall find out why the world is so topsy-turvy,” but every night he had to say to himself. “Well. May-be to-morrow . .  ,"And so it went on for many months.

The things that puzzled him would take far too long to tell, for there were so many of them, but when Albert tried to explain to his friends he used to say. “Do you remember when you were at school there was a poem that went 

'The world is so full of a number of things,

I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings.'

Well the world is full of all the things that anyone could possibly want, but we aren't as happy as kings. Some of the people I meet are worried because they can’t get work. Some are tired and ill, because they need a holiday and can’t have one. Some want adventure and others security, some want to buy and others to sell. Wherever I go it seems that everything is in a dreadful muddle, but I can’t see how to put it right.” Poor Albert! It was no wonder that he felt puzzled.

Then one day he heard of a wise man who knew the answer. Naturally he set off straight away. It was a long way to go, but that didn’t deter him. He walked, and walked, and sometimes he managed to hitch-hike, and at last he arrived, very impatient to hear the wonderful secret.

But the wise man was in no hurry. First he gave him food and wine and made sure he had all he needed and had quite recovered from his journey, and then he invited him to see his three gardens. This wasn’t at all what Albert wanted, but as he was a guest he agreed to take an evening stroll with his host, hoping that when he returned they would discuss his problems.

So together they went across the lawn, and through an arch in the close box hedge into a large garden. Albert could see that it was well designed, but it was far from being well kept. The flower beds needed weeding, hedges trimming, and lawns cutting. The pools were green with slime and plants straggled over the rocks. Without a word they passed into the second garden, and here to Albert’s surprise was another of exactly the same design. But this was more like a city park—quite neat and trim.

Then they entered the third garden. Imagine! Here was the same garden again, but what a difference! Bird song filled the air. Flowers bloomed in gay profusion. Trees spread their shady branches. Fishes darted in the sunlit pools, and hanging over the rocks were carpets of every hue; and as they trod the winding paths the air was filled with the fragrance of sweet herbs. It was a garden that Albert felt he would never wish to leave.

Returning to the house the wise man said, “I will now explain something about my gardens that I know is puzzling you. You are wondering why my three gardens are the same and yet so different The first is tended by my slaves. They do as little as they dare. The second, by my paid servants, who do what 1 pay them for, but no more. The third, which I could see delighted you, my friends and I look after. We do it for each other to enjoy, so that we may all have the greatest possible amount of pleasure from it. The world you live in is like my gardens. Until each person in it works for the good of all it will always be a disappointing place to live in.” They walked back thoughtfully. Albert had the answer to his problem at last.

This is an analogy, and analogies mustn’t be stretched too far. The world is not really a garden, and is much more complicated than any garden could be. Nor could all our problems be solved by people being unselfish and helpful. But when people get together to make a world for all to share in—when their knowledge and skill is used for the benefit of all—then they will make a world like the wise man’s third garden. It will be a joy to live in.

A hundred years ago a wise man, who really lived, said about this world we are working to build, “From each, according to his abilities; to each, according to his needs.” This is what we want when we say we are organising to establish Socialism. When you grow up will you help?

K. D.

The Russian capitalist class (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

If Russia is a capitalist country how is it that its ruling class does not adopt the same idle, luxurious and pleasure-hunting habits as the capitalists of Western countries? This is a problem that puzzles many people, although the answer is a relatively simple one.

Before 1917 Russia was mainly a country of small farming. Only a few million out of a population of 180,000,000 were employed in industrial production, and of these only a portion was employed in modern factories (largely owned by foreign capital) similar to the most highly developed factories in the West. Thus there were a relatively small number of modern factories, employing large bodies of workers, existing like oases in a desert of backward conditions.

When the war broke out in 1914 hundreds of thousands of peasants (who provided nearly all the soldiers) were forced to leave the farms and fight on distant fronts. This, together with Russian defeats, internal troubles and the ravages of German and allied armies, brought chaos in to agriculture and industry, reducing to a minimum the capacity of the country to meet even the elementary needs of its large population. This was the appalling position when the Bolsheviks captured power in 1917 and set about their task of converting Russia into a first-class Capitalist State.

