A Socialist Searchlight. (1931)

From the May 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is British Capitalism played out? 

Since the War, politicians from Conservative to Communist have joined with business men and economic experts to harp on the theme that British capitalism was on the verge of collapse. They pointed to growing unemployment and the decline in the volume of exports and imports as proof that the industries of this country were being strangled. The Communists assured us that the end was only a matter of time. They repeatedly prophesied the early outbreak of the revolution at the “psychological moment.” Like Bottomley, who always promised that the War would be over by Christmas, the Communists pinned their faith each year to the cold weather which would drive the unemployed to desperation when winter came. In the meantime they went on sharpening up the knuckle-dusters with which they were going to attack the armed forces. We of the Socialist Party said all along that the “facts” on which they based their case were largely fiction, and that their theories were all nonsense. A consideration of the growth of the total income of the country year by year, side by side with declining exports, shows in unmistakable fashion that we were right.

The figures in Column (1) are taken from the Economist Budget Supplement of April. 18th, 1931. It may be remarked, however, that, according to a rough estimate by Professor Bowley, communicated in a letter to The Times written by Sir Herbert Samuel (Dec. 1st, 1930), the 1930 National Income might be as much, as £100,000,000 above the 1924 level; at the worst, it would not fall below 1921 by more than £200 millions.

The figures in Columns (2) and (3) are taken from the Statistical Abstract, 74th number, 1931, page 312. The figure for 1930 is taken from an official summary published in The Times, Feb. 26th, 1931.

It will be observed that although exports are now down to the pre-war level (after having been well above it owing to the increase in prices), the total national income is not far short of double the amount it was in 1914. During the last two or three years, especially in 1930, the volume of goods and services represented by the national income has grown larger without the money value growing proportionately, this being due to the heavy fall in prices. Sir Walter Layton, Editor of the Economist, says that the national production increased nearly 12 per cent. between 1924 and 1929 (Times, March 31st, 1931).

It is evident that technical changes and new tariff policies in the different countries have altered the conditions of world trade. The mistake the Communists made was in assuming that the British and other capitalists would not be able to adjust their industries accordingly. They have made the adjustments and, in this country at least, are richer than ever they have been, and still securely fixed in the saddle. Capitalism has its problems now, just as it had them before the War, but so long as the workers are content to put up with the capitalist system and go on voting the control of the political machinery into the hands of the parties which will use that control for the purpose of guarding capitalism, just so long will capitalism continue in being. Even had the Communists been right about the decline of the British capitalists, they overlooked the fact that the decline of Britain as a capitalist power would only mean the rise of other capitalist powers in its place. So lacking in a correct understanding were the Communists, that they helped to make that alternative more likely by lending their aid to the capitalist movements in India, China, Egypt, and elsewhere, under the mistaken impression that the native capitalists who control the “nationalist” movements desire to work or can be compelled to work for Socialism.

* * *

Mr. Hicks solves the unemployment problem.

In his election address (see Daily Herald, April 1st), Mr. George Hicks, the successful Labour candidate at the recent by-election in East Woolwich, claimed with pride that the Labour Government are employing more men at the Arsenal than had been employed there by the Tory Government ! But it is disclosed that this “increase” had been achieved simply by having more Government work done at the Arsenal, and less done at private yards. So that the employment of more men in one place will have been balanced by the dismissal of a similar number elsewhere. Mr. Hicks’s solution for unemployment is in line with the Cabinet’s attempt last year to boost the sale of cotton fabrics (at the expense of artificial silk), and the suggestion that the over-production of wheat can be met by persuading Orientals to eat more wheat (and less rice).

If the reports of his speeches in the Daily Herald are to be believed, Mr. Hicks talked more nonsense than one is accustomed to receive even from the most ill-informed or insincere of Labour candidates. In view of the fact that Mr. Hicks (once a member of the S.P.G.B.) claimed in public debate with a Communist, in 1921, that he still accepted the principles of this Party, it would be instructive if we could be told what events have sufficed since 1921 to cause Mr. Hicks to abandon the position he then held. There is a vast gulf between the belief that only Socialism can solve the workers’ problems, and Mr. Hicks’s present desire “to maintain the high traditions set by Will Crooks” (Daily Herald, April 1st). Perhaps Mr. Hicks was combining the serious personal business of getting into Parliament at all costs with a misplaced April fool joke at the expense of the electorate.

* * *

Getting with the masses.

The Communists have always talked a great deal about the necessity of getting with the masses, and have criticised the Socialist Party because, as they truly allege, we have attached more importance to the preaching of sound principles than to attracting the support of non-Socialists. It is instructive to learn from one of their prominent members, Mr. Arthur Horner, that the Communist tactics secure for them not the approval, but the hostility of the workers. Horner, in a letter to Moscow (see Daily Worker, March 10, 1931), states that the setting up of Communist strike committees during the recent mining dispute in South Wales resulted “only in our isolation,” the miners preferring their own elected officials and committees. He says that the Communist movement showed itself, both nationally and in South Wales, “effectively bankrupt from every angle.” Horner was called sharply to order, and it was at first reported that he and Mr. J. Tanner were to form a new Communist Party, less given to wrecking tactics. It now appears that they are to be received back into the Communist Party.

* * *

Comic relief at the I.L.P. Conference.

The National Council of the I.L.P. decided that their members must not belong to the Mosley Party, and the Conference passed a resolution rejecting “with disdain the quack remedies of the Labour Government and Messrs. Lloyd George and Oswald Mosley” (Manchester Guardian, April 7th). Yet Mr. John Paton, Secretary of the I.L.P., writing to the New Statesman about a fortnight earlier, said that the Mosley programme had been borrowed to a large extent from the living wage programme of the I.L.P. At least three of the M.P.’s who drafted the Mosley programme were members of the I.L.P. at the time. And although the I.L.P. Conference thus repudiates the quack remedies of the Labour Government and of Mr. Lloyd George, it is I.L.P. members in the House of Commons who form a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party and permit these “quack remedies,” and permit the holding of office on terms satisfactory to Lloyd George.

