From the front. (1912)

From the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in dealing with the “labour unrest” at the Church Congress, suggested that in order to achieve industrial peace, the employers should get in personal touch with their men, see the conditions of their work and of their home lives with their own eyes. Also that the workmen should try and understand the conditions under which business in these days of international competition has to be carried on. But why not an actual change of places ? The worker would then understand the real function of the capitalist—luxurious loafing—while the capitalist would be able to enjoy the benefits that are said to be inseparable from “honest toil.” Both suggestions are equally practical—and nonsensical.

* * *

Referring to the attitude of the Church towards “labour unrest,” his Grace said: “There is above all the disputes and passions of men, a will of ‘God’—that conscience knows it, and that obedience to it is, and keeps all things, right.”

Conscience knows it—God’s instructions are so unmistakable—yet the Archbishop says the Church “has no commission from its master to take sides, or to invest any particular scheme or policy with his authority.” And this in spite of the fact that, in his own words, “capital is responsible for the condition of the labour it employs—in railways and factories at home, or in rubber plantations abroad,” and that “even now multitudes of children are born into an environment where the only chances are downward.” And the Church still claims to be on the side of the oppressed.

How pitiful these high humbugs appear in their futile endeavours to reconcile their interested attitude with their creed !

* * *

Bernard Shaw has at last told why he “left off lecturing on Socialism.” He says : “Nine-tenths of the art of popular oratory lies in sympathising with the grievances of your hearers.” When his audiences were no longer of the working class he changed his tune.

The lesson is clear. Shawism is for the shirkers, while Socialism is for the workers.

Bernard Shaw is not by any means the only one to adapt his principles and bend the truth to suit his audience. Prominent Labour men have said more than once that “those who pay the piper call the tune.” As this is said in tones of reproach, because the workers do not pay, we can only infer that all “Labour” men are capitalist agents.

The Welsh Messiah, too, subscribes to the Shavian creed. When advocating social reform—greater economy in administration—he tells his audience that “seven per cent. of the people in the great cities live in a state of chronic destitution. Thirty per cent., or nearly one third, live on or below the poverty line.” Or: “There is something wrong—where the labourer, working hard from morning till night in spring, summer, autumn and winter, in rain and sunshine, only to receive his eleven shillings a week in vast areas in England—in a country where you give thousands of pounds to men who do not labour at all.”

These are extracts from his speeches, called to mind by their publication in “Better Times.”

When the question is one of taxation, however, he claims that all sections profit equally by good government, and all should, therefore, contribute.

* * *

For downright contradiction the above is hard to beat ; but the same gent goes one better than his previous best. His “good government,” on another occasion, becomes a class government guilty of legislating in their own interests. He says : “There are about six million electors in this country at the present day, and yet the government is in the hands of one class. It does not matter up to the present which party is in power, you have practically the same class governing the country.”

* * *

Women’s Suffrage is the cry of the Pethicks and the Pankhursts, who want votes for propertied women. In their efforts to enlist the sympathy and support of working class women they tell them that their wages are lower than men’s because they have no political power. With political power, they say, women would become a force to be reckoned with, and would be able to demand higher wages and better conditions.

This bait, however, will not do for the women in the hosiery trade. They are actually afraid of higher wages. According to the secretary of the Hosiery Union, Leicestershire, “women are paid a lower rate than men in every branch of the trade. We want them to demand the same as the men, but they insist on the difference and say : ‘Oh, no, in that case we shall not be wanted.'”

Sir Alexander King, Secretary of the Post Office, has threatened to discharge women and employ men if the demand for the same wages is conceded. Women engaged in many occupations are in the same unhappy position. They dare not demand high wages, even when they do the same work as men, because they would be sacked and men would do the work. Men, however, demand higher wages and sometimes get them, only to find themselves, sooner or later, in the same position as the women, because machinery has been introduced.

Truly, almost every move of the workers on the industrial field is trumped by the masters.

* * *

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has discovered in a New Zealand Government report, striking confirmation of his own views on Tariff Reform. According to this instructive report the cost of living has risen because of Tariff Reform, 16 per cent. On this statement he builds up a case against Protection—a case which collapses like a house of cards when one remembers that the rise in the prices of the necessaries of life in Free Trade England, over the same period, is according to Professor Ashley, 24 per cent. Pity the blind!

* * *

The quarrel between Liberals and Tories over Banbury’s amendment, although not likely to make them forget their mutual interests and their opposition to the workers, nevertheless revealed the hooligan nature that is always one of the characteristics of those who live by plunder. As far as it went it should teach the workers that the so-called respectable and cultured class can be as vicious and vulgar as Parisian bandits. It is on record that Mr. Will Crooks did much to ease the situation by a timely rendering of “Auld Lang Syne,” while Mr. Barnes told an interviewer that the Labour Party would do their best to preserve the Parliamentary machine. Labour Members render yeomen service. They are especially good at dispute settling in the interest of the class that employs them at £400 per year—for Auld Lang Syne.

* * *

A censor of cinematograph films is the latest precaution taken by the representatives of the master class. Pictures that show the way “not to successfully burgle” are to be taboo, presumably because they excite the spirit of emulation in the minds of ambitious youngsters. By the manner in which such freaks are magnified, the worker is almost encouraged to believe that there is no such thing as unemployment and poverty leaving thousands only the choice between starvation, crime, or the workhouse.

