10 Years of the "Peoples" Republic (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China and is probably as good a time as any to review the events of the past decade. For ten years the 650 million population of the largest country in the world has gone through an amazing process watched with intense interest by many millions particularly of other oriental people.

China has been somewhat of a mystery to Westerners A land of cheap labour, widespread and constantly recurring famines and civil wars, with a society that seemed in a stale of perpetual arrested development and a written and spoken language that usually proved an effective barrier to understanding.

But in 1949. the Communist Party of China won the civil war against the Nationalist Party and seized control of the reins of government, to the horror of the God-fearing and the respectable. Since then, the sleeping giant that was China seems to have woken up, and hardly a week goes by without this country coming into the news and sometimes making the headlines. But this is a process that has crept up, in typical old-time Chinese style, by stealth and almost without notice, although it has a background of tremendous growth and change.

But many people wonder what the Chinese workers themselves think of living under “communism” and whether, in fact. China really has a new system of society.

What Happened

In Chinese agriculture, which employs more people than any other occupation, the tempo of development has been rapid. There have been great technical improvements in irrigation, in deep ploughing, soil improvement, pest control, use of chemical fertilisers, farm machinery and specialisation in high-yielding crops, such as rice, corn and potatoes. The productivity in rice in 1949 was 1,668 lbs. per acre; by 1958 it had increased to an estimated 3,000 lbs., whilst the productivity in cotton during the same period rose from 143 lbs. to an estimated 300 lbs. per acre. State investment in agriculture rose from U.S.$389 million in 1952 to U.S.$892 million in 1958.

There has also been, it is said, an improvement in the standard of living of the agricultural worker which the government proudly proclaims as one of the ways that Communism works for the benefit of the under-privileged. With the improvements claimed for the Western worker here is usually a snag — things are not always what they seem. So with the Chinese agricultural worker. He has to work nearly twice as many days in the year for his increased standard of living—from 172 days for a full- time agricultural worker (Dr. Lossing Buck’s survey in the 1920's) to around 300 days at the present time. But this is not all. Through the organisation of the communes (of which more later) about 100 million women in the country districts are said to have been released from household chores to become wage-slaves.

To cure any impression that they may be living in the very lap of luxury, it should be noted that the staple diet of rice, as well us cotton (used for practically all forms of clothing) are still both rationed.

Development of Agrarian Communities

The changes that are going on are not all of a technical nature. In education, for instance, primary enrolment increased from 24 million in 1949 to 86 million (estimated) in 1958. and there has also been a heavy increase in the number of higher standard students of agriculture as well as research workers.

The vast changes have been preceded by widespread social reforms which have removed many obstacles, such as the irrational land system, superstitious practices and the previously inferior position of peasant women. The domination of the landlord-gentry and the power of the patriarchal heads of the village, have been reduced.

There have also been far-reaching changes in the organisation of the countryside. These started with mutual-aid teams whereby the peasants—those die-hard independent individualists were induced to perform the main work on their farms in groups working together. The peasant still owned his own land and the produce from it. This form of organisation was the thin end of the wedge and led to further development. Then followed various forms of farming, such as co-operative producers' societies and collective farms. In some, the peasants pooled their land and implements and were credited with their value and with their labour. The crops were shared out on that basis. The peasants could withdraw if they wished.

As time went on these organisations developed until the peasant was not much more than a shareholder in a large community farm without the option of withdrawal. These changes, incidentally, eased the task of tax collecting and governmental control.

The Communes

The present form of agrarian organisation is the commune, which the Peking Government have the effrontery to describe as the transition stage from Socialism to Communism. An analysis of the organisation of the communes shows how worthless and misleading is the claim and reminds one of the somewhat parallel claim by the British Labour Party that capitalism plus the reforms they propose makes Socialism.

The commune is now the basic unit for agrarian China and averages from 10,000 to 40,000 members. The commune has centralised control and unified management and engages in all spheres of activity, including industry, agriculture, forestry, credit, public health, communications and military training. Communal kitchens and nurseries release the women for wage-labour. Even private garden plots are taken over along with the peasants’ farms. Payment is purely by wage on a variety of “piece-work plus bonus” system. Thus, almost at a stroke has the peasant of China been converted into a wage-labourer—as much a member of the working-class as any Western man-in- the-street, despite the fact that the government confuses the issue by describing these community sweat-shops as Communism.

The Peking government (reported in The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 4th, 1958), requires each commune member to be “obedient, enthusiastic, overfulfil production quotas, struggle against evil personalities and practices, think progressively and work at least 28 days per month.” What a lot they expect for a handful of rice and a bowl of chop-suey! Moreover, there will only be one employer in the country districts and that will be the commune management. Under these conditions the boss has very much the whip hand and the worker has to jump to it, for if he falls foul of his boss there is no other to offer him a job. In his spare time, military duties are prescribed.

It is in the use of bonuses and rewards that the commune leadership can exert the greatest control. 80 per cent. of the basic wage of each member will be paid him directly, but 20 per cent. will be withheld, to be returned only in the event of outstanding performance. A worker who fails to display the proper “enthusiasm” or is lax or fails to work the requisite number of days, not only loses this 20 per cent. already withheld, but runs the risk of being demoted to a lower wage grade or of having further wages deducted.

According to one commune’s draft regulations “the distribution of income shall be based on the principle of ensuring high speed in expanded production.” While the regulations call for increased wages as the rate of production goes up, the regulations prescribe not only that the rate of wage increase must be slower than the rate of increase in production, but also that when living standards reach the level of “well-to-do middle peasants” the rate of wage increase should be reduced so as to leave more for the development of industry.

Industry

The expansion of industry in the past ten years is almost as marked as the changes in agriculture. According to official claims, steel production has increased fifty fold since 1949—from 158,000 tons in 1949 to 8 million tons in 1958. The annual pre-war production of 35 million tons of coal had increased to 270 million tons in 1958; and the reserves are vast. In mid 1958 the Vice-Minister of Geology claimed that China ranks first in the world in reserves of many important minerals and metals. China is now successfully exporting machinery (in addition to many other products) in competition with other capitalist countries.

The working-class standard of living during the ten years under review has certainly been rising, but not so quickly as their output. From this we must except the vast numbers in labour camps whose plight horrified some of the Labour Party M.P.s when they visited China a few years ago. Those victims work at a killing speed in slave conditions.

China is entering the ranks as a great industrial country with all that that implies.

Frank Offord.

To be concluded.

Link to Part 2.