One of the funniest incidents was a protest by a delegate (Mr. Southall) against Gandhi entering into negotiations “with the Imperialist leaders whilst still leaving so many of the Indian leaders in prison” (Manchester Guardian, April 8th). The joke of it is that the “Imperialist leaders” are all of them the nominees of the Labour Government, which is kept in office by I.L.P. members in Parliament. The Secretary for India, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, is one of the I.L.P.’s own M.P.’s. How was Mr. Gandhi to know that Mr. Southall did not want him to enter into negotiations with the people who are elected to Parliament with the assistance of Mr. Southall and his party?

* * *

Forward and the S.P.G.B.

Mr. Emrys Hughes, who edits the Scottish I.L.P. journal, Forward, has been warning the I.L.P. to avoid becoming “an anti everybody and everything organisation like the S.P.G.B.” Mr. Hughes has fallen into error through taking a superficial view of things. He notices that we oppose the Liberals and Tories, the Labour Party, the I.L.P., and the Communists, but he has not noticed that one reason applies to each of these parties. We do not pretend that they are alike in all respects, but we do claim that each of them is prepared to retain capitalism, either as it now is or reformed to a greater or less degree. Since each of the three so-called Labour organisations find themselves advocating similar reforms and voting at elections for the same candidates, our opposition to one naturally involves our opposition to the others also. We have only one object, which is the replacement of capitalism by Socialism.

If Mr. Hughes would study the question further from another angle, he would recall one or two respects in which our capacity for being anti-everything falls short of the I.L.P.’s capacities in the same direction. For example, the S.P.G.B. has not achieved the distinction of being opposed to itself, whereas Mr. Hughes is constantly pointing out to his own opponents inside his own party that it is absurd for them to go on denouncing the Labour Government (including the I.L.P. members of it) and yet remain affiliated. He has also ridiculed the absurdity of there being three I.L.P. Parliamentary parties—first the group of 140 I.L.P. members in Parliament, then the group of about 30 M.P.’s for whom the I.L.P. was responsible at the last election, and lastly the group of about a dozen who have consented to accept the rulings of the Maxtonites. Mr. Hughes would recall that the S.P.G.B. remained Socialist during the War, instead of following MacDonald, Keir Hardie, and other prominent members of the I.L.P. into the anti-German recruiting campaign. Mr. Hughes will remember, too, that readers of Forward during the War were treated to the entertaining spectacle week by week of fervid anti-German articles from one jingoistic regular contributor, while the Editor attacked him and apologised for him in other columns.

Lastly, we would remind Mr. Hughes that, however anti-everything we may be, Forward has taken care that its readers shall not learn in its columns our justification for attacks we make. On July 14th, 1928, Forward described as “nonsense” our assertion that Keir Hardie boasted in 1914 of the number of recruits he had enrolled for the capitalist war. We promptly asked Forward to allow us space to give our evidence for the assertion. We are still waiting for Forward’s reply.

* * *

The promise of Empire Free Trade.

It is worth recording that the destitution which now exists in Protectionist America is what the Empire Free Traders promise to copy.

Viscount Rothermere, writing in the Sunday Dispatch on February 23rd, 1930, gave an undertaking that five years after the achievement of Empire Free Trade, “Great Britain will be as prosperous as the Unites States.”

On December 17th, 1929, the Evening News, Rothermere’s paper, in an editorial said :—

“The world has never been without poverty . . . in the U.S.A., to-day, the richest nation in material wealth that the world has ever known, there is plenty of it—not relative poverty merely, but want and destitution.”

On February 2nd, 1931, the Telegraph’s special correspondent in New York, Mr. Percy S. Bullen, gave a review of unemployment in U.S.A. He said :—

“In all my experience I have never seen such want as exists here to-day. . . There is more misery to the square mile to-day in the great American Metropolis than in any city abroad.”

He thought 9,000,000 unemployed an exaggeration, but put it at between 4 million and 6 million.

He quoted Senator T. H. Caraway as saying that 1,000 persons die of starvation every day in the U.S.A.

* * *

The co-operators set an example.

We are often told that the Co-operative dividend hunters set an example to the other employers. This is true. The Co-operative Societies in the North-Western Area are asking for the following alterations in their agreements with their 20,000 employees : —

Ten percent. reduction for juniors.

Five per cent. reduction for adults.

A still heavier lowering of the minimum for branch managers.

Alteration of the period of payment for sickness from three weeks on full pay and three weeks on half pay to two weeks on full pay and two weeks on half pay in one full year.

Co-operative Societies in the North-Eastern Area, employing nearly another 10,000 workpeople, have also asked for the termination of the existing agreement.

The report is taken from the Daily Herald, April 10th. It will be recalled that Mr. Maxton wants the Co-operators to have a share in fixing a “living wage” for the workers.

* * *

Straws in the wind.

The Daily Herald, has lately begun the practice of describing Lloyd George and his Party as “Radicals,” instead of “Liberals.” Is it that an alliance with the Liberal Party is intolerable, while an alliance with the same party under another name is more likely to be accepted by the Labour rank and file?