* * *

But not only must property be protected—capitalist morals have to be safeguarded. The respect and veneration with which the workers have been taught to regard their rulers must be preserved. With that object in view pictures are to be excluded that represent royalty, aristocracy, judges or other State dignitaries in ludicrous or undignified positions. Yet with all their care, discontent becomes greater, and Socialism—the end of all things capitalistic—makes steady progress.

F. Foan

Proper Gander: Manipulated by the Monoform (2025)

The Proper Gander column from the December 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The mass media is a ‘systematically organised, one-way path from the producer to the spectator. Constantly. Constantly. And that is not communication. We should try and find some other word for it. And it’s certainly manipulation’, according to film-maker and theorist Peter Watkins, who has died at the age of 90. His words come from a 2001 video interview following the release of his film La Commune, through which he aimed to use the medium of film-making to communicate, rather than just present one interpretation. The film re-enacts the Paris Commune of 1871 and was made in a less hierarchical, more democratic way than found in the mass media’s usual output, by having non-professional actors improvising scenes and shown discussing the views of both their characters and themselves.

La Commune was the last film Watkins made, after which he honed his theories about how the media industry functions for his 2004 book The Media Crisis. His films, in one way or another, focus on conflict between states and between classes. Their subject matter includes nuclear war (The War Game, The Journey), oppression of political activists (Punishment Park, Evening Land) and historical flashpoints (Culloden, La Commune). His two productions of the late 1960s, Privilege and The Gladiators, share the theme of the elite using the media to divert and channel working class dissent. These films employ a setting of the near-future to examine this, while his theories about film-making investigate how this happens in real life.

Watkins argued that the mass audio-visual media (MAVM) industry moulds the reactions of its audience through the style and arrangement of its products. He called the prevailing template for films and programmes the ‘Monoform’. This is defined as ‘a formatted and repetitive TV language form of rapidly edited and fragmented images accompanied by a dense bombardment of sound, all held together by the classical narrative structure’ (Notes on the Media Crisis, Peter Watkins, 2010). This is a familiar description of dramas and documentaries with predictably linear plots, scenes too short to explore details and mood-accentuating soundtracks. This style is particularly noticeable in the common practice of documentaries starting with a quick summary of the programme to come, reducing what could be a complex subject into a couple of minutes (before then reducing the subject into only forty-or-so minutes for the rest of the duration). Watkins continues ‘Because of its extreme rapidity (especially the version developed over the past 20 years [ie, from circa 1990]), the Monoform gives no time for interaction, reflection or questioning […]. It is organised to create pre-determined responses, which means that before the audience sees any Monoform film or television programme, its producers already know how they (the audience) will react – or at least such is the intention’ (ibid). In emphasising how the format or approach adopted by film-makers can be used to push an agenda, Watkins is echoing Canadian theorist Marshall McLuhan, who said ‘the medium is the message’ in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. As the MAVM is owned by corporations, their films and programmes are intended to reinforce acceptance of the social framework of which the MAVM is a part, as well as make a profit for their shareholders. The Monoform followed by the MAVM’s products reinforces this acceptance by discouraging critical thinking about that social framework. Here, Watkins’ views have similarities with those of Frankfurt School luminary Herbert Marcuse, who described how capitalism utilises the mass media as a means of social control, including by stifling anti-capitalist thought.

A film or programme’s style, music and editing support the priorities of the media industry even if its content appears to criticise society. Watkins says ‘The fact that many filmmakers and media intellectuals believe that a radical subject or a powerful theme in themselves create an ‘alternative’ cinema is another paradox. In most cases it is only the content that could be considered alternative: a radical theme per se does not challenge the over-riding problem of hierarchical form, process and structure. In fact, it only confuses the issue, and is a prime reason why critical thinking on the role of the MAVM has not developed beyond a limited point’ (ibid). This may explain why films and TV programmes haven’t prompted truly radical political action, even when they often depict capitalism’s failings.

Another way that programme-making is shaped by its capitalist context is what Watkins called ‘the universal clock’. This refers to how television shows are made in uniform lengths to allow time for adverts within and between them on a fixed schedule. The prerogatives of the marketing industry are important enough to limit the running times of programmes, chiefly those on traditional broadcast channels. YouTube has its own norms for how advertising affects content, with commercials intruding upon videos mid-sentence, and vloggers interrupting their spiel to promote their sponsors, both in a crass way which makes the scheduling of TV commercial breaks almost seem polite in comparison.

Watkins gave a cogent, class-conscious account of how the media industry’s role in capitalist society impacts on the nature of its products. Films and TV programmes project the hierarchical structure of capitalism through the way they are edited and paced, regardless of their content. The template followed by MAVM output is intended to present a one-sided view, reinforcing acceptance of the status quo and discouraging critical discussion among the audience. In his own films, such as La Commune, Watkins tried to counter these tendencies through his collaborative, improvisational methods, with the consequence that his work became unattractive to major studios, distributors and broadcasters. His marginalisation, to some extent, proves his theories right. He has left us with not only a set of challenging, passionate films but also a valuable contribution to explaining how capitalism’s media industry has to operate, by manipulating us, its consumers.

Mike Foster

Blogger's Note:

Further reading on Peter Watkins from the Socialist Standard archives

• Oct 2015: Peter Watkins: A Revolutionary Film-Maker - Part 1
• Nov 2015: Peter Watkins: A Revolutionary Film-Maker - Part 2
• Jul 1966: Review of The War Game
• Oct 1980: Review of The War Game

News in Review: The Polls (1964)

The News in Review column from the October 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Polls

Over the past few months, watching the so-called public opinion polls has almost become an obsessive national activity. Glassy, fascinated eyes have watched the graph lines of support for the two big political parties snaking up and down.