Is Your ticket really necessary? (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 25th September, 1825, an exciting event linked the neighbouring towns of Stockton and Darlington, in the North of England. The first steam-driven train, with Stephenson himself at the controls, puffed triumphantly along between the two towns, at the amazing speed of thirty miles an hour. This was the opening of railway travel in Great Britain, which has since passed through the early rivalry of the small companies for passenger and goods traffic, and the amalgamations into the four large companies, until today we have the vast, nationalised British Railways.

Landmark

An early example of the harsh competition was the defeat of the Great Western’s application for Parliamentary sanction for their line to Bristol. This was the work of a rival group with interests in a line from London to Southampton. There were the races to the West Country, and the famous Battle of the Gauges, which lasted until 1892, when the Great Western admitted defeat. Brunel’s 7 ft. gauge had all the technical advantages, but it was more expensive to lay than the standard track. That was why it never spread beyond the Great Western—and was eventually dropped. Many of these battles were ended when the combatants joined forces, as happened so often during the 19th and early 20th century.

1959 is another landmark in the history of British railway locomotive production. A few months ago the last steam locomotive passed from the works at Crewe, and now diesel and electric power will be taking the place of steam. This is part of British Railways' large-scale modernisation programme, involving the electrification of long stretches of line, rebuilding bridges and platforms and erecting overhead cables. An important part of this programme entails strengthening rails and sleeper beds, for some of the new locomotives can travel at 90 miles an hour and the permanent way must be able to stand the increased stress. Let us hope that the modernisation schemes do not cut too fine a safety margin. We can all remember railway accidents which have been caused by inadequate safety measures; recently the writer spoke to a signalman who works a 12-hour shift in a busy box on the London to Holyhead Irish Mail route. It was, he said, at times “a bit too much” for him.

The importance of the railway network to the British ruling class forces a higher degree of safety in their operation than perhaps applies in other spheres of commodity production. Railway accidents are generally followed by courts of inquiry, which often expose the excessive working hours, inadequate rest and poor health of workers such as signalmen, who sometimes carry too much responsibility for really safe working. Always undermining the safety margins is the factor of cost, impossible to eliminate so long as profit is the spur to production.

Cardboard Empire

Of course, there is no need to worry about the lack of safety if you cannot afford a ticket, for without this you will not be allowed on to the train. This vast cardboard empire, with its attendant army of human automatons selling, clipping and snooping, is a typical example of the waste of capitalist society. One of the snoopers’ jobs is to see that nobody travels a class above his tickets that nobody who has paid a fare entitling him to a grimy second-class seat, steals into a first-class compartment like those on the Master Cutler—the business man’s train to Sheffield. Such contrasts, we know, are inherent in capitalist society. But the point is that, despite the euphemistic tags of “public” and “social” services, which are applied to nationalised transport, travel is still for sale—at so much per mile. And the ambition of the railways, as ever, is the accumulation of capital.

What of the men who have spent the best years of their lives building and operating the vast railway network of Great Britain? Are they to be found living “first class” in the twilight of their lives? Are they enjoying the fruits of their past labours? Alas, such is not the case. Read the Liverpool Echo (7.8.59):-

  Superannuated railway workers in the South of England are joining forces with their North Wales colleagues in the fight to secure better pensions . . .  to see what can be done on a national scale for those elderly people who are living on small fixed incomes.

Such is the lot of the cast-offs of capitalism.

What we really need is a railway system which is operated for our use, instead of for the profit of some company or State bondholders. A railway which travels at a speed dictated by safety, comfort and pleasure, and not by the mad rush of commercial interests. We can only get that when all of society’s wealth is freely available to the people of the world. When the workers who have designed, built and operated the railways and all other wealth, decide to take social possession of their social product. Then we can eliminate not merely the class symbols on the carriages but every evidence of privilege and waste, which produces the shoddy along with the best. We shall never again hear, “Tickets, please!” Mankind will have taken a real step forward in its social travels.

G. R. Russell

Letter: Socialist Industrial Unionism (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editors,

Your principles declare that government, etc. . . . may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation.

Marx said that the State is the executive committee of the governing class. The Socialist Labour Party wants to abolish the State as such, and without being completely vague about what Socialism is. it has a concrete programme of Socialist Industrial Unionism which it can expound better than I—which is a blueprint for a Socialist Society.

The S.L.P. goes a stage further than S.P.G.B. in clarifying their position—so it strikes me.

On page 87 of the June Socialist Standard you criticise Lenin and Stalin as they were worlds apart from Marx and Engels on the role and function of the working class.

However, Lenin's statement that "If we wait for the people to understand Socialism we shall wait a thousand years." He was an optimist. Socialism—bogus or real—doesn't appeal to "never-had-it-so-gooders." "big heads" self-satisfied "middle-class" workers, ostentatious car-owners, TV addicts, etc.

Yours truly,

J. L. D.

Dunstable, Beds.

Reply:

Our correspondent implies that the Socialist Party of Great Britain has only a vague conception of Socialism. In fact, our object—a social system based upon the common ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution— is a concise definition of Socialism, and one which has stood for the 55 years of our existence. The establishment of Socialism is prevented because the majority of the world's population do not want it: at every election they vote overwhelmingly to continue running society in the interests of the capitalist class. This is done through the State machine—the armed and police forces, judiciary system and so on. which are all controlled by Parliament. Any attempt to bypass this Slate machine is doomed to failure: that is why ". . . a programme of Socialist Industrial Unionism . . ." is futile. Socialism can only be brought into being when the working class understand it and want it and express themselves by sending their delegates to the seats of control over the State machine to carry through the formal process of liquidating capitalism. This will not involve the use of soldiers and policemen to impose Socialism upon an unwilling population—indeed, when Socialism is established, the State and all its oppressive instruments will cease to exist. This is the meaning of the phrase “. . . converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation . . ." in Clause 6 of our Declaration of Principles.

It is true that most workers are satisfied with their lot under capitalism. But they were satisfied before they owned a lot of cars and television sets. The 1914-18 war and the depressions which followed did nothing to shake their support of capitalism. The second world war only made them experiment with the Labour Party version of capitalism before swinging back to the Tories. Working class confusion about Socialism has been deepened by the organisations which think, with Lenin, that “ If we wait for the people to understand Socialism we shall wait a thousand years" and have, therefore, asked for support for a programme of capitalist reform which they have called Socialism.

There is no alternative to waiting for the people to understand but the day of enlightenment can be brought nearer if organisations like the Socialist Labour Party stop spreading confusion.

Editorial Committee.

Lloyd George on the trade boom (1959)

Quote from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "The commercial world everywhere is in better heart. There is more enterprise and everything makes the prospect much brighter. I am told, on authority I cannot doubt, that we shall probably see a greater volume of trade this year and next than has ever been witnessed in the history of this country . .  . All indications are that this year's trade will be good, that next year's trade will be better, that the people will be prosperous and that therefore the revenue will show an expansion." 