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The mention in the column that the ex-SPGBer, George Hicks, stated as late as 1921 " . . .  in public debate with a Communist . . .  that he still accepted the principles of this Party" is referred to — and expanded upon — in this passage from an article in the June 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard:

"George Hicks, after leaving the SPGB became an official of a building workers union and was President of the TUC in 1927. He also joined the Labour Party and remained in it for the rest of his life. In spite of this he continued to take an interest in the SPGB and on occasions declared that he still agreed with the SPGB case. Early in the 1920's he debated with Palme Dutt and not only put the SPGB case against the Communist Party but frankly stated that it was the SPGB case he was putting."

" . . . as late as 1921" because Hicks actually finally left the SPGB in 1910.

The ILPer Southall who is mentioned in the column could have been the famous painter, Joseph Southall. I can't be 100% certain. Just an educated guess at my end.

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.

Armaments: The economy of waste (1966)

From the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anybody who is under any illusions about the priorities of this social system need consider only one fact. In the current financial year the British government, which claims that it cannot “afford” all sorts of things like roads, houses, hospitals and schools, is planning to spend £2,172 million on armaments.

We should be clear that this sum has been arrived at after the government have ruthlessly cut back expenditure, have abandoned many projects—such as the TSR-2—which their predecessors agreed to and have planned to withdraw from several areas overseas. In other words, £2,172 million is not an extravagance; it is an economy.

As we may expect, it took a Labour government to do it. One of the problems facing the British capitalist class in recent times has been the size of their arms bill, and the way this bill increased year by year. Taking the figures of “defence” expenditure at four yearly intervals from 1957/8, we get this picture: £1,483 million; £1,600 million; £1,837 million. At present British armaments spending is running at about seven per cent of the Gross National Product.

When Labour came to power in 1964. they resolved to do something about this situation. Perhaps some of their pacifist members actually expected them to stop spending money on weapons—Mr. Emrys Hughes, M.P. for South Ayrshire, for example, who seems to devote debates on “defence” to unrelenting sniping at speakers on both sides. Like this:

Mr. Amery (then Secretary of State for Air): I understand that there are some who would prefer slavery to death—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Survival.

Mr. Amery: -- and if the Hon. Member cares to represent them, that is his affair.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Survival.

And like this:

Mr. George Wigg: There are in the community only a given number of men who like service in the Armed Forces of the Crown—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And getting less.

Mr. Wigg: That may well be. I do not believe that it is, but that depends on one’s point of view—

Mr, Emrys Hughes: It is common sense.

But of course Labour had no such intentions. All they wanted was to hack out an armaments policy which fitted the realities of Britain's standing in 1966 world capitalism, and to make sure that the ruling class got value for every penny they spent on the Armed Forces—intentions which, applied to any private firm, would bring a smile to the face of the dourest accountant.

So Harold Wilson instructed his Minister of Defence, Denis Healey, to set himself to applying the principles of what is called, in a new jargon, cost effectiveness. In his younger days, Denis Healey was considered to be a far-out Left Wing extremist, but he had no difficulty in reconciling himself to the unexceptional!y capitalist principles of his new job.

For a long time he laboured and then, in February this year, he brought forth the results—the Defence Review for 1966. This piece of work provoked a storm of hostility. The Tories professed themselves furious that Healey had decided against building a new aircraft carrier; the First Sea Lord, Sir David Luce, virtually resigned on the issue. The Defence Minister for the Navy, Christopher Mayhew, also threw up his job, protesting that “. . . the basic mistake of the Defence Review has been . . . giving the armed forces too large tasks and too few resources.”

That storm, which made the headlines for a day or two at the time, quickly blew itself out. Today, Mayhew is almost forgotten. And who now remembers Sir David Luce?

The first thing the Labour strategists had to take into account was that, for British capitalism, things are not what they used to be. Gunboat diplomacy may now be a bad joke but at one time, when Britain was the world's greatest power, it worked. Of course that was long ago; since the First World War, British influence has steadily declined and now any political party which tries to run British capitalism must always remember that they are administering a second rate power.

Today, the great disputes of world capitalism involve the United States and Russia. The world is divided mainly into two spheres of control; all others, like the British or the French, are minor affairs and have to play a supporting role. This unpalatable fact has been faced by De Gaulle, in his policy of joining with other European states in a French-dominated alliance. It has been faced since the war by all British governments, although the Conservatives have sometimes had trouble in selling the idea to the blue-nosed colonel elements in their ranks.

Britain's economic decline has also meant that the ruling class can no longer support a large peace time armed force. Compulsory military service would be an expensive affair, as ' well as a diversion of manpower from industry, which already carries a burden of labour shortage. The result is that, when the commitments of the British forces have been met, there has often been no reserve of men for movement at short notice to flares-up in Africa and similar places. To try to bridge this gap, British soldiers have sometimes been taken from Germany in an emergency.

The Labour government saw all this and they said that it was not good. They have decided, in the words of the Defence Review, that there are certain “. . . political commitments we must give up or share with others (and) limit the scale of military tasks which may be imposed by the commitments which remain.”

In practical terms, this means that British forces will be withdrawn from Aden in 1968, from British Guiana and South Africa in the near future, and reduced in the Far East as soon as possible. The bases will be replaced by “staging posts”—islands like Gan and the Cocos which will have minimum facilities such as an airstrip, fuel tanks, a wireless station and so on.

This should lead to other economies; very often in the past, bases like Cyprus had to be held by military force against the wishes of a large part of the population. There is unlikely to be any similar problem with the staging posts; the most dangerous inhabitants in the Cocos at the moment are the fierce land-crabs with which the place abounds.

The staging posts will be in the area known as East of Suez, now under British control by permission of Washington, which has its own problems of stretching manpower and resources. Britain will operate East of Suez on a policy of interdependence — of joint military operations within political alliances. The Defence Review talked about ". . . allies and friendly countries who have military requirements similar to our own." Many other countries have had to give up their colonies in recent years. The empires of France. Belgium and Holland, for example, have since the war crumbled into a mass of independent states.