When production is so low that there is no surplus above bare needs (and in Russia in the early years, as well as at intervals later, there was not even enough necessaries to go round, thousands dying of starvation) all of the population must work. There is a division of labour that is portentous. One part of the population, the vast mass, must be employed in the actual production of the necessaries of life whilst another part, the relatively small minority, must look after the direction of affairs. This latter work was taken over by the Bolsheviks and was both arduous and nerve-racking. Owing to tradition, Russia's immaturity and other influences, this direction of affairs involved the building up of a bureaucratic machine employing thousands of people in unproductive activities such as propaganda, secret police and so forth. The more Russian industry expanded the greater grew this bureaucratic machine, the larger the mass of people who were interested in its continued existence ana expansion and the richer the prizes for those at the top.

Slowly and painfully, with many setbacks and false starts, Russia got upon the road to large-scale production. In this process the surplus over bare needs (and often even more than that) was ploughed back into industry to help on expansion. As industry developed, little by little some of the surplus, instead of being ploughed back, was diverted, under various subterfuges, to increase the comfort of the class that was directing affairs, until the surplus skimmed off reached a point where this class could enjoy a certain amount of luxury whilst the mass still lived at a low standard. But the ruling class and its hangers-on was itself expanding into a huge bureaucracy whose very size and precarious position still limited the possibility of even those at the top enjoying a life of idleness.

However the bureaucracy is sorting itself out into grades. A relatively small group which includes those

who have acquired wealth directly through agriculture, industry and the professions—the “Soviet millionaires”—now enjoy the luxuries of the wealthy in the West; splendid houses in town and country, fine motor cars, costly furs, sumptuous feasts and a host of privileges provided by the surplus labour extracted from the Russian workers. What this means to even the small fry of the Russian bureaucratic machine is indicated by the following quotation: —

“Comrade Eudoxia Uralova laughed long and loud. I had asked this Russian delegate to the United Nations whether she cooks. T

'I am Byelo-Russia's Minister of Education,’ she said. ‘I have no time for cooking. I have two servants, a cook and a maid.’

Comrade Uralova is a cheerful, friendly woman of 43. She received her Cabinet appointment for her work in advancing social and educational progress.

In Minsk, the Byelo-Russian capital. Comrade Uralova lives in a six-room flat with her husband, a Red Army colonel. They have no children.

Each day she eats a full 'British type’ breakfast at 8.30. From nine till ten she takes a piano lesson, then is driven to her office by a chauffeur. 'I have my own car,’ says Comrade Uralova, ‘but am not a good driver, so 1 keep it for pleasure trips.' (Evening Standard, 19.1.1946.)

The class that took over the direction of affairs in Russia has grown into a privileged and wealthy class. A capitalist class similar to the Western model is emerging, based on the State ownership of industry, and this class sees in the idle parasites of the West the goal of its ambition and the picture of its future. It is between this class and the mass of the population that the class struggle in Russia is waged. The constant purges, the segregation of sections of the population, the limit on emigration, the frenzied propaganda against the West and the imperialist expansion programmes are all echoes of this class struggle.

Gilmac.

The Coal Board and targets (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily Mirror (6/9/49).

“It would be difficult or even impossible to sell Coal abroad if coal output targets were achieved." Professor A. Beecham told The British Association yesterday. He said such a situation could only be met by unemployment, wage cutting and further losses for The National Coal Board and added: “The Coal Board should press the Government for lower output targets. It should be more active in closing uneconomic mines and it should set about reducing its labour force."

So according to Professor A. Beecham, the miners have two choices before them, one to increase their output and two. to lower their output, but whatever they do the results apparently will be the same.

It is only under Socialism that this situation will not arise, for coal will be produced solely to satisfy human needs, and not as to-day for a market with a view to profit.

J. P.

In search of a policy (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a front page article, the Daily Herald on Saturday, 15th October, 1949, derided Mr. Churchill and the Tory Party for having no policy. The headings read “Give me Blank Cheque—Churchill,” and in slightly smaller print, “ Still no Tory Policy.”

In a front page article in the Glasgow Forward, Mr. Emrys Hughes, the ex-editor and Labour M.P., demanded of the Labour Party a programme and policy for the tasks ahead. He writes: —

“But in our fight to keep the Tories out it is absolutely essential for Socialists to know where they are going and to have a programme and a policy for the tasks ahead.” (Forward, 8.10.1949.)

Of course, Mr. Hughes when he writes “ Socialists ” means members of the Labour Party. Then, writing of the problems confronting the capitalist class, he continues :—

“If we are going to plunge into a competitive war to sell our coal, our textiles, our machinery, and to cut our costs to meet those of Poland, Belgium, France, Germany and Japan, how can we maintain our standards of life, maintain full employment and build up a sound economy in this country.”