Lloyd George as Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech —1910.

Churchill on poverty (1959)

Quote from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "I have often asked myself whether our splendid civilisation really conferred blessings on all classes. Is it really true to say that the poorest man in Scotland is not any happier than the present Hottentot or the poorest Eskimo? I am inclined to think that he is not any happier, but perhaps more unsociable. He is homeless in the heart of great cities; he is hungry in the midst of plenty such as was never seen on earth before and he suffers the privations of the savage with the nerves of civilised man. . . .  To compare the life and lot of the African aboriginal—secure in his abyss of contented degradation, rich in that he lacks everything and wants nothing—with the long nightmare of worry and privation, of dirt and gloom and squalor, lit only by gleams of torturing knowledge and tantalizing hope, which constitutes the lives of so many poor people in England and Scotland, is to feel the grand tremble underfoot.”

Winston Churchill in a speech at Edinburgh
—1910.

50 Years Ago: Liberals and Socialism (1959)

The 50 Years Ago column from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dr. Macnamara, in a strong speech, declared that Radicalism was irrevocably opposed to the principles on which Socialism was based.  — Daily Chronicle (21.10.1909)

#    #    #    #

"The people are beginning to discover that Socialism and social reform are two entirely different things. In this respect I adopt entirely the definition of the two things given by Mr. Balfour in Birmingham in 1907: -

  Socialism has one meaning and one meaning only. Socialism means, and can mean, nothing less, that the community is to take all the means of production into its own hands, and that private enterprise and private property is to come to an end. That is Socialism and nothing else is Socialism.
  Social Reform is when the State, based on private enterprise and based on private property—recognises that the result can only be obtained by respecting private property and encouraging private enterprise, asks men to contribute towards great national, social and public objects. That is social reform.

I contend that our proposals [the Liberal Government's Budget, 1909] fall under the latter description and not under the former.”—Mr. Alexander Ure, the Lord Advocate, quoted in Daily Chronicle (1.10.1909).

[From the December 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard.]

Editorial: Christmas (1959)

Editorial from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the message of a Christmas card? A robin on a snow-topped gatepost. The stage coach welcomed at the inn by cheerful yokels. Log fires and sparkling skies. Scenes which conceal some cruel realities. There are millions of refugees in the world. True, there are few in this country—but we have our old age pensioners, many of whom this Christmas will again be cold and hungry. Those who are neither refugees nor pensioners will have it a little better. But soon the turkey and cheroots are forgotten and we are back to living from pay-day to pay-day. There is a better way. Socialism will not be like one long Christmas Day, but it does mean a world where the needs of everybody—young and old. man and woman, black and white—will be satisfied.

The Affluent Society (1959)

Book Review from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the May and June Socialist Standard we reviewed Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society” in respect of his views on Marxism. We promised to review the book as a whole, but other subjects intervened. We have now been able to make good the omission.

Professor Galbraith's book The Affluent Society (Hamish Hamilton. 25s.) is in refreshing contrast to the academic tradition of bourgeois economics. Not only does he raise questions never formulated in orthodox circles, but he also tries to answer them. His particular concern is with the nostrums, attitudes and values of politicians, pundits and businessmen. These ruling ideas are characterised by him as “The Conventional Wisdom.” What he calls ‘‘conventional wisdom,” we as Marxists would term aspects of the ideological super-structure of capitalism. Of “the conventional wisdom,” he says: —

. . . to some extent [it] has been professionalised. Individuals most notably the great television and radio commentators, make a profession of knowing and saying with elegance and unction what their audiences will find most acceptable. But in general, articulation of the conventional wisdom is a prerogative of academic, public or business position. . . .  It is one of the rewards of high academic rank, although such a rank is also a reward for expounding the conventional wisdom at a properly sophisticated level. (Page 9.)

He further states: —

The conventional wisdom having been made more or less identical with sound scholarship, its position is virtually impregnable. The sceptic is disqualified by his tendency to go brashly from the old to the new.

Professor Galbraith maintains that production has become the major preoccupation of American capitalism and to an ever increasing extent of Western capitalism, generally. It seems that the ruling ideas—“conventional wisdom’’—sees it as the alchemy for solving all social problems. His central theme can be stated in his own words:—

The ancient preoccupation of economic life—with equality, security and productivity, have now narrowed down to a preoccupation with productivity and production. Production has now become the solvent of the tensions once associated with inequality, and it has become the indispensable remedy for the discomforts, anxieties and privations associated with economic insecurity. (Page 93.)

Nevertheless, he thinks there are reasons for the preoccupation of conventional wisdom with ever greater production. If production is ever increasing, they argue, then a greater amount of goods can be distributed among the poor without any corresponding loss to the rich. This will also have the effect of giving a greater semblance of security to the mass of the people as well as taking off the edge of the demand for greater social equality.

People, notes Professor Galbraith, identify economic security with regular employment. The greater the employment, the higher is the level of production. Thus, increase of production is looked upon as the essential means of maintaining employment. In this way argues, “conventional wisdom,” security can be provided for the working population. High pressure advertising sales techniques and propaganda, called by them economic theory, is the dynamic for promotion of sales and increasing production.

Once in the more rarified climate of Victorian days, classical bourgeois economics taught the greater the supply of goods the less would be their marginal utility, that is the less urgent would be the desire of people to satisfy their wants. But the wheel has come full circle. Now the opposite is being taught, i.e. the greater the supply of wants the more urgent for people will their wants become. This refinement of economic sophistication has already been enshrined as “The Theory of Consumer Demand.”

The Sovereign Power

Bourgeois utility theory classically formulated the economic fiction that the consumer is the sovereign power of the economic realm. Via the operations of the market, it is he who is supposedly able to discriminate down to the most subtle nuances, his various wants. It is this subtle ability of consumers to assess the finest shades of the intensity of their desires in a given state of supply of goods which determines the marginal utility, i.e. the market price of the goods they buy. Production, we are solemnly informed, merely serves to gratify their whims.

Professor Galbraith notes that the range and multiplicity of goods offered for sale is not so much determined by the alleged “independent consumer” but rather as the outcome of high pressure publicity and sales techniques of firms engaged in production. In accordance with production for profit, capitalists seek to maximise profits by maximising production. Not only do the various lines of production seek to sell the greatest amount of goods possible, but they seek via advertising, to create wants and so, in the act of production, set up a demand for their products. We may add so far as the consumer being the sovereign power of the economy, he is not even a free subject in the world of consumer choice. The pervasive and persuasive power of ad-mass have seen to that. Not only has the modern wage worker no say in what he produces, he is having less and less say in what he consumes. 