Even the Stock Exchange has reacted, becoming more optimistic as the forecast support for the Conservatives has increased.

The two big polls National Opinion Polls in the Daily Mail and Gallup in the Daily Telegraph have differed in their assessments. NOP turning up figures more favourable to the government than Gallup. Both have agreed that the Tories have steadily gained ground.

Who Knows what the polls are worth? Naturally, they protest their own accuracy; they are now big business employed by famous companies and advertising agencies to estimate what razor blades we use, what size washing machine fits into our kitchens.

In the political field, the polls have never really lived down their massive boob in the American Presidential Election of 1948, when Truman won against all their forecasts. They blamed that on to an unsuspected flaw in their method, which they now claim to have eliminated.

But none of them, of course, can interview an entire electorate and inevitably their sampling methods come in for some criticism. When the election is over, the polls do some furious figure juggling and, not surprisingly, claim that their forecasts were accurate.

The political parties welcome or deride the polls, according to whether they are currently favourable or not. Some time back a constituency Conservative Party which was fighting a by-election suggested that the polls were undemocratic, because they actually influenced people to vote for the party which they tipped to win.

In that by-election, need we add, the Tories were doing badly when the opposite is true they do not complain about the polls.

The whole thing is, in fact, a rather amusing game. And. like a game, it has no real effect. We can make one forecast now, without the aid of the polls.

Whichever of the parties wins the election, and whatever the composition of Parliament when the votes have been counted, capitalism will remain. It will be business as usual for everyone, including the pollsters.

Restrictive practices

Sam Goldwyn has long been famous for his super-colossal films and for his snappy wisecracks. He has always been the newspapers' caricature of a Hollywood tycoon expansive, ebullient. But now he is under something of a cloud.

The great Sam recently sold fifty of  his films for showing on television. Now everybody knows that the one word which is likely to make the cinema owners see red, in the most glorious, panoramic technicolor, is television.

So Mr. Goldwyn’s sale is regarded by the cinema interests as a stab in the back or, as Mr. Ellis Pinkney, secretary of the Cinema Exhibitioners' Association, put it. biting the hand that fed him. Goldwyn was not around when this remark was made: had he been, he would doubtless have made another funny crack in reply.

But the CEA are not joking. They are pressing all cinema owners in Britain not to show any more Goldwyn films. As they claim a membership of over ninety per cent of cinema owners, including Rank and Granada, their ban may well be effective.

Now the film industry was once famous for the demarcation rules which its workers' trade unions applied in the studios. These rules were strict; no carpenter would stick up so much as a square inch of plaster, no plasterer would knock in the smallest nail.

The employers complained bitterly about what they called these restrictive practices. They implied that the workers were childish, that the rules would ruin the industry and would deprive the public of their films.

In fact, the unions were using an old established weapon to try to defend some hard won improvements in working conditions. This may mean some tough fights, but that is the way it is jungle of capitalism’s class struggle.

And toughness, and restrictive practices, are not confined to one side. What the cinema owners are now going to do in their fight against Goldwyn can only be described as a tough restrictive practice.

Naturally, they try to justify it by using the same tones of moral indignation as they use when they attack the film workers' demarcation rules. But morality docs not come into it.

Both sides arc only trying to protect their interests and that is something that goes on all over the capitalist world. Even that part which is the preserve of the tinsel unrealities of the film men.

Johnson's fortune

Nobody expects elections to be other than dirty businesses but sometimes, in their anxiety to throw mud the parties of capitalism achieve some strange results.

Consider the case of Johnson's fortune. The exact amount of the American President's wealth has become something of an issue in the election over there, so much so that Johnson has engaged a firm of accountants to report on the matter.

The conclusion of this investigation was that the Johnson family is worth about three and a half million dollars. This estimate has been questioned, because it is based on the original cost of the Johnsons’ interests, whereas their present market value would be somewhere nearer $14 million.

For some strange reason, this dollop of wealth is regarded as a possible electoral liability to the President. The delusion about the barefoot boy who rose from log cabin to the White House apparently persists in the United States, even after all that the Kennedy family did to destroy it. 

Yet why should his wealth lose Johnson votes? A rich man, after all, is capitalism’s highest form of life—he is successful. Does not Johnson, therefore, fit in with the prejudices and presumptions which dominate elections? Is he not the sort of man the American workers would want as their national boss?

Perhaps there are doubts about the methods which were used to amass the Johnson fortune. And these, too, are humbug.

Even the most illegal ways of building up wealth—and there is no proof that the President has ever done anything outside the law—are no worse than the simple, legal method of the exploitation of the working class.

No method is more degrading, more repressive. No method leads to more violence and unhappiness. Property, Proudhon said, is theft and that is it up.

From this we can see that Lyndon Johnson is eminently suitable to administer American capitalism, with all the ruthlessness that it may require. He has also shown that he can accept, and turn to his advantage, any of the system's anomalies.

At the same time as his fortune was being counted, Johnson was pushing through Congress his so-called Anti Poverty Bill, which is supposed to rescue millions of Americans from the depths of destitution.

Perhaps some of them will get the point, and remember it when the time comes in November.

Matter of importance

From the London Gazette of 1st September, 1964:

In future, on occasions when it is desired that decorations be worn invitations should state either “evening dress decoration" (signifying white tie with full orders decorations and miniatures) or “dinner jacket, decorations” (signifying black tie with orders decorations and miniatures as described above).