He finishes his article with: —

“We want to win the General Election, but we have to answer these questions too.”

Why does Mr. Hughes want to win the General Election? Certainly not for the benefit of the working-class. These questions are not of any interest to the working-class.

The Tories haven't a policy. Labour hasn’t a policy. Then what are Mr. Hughes' reasons for supporting the Labour Party? If neither of the parties have a policy why should any of them be supported?

Mr. Hughes, who claims to be on the extreme Left Wing of the Labour Party, shows plainly which class interests he represents. “We are going to plunge into a competitive war to sell our coal, our textiles, our machinery.” The working-class, comprising about nine tenths of the population, have no coal, no textiles, no machinery to sell. They can’t buy sufficient coal or textiles to keep themselves warm. And what standards of life does he want to maintain? Surely not the standard of the working-class when about half of them barely have sufficient to live a healthy life. As for “full employment"; we are poor because we are employed. Employed by the capitalist class to produce wealth for them, and receive in return a bare subsistence wage.

No Party can offer a policy for the workers under capitalism. With the development of capitalism, the condition of working-class in relation to the wealth they produce grows steadily worse.

The only policy in working-class interests is the establishment of Socialism and in the oncoming General Election the only action that can be taken in working-class interests when a Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate isn’t available is to state the desire for one.

It is no use saying that the Socialist case is alright but the Labour Party is better than the Tories; that it is the lesser of two evils. Is it? Could the Tories get away with wage-freezing? It would have been a harder job for the Tories to convince the T.U.C. to restrain their wage demands.

J. T.

"More spectres haunting Europe" (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the Communist Manifesto was written nearly a hundred years ago, spectres have not only been haunting Europe, but indeed the whole capitalist society. Since the beginning of the 20th Century Europe, as well as the capitalist world, has endured and suffered from these spectres. Since the end of the First World War, there was the economic blizzard of 1921, the rise and fall of the first Labour Government, which was followed by the so-called General Strike of 1926. Then there was the rise and fall of the second Labour Government in 1929 to 1931, and another economic blizzard. More spectres have been haunting Europe and capitalist society since then.

We have witnessed the rise of the Hitlerite regime in Germany in 1933, and culminating in the Second World War of 1939-1945. Now with the war hardly finished, there is yet another spectre haunting society, the prospect of yet another economic blizzard which may well surpass that of 1921 and 1931. The irony of it all is that the rulers of the great capitalist powers cannot exorcise these spectres, whether they have a holy or unholy alliance with each other or not. The mechanism of the capitalist system is beyond their control, and furthermore the ruling class do not understand the workings of their system.

Is there any way out? Yes there is only one way out. It is that the working-class, not only of Europe, but of the whole world; must thoroughly understand the real causes of these spectres of poverty, squalor and war. They must fully realise that no leader or groups of leaders, however well intentioned, can free us from these spectres. No Redeemer or Saviour can emancipate us from these spectres. In short it means, as laid down in Clause 5 of our Declarations of Principles, that the work of emancipating the working-class, must be that of the working-class itself. It means that the working-class must organize politically and consciously, to obtain possession of that piece of machinery known as the State. Then they must use it for their own ends, namely to dispossess the owning and ruling class of their ownership of the whole world and the fullness thereof. Likewise the working-class must take possession of the means of living, i.e. factories, railways, steamships, etc.

Instead of producing and distributing wealth for the benefit and profit for a few, then wealth will be produced for the benefit of the whole of society without distinction of colour or sex. When they commence to do these things, then they will cease to be a working- class. There will also cease to be what is known as a ruling or privileged class. Then those spectres described above will be exorcised and banished for ever and ever. The new social order will come into existence. It will be known throughout the world as Socialism.

N. Posner.

SPGB Meetings (1949)

Party News from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Pounds, Dollars and Poverty (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

We all like to be flattered, and no doubt the readers of the Daily Herald are no exception. Perhaps then, they were pleased to read in that paper’s leading article (14.10.49) that most voters understood '‘devaluation.” The leader continued:

  “The British electorate is not the ignorant, unthinking mass that the Tory Party considers it to be. The people grasped very readily the reasons for devaluation . . .” 