The author points out that ever greater production, and this means almost exclusively the products of private enterprise, is the “conventional wisdom’s” yardstick for measuring economic achievement. Whether the products are good, bad. or indifferent is no concern of the economist. In line with his “objective science," he must remain on such matters, ethically neutral. Or as Professor Galbraith wryly puts it “The first step was to divorce economics from any judgment on the goods with which it was concerned." It would thus appear that it is the occupation as well as the preoccupation of the economist to try to increase demand, so as to increase production, to further increase demand, to further increase production, ad infinitum—ad nauseam. The germ of a|l modern economic theory is to lower consumer resistance.

Production for Production’s Sake

Professor Galbraith sees the major preoccupation of the American set-up and elsewhere, as one of seeking to increase production regardless of what is being produced. Production for production's sake it would appear has become the aimless dreary goal of American and Western capitalism. Such a goal he thinks can only end in social and political bankruptcy.

In one sense capitalism can be regarded as production for production's sake. But here we must sharply differentiate from Professor Galbraith’s view, who sees it merely as an end in itself. True, capitalism is a system without conscious regulation or social purpose. It does not follow, however, that it is purposeless. While one of the essential conditions for commodity production is that commodities must possess use-value, the turning out of such is entirely subordinated to the aims of capitalist production production for profit. This is the restless, never-ending process of capital accumulation. Each act of production has its beginning and end for one purpose—production of surplus value i.e. unpaid labour. It is the expanded production of surplus value which initiates and regulates the expanded production of commodities. In this sense capitalist production can be regarded as production for production's sake.

Professor Galbraith never discusses capitalism at this level of abstraction. It seems the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our social set up. but in our “conventional wisdom.” What is wrong, according to Professor Galbraith, is not the social system but the system of ideas. Not the inherent nature of capitalism but the inherent conservatism and inertia of social thinking. In that case, phrenology or psychology would appear to be more relevant to the studies of the problem of our times than economics.

Ideas and Class Interests

But whatever may be the sins of omission and commission of “conventional wisdom” at bottom it is the expression of private property relations and hence committed in some form or another to the defence and perpetuation of the status quo. An ideology cannot be treated like the alleged love of a man for a woman—“ as a thing past.” So while in his own mind the author may be clear as to what he is attacking he is unclear as to what it is that “conventional" wisdom is really defending.

In actual fact ideology and material class interests are inseparably connected. Because Professor Galbraith inverts social reality by making ideas conventional wisdom—the basis for his social analysis, instead of the economic soil from which they grow, his picture of extant society has an “Alice Through the Looking Glass” perspective. He wants society to be a national undertaking designed for human ends. It is “conventional wisdom” which prevents it. But he fails to come to grips with the substantial reality of the situation, by being unable to see that social production is not geared to social interests but private interests, i.e. owners of capital, and thus the objective source of conflict between the interests of a few and the needs of the whole of society. Conventional wisdom itself is a reflection of that conflict.

Professor Galbraith may flay “conventional wisdom” with invincible logic, but the final illogicality rests with him. He wants “the ruling ideas" to give up their preoccupation with increasing production, but the fact remains that the self expansion of capital, and hence expansion of production, is the basic law of capitalism's existence. Nor is logic his strongest point when he reproves the “ruling ideas” for the reluctance to spend money on social reforms and the readiness to spend money on armaments. It is true both come out of profits, but social services are a “luxury" to be kept within bounds. Armaments are a necessity for the defence of capitalist interests.

Ideas and Logic

Professor Galbraith dwells on the aimlessness of a social set-up whose goal is production for the sake of production. What he ignores is the fact that the national allocation of productive resources towards social ends cannot be undertaken in a society where capital is the form of man's domination over man. He comments acidly on, the nature of our social transactions, but he evades the crucial issue that the very nature of extant society compels the major social transaction to be a cash one and where the social scale is marked off in pounds, shillings and pence, or the equivalent currency and status and prestige values are part of the norms of social assessment. Indeed, in the country where Professor Galbraith lives, it has been said that to be a “failure" is the toughest thing on earth. Such are the set of values, inevitably reared in a set-up whose ruling injunction is — exploit or be exploited.

One can agree with the author that the thinking of “conventional wisdom" is riddled with contradictions, illusions, illogicality and pretensions. But disguised motivation is the heart of all ideologies. Yet the dilemma which Professor Galbraith sees is not as he thinks the dilemma of “conventional wisdom,” it is the dilemma of capitalist society. It is part of the social paradox that whatever the illogicality of conventional wisdom, thinking its basic assumptions are logically consistent with the requirements of class conditioned society. They may see the social reality “through a glass darkly," but at least they see it. Professor Galbraith's idealistic “glass" having no material backing to it. he fails to see reality, he only sees through it.

Nevertheless, it must not be thought that conventional wisdom is ideologically a closed shop. It is always absorbing new entrants into the Establishment. It has accommodated many heretics in the past, it will accommodate many more in the future. Keynes was once regarded by conventional wisdom as a heretic, says Professor Galbraith, when he formulated his “General Theory of Employment." Now vide the author “Keynes . . . was also on his way to constructing a new body of ‘conventional wisdom,’ the obsolescence of some parts in its turn, is now well advanced." It is true that the author tells us that the enemy of “conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events" (page 10). But never does he relate ideas to the economic realities and development of capitalism. Seeing ideas as Kantian "things in themselves." he simply relates ideas to other ideas. It thus becomes the process of the puppy chasing its own tail.

Like most ideologues he does not see the conflict of ideas, including his own as in reality a conflict between the productive forces and the social relation within which they work, but as a struggle between progressive and non-progressive forces. In essence the social problems are not the obsolescence of ideas, but the obsolescence of a system which has outlived its social usefulness. Whether capitalism produces more or produces less from the standpoint of productive activity and human creative energies it will always remain a society materially and culturally impoverished. Not until productive sources and activity are freely and commonly shared in a classless society can the rational allocation of resources towards human ends become the ruling principle of social life.

Professor Galbraith has many telling things to say about capitalism. Yet in the end his own “brave new world " is an American capitalism entrenched behind new lines of defence. He may think he is in hot pursuit of progress. No doubt if he runs hard enough he will catch the coat tails of the Fabians of the 1880’s. If he runs harder still he may come abreast of their notions of a reformed and more humane capitalism.

And so at the end. Professor Galbraith stands for capitalism. albeit a reformed capitalism. If asked then where his basic loyalties lay, in all honesty he would have to reply “on the side of ‘conventional wisdom'."