When “evening dress decorations" is prescribed those not in possession of full evening dress may wear orders decorations and miniature badges and medals as described above with a dinner jacket.

How comforting to know that, in this world of hydrogen bombs and hire purchase, of malnutrition and mental illness, there is still a spark of dignity.

How nice to know that the Queen, ever alert to the onward march of democracy, has graciously consented to unbend the once inflexible regulations on the wearing of decorations with evening dress.

What ease of mind it brings to us all, to know that “. . . orders, decorations and medals may be worn with dinner jackets . . . with shirts having a stiff collar or soft collar.”

What an uplift for the soft collar, to be put at last on a par with the stiff! How satisfying a fruition of human struggle and endeavour.

And how sick it makes you feel.

50 Years Ago: Film Censorship and the Workers (1982)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is sometimes amusing, when temporarily relaxing from the stern realities of the struggle for existence, to notice the care taken by our masters for our moral welfare. This is exemplified by the recent warning of the Board of Film Censors to the film industry on the subject of “daring” films. Leaving aside the question of what are desirable or undesirable films, the warning in question is an example of the arrogance of the master class in claiming to decide what is good for us.

Commenting upon this in the “News-Chronicle" of 18/2/32, E. A. Baughan says:—

  Indeed, one could wish it were possible that the Board of Censors extended its veto and banned those films, mainly of American origin, which show how the wealthy classes waste their money (to put it at the lowest) in senseless orgies. What kind of effect must these pictures have on men and women who have the greatest, difficulty in buying the necessaries of existence?

Thus we are not only to be deprived of any temptation to forsake the straight path of virtue, but we may even be deprived of witnessing at secondhand the manner in which our masters enjoy their leisure, for fear it might make us just a wee bit jealous.

[From an article "Social Contrasts" by R. Milborne, in the Socialist Standard, August 1932.]

No Orchids For Sweet William (1950)

Film Review from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although socialists agree about the solution to social problems, when it comes to other issues differences of opinion can and do arise. What is a “good” film, is a question about which socialists can and do disagree. Some attach great importance to colouring, dresses and scenery, others to acting, sound recording, and the tempo of the drama. In short the same film is “good” to some and “bad” to others. For that reason we cannot exhaust these columns with personal views on the technical merits or demerits of films. What we can do is turn the socialist searchlight on the silver screen and show how the need for socialism is reflected in film stories.

For example take a recent production—“All the King’s Men.” This film, given academy awards, is the story of the rise to power and privilege of Willie Stark; a story adapted from real life.

Willie Stark starts off with poverty and honesty. During his struggles for political power he loses both, and finally “stops a bullet”—just before the National Anthem. That is the story in a nut shell as far as many people are concerned, but for socialists what is much more to the point is the social background of squalor and discontent that makes the story possible.

In the film we are shown glimpses of the poverty and humiliation experienced by workers, and the corruption, bribery and trickery that characterises world of rich and poor. We hear speeches by politicians anxious to turn the votes of working people to their own ends. Moreover we see in the political careerism of a Willie Stark only a melodramatic version of many a real life would-be reformer. Starting off with the desire to do something for workers and ending by doing something to them. Willie Stark, like many another before him, thought he could separate means from ends in his efforts to solve social problems. He thought he could gain political power by any means and wield it to benefit ordinary working people. Instead, having gained the support of people easily swayed by promises he had to resort to every kind of deceit to retain their support and his position of power.

Willie is not alone. Many have thought, and still think, that any kind of voter will do to solve the problems of working people. History belies this fallacy. The history of the working class in all countries shows that only a majority of working people equipped with socialist knowledge can solve their problems. This is an assertion to the validity of which the columns of this journal over many years bear ample testimony, and is in fact a touch stone of the Socialist movement.

Socialism, a world of common ownership and democratic control where all have free access to the things they need, will give the “Willie Stark’s” of this world no opportunity to harm others by their ill-informed efforts to rid the world of problems they do not fully understand. More important still Socialism, by ensuring the well-being of everyone, will eliminate the discontent and misery which is the breeding ground of those who aspire to personal power.

These then are some of the thoughts of socialists when they pay their one and nine’s to see the world of make-believe reflecting unwittingly the problems of our time. Our task as socialists is to change reality thereby changing the reflection. Why not join us?

John Moore

By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the June 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nearly three years ago now, when the present international slaughter of the world’s workers commenced, we were informed that this was the “war to end war.” From that time onwards many have iterated the same silly phrase. Many have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the capitalist class and gone out of their way to inform the unwary that this war is different in its origin to past wars, that this time it is in order to put down “Prussianism” that they are called upon to give their services and, if necessary, their lives.

Slowly but surely numbers of our class are beginning to open their eyes and to realise that they have been deceived, and in order to facilitate this larger outlook I propose giving one or two quotations which possibly may help them in their search for truth and knowledge.

From a German source, quoted in a paper the proprietor of which is a keen supporter of the Lloyd Georgian (English-Prussian) Government, we read that General von Stein, Minister of War, said:

“I do not entertain the hope that the war will be followed by international peace. So long as the interests of nations conflict there will be wars. The prospects of an eternal peace are not very brilliant just now when two great peoples which hitherto did not think of maintaining large armies are beginning to create them. Consequently after the war it will be our duty to safeguard ourselves and preserve for our descendants what we have fought for.”—”Weekly Dispatch,” May 6th, 1917.