By their policies, the Labour government plan to reduce arms spending so that by 1969/70 it represents six per cent of the Gross National Product—£2,000 million a year at 1964 prices. (Although six per cent of the GNP forecast by the National Plan for 1970, at 1964 prices, comes to £2,463 million). The government claimed that their plan amounts to a 16 per cent reduction on what the Tories would have been spending by 1970, although Mr. Mayhew, in the sort of flash of clarity which is sometimes given to politicians who have left office, said in the debate on February 23 that £2,000 millions was “an artificial figure.”

Whatever the truth of this—and if what Mayhew said is true this would not be the first time a government has based its calculations on sheer guesswork—the fact is that it is impossible for anyone to forecast what defence, or any other, expenditure will be in five years’ time. These things have a habit of getting out of hand—according to The Guardian of June 15, the foreign exchange cost of the British military effort in Malaysia is 30 per cent more than Denis Healey forecast last August. And who can forecast what other conflicts lie in the future? Who can say that there will not be another Korea in the next five years? Or that the Vietnam war will not engulf this country as well?

And even after Labour's economy drive, armaments are still gobbling up an enormous amount of money. Apart from what the British government spends, a lot of industrial effort is devoted to making weapons for sale to the governments of other countries, which also have a big arms bill. (The United States spent about $46,000 million in 1965). The market for weapons is, to use a term which is perhaps inappropriate, cut-throat. Governments know this, and employ their salesmen to sell the products of their armaments industries through international alliances like NATO. In Britain the level of government spending makes what is called defence the biggest industry.

When we compare this colossal industrial effort to the puny attempts which are made to deal with human problems of the world—when we consider, for example, that according to a UNICEF official in India 80 per cent of the population have to live on less than 1s. 9d. a day, we get an insight into capitalism’s miserable inability to provide a world fit for people to live in.

To recognise this is not to join the charity-mongers who divide their time between protesting about the effects of capitalism and to supporting the capitalist political parties at election times. The basic priority of capitalism is the production of wealth for sale and from that a lot more follows—economic competition, international rivalry, war and armaments. It is simply impossible to have the one without the others.

It was never difficult to foresee that weapons would grow into destructive monsters. Nuclear weapons are only a stage in the development of the war machine; we can be sure that there is more to come. Denis Healey, when he was in opposition, said in the House of Commons that “. . . the West must have atomic weapons as long as the Russians have them.” Presumably this also means that if the Russians— or some other country develop something more powerful than nuclear weapons, we shall have to have those as well. This is what is called, in Healey's language, sensible strategy. Other people might call it something else.

The British armed forces exist, just like those of other countries, to protect the property of their master class; to protect their overseas interests, investments and areas of control. At the moment British investments abroad total about £11,000 million. It was as part of the attempt to protect the bit of this total which is in Rhodesia that the aircraft carrier Eagle, and the other British warships, were recently in operation off the east coast of Africa.

South Africa, which is Britain’s third largest market, has nearly £1,000 million of British money invested in it: India has £450 million. Incomes from investments in other parts of the world are now running at these annual levels:

                              £ million

Far East 70

Middle East ... 200

Australia and NZ 70

Europe                    35

Americas ... 115

Africa             110

The Defence Review said of all this:

. . . we have important economic interests in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere . . .

and

When . . . instability leads to open war, it may imperil not only economic interests in the area, but even world peace.

We can put it another way. With such mighty interests at risk, capitalism sees it as perfectly reasonable to spend a mere £2,000 million a year to defend them. And of course politicians can always produce acceptable arguments to justify this spending; they rarely have much difficulty in convincing the working class that, no matter how much they may regret the situation, no matter how much they prefer to spend money on cancer research, or defeating famine, or building hospitals, if a foreign power takes over “our” oilfields, “our” markets, “our” investments, we shall suffer a fate far worse than merely dying of cancer.

The numerous mouthpieces of capitalism persistently claim that it is a social system founded on honour, humanity and efficiency. But try an experiment. Take a piece of capitalism, put it in a test tube, put in with it the catalyst of human interests and observe the reaction. The result is undeniable. Capitalism makes honour of betrayal, humanity of murder and a veritable economy of waste and destruction.

Ivan.

Notes by the Way: The Workers’ Share of the Product of Industry (1952)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Workers’ Share of the Product of Industry

In the “ Times Review of Industry ” (April, 1952) Dr. L. Rostas examines the preliminary results of the 1948 Census of Production. One piece of information brought out by the Census of Production figures is the total value of the net output of workers in manufacturing, mining, building, etc., and the amount of wages and salaries paid.

The figures show that in 1948 the average net output per employee was £543. Wages represented 48.1 per cent, of that figure and salaries 11.8 per cent., so that wages and salaries together represented 59.9 per cent, of net output.

Dr. Rostas quotes for comparison the corresponding figures shown by the 1935 Census of Production, which was 60 per cent. While therefore the position in 1948 was almost identical with that in 1935 earlier figures showed that the workers' share had risen between 1906-7 and 1924. These figures were published in the Report of the Committee on Finance and Industry (1931, Page 312), and were 52 per cent. in 1906-7 and 55 per cent. in 1924.

The above figures relate to manufacturing industries, mining, building, etc., but do not include transport, finance, civil service, etc. The figures covering all workers are published each year in the Government booklet “ National Income and Expenditure.” For 1948 the division of the total national income (before deducting taxes on income) were: wages 45 per cent., salaries (largely clerks, shop assistants, etc.) 23 per cent., making a total of 68 per cent. In that year the pay of the armed forces represented 3 per cent., and Rent, Dividends and Interest 29 per cent.