Ted Wilmott

Tough at the Top (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Accounts appeared in the press recently of a report published by the Institute of Directors summarising the results of a questionnaire that had been circulated at random among some of its members, 5,000 out of a total of 32,000. Replies were received from 61 per cent. of these.

The investigation, carried out by the Institute’s Medical Research Unit, is part of a long term programme to “define occupational hazards,” and to give a picture of a top executive’s daily existence. More than two-thirds of those questioned stated that they arrive at work by 9.30 a.m., travelling in cars—self-driven except for 6 per cent. Another one-fifth travel by public transport. More than half work late hours and at home, and some work on Saturdays.

Three-quarters stated that their holidays last year were not more than three weeks. Less than 10 per cent. work less than a full day and 90 per cent. spend three-quarters of their time in executive work outside the Board Room.

In their replies 64 per cent. of the directors attributed their success to experience alone. Only 14 per cent. had a University degree. And although more than 60 per cent. of directors may attend a “Business Lunch" once or twice a week, a third lunch at work in staff canteens and dining rooms.

In reporting the above, the Daily Telegraph (27.10.59) had this comment:—

  The average Company Director’s job may have certain compensations, but it is far from enviable from the point of view of long hours and punishing effort . . . Life is indeed tough at the top.

The firms employing these directors, according to the report, are not extremely large undertakings judged by present day standards. 50 per cent. have a capital issue of less than £10,000 and only one-fifth have more than £1 million employed capital. These figures would eliminate most of the large combines and state-controlled industries.

Most of these directors who have a “tough time” are with firms who have to face keen competition in the business world and to quote the article “their position is far from enviable"—as it is for the majority who have to work for their living.

The Director-General of the Institute, Sir Richard Powell, is reported as saying that: —

  To pin down the occupational hazards of executive life it was necessary to know how a man spent his day both at home and at work. The answers, and we have only quoted those of most general interest, will provide our medical director, Dr. H. Beric Wright, with a basis for further research, the aim of which is to keep the director fit and on top of his job.

Well! Well! Keep fit! Most of us lower down the wages scale are below par; and millions of working hours are lost through sickness and injury. Now we see it extends to those “at the top.” In this rat race of an existence the highest possible efficiency must be maintained. Although they have a higher standard of living than most, how many would be secure if their job folded up? We have an idea they would be annoyed if told that their interests are identical with the interests of the rest of the working class.

When we read of those “at the top” we might ask “the top of what?” They may be at the top in the way of remuneration for looking after the interests of their employers, as are Service Chiefs, Cabinet Ministers and others, but those really “at the top” are those who own sufficient wealth to enable them to live without having to sell themselves to an employer. This is the dividing line by which one can judge to which class one belongs; Socialists say that all people who have to sell their energies to an employer are members of the working class.

Picture the “City Gent” complete with bowler hat, rolled umbrella and Daily Telegraph, after fighting his way into the “sardine tin” of a railway carriage, managing to get the above-mentioned article within reading distance. Perhaps he will feel better when he is convinced that those at the top (which he hopes to reach) have a tough time of it.

There is no mention of the real “top” —no mention of private planes, seagoing yachts, palatial residences, and all that money can buy. That “top” is above the clouds. Don’t trouble to look.

Claudio.

Mr. Macmillan settles in (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two months after their smashing victory, how are the Tories shaping? Mr. Macmillan, all smooth hair and confident smiles, had a winning line for his campaign. Everything was O.K., we were all doing well—why muck it up? Just a little more patience, a little more effort and (most essential) another five years' power for the Tories, and that happy world of boundless prosperity which we have been tempted with for so long would be a reality. That was the promise. And the fulfilment?

Queen’s Speech

As usual the government announced their immediate programme in the Queen’s Speech. They are going to do something about building societies, to try to clean up shady deals like the Jasper affair. A lot of workers think that this is a good idea, although they do not own a single share in a building society and only deal with the societies because they hold a mortgage on their home. Perhaps the government are worried by the row which the Labour Party kicked up during the election about Mr. Jasper. And, of course, governments always prefer the business of capitalism to be run in accordance with the rules. But we can be sure that as fast as one shady loophole is plugged another will appear: and the only people who are ever interested to use the loophole are those with enough money to make large investments and to dabble in take-over bids and the like. Which excludes, most of the people who voted for the Tories.

During the election, both of the large parties tried to prove that the other was indifferent to the plight of the old age pensioners. Mr. Macmillan talked about the old ones sharing in prosperity. Yet all the government now offers is a measure to enable pensioners and widowed mothers to earn more without having their pensions cut. Not a general rise in pensions. Not even the end of the earnings rule. This is typical of the stingy attitude which always dominates policy on pensions. Afraid to give retired workers too much, every government, rather than a large general increase, has preferred to play with niggardly adjustments. The Labour government had their tobacco tokens; the latest measure is in this tradition. Workers who are attracted by such schemes ignore a vital point. No capitalist ever worries about a pension. Whether it is high or low, his livelihood is assured by his ownership of stocks and shares; there is no earnings rule on his dividends. The only people who need worry about the size of pensions are retired workers, who have suffered poverty during their working life and who know outright distress when old age forces them out of their job.

Betting and Gambling

Perhaps the most newsworthy legislation of the new government will be the amended betting and gaming laws. On the evening of November 4th the B.B.C. interviewed some people in Birmingham, where races had been run that day. Some colourful opinions were expressed on the legalising of betting shops and other forms of gambling. Nobody mentioned the Stock Exchange, where even the Church of England could always back its fancy. And nobody touched on the reason why workers gamble. Depending on a job for a living is unpleasant. Above all, it is an insecure business. Some forms of gambling offer a chance—albeit a small one—of winning enough money to ensure a plentiful and secure life. Churchmen and others may denounce those who take this chance. But who can be blamed for wanting to change a council dwelling for a decent house? Or cheap, mass-produced clothes for some which fit and are made of good cloth? Who doesn't want to be free of insecurity? The great tragedy is that so much effort goes into trying to gamble our way out of poverty instead of looking for something less chancy.

The Labour Party did their best to pick holes in the Government's programme without ever suggesting that they would have been much different. After all, their big vote-catcher was supposed to be the promise on income tax and purchase tax, which would have meant, at the most, a few shillings a week to the wage-earner. Which is roughly what the Tory promises meant. Labour is very worried about its lack of appeal, for the party fought a skilful campaign yet took a beating. Nobody seems to like nationalisation very much and at least one of their prominent men wants to change the party's name. Mr. Gaitskell was not to be drawn until the party's conference late last month. The Guardian of November 5th, said that ". . . he was not ready at present to declare his mind . . . " on the proposal to drop nationalisation from the Labour Party programme. What a change! Once, the Labour Party swore by nationalisation as an instalment of Socialism. Now that it is thought to lose votes, it may be forgotten. Whether or not this happens is not very important. What does matter is that nobody should think that nationalisation has anything to do with Socialism, nor that if the Labour Party drops it they are becoming less of a Socialist organisation. For nationalisation is but a reorganisation of capitalism, which the Labour Party have always busied themselves with.