In order to obviate the retort that might be put forward by some, that the previous spokesman was a German, and, therefore, what he says does not count, let me adduce the evidence of an Englishman who is a Liberal M.P., and as such must necessarily be possessed of all the virtues. Addressing the Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders in the British Westinghouse Co., Ltd., Mr. J. Annan Bryce said :

“It seems to be assumed by some well-meaning people that when peace is declared there will be an end of economic war also, and they deprecate any measures tending to perpetuate it. It is forgotten that this war is as much a war for commercial and industrials for military domination, and that there were no more enthusiastic advocates of it than the heads of the great German industries and financial establishments. It is forgotten that the military war is only the complement of the economic war which started half a century ago.”

Here we have supporters of the holy trinity of Rent, Interest, and Profit, or in other words, defenders of capitalist society, coolly admitting that this war is the result of an antagonism of capitalist interests.

The only war that will end war is the class war. Join, then, with us and assist in waging war for the abolition of classes and winning “The World for the Workers.”

* * *

An announcement recently appeared in the Press informing the public that “last year the British Board of Films Censors passed for universal exhibition 4,430 subjects and 904 for public exhibition.” It was further stated that among the grounds for the rejection of over 500 films were:

Impersonation of the King.

Irreverent treatment of death.

Nude figures.

Excessively passionate love scenes.

Scenes purporting to illustrate “night life.”

References to controversial or international politics.

Antagonistic relations of capital and labour.

Scenes tending to disparage public characters and to create public alarm.

Vampire women ; the drug habit ; white slave traffic.

Materialisation of the conventional figure of Christ.

Scenes depicting the realistic horrors of warfare.

Incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy.

Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies or to disturb friendly relations wkh them.

Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule.

Propaganda films of German origin.

—”Daily Chronicle,” April 3rd, 1917.

How carefully the agents of our masters choose what subjects their slaves shall see when they journey to the picture palace. The references to the “antagonistic relations of capital and labour” and the “realistic horrors of war” are distinctly good.

* * *

A study in directive ability ! Engineer for the cows. Mr. J. A. Morris Bew told the Westhampnett Tribunal at Chichester of the case of a farmer who applied to the military authorities for help.

“A man was sent to the farm on Friday night, but he left on Saturday morning.

“He was sent as a cowman, stockman, and milker, and turned out to be an electrical engineer who had never worked on a farm.”—”Star,” April 10th, 1917. Who said Business as usual?

* * *

In aid of soldiers blinded in the war a bazaar was a short time ago held at the Royal Albert Hall. Now functions of this order are not arranged for we wage slaves. No, indeed not ! Were we to absent ourselves from work, even on such an occasion as this when royalty were in attendance, doubtless we should be confronted with a notice informing us that in this time of crisis and national emergency it is highly unpatriotic to leave our masters’ business and that such a serious dereliction of duty was punishable under the D.O.R.A. And so it came to pass on the appointed day that many of the parasites of society did foregather in order to raise the wind for “our heroes blinded in the war” and whom a grateful country will ne’er forget (?) 

Now let me quote :

“Many Royal ladies are to assist in the selling. Princess Victoria has valuable lace and a wonderful fan worth £30 to offer, Princess Louise will sell Peking loot, coloured glass, a Chinese shawl, and an inlaid escritoire, Princess Beatrice presides over children’s garments, while the Princess Royal and her daughter, Princess Maud, will sell lingerie of the most lovely description. The great attraction at the Duchess of Somerset’s stall is potatoes.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” May 7th, 1917.

“Loot,” Ikey, my boy, “Loot” ! Now “loot,” according to the lexicographers is: “booty; plunder ; especially such as is taken in a sacked city.” If the purveyor of this said “loot” had been the Crown Prince, whose thieving activities we have heard so much about of late, one could understand this reference; but one shudders at the mention of Princess Louise.

* * *

The “Daily Chronicle” (8.5.17) had an editorial article on Food Rationing, and towards the close it dealt with the subject of the destruction of the house sparrow, advocated by the Board of Agriculture. By deleting the words “house sparrow” from the sentence and substituting the word “capitalist” we obtain a fine definition of that type of individual. It would then read as follows :

“The capitalist is undoubtedly a pest; he has few virtues ; he is virtually a parasite on man ; like a true parasite, he purloins much and serves us little; and all the characteristics which he has developed in the course of his denaturalised existence—his harsh voice, his quarrelsome manners, his filthy and untidy nest—mark his degeneration from the standards of true social (text wild-bird) life.”

We Socialists claim that the capitalist is unnecessary. To-day we have social production with individual ownership of the means of producing wealth and the product of our toil resulting therefrom. We suggest, therefore, the elimination of this parasite by an intelligent working class understanding its position in society, and working for the complete overthrow of the existing order of things through the conquest of political power, and the conversion of these individually owned means of wealth production into socially owned for the well being of all. Then we can commence the era of peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

* * *

The “glories of war” : Potatoe queues ; sugar queues ; margarine queues. The question of sugar is an interesting theme and affords a good object lesson of the methods of our “Business Government.” From the Northcliffe organ I cull the following :

“In certain shops—”The Evening News” has the name of one where it occurred last night—no sugar fit to eat is sold to any customer who does not buy tea.

A quantity of evil-looking sugar, full of black lumps and not without dirt and straw, is offered to customers who do not want tea.”

—”Evening News,” April 28th, 1917.

One is inclined to ask : Have all the public analysts and local medical officers of health gone to the war? Or is it a case of “one good turn deserves another” ?