The wages and salaries figure for 1951 is also 68 per cent, but in 1938 it was rather smaller, 61 per cent. The main reason why the later figures for wages and salaries have been higher than before the war is that owing to the fall of unemployment more workers have been receiving wages.

* * *

Increase of Output per Employee

Dr. Rostas also shows the increase of physical output per employee in the 13 years 1935 to 1948. Total output of manufacturing industry increased in the 13 years by about 32 per cent., but as the number of workers had increased by 25 per cent., the physical output per worker had increased by about 6 per cent. This is less than half of one per cent a year and is below the normal annual increase over long periods. Undoubtedly the rate of increase will have been somewhat larger in the years since 1948.

In the five years 1924 to 1929 it increased by 11.6 per cent., representing over 2 per cent. a year. (Report of Committee on Finance and Industry, 1931. Page 310.)

An elaborate inquiry by the economist Colin Clark covering the 80 years 1870 to 1950 shows that the product per worker increased by 76 per cent., or rather less than 1 per cent, a year. (Published in Review of Economic Progress, July-August, 1951, Brisbane. Australia.)

During the same period, 1870-1950. the amount produced per head of the population increased by a larger percentage than did the increase of output per worker. This was because a larger proportion of the population were employed in 1950 than in 1870. The amount produced per head of the population was a little over twice as much in 1950 as in 1870.

* * *

Innocents in Russia

Mr. Emrys Hughes, Labour M.P. for South Ayrshire, is best known for his near-pacifism and his constant efforts to get the world's governments to get together to avoid war. He recently visited Russia and published his observations in “ Forward." He has one advantage over many visitors to Russia that he speaks Russian and he claimed that nothing was done to prevent him from entering into conversation with people he met.

Nevertheless he does on one issue betray a certain amount of simplicity. Writing in “Forward” (3rd May, 1952) he claims that “the Communist Dictatorship not only survives but is generally accepted," and that “there is a stable government to which there is no discernible or organised opposition.”

Now Mr. Hughes knows that it is illegal in Russia to attempt to form any political party other than the Communist Party and that all journals and news reports are censored. If he were in Russia and tried to form a party like the one of which he is a member, or tried to make his customary pacifist speeches, or tried to publish a journal like “Forward," of which he was formerly editor, or tried to run as a Labour Party candidate, he would be breaking the law and would incur speedy and drastic penalties. Knowing all this he nevertheless can say that there is in Russia no discernible or organised opposition!

It may be correct that there is little opposition and that what underground opposition does exist is not organised, but when Mr. Hughes says that the opposition is not discernible he is being a little naive. Does he really expect anti-Communists in Russia to disclose themselves? If he had visited Germany under Hitler he would have found the same absence of individuals anxious to become “discerned” and consequently jailed.

Or to come nearer home, if Mr. Hughes had six months ago visited the anti-trade union establishments of Mr. Thomson of Dundee he would have failed to discern on that dictatorial individual's premises even the smallest sign of “ discernible and organised opposition.”

It is, of course, very difficult to tell what opposition exists under any dictatorship and perhaps later events may show that Mr. Hughes was as much misled about Russia in 1952 as was the British Ambassador in Russia in 1917 who was quite unaware until it broke out into open revolt that there was widespread opposition to the Czarist regime.

* * *

How to Muzzle the Press

In Russia the Government openly exercises a censorship on what news comes into the country and on the reports sent out by foreign journalists, and, of course, on what is printed in the Russian Press. Also there is the widespread Russian jamming of foreign broadcasts.

When challenged on the subject Mr. Stalin used the defence that whenever the censorship had been lifted the statements made about the members of the Russian Government by foreign reporters were such that the Russian people became "very indignant," and the censorship had to be re-introduced (Soviet Weekly, 15th May, 1947.) It is a very curious excuse in face of the way in which much of the Russian Government's own internal propaganda is designed to stir up popular indignation against foreigners.

However, a crude censorship is not the only way of preventing publication. It will be recalled how for months the events leading up to the abdication of Edward Vm (the Duke of Windsor) were kept out of the British Press though widely discussed in other countries. More recently we have seen how a request to the British Press not to publish an indiscreet statement made by Lord Alexander at a dinner at the Canada Club was generally observed. Here the reason given was that “security” was involved though in fact a very similar statement had been made by him shortly before and had been published. The Evening Standard (4/7/52) published a letter by Mr. Beverley Baxter saying that as the request not to publish was made by Lord Alexander on grounds of “security" the editors of the morning newspapers were right to accede to the request. The editor of the Evening Standard took the opposite line. He wrote:

"No question of security was involved. The editors were therefore wrong to accept a request for suppression on security grounds.”

A Denunciation of Nationalism

The  Indian, M. N. Roy, who was at one time prominent in the Communist International, but later broke away and took a line of his own, recently wrote for the Manchester Guardian (21/6/52) an article “Asian Nationalism. Its Roots in Race Hatred."

In it he puts the case that the Asiatic nationalist movements are not just movements to secure independence from the foreign governments that kept them in colonial subjection, for even after achieving independence they continue to preach the same anti-foreign doctrines as before. He quotes Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister of India, and advocate of Indian nationalism, as having admitted that he does not know what nationalism is:

“What exactly is nationalism? I do not know, and it is extremely difficult to define. In the case of a country under foreign domination it is easy to define what nationalism is. It is anti-foreign power. But in a free country it is something positive. Even so, I think that a large element of it is negative or anti-, and so sometimes we find that nationalism, which is a healthy force, becomes—maybe after liberation—unhealthy, retrogressive, reactionary, or expansive."