Can the Labour Party revive and come to power again? Or will the Tories keep on winning elections? These questions need not worry members of the working-class, who will always have the problems which capitalism dumps on them, no matter which party happens to be running the system. Earl Attlee's government told us many times that our troubles would be over if this country could eliminate its trade deficit with the U.S.A. Well, last month Mr. Macmillan's President of the Board of Trade announced considerable relaxations in the restrictions on imports of goods from the United States. He was able to do this because, as The Guardian of Nov. 5th said Britain ". . . recently had a trade surplus with the United States for the first time in nearly a hundred years." Yet the promised land is as far away as ever. Still, to get a few shillings a week on their wages, workers often have to strike—and sometimes find that the rise they have won is swallowed by increasing prices. And why would they need to fight for a rise, if they were all so prosperous?

Even so, the majority of the working class are satisfied with capitalism. Certainly, for the Tories every prospect seems pretty pleasing. The Government appeals all set for smooth passage, with suave Captain Macmillan to steady the helm and to see that none of the passengers are seasick. Yet who dare say that storms are not ahead? Mr. Macmillan's would not be the first administration, initially confident, to be wrecked by a capitalist hurricane.

Ivan.

Funerals on H.P. (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers, we hope, will forgive us for writing about death, funerals, and cemeteries. Let us assure them that we have no morbid interest; we are not avid readers of certain Sunday papers whose function is to dwell in the graveyards elaborately reporting exhumations, inquests. opened coffins, and desecrated tombs.

We are, however, very much interested in the big-business commercial aspect of cemeteries and funerals. The dictum of Capitalism is that the worker should not only not live above his means, as if this were possible, but should not die beyond his means. The funeral should, of course, be up to standard. The final resting place of the average worker, apart from those who are cremated, is the Municipal Cemetery. Hunks of marble, rotten sculpture, decaying flowers, praying parsons looking for a few shillings from the relatives; a few hurried meaningless words and the proletarian funeral is all over.

Our sudden interest in this sordid matter was reawakened by the recent death of Mr. Errol Flynn, a film actor. Mr. Flynn, a wealthy individual, was not buried in a Municipal Cemetery. His place of burial was Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Los Angeles. California. It is impossible for a visitor to Los Angeles not to know Forest Lawn Memorial Park. Large hoardings (floodlit at night) show the green lawns round the waterfall in the rose-strewn gardens, an idyllic spot. These hoardings. rather similar in size and character to our familiar Guinness stout signs, tell us largely that burial at Forest Lawn Memorial Park is good for you. The slickness of the advertising makes you wish to die in order to take advantage of it.

The Daily Mail 119.10.59) gave us some details of Mr. Flynn’s last resting place. We learned that the bill for the funeral was about £1,200. Also that the Company owning the cemetery had invested more than 100 million dollars (about £35 million) in it. There is a Hall of the Crucifixion seating 1,400 people, used also for Symphony concerts as well as for other sacred money-making occasions. High on the hillside stands the Little Church of the Flowers, a copy of Stoke Poges church where Gray wrote his Elegy in a Country Churchyard. To the East lies the Wee Kirk among the Heather, with real heather imported from Scotland, mark you. On the hill crest is the Church of the Recessional, an exact reproduction of Rottingdean, Sussex, Saxon Church. Throughout the cemetery piped stereo music is played. Mortuaries, courts of freedom, gardens of peace, crematoria, columbarium, all add to the variety.

Do not think the practical aspect is neglected, for in the vast, administrative block of buildings, to the strains of "Sheep may safely graze," visiting families are urged "Buy your grave on the never-never plan.” "Choose your casket now." Balanced comment on this state of affairs is impossible.

When three years ago the shareholders closed a Nottingham cemetery because it was no longer making a profit, there was a public outcry. The dead could not be buried unless it was profitable. We were not surprised. Apart from public health considerations, cemeteries are run on the same basis as any other business—no profit—no production or service.

The workers should not worry too much about the high cost of dying and respectable burial, but concentrate on doing a little real living instead. Socialist ideas open up the vista of a new world, and provide a new healthy outlook. Until Socialist ideas are accepted and acted upon, the human intellect will accept as normal the depraved morality of this sick society.

Jim D'Arcy

From The Branches (1959)

Party News from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ealing Branch

Will members please note that the third and fourth sessions of the Economics Class, being run by Comrade Hardy, will be held on 4th and 18th December. The Class has proved very popular and the attendances have been good. The Writers’ Class is also going well, with a consistent attendance of about eight members each week.

The General Purposes Committee of the Branch has made efforts to obtain debates with the local Tory, Labour and Liberal Parties, as well as with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The Tories and the C.N.D. have refused to debate and we are still waiting to hear from the Labourites and Liberals. The Committee is trying to arrange a Film Show for the early part of the New Year, with perhaps another to follow some time in February. More details will be given later.

The ordinary Branch business meetings have been very well attended on average and it is hoped that this will continue for the rest of the Winter season.

Socialist Standard

The beginning of a new year (1960) is as good a time as any other to make sure of a regular supply of the “ Standard.” So here is a reminder that for 7s. 6d. post free, the organ of the Socialist: Party of Great Britain will be delivered to any address in the British Isles for 12 months. Not only does it ensure sales, but the more copies sold, the more the Socialist case is propagated. If members could make the additional effort to complete a subscription form, or arrange for a friend or sympathiser to do so, it would be one other way in which to help the Party and spread the case for Socialism.

Denison House

The last of the present series is being held on Sunday, December 6th, at 7.30 p.m. Comrade Hardy is speaking on “ Inflation and Recent Government Policy.” Please make a note of the date and time and support the meetings. It is hoped to extend these meetings in the New Year.

Writers' Meeting

Will writers and other members interested in writing, please note that the usual monthly meeting will be held on Monday, 21st December, at Head Office. Commencement 8 p.m. prompt,

Discussions

Bloomsbury, Lewisham and Paddington are holding discussions after branch meetings and details are given on the meetings page.