* * *

An event of great importance to the workers, recently took place. Bearing in mind the scriptural injunction : “Ye cannot serve both God and Mammon,” I observed that that highly-democratic organ of the international working class, the “Weekly Dispatch” (29.4.17) vouchsafed the information that a little family gathering took place at Windsor. The touching story is thus told:

“Our Labour Ministers have had an opportunity during the week of seeing the King at Windsor Castle en famille, and it is gathered that they were delighted at the air of informality which characterised their reception.”

It is further added that Mr. George Barnes was also in the company of the elect, and “it is to be regretted that Mr. and Mrs. Henderson were unavoidably prevented from accepting his Majesty s invitation.” Strange, is it not, that these gentry who rejoice in the fact that one crowned head (the “Little Father,” better known as Bloody Nick) has received the “order of the boot,” are overjoyed at being the guests of another monarch. “By their fruits ye shall; know them” is the standard for measuring their value to the workers struggling to be free.

The “Dispatch” writer sums up this dust-throwing incident by adding :

“To be quite frank, everyone likes to see the King and Queen moving in an informal circle that includes honest, outspoken John Hodge and straight-­forward, plain-speaking George Barnes.”

* * *

The antics of these labour fakirs are excruciatingly funny. In the case of the engineers’ strike Hodge refers to “the irresponsible people of about 25” who, tiring of the dilatory methods of the accredited representatives of the union and the Ministry of Munitions, take matters into their own hands in order to force the pace, and he deplores their action, while on the other hand I read:

“Typists who earn 20s. a week in Government offices and the National Union of Clerks are grateful to Mr. John Hodge, Labour Minister, for complaining of the low wage.

If all the girls were to decline to work any longer for 20s. a week, said Mr. Hodge at Sheffield, what a powerful lever he would have. It would give him the bludgeon necessary to go to the Treasury.

“I am very glad,” said Mr. Herbert H. Elvin, general secretary of the National Union of Clerks, “that Mr. Hodge, as a Minister, has advocated a general strike on the part of women.”

—”Evening News,” April 28th, 1917.

Here we see John Hodge advocating for the women what he condemns in the case of the men. Will Hodge be proceeded against under some regulation of the Defence of the Realm Act, or is such distinction reserved for “people of about twenty-five,” and whose earnings do not yet suffice to support a triple, hodge-podge chin?

* * *

The Government have to blame themselves entirely for the chaotic conditions which they have brought into being in the engineering trades. With the deliberate suppression of news from the storm centres, the cutting off from communication of one section of men with those in other parts of the country, the one sided and meagre reports such as were allowed to be published, all tended to exasperate those concerned. The Munitions Act (Amendment) Bill still before the House, with its purposely ambiguous wording (a common feature of all Bills), also intensified the trouble that was brewing. So complex and incomprehensible is this Bill that the powers that be went to the length of issuing an explanatory poster to reassure the workers that the Bill was not designed to trespass on their hard-won rights as trade unionists, and so on ad nauseam.

From newspaper reports it first appears that Dr. Addison refused to recognise the Shop Stewards Committee, which obviously understands the local conditions better than the Central Executive, but afterwards changes his mind and agrees to see the Shop Stewards’ Committee if they agree to “act in unison with the trade union Executives.” Later we are informed that the Ministry of Munitions replied to the engineers’ delegates, who were in session at Walworth, that: “We shall be glad, if asked to do so by your Executives, to meet them accompanied by yourselves or by any other body your Executives may desire to bring with them, but we cannot receive you under other circumstances.” Then comes the arrest of certain men on a charge of promoting strikes. Commenting on this the “Daily News“ of Saturday (19.5.1917) says :

“A number of the leaders in the engineers’ strike have been arrested, and one more step has been taken by that action on the perilous path down which the Government are being driven. We have never defended this strike. But no one acquainted at all with the circumstances which have led to this dispute, and the real history of how it has been allowed to grow to its present proportions, can doubt where the real responsibility lies for the gloomy prospect with which the whole nation finds itself to-day confronted.

“In respect of most of the men,” says the “Morning Post,” “they have been irritated and worried by the authorities. The fact is, the Ministry of Munitions have made a sad business of it ; and the sooner the Government recognise the fact the better.”

Evidently “the fact” has been recognised by the Government at last, and a meeting has taken place at which Lld. George attended and at which what appears to be a temporary peace was arranged.

* * *

The Archbishop of Canterbury has authorised special prayers for “God’s blessing on the crops and the fruits of the earth in this time of sowing,” runs an announcement in the Press. Then follows a passage from the prayer telling the All-knowing that we have some Allies and some ships which the Archbishop wants protected. It is to be hoped that the recording angel has duly noted this petition.

* * *

The King has been on tour and at one of the works he visited we are informed in all seriousness that he “clocked on” as if he were an ordinary employee. Doubtless after seeing other people work he “clocked off,” and was duly thankful that his lot had been cast in smoother places.

* * *

“One of the liveliest and noisiest meetings in Glasgow for many years was that held last night when Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P., Pensions Minister, met with a distinctly hostile reception on the occasion of his addressing his constituents in the Blackfriars Division.” (“Daily News,” 12.4.17.) The storm in the tea-cup was over this gent’s reference to “veritable weeds” in the House on the Pensions problem. He now regretted having used the phrase as it seemed to indicate a lack of sympathy on his part.

Mr. Barnes need not worry his guts into fiddle-strings over this matter. Far from indicating a lack of sympathy on his part, his whole handling of the Pensions problem has shown him to be a very sympathetic man—but his sympathy is reserved, not for disabled soldiers, broken in the war, but for those who pay him for it—the blood-reeking masters.