Yet though Mr. Nehru could not define nationalism he went on to declare that it “warms the heart of every Asian" and that “any other force that may seek to function must define itself in terms of this nationalism.” Mr. Roy says this is nonsense and that what Mr. Nehru's explanation really means is that nationalism is “race hatred kept alive artificially.”

“ Asia nationalism is an unmixed evil. It has not got the saving grace of a cultural and idealist origin as in the case of earlier European nationalism."

Although Mr. Roy notices that between the wars European nationalism developed into fascism, and quotes the statement of the late Lord Acton that nationality sacrifices everything “to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State,” he does not appreciate the simple fact that nationalism has been and is everywhere the form in which each capitalist group tries to carve out a place for itself in the world of warring capitalist states. If he did he would not be at all surprised that the politicians who have used nationalism to gain independence from a colonial power need it just as much afterwards in order to persuade the workers to go on fighting capitalism’s battles.

If it is an illusion to think that nations can be friendly in a capitalist world provided that they are all “independent,” it is equally an illusion on the part of Mr. Roy to think that the Powers, great and small, could dispense with nationalism.

At least one thing Mr. Roy has correctly summed up. Discussing the disappointing results of national independence from the worker’s point of view, he says that when India and other countries achieved independence, “absolutely nothing changed except the personnel of the State machinery.”

On one thing we can put Mr. Roy right He says of the “reforming Liberals and the revolutionary Left in the Western countries” that disregarding the bitter experience and irony of history which had shown them nationalist movements starting with men like Mazzini and ending with regimes like Mussolini’s, they “vied with each other in patronising colonial nationalism.” Whatever the Liberals and Labourites did, the S.P.G.B. certainly did not fell into this error but always condemned nationalist propaganda whether at home or abroad, in Europe or in Asia.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The piece on M. N. Roy and the perniciousness of nationalism was previously posted on the blog as a standalone article in September 2011. I'm not sure what happened there. Maybe I copied it from the SPGB website, not knowing that it was part of a larger Notes by the Way column. No worries.

A Glance at San Francisco (1945)

From the June 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Allies meet at San Francisco as 26 years ago they met at Versailles. In 1914 they said that they went to war, not for any “territorial aims” or “aggrandisement," but for the purpose of making the world democratic and peaceful. As they had met at Versailles to discuss and arrange peace, it was disquieting to read Keynes' “Economic Consequences of the Peace” of the disputes that raged between the Allies during the Conference. Within nine months of the Armistice the myth of a democratic and peaceful world was shattered). Clemenceau, the French Premier, referred to some of the other diplomats as “jackals.” They met in the Hall of Mirrors—Clemenceau was old, perhaps blind. The “jackals” have met again, different men, but with the same principle and policy to guide them—the retention of the present social order. Workers hoped that Versailles spelled peace. It was a tragedy that they pinned their hopes to their muster’s activities then—it will be a farce if they hope for peace from the ramshackle conference at San Francisco.

This conference starts where the Versailles conference finished. Already there are disputes between the victorious powers. Germany is not merely defeated; her cities are heaps of rubble, her factories and workshops destroyed and millions of her capable workers slaughtered. The German capitalists cannot regain their strength for many years. Who stands therefore in the path of peaceful settlement? We remember Mr. A. Greenwood broadcasting the evening war was declared (3/9/39): “But with clear consciences, we shall know that we are fighting the last war for final peace and liberty.” Does Mr. Greenwood think that this promise will be realised? What are the views of other observers on this question? General Smuts has stated that “If San Francisco fails then I see nothing but stark disaster before mankind."—(Manchester Guardian Weekly, April 13th, '45). Later in San Francisco he said: "Our race has reached the limit of human endurance: If we fail here the world may be psychologically shocked beyond repair."—(Daily Herald, April 23rd, 1945). Mr. Emrys Hughes after examining the League of Nations and asking if this Conference will take steps to end imperialist rivalries, declares that: “If it does not it will just be the beginning of the Old Geneva farce all over in an American setting with the peoples of the world being betrayed again.”—(Forward, April 21st, 1945). Have we to accept these conclusions as correct? Here we have two persons, both well-informed on political matters, speaking from different political viewpoints, but both emphatic that a San Francisco failure spells disaster or betrayal for the human race. Both are making an error, although Hughes' error is largely confined to his conclusion. It is an error that arises from an inability to understand the causes of war and their removal.

The world is divided into two classes—those who own, the capitalist class, and those who are property-less, the working-class. The capitalist live on income derived from ownership and the workers live on wages obtained by selling their energies. The income of the capitalists arises from unpaid labour of the workers and exists in the form of rent, interest and profit. This income cannot be obtained until the goods produced by the workers are sold. Control of markets, sources of raw materials,, spheres of influence and control of strategic military areas are among the factors essential in the competitive struggle between capitalist powers. The struggle is fierce and although disputes are settled sometimes by diplomatic means, ultimately the decision rests on the weight of the armed forces of the rival powers. Force is the final arbiter. Where do workers stand in this trade struggle? America, a “creditor” nation, a victor in the last War had 25,000,000 workers existing on relief in 1932/33. Victory or defeat will leave the working class in poverty so they have no fundamental concern in the. decisions at this conference. The conference is to settle capitalist differences and its failures and successes alike will leave working-class problems unsolved. It will fail to ensure peace as it will not remove the cause of war —capitalism. It is useless for the purpose of uniting mankind. Does this mean that we accept the despairing attitude of Smuts and Hughes? Before dealing with that let us touch on the immediate post-war period of 1919.