Phyllis Howard

Editorial: No Class Struggle? (1959)

Editorial from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is interesting to note the revival, both inside the Labour Party and in the Tory-Liberal ranks, of the belief that though there was once a “class-struggle" that was in the bad old days, and we no longer have it with us. It is particularly amusing to recall that that Labour Party pioneer, Keir Hardie, was saying the same fifty years ago. In 1904, the year the S.P.G.B. was founded, Keir Hardie wrote in his paper, the Labour Leader (September 2nd. 1904):-

For my part I have always maintained that to claim for the Socialist movement that it is a "class" war dependent for its success upon the “class” consciousness of one section of the community is doing Socialism an injustice and indefinitely postponing its triumph.

and again:

There is no “ruling and oppressed class" in the Marxian sense of the terms in England now. . . Socialism will come for the most part as a thief in the night, without observation.

Socialism hasn’t come stealing in, but the Tories have stolen Labour’s reformist programme, including Keir Hardie’s beliefs about no class-struggle.

Future of the Labour Party (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

As outsiders we look on curiously as the factions in the Labour Party argue about why they lost the election and about whether their chances would be better next time if they got nearer to the Tories or further away, or if they dropped their programme altogether. Unlike other outsiders who are butting in with advice we have no guidance to offer to the Labour Party. Our stand is a simple one. We seek Socialism and have always been convinced that the Labour Party could never be anything but an obstacle in our path: all we wish to see is the disappearance of the Labour parties of the world and their replacement by Socialist parties. But those who have not yet come to see things us Socialists do can usefully note the difficulties in which its own policies have involved the Labour Party.

Douglas Jay, the Labour M.P., who started the row. held various posts in the Labour Government. 1945-1951, and retained his seat at Battersea North in the recent election, though with a reduced majority. Writing in Forward (October 16th, 1959) under the title “ Are We Downhearted? Yes!" he admitted that since 1945 there has been “a persistent drift away from Labour towards the Tories.” and offered as a provisional answer, the following:

1 -THE BETTER off wage earners and numerous salary earners arc tending to regard the Labour Party as associated with a class to which they themselves don't belong. Few of them—least of all the women—feel themselves to be members of a “working class." We are in danger of fighting under the label of a class which no longer exists.
   If you doubt this, ask anyone who canvassed intensively in the last four weeks, particularly in the new housing estates. We must have a wider cross sectional appeal. What the public wants is a vigorous radical reforming open-minded party.
2- THE WORD “nationalisation" has become damaging to the Labour Party. This is a fact; and it is no use denying it. even if you deplore it. We have allowed the word which properly applies only to public monopoly, to be associated with social ownership as a whole. The myth that we intended to “nationalise” anything and everything was very powerful in this Election—any canvasser will agree. We must destroy this myth decisively; otherwise we may never win again.
3—Favourable economic circumstances for the Tories meant more, in terms of votes than any moral argument or propaganda vigour could counteract. True, the old people, the unemployed and badly housed, were suffering badly.

Opponents of Jay attacked him for suggesting that the Labour Party should water down its programme on Nationalisation. So far Mr. Gaitskell has not committed himself publicly in the controversy, but there is little doubt where he stood a few years ago at the time that he wrote the Fabian Tract Socialism and Nationalisation (July. 1956).

In that pamphlet he contended that nationalisation should be regarded as a means to achieving a better social system and not as an end in itself; though he frankly admitted that in the Labour Party it had often been treated as an end in itself, and indeed as “more or less identical with Socialism” (page 5). This, he said, was because many members of the Labour Party considered that nationalisation was the only way to get what they were driving at and that it could not fail to produce the desired ends. He now thinks that nationalisation is not by any means “the only way.”

The truth is that the Labour Party, in its half-century of propaganda, has accepted or tolerated the expression of many divergent views on nationalisation. Some advocates regarded it as a good business proposition; one that would show big economies, big profits and low charges. Others thought it would lead to higher wages, and others again, including Mr. Gaitskell, thought it would lead to the transfer of wealth from the rich to the government to be used to make the poor better off. (As the £53 million a year being paid indefinitely on the Government securities given to former coal and railway shareholders is probably at least double the profits they would now be getting in their shrinking industries if nationalisation had not taken place, the argument seems to be a particularly silly one).

The Whole Hog on Nationalisation

Some of the Labour leaders who want to forget nationalisation deny that the Labour Party ever intended to go the whole hog—though why shouldn’t they if they thought it such a good thing? But in 1935 the Labour Party published a pamphlet. “The Position of the Middle Class Worker in the Transition to Socialism,” by Lawrence Benjamin. In it he stated plainly that the Labour Party intended to take over the whole productive machine, land, industrial plant, warehouses, shop, stores, and the banks and financial houses. And he wrote:-

“But,” says someone in perhaps horror-struck tones, “if all the parts of the national economic machine are not privately owned, they would be publicly owned—and this means Socialism." Certainly this is true. It does mean Socialism.” (Page 9.)

The Real Dilemma

The mess the Labour Party is in is the result of its own past muddled thinking. All its groups, however divided on other things, persuaded themselves that nationalisation would be an attractive institution and a vote-catcher. They are now having to swallow the bitter truth—that the extension of nationalisation is not wanted by most workers and has nothing to offer most capitalists. (Labour parties in Austria, Germany and elsewhere have met the same drift of opinion). So now one faction would willingly drop nationalisation in order to win the next election. but this can only look like treachery to the other faction, for whom the only purpose of winning an election is to introduce more nationalisation.

The Labour Party has many other worries when it looks to its future. It would like to see the Tories reverting to their less astute policies of earlier decades, which would help to stir up interest among the workers. But according to some accounts Mr. MacMillan, himself a one-time critic of Tory “reaction,” is deliberately setting out to pursue what “Cross-bencher” calls “a Leftward reforming course.” Sunday Express (November 8th, 1959). When the early pioneers of the Labour Party dreamed of placing themselves at the head of a grateful army of electors by first popularising and then enacting a series of social reforms, they never thought of the possibility of a Tory party that beat them at the same game.

The arguments in Labour Party ranks will go on for months and years and will never be finally settled until that Party disintegrates, to give place to the Socialist Party. In the meantime the present decline of nationalisation, which we never supported, should give an added opportunity for Socialist propaganda to make headway against all the other issues.

Edgar Hardcastle

Karl Marx (1959)

From the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Seventy-Six years ago, on March 17th. 1883, Karl Marx was buried in Highgate Cemetery in London. No massive structure of marble or bronze is needed to remember the man. for his work is its own memorial At the graveside. Friedrich Engels, who was Marx’s best friend and his co-operator for over forty years, said this;

Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history. He discovered the simple fact hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that man must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing before he can pursue politics, science religion, art. etc.; and therefore the production of the immediate material means of life and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, forms the foundation upon which the forms of government, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have evolved and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa as had hitherto been the ease.