* * *

The War Office recently announced its intention of opening two new groups for attestation, the age limit being from 41 to 50 years. A kind of Derby Scheme is thus once again in operation, with the promise of an armlet slightly different in design from that issued in the earlier campaign, for those who hurry along and volunteer. According to figures given in the Press there is quite a large amount of recruitable material. This card waits to see how many respond to the call. What a fine opportunity is now presented to those who a short time ago were dying to enlist were they within the age limit. Having urged the younger men to hasten forth to battle for King and Country, it is now up to them to honour the obligation they were prepared to impose upon others.

* * *

“Nine British soldiers are dying every hour.”—Gen. Baden-Powell. But, “There are worse things than bloodshed.”—Windy Churchill.

The Scout.

Thoughts at the Pictures. (1929)

From the September 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

We thought our town was well supplied with cinemas, but three months ago another opened. This was really a grand affair, with everything right up to recent date. There was a beautiful copper dome, surmounting an artistic tiled front, and when all the lights were twinkling and reflected in the small lake before the building, it was like a dream palace. And then you walked through the polished doors and up the marble stairs,, helping yourself along with the heavy brass handrails until you came to the paybox. Here stood an ambassador (I am sure he was an ambassador, for he was covered in gold lace), who always made the same mistake. He always assumed that we were either American oil-kings or else ex-sergeant-majors, for he immediately called out, “Seats at 5/9, 3/6 and 2/4.” He never mentioned the 6d. and 1/- ones. He made us feel somewhat cheap, but we found he was paid to do that and thus increase his master’s takings, so we paid our shillings and went in. And inside ! What a vision ! To the great majority of people in our town, whose homes are furnished by Tallyman, Gombeen and Tick, Ltd , and decorated by Woolworth’s, the new cinema must appear the last thing in the palatial. Gilt and tinsel, plush and velvet, silken curtains and orange glow-lamps, all go to make the nearest approach to fairyland most of us have ever known. There was a cinema organ capable of making 591 different kinds of noise. I will not venture to express my own ill-balanced and highly prejudiced opinion of it, but will simply state that the majority of my fellow citizens were brought into a state of ecstasy by it. And then there was the orchestra of about twenty musicians. I mention this feature last, because we were assured that it was a highly efficient body under the baton of the well-known conductor, Mr. So-and-So. One must admit that when they played music they were a joy, a pure, unrestrained joy, but when they introduced those orgies of hoots, squeals and death-rattles that are miscalled dance music, they were not a joy.

However, I mention them last for another reason that will be presently apparent. I did not go to the cinema again, because I found that in spite of the fairy-like exterior, the beautiful interior, the organ, the orchestra and all the rest, there appeared upon the screen nothing but the slushiest of slush. One is not entertained by slush.

But there came a day when the owner of the luxurious building informed his “esteemed patrons” and the world at large that, true to the policy of keeping abreast with modern developments, and sparing no expense, he would inaugurate the newest scientific wonder, the talking picture.

So as soon after the opening night as possible, we again paid a visit to the hall of luxury. There were the shaded lights, the marble floor, the painted sky on the ceiling, the courteous attendants as before, and, as we entered, the organ was playing one of the Indian love lyrics. It was not until the great feature, the talking picture, came on, that we noticed a difference. The orchestra had disappeared. Where previously had sat some twenty men in dress suits, producing melody of charm and vigour, there was a boarded expanse, covered with coloured bunting and artificial flowers. Yes ! Gay bunting and paper roses. He had “spared no expense” with a vengeance. It was the tomb of the orchestra. All its members had been sacked. Instead of their merry fiddling, all the noises that are intruded to charm a cinema audience, proceeded from a machine situated in the orchestra’s tomb. I need not tell you what I thought of the film, or of the talkie device, which has obvious wonderful possibilities. But I could not keep my mind from reverting to a little argument I had had with a friend during the day on unemployment.

He had retailed the old, time-worn phrases as to its cause and cure that the Press provides each day for the satisfaction of its readers. He had admitted, willingly admitted, that the introduction of machinery displaced labour, but urged that effect was only temporary as, owing to the cheapening of costs, prices fell, leading to a bigger demand than ever, when the displaced workers were rapidly re-absorbed. I tried to apply this line of reasoning to the sacked orchestra but I am afraid it did not fit. And yet my friend was only saying what the Capitalist Press says. Another statement he retailed from the same source was that men displaced from an industry by the introduction of machinery, eventually found work in the making of that machinery. There seemed to be a flaw in this reasoning, too. I could not conceive of those twenty musicians selling their instruments in a glutted market, and setting out to find the place where the wonderful talkie machines are made, in the hope that their skill as makers of melody would avail them as makers of machines. Had they been so exceedingly simple as to act upon those lines, it is quite possible they would have been unable to get near the factory for crowds of other musicians similarly made redundant, and crowds of real engineers already seeking employment.