When the last war ended widespread discontent with war existed amongst workers in the Army and in industry. After the efforts they had made to win the war they were condemned to poverty and unemployment. Here was the time for a clear statement of the Socialist case and concentrated propaganda for Socialism. But the Labour and Communist Parties scorned the idea of Socialist propaganda and jeered at our insistence on the need for Socialist understanding. They guided the healthy discontent of workers into political activities harmless to the capitalist system, but dangerous to the working-class. Little did the speakers of these organisations, who said that the immediate problems of 1932 onwards was to prevent war by supporting the League of Nations and collective security, think that within a few years they would have helped thousands of workers into an early grave in a world war. Their policies led inevitably to that result. Their efforts made workers easy prey to the war propaganda of capitalism. Now, having learned nothing from the dismal failure of their pre-war policies, they are repeating those efforts by boosting new “peace” machinery that will fail in its avowed object. Have they any guarantee that the incorrect policies of 1919-39 can become the correct policies for 1945? Of course not; the truth is that they can no longer separate themselves from the policies of the capitalist parties.

Workers need not accept the blind and stupid policies of the Labour leaders; they can hammer out a policy independent of the capitalist parties. That is why we do not accept the conclusions of either Smuts or Hughes that the failure of a few capitalist diplomats spells disaster for mankind or betrayal for the workers. The strength of the capitalists rests on the political ignorance of the working-class. Growing socialist knowledge amongst workers will rob the capitalists of their strength. When large numbers of workers understand that whether they are British, German, American, Japanese, they have a common interest in the abolition of capitalism, the capitalist diplomats will be unable to threaten war in the defence of capitalist interests.

The immediate task is to make Socialists and the conditions for propaganda have never been more favourable. After the most devastating war in history, capitalism is still torn with dissension and struggle. It is as useful to write in dust as to work for peace on a capitalist basis. The way to prevent war is to establish Socialism. Let us not bow our heads and complain of betrayal; let us organise together for the establishment of an International society—Socialism.

Lew Jones

50 Years Ago: Bernard Shaw on Socialism (1991)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Emrys Hughes, editor of Forward. . . . for years has told the workers that nationalisation or State capitalism is Socialism. Indeed, it is highly probable that Mr. Hughes is one of those in the Labour Party who told Churchill that he was supporting Socialism just after the last war. when Churchill was reported to have spoken in favour of nationalisation of the railways Mr. Hughes is certainly a bad guide and Shaw is even worse. Writing in the Sunday Despatch (March 9th, 1941), under the head "The Amazing Winston Churchill”, Shaw discovers that Ramsay MacDonald was at one time a "revolutionary Socialist”, and praises Mussolini and Hitler (along with Lenin and the ex- Kaiser) for their contempt of the Parliamentary system and for the "revolutionary socialist changes" they brought about.

The truth is that Shaw, whatever merit he possesses in other directions, and in spite of much pertinent criticism of capitalism, is a most untrustworthy guide to Socialism. Before Mr. Hughes again advises anyone to take Shaw's advice on Socialism, or on Hitler, he should take to heart the following statement made by Shaw in an interview given to the Sunday Referee (October 2nd. 1938):-

  You know what I think of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini—two highly capable revolutionary and proletarian leaders, who are giving their people as big a dose of Socialism as they can stand.

It looks as if Shaw's answer to the question “Is Hitler a Socialist?" would be: "Yes he is, he is a Socialist like Churchill, Lenin, the Kaiser, and Ramsay MacDonald".

(From an article "Is Bernard Shaw a Judge of Socialism?". Socialist Standard, April 1941.)

“Forward” and the National Government (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that Mr. Ernest Bevin, the T.U.C. leader, is a valued and trusted member of the inner War Cabinet of the British Government, Mr. Emrys Hughes has grave misgivings whether he will be able to look after the interests of the working class.

"As recently as March this year,” writes Mr. Hughes in “Forward” (October 12th, 1940), "Mr. Bevin warned the working class . . . . ‘ that the whole tendency is to create a situation which will enable the ruling class to use this war as a means of thrusting us back to a form of industrial slavery . . . It is essential that the workers should be alive to what is going on . . .  If the bankers and financiers are allowed to have their way and secure control of the country through this Government . . .  then we shall find ourselves shackled.' ”

Apparently Mr. Hughes has no objection to the leaders of the working class taking office in a capitalist government. That which really gives rise to his misgivings is the belief that if it was Mr. Bevin’s intention to safeguard the interests of the working class by entering the cabinet, his efforts are in grave danger of being frustrated.

He draws attention to the fact that all the big capitalist papers welcomed the inclusion of the transport workers’ leader in the cabinet, but points out that as Mr. Bevin represents the T.U.C., the real reason for the welcome is because the Government require him for the purpose of mobilising, placating, and assuring the workers that “this is their war.”

Mr. Hughes laments that the Government appear to have made certain that Mr. Bevin’s power will be restricted to the aforementioned tasks.

Whilst we do not disagree with him on the reasons for Mr. Bevin’s inclusion in the cabinet, we have always rejected the view that it is possible for working-class interests to be served by entry into a capitalist government. Further, we are very critical of what Mr. Hughes thinks are working-class interests and which he thinks merits the attention of the Labour cabinet minister. We will return to the latter point.

What Mr. Hughes seems to forget is the fact that Mr. Bevin entered the cabinet by the grace of the capitalist parties, and with the approval of the bulk of the Labour movement. The latter, it is important to remember, supports the war wholeheartedly.

Therefore it is hardly surprising that his function in the Government is the one which is likely to prove of tremendous importance in the “ Drive for Victory."

All the same it is not difficult to understand the perturbation of Mr. Hughes at the prospect that what he regards as vital working-class interests may be neglected even by a government which includes leaders of the working class.