Karl Marx was a German, the son of a lawyer who practised in the old cathedral town of Trier on the Mozelle, close to what was then the French frontier. There he was born on 5th May. 1818. He died an exile in London, after he had been forced to flee from Cologne, Paris and Brussels to escape the persecution of the ruling powers of the day. He could have chosen the comfortable career of a lawyer or a university professor, but he preferred to spend his time and energy in educating the workers. He first became active as a writer, championing the cause of the agricultural workers and small farmers in the Rhineland in their fight against the land-owners. When the newspaper in which he wrote was suspended he went to Paris, where he studied the history of the French Revolution. the Utopian Socialists and the start of the French labour movement.

He became a Socialist and made friends with Engels, the son of a textile manufacturer in Barmen, who was then employed in his father’s branch in Manchester. Engels, too, became a Socialist and thenceforth the two men were united in a partnership of thought and action. Notably, they produced the famous Communist Manifesto, which became a guide and compass to the Socialist movement. At the time, the political domination which the semi- feudal reactionaries of the Holy Alliance were able to exert in Europe was being threatened by the rise of Capitalism. The steam engine had put the factory in place of the old productive method of handicraft and the railway had begun to replace the stage coach. But the new social system had its own evils; the second half of the '40’s saw Europe plunged into a long and serious commercial crisis, which severely shook Capitalism.

Said the Communist Manifesto: “All history until now is the history of class struggles.” Capitalism sharpened the struggle into a clash between two classes, the Capitalists and the wage working class. The immediate task was the organisation of the workers into an independent movement for the conquest of political power and the overthrow of Capitalist society. This struggle is no national affair; it must be fought out internationally, until the establishment of Socialism brings the end of class rule and the exploitation of the working class. The Manifesto summed it up; ” Workers of the World Unite! ”

The International

In 1864, Marx took an active part, with Engels, in launching and directing the first International Working Men’s Association. The First International, although necessary, was foredoomed to failure by the immature consciousness of the workers, which arose from the undeveloped conditions of Capitalist society. Internal disputes and the repressive laws on the Continent eventually broke it, but it had not been all in vain. In the midst of his work for the International, Marx published the first volume of Capital, which has been attacked by many people prominent in various fields of thought and by a long line of professional and literary hacks. They have all claimed to prove Marxian theories incorrect and outdated, but events have been against them. Marx’s labour theory of value and his materialist conception of history have been vindicated again and again.

Marx was a great scientific thinker and a courageous man, who bore witness to the old saying that the pen is mightier than the sword. He offered the working class the knowledge—and through know- ledge the power—to establish a classless, warless, tradeless system of society. Because of this, his name will be remembered long after his revilers have perished.

J. E. Roe

The Passing Show: Dull and repetitive (1959)

The Passing Show Column from the December 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Well-being Promoters, Ltd.

In an article in The Times (Oct. 30th) a discovery was announced which should receive widespread publicity. This is it: “ The purpose of industry is to promote the well-being of the nation." Those of you who thought the purpose of industry was to make a profit out of the labour of the workers in it were, of course, quite wrong. Shareholders do not invest money in a company in order to receive interest on it, but merely to promote the well-being of the nation. Those accounts one reads in the newspapers, of company meetings at which shareholders shout and jeer, baying for the blood of the chairman merely because the company is paying less interest than was expected, are merely flagrant cases of misreporting. What actually happens, it is now clear, is that the chairman comes in and says: "Dear fellow-shareholders, this year we decided that the well-being of the nation would best be promoted by paying our workers the full value of what they produce. This, unfortunately, means that we didn't get any surplus value out of them, so there is no profit, and there will be no interest paid out on the shares." The shareholders then give three hearty cheers for the chairman, sing “Land of Hope and Glory." and go out to queue for jobs at the nearest Labour Exchange.

At any rate, that’s what must happen if we believe the Times article.

Dull and repetitive

The author of the article is said to write ” from experience as foreman and assistant works manager." But even this apologist for capitalism feels compelled to write: "Ninety-nine jobs out of a hundred in factories even today arc dull, repetitive, often physically very tiring, and frequently dirty." Socialists have said this over and over again: but when a man who goes so far in defence of capitalism as to deny even that it is run for profit, when he says this about the conditions of factory labour, then it must carry all the more weight.

Second thoughts

"Yesterday's Enemy" is a recently-produced British film about the British army lighting the Japanese in Burma during the last year. A review in the Daily Herald (14.9.59) describes a sequence in it: —

A British captain  . . .  has captured an informer who, he believes, has vital knowledge of a forthcoming Japanese attack. He threatens the informer with death, but the informer thinks the captain is bluffing and refuses to talk. The captain picks two villagers at random and orders them to be shot. The informer still refuses to talk. The villagers are shot and then the informer breaks down. The captain has his information.

The captain follows up his murder of two innocent villagers by having the informer shot, as well.

Remembering the propaganda with which we were spoon-fed in the last war, about how we were lighting for decency and humanity against the brutality of the other side, you might think that nothing like this could ever have been done by anyone in the British army. But not a bit of it. Major-General A. J. H. Snelling, who was with the 14th Army in Burma said: “I believe incidents like this did happen during the grim retreat.” General Sir Douglas Gracey said: “I heard of similar incidents . . . These awkward situations did arise.” Major-General H. L. Davies said: “This film is absolutely real and authentic.” A fourth high-ranking officer. General Sir Robert Mansergh, was due to speak the film’s praises at its New York premiere.

Very honest of them, now, fourteen years after the war has ended. And no one alleges that war can he fought with clean hands. Bill why did the politicians and generals tell us throughout the war that all the brutality was on the other side?

Morality first stop

To alleviate the distresses of the Indian people alter the recent disastrous floods in India, the Minister for Labour sent out a special train on a “character-building tour.” The Guardian (19.9.59). It carried fifty Himalayan holy men, complete with live hundred disciples. The leader of the party announced: We are going to our countrymen with a begging bowl, but not to ask alms but a pledge to give up vice.” The cause of the floods, then, is revealed: the gods arc punishing India for its “vice.” But whose vice? The floods could hardly have been expected to catch any Indian princes or industrialists, who would have their private planes available, and some of whom in any case would be sunning themselves at that time on the Riviera. It must be the vice of the Indian masses which caused all the trouble. The gods appear to have taken the ruling class view that all misfortunes arc caused by the troublesomeness of the rank-and-file. This won’t surprise Socialists, who have realised for a long lime that the gods arc hand-in-glove with the ruling class.

Well, there it is. The Indian Minister for Labour has seen where the trouble lies. If only the Indian peasants can lay off the palm-wine on Saturday nights, next year the Brahmaputra may stay within its banks!

Alwyn Edgar