Far be it from me to devaluate the intellectual capacity of the electorate, but I wonder how many men-in-the-street would know what to say if asked— “What is devaluation”!

And it even seems that the Daily Herald itself is not doing its utmost to clear away the confusion when we read in the issue of 13.10.49 on Page 1, a quotation from a speech by Sir Stafford Cripps: “Discussing the cost of living, the Chancellor denied that his forecast had been too optimistic. There was no reason for immediate increases (apart from that already made in bread) on account of devaluation.” But on Page 5 (the same day) Lord Hollenden, President of the Wholesale Textile Association is quoted: “In September, he said, cotton cost 10% more than in August, wool 2% and silk 27% more. Since devaluation this rise has been greatly accelerated and costs are leaping.” According to “Time” (3.10.49): “The (British) Government last week raised the price of non-ferrous metals and of such humble objects as pots and pans. The first predictions of a 5% cost-of-living rise shot up to 10%.”

But let’s look at the advantages that devaluation is supposed to give us. We are told that “we” will be enabled to sell “our” goods at cheaper prices on the American and other markets and that this will help to reduce “our” dollar gap.

Now, we will leave it to the economists to say whether this will actually happen or not, but let's assume it does and that “Britain’s” economic problems are solved—how will this affect the workers?

I suppose the best that Sir Stafford Cripps, or any other capitalist politician of any Party, could possibly hope for is that “we” gain precedence in all the markets, that once more “we” become a “creditor” nation and again “ lead the world.”

And of course, “we” did lead the world, during the last century—that era of Britain’s greatest prosperity. And at that time, exactly how prosperous were the workers of Britain? Has the prosperity or otherwise of our national capitalist class ever made any difference to the miserable conditions of the mass of the people who create that prosperity? Do the producers ever get any of it?

The United States is “prosperous” now—but are the workers there any better off relatively than us? At the moment, some American trade unions are fighting for a national minimum wage in the same way as some of the workers in Britain are now doing. Also, according to Charles Luckman, President of Lever Brothers in America, speaking on 20.7.49:—“Twenty-seven million Americans have no kitchen sink, 18 million Americans lack washing machines, 25 million Americans lack vacuum cleaners. 1 million families need new homes this year, 40 million Americans have neither bathtub or shower.” (Quoted in the Western Socialist, August, 1949.)

So you see that, if we are poor its not because we owe America dollars, not because the pound has been devaluated or because we’ve lost “our” Empire; if we have no homes it’s not because our houses were destroyed during the war and if our standard of living is low and if we merely exist, having no opportunity to really live, its not because “our” country is no longer prosperous.

We are poor because we are workers under Capitalism. The workers have no financial interest in “getting Britain on her feet again”; whether our national capitalists are prosperous or not we as workers are always poor and we will always be so until we decide to destroy the system that legalises our exploitation.

Remember, workers, when next you read, for instance, that “Glaxo Laboratories, Ltd., have got C.I.C. consent to a 900% capital bonus” (Herald, 14.10.49) that you and your fellow-workers produced that. But ask for a fixed minimum wage of £5 a week and you are refused.

Your masters aren’t very grateful, are they?

Whether the Government is Conservative, Liberal, Labour or Communist, it makes no essential difference to you or me. All these stand for Capitalism. And for the workers, whether we are British, American, German or Russian, that means we will continue to be exploited, continue to work out our lives producing wealth for our master, faced continually with the problems of poverty, periodical unemployment and war.

And there is only one way out.

That is to abolish Capitalism and establish Socialism in its place. End private property society that robs us of the wealth we produce, and establish a world wide society that is based on common ownership and and in which there will be no Capitalist or working classes, no owners and non-owners, no wage workers and no money.

This society is coming, but it will come all the quicker if you join with us in our work for Socialism.

We need you, comrade!

Lisa Bryan

The Purpose of Devaluation (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The alleged purpose of devaluing the £ was to enable British exporters to sell goods in America and elsewhere which they otherwise could not sell, the idea being that an article formerly priced at 4,000 dollars (or £1,000) would be much more attractive to an American buyer if he could buy pounds at a cheaper rate. To take the extreme case of the price remaining at £1,000 the American buyer can now get it for 2,800 dollars instead of having to pay 4,000 dollars. Actually some British exports much in demand have remained at their old dollar price which means that they sell for a higher price in pounds. Thus if the export continued to sell at 4,000 dollars its price in pounds. will have been raised from £1,000 to about £1,430 (at 2.8 dollars to the £).