But he is perhaps unaware that when the war machine is on the move, victory is of paramount importance to the capitalist class, and matters which tend to distract attention from that object are pushed aside.

Now let us consider some of the things which Mr. Hughes believes vitally affect the well-being of the working class, and deserving of special attention by the Government through the medium of Mr. Bevin.

In another article in Forward, (November 2nd, 1940), he states that the perorations of Mr. Bevin are “splendid" and “thrilling," but complains that it is high time that “the oratory crystallised into concrete ideas: into a programme of social and industrial reconstruction for Britain and Europe and the world." He also wants to know a little more about the Minister of Labour's plan for “freeing the world from Nazism and tyranny."

And he appears desperately anxious about the recovery of the coal markets of France, Scandinavia and Italy, “after we have gained the victory over Germany and destroyed Hitler and the Nazi regime." An anxiety which doubtless is shared by the colliery owners, too!

“If there is no plan for the economic reconstruction of Europe so that we can sell Europe goods, then we will inevitably return to the old problems of unemployment, and perhaps even on a greater scale." A business man could hardly show more concern for the future of trade than this.

It is clear that he is concerned with problems likely to arise out of the continuation of Capitalism, i.e., the loss of markets, trade, etc. And it is equally clear that he has no conception whatever of the real problem which faces the working class NOW as well as in post-war years—the abolition of a system that gives rise to Hitlers, Nazism, war, unemployment and the countless other miseries which afflict the working class.

He goes on to deplore “that if Europe is smashed, ruined, bankrupt . . .  agriculture disorganised . . . the industrial workers will not have the purchasing power to buy the food that the farmers can produce."

It is evident from this that despite the obvious concern for the welfare of the workers, he cannot visualise any solution to their miseries excepting in terms of the wages system (his reference to “purchasing power" and the “buying of food"), which system forms the basis of capitalist society. And yet Mr. Hughes regards himself as a Socialist!

Possessed of such conceptions it is hardly to be wondered at that he then proceeds to outline a “ ten or twenty year" PLAN for the rebuilding of Europe, which he thinks merits the attention of the Government through the medium of Mr. Bevin.

Each country is allotted a special role in the production of “ food and goods for all.” Mr. Laski, Mr. Keynes, and Sir John Orr are suggested as the “brains" which could work out the details in order that the plan could be submitted to the world as part of the Peace Aims of the British Government.

In passing we might suggest that a ten or even a twenty year plan will hardly suffice for the “reconstruction" of Europe if the R.A.F., the Luftwaffe, and the Regia Aeronautica continue at their present tempo!

Meanwhile Mr. Bevin doesn’t appear to be much interested in detailed plans for post-war reconstruction, but seems bent on enlarging the scope for Mr. Hughes' flair for planning. Speaking to Midland factory workers on November 4th, 1940, Mr. Bevin is reported to have said: —

   In another six months we shall have passed Germany in aircraft, ships, and guns, and I venture to prophesy that immediately we have done that, the world will move forward to a peaceful time of reconstruction, the wiping away of privilege and the growth of knowledge.—(Daily Telegraph, November 5th, 1940.)

It isn't ten or twenty year plans for the reconstruction of capitalist “civilisation” that the workers need, still less the "declaration of the Government’s War Aims and its Peace Aims" as Mr. Hughes thinks. The workers require an understanding of their class position and all that that implies.

Socialist knowledge alone will ensure this understanding, and once acquiring it the working class will have no need of the “planners" and the so-called experts to point the way to their salvation. The road will be plainly marked—to the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of international Socialism.

H. G. Holt

Is Bernard Shaw a Judge of Socialism? (1941)

From the April 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Commenting on Mr. W. J. Brown's broadcast "Is Hitler a Socialist," Mr. Emrys Hughes, editor of Forward (March 15th) takes Mr. Brown to task and warns him against underestimating Hitler. Mr. Hughes does not disagree with Mr. Brown's proof that Hitler is not Socialist: "Of course Hitler is no more a Socialist than is Winston Churchill, and Brown had no difficulty in disposing of that delusion." So far, so good, but Mr. Hughes backs up his opinion by calling in Bernard Shaw's recent opinion of Hitler. But is there any reason to suppose that either Hughes or Shaw is competent to recognise a Socialist when he sees one? Mr. Hughes, it is, who for years has told the workers that nationalisation or State capitalism is Socialism. Indeed, it is highly probable that Mr. Hughes is one of those in the Labour Party who told Churchill that he was supporting Socialism just after the last war, when Churchill was reported to have spoken in favour of nationalisation of the railways. Mr. Hughes is certainly a bad guide and Shaw is even worse. Writing in the Sunday Dispatch (March 9th, 1941), under the head "The Amazing Winston Churchill," Shaw discovers that Ramsay MacDonald was at one time a "revolutionary Socialist," and praises Mussolini and Hitler (along with Lenin and the ex-Kaiser) for their contempt of the Parliamentary system and for the "revolutionary social changes" they brought about.

The truth is that Shaw, whatever merit he possesses in other directions, and in spite of much pertinent criticism of capitalism, is a most untrustworthy guide to Socialism. Before Mr. Hughes again advises anyone to take Shaw's advice on Socialism, or on Hitler, he should take to heart the following statement made by Shaw in an interview given to the Sunday Referee (October 2nd, 1938):—

You know what I think of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini—two  highly capable revolutionary and proletarian leaders, who are giving their people as big a dose of Socialism as they can stand.

It looks as if Shaw's answer to the question "Is Hitler a Socialist?" would be: "Yes he is, he is a Socialist like Churchill, Lenin, the Kaiser, and Ramsay MacDonald.

Edgar Hardcastle