Most articles will in practice be sold somewhere in between the two extremes, that is to say, sold at a smaller number of dollars (i.e. something less than 4,000 dollars) but at a larger number of pounds (i.e. something above £1,000).

Exporters who can sell at the old dollar rate and get a larger number of pounds will of course make much larger profits unless their costs of production rise equally through having to buy raw materials in America.

Those advocates of devaluation who think that it is a wonderful cure-all are living in a fool’s paradise. Obviously if it were so simple all countries would have done it long ago.

Devaluation is only a method of achieving a result that could be achieved in another way; and what we have to seek is the reason why Governments, including the Labour Government, sometimes prefer to resort to devaluation.

Since the purpose of devaluation is to enable British exporters to sell the goods that they could not sell before, it will at once be seen that this could have been achieved by the simple method of reducing the price of the articles. But what would have happened if the Government had ordered exporters to cut their prices? In the first place it would have reduced their profits, and if the reduction had been big enough it would have put the companies out of business—they would have gone bankrupt.

So if the Government had enforced a reduction of prices instead of devaluing the £, it could not have stopped there; it would have had to take the next step of saving the exporters from bankruptcy either by reducing wages or by getting cheaper production by trying to force the workers to work harder for the same wages.

This is the key to the situation. Rather than try to reduce the capitalists' costs of production by lower wages or harder work, the Government looked for a way out which works differently though designed to achieve the same result. It achieves the same result because devaluation raises prices at home through importers now having to pay a larger number of pounds to buy the same amount of goods as before in dollar markets.

The broad alternatives before the Government were (a) no devaluation but lowered wages or harder work, or (b) devaluation with a higher cost of living and wage freezing.

In practice the Government, knowing that it could not succeed, except by bitter struggle, in preventing any rise of wages at all, aims to hold wages back as far as it can while at the same time trying to get greater production as well (in some cases by longer hours).

One other thing devaluation was expected to achieve, that was to enable exporters to make a quick sale of otherwise unsaleable goods in order to get dollars needed for imports and thus buy a short breathing space for the rest of the Government's increased production campaign to bear fruit

The whole business of devaluation may be illustrated by taking the example of a concern which urgently needs cash to pay overdue bills, and which has stock on hand which is selling too slowly to enable the firm to find the cash through ordinary channels. In such a situation the firm may decide to have a sale to turn the stock into money. To do this it may have to sell the stock at less than it cost to produce but will think it worth while because it "buys time” and avoids bankruptcy.

Naturally they can’t go on selling their goods at less than cost of production, but they may hope to solve the problem by reducing wages or by inducing their workers to produce more at the same wages and by one or other method to be able to reduce their cost of production and gain a wider market for their goods.

The sale (like devaluation) solves no problem except to gain time. The solution to the problem for the firm as for the Labour Government is to gain markets at the expense of the working class, the workers having to accept a lower standard of living or to accept increased intensity of work.

And the “solution” itself is no solution in the long run because every capitalist country is striving to sell its goods competitively in the same world markets. It is just a phase in the never-ending treadmill of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Too Much of a Good Thing (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

To those members of the working-class who for the past few years have been harassed by a shortage of foodstuffs, the International Sugar Council has something to say . . .  This sub-committee of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation is reported in the Manchester Guardian of October 21st, 1949 as stating at its meeting on the previous day that " . . .  there was not at present any serious world surplus of sugar, and that it was improbable that any burdensome surplus would develop in the crop year ending in August, 1950. It was felt, however . . . that an international instrument should be ready before an emergency occurred.”

The lesson is obvious—a surplus of goods is considered to be “burdensome” under capitalism because it is in such conditions that prices and profits tend to fall, so promoting the rise of a state of panic and industrial stagnation. This, to the capitalist class, is “serious”—it is an “emergency.” In a sanely ordered society, however, in which wealth would be produced for the use and benefit of the community and not with the object of the realisation of a profit by a parasite minority, a surplus of food or any other form of wealth would be no cause for long faces and suicides, but for rejoicing at the prospect of increased leisure and security so realised.

Truly, capitalism can no longer operate in the interests of the majority of humanity—it is “burdensome” in its manifestations, “serious" in its prospects —it is to-day our major problem, and its abolition our principal “emergency.”

Ivan