Another argument he used, or rather quoted, was that unemployment was caused by cheap foreign labour. And yet these machines were the product of highly-paid American labour. I heard later that a British talkie is now being marketed costing but a third of the American product. Even this information did not seem to me to be of great comfort to the starving musician. Whether the machine was made by labour aristocrats or sweated coolies, the effect on the musician seemed the same. However, thinking over these things interfered with my appreciation of the film, and as my friend was not there I could not ask him to explain his ingenious theories in the presence of the awkward facts. I must recommend him to make a little study of the case of the cinema musician and his sudden and dramatic displacement by the machine, and then go over his theories over again. Perhaps he will see that the reason the musicians are sent out to starve, whilst a machine does their work, is because the cinema is privately owned and it is to the interest of the proprietor to substitute a cheaper music maker if he can, for he thus enlarges the amount of his profit. It is nothing to him that the human musicians starve if they cannot find a hirer. He will tell them he is not a philanthropic institution. He is not in business for the good of his health or the good of his employees. If they are wise, they will take him at his word. He is not in business for their benefit. Then they must see that the private ownership of their means of livelihood is incompatible with their good. They will see further, that the whole of this society of ours is run upon the same basis, and that their unemployment is not to be distinguished from unemployment in general. Their problem is only part of the whole problem, and the whole problem can only be solved by a universal remedy. We say that the only remedy suggested, so far, that has stood every sort of criticism, is Socialism. All our means of livelihood are privately owned, and all of us workers are liable to be sent packing whenever our hirers can find a cheaper substitute. How long are we going to stand it? Why should we not own our own means of livelihood? Why should a relatively small and parasite class dictate to the vast mass of people when they shall work and when not? Let us take possession of the things that are vital to our very existence. We make them, we operate them, we repair them and renew them. We do everything but own them. Without us the whole of the machinery in the world, beautiful as it is, clever as it is, ingenious as it undoubtedly is, is so much junk. Let us make the land, the factories, the machines and the tools of production, common property, and then perhaps, instead of a machine making men into paupers, we shall welcome every machine that lightens labour, for it will bring us holidays and increased leisure. The system wherein the means whereby all live are commonly owned and administered, is called Socialism. That is what we are aiming at, and we want a million workers to say definitely they want it, and are prepared to help get it. Will you be one?

W. T. Hopley

The economics of social amusement. - Part 2 (1925)

From the February 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

PART II.

To-day, under the fully ripened rule of capitalist production, the public amusements are in close organic relation with existing social conditions, just as was the case in previous historical periods.

All the institutions of entertainment and recreation—including the public games, football, baseball, boxing, and horse racing—are thoroughly organised on a capitalist basis. They are owned and controlled by private property owners with no other object in the main than financial profit. To-day the professional player who once occupied but a minor rôle now covers practically the whole field. The great majority of the players both in the theatres and in the sports are wage-workers. Exploitation and oppression prevails in the production of our most thoroughly enjoyable entertainments just as in any other sphere of industry. The means of amusement have become largely standardised “factory products” and as dependent uppn the fluctuations of supply and demand as any other commodities.

As in other industrial fields, science and machinery have been applied to the production of amusement, especially in the mechanical devices, rides and so on, of the Pleasure Park and in the cinema. The enormous growth and popularity of motion-pictures is one of the striking phenomena of our times. It has become of all forms of popular amusement the one peculiarly characteristic of the latest phase of industrialism; In the cinema industry, which is claimed as the third in point of size in the United States, vast quantities of capital have been invested. It is organised internationally and the market for its products is the whole world.

* * *

Summing up the above, then, we may say that the public amusements under capitalism have lost all trace of their once intimate connection with social tradition, with communal, religious, or political life. We no longer attend the dance, the games, or the theatre as a rite, as a religious duty, or as a social function. The bourgeoisie of to-day have their own strictly class amusements and relaxations, and these to some extent retain social, and even political, characteristics. But the great popular games and entertainments with which we are here concerned are purely commercial in their methods and aims, and when an individual desires diversion and can pay for it he goes to the place where it is for sale and buys as much as he can afford or cares for.

Nevertheless, the social amusements occupy a place of greater prominence than possibly at any time in the past, and certainly they absorb the permanent labours of a far larger proportion of the population and cater for an immensely greater audience. The primary organisations for amusement are now permanent instead of being temporary and periodic. Every large city has its scores, its hundreds, or its thousands of theatres and cinema-houses—many open every day in the year. Here, then, is proof that, in spite of having shed their traditional character, these institutions draw their vitality from some deep social necessity and are a response to an insistent social demand.

Let us consider the manner of life of the masses of the people in modern communities. The great majority are workers engaged in the production and distribution of wealth. Destitute of property, they sell their natural energy to the owners of capital. They have no control over their labour and no interest in its product. The peasant, even when a tenant, has an interest in the land and its products that is unknown to the industrial worker. In the highly organised spheres of production the labour of the workers is machine-regulated to a degree of monotony never before known. The machine has ousted the craftsman, so that the “joy of workmanship” exists to-day only as a rare and curious survival. The typical worker in the most technically developed industries is the machine-feeder—the man at the power-press, punching holes in a metal sheet—all exactly alike—so many per minute—all day—for hundreds of days.

Even outside the workshop, the worker’s life is a monotonous routine. Home-life and comfort is more of an ideal than a fact. Living in the ugly congested areas of the great cities, he has little opportunity for healthy exercise in the open or of invigorating contact with the glory of beauty of Nature. His poverty will not allow him any really elevating luxuries, and the continuous round of exhausting and degrading toil leaves him with neither the energy nor the desire for self-education or for artistic or scientific pursuits. His life is like a narrow groove running in a perpetual circle; habit and ignorance make him fearful of changing the groove, and even when he does so he discovers that in general all the circles open to him are very much alike. Moreover, he cannot afford to take chances—he may have a family dependent on his regular wage, and in any case the prospect of unemployment is no enviable one. Occasionally, here and there a worker kicks, succeeds in breaking the circle and achieves a precarious life of greater freedom, excitement and variety as a tramp or a criminal; but the ideal of the mass of the workers necessarily is—a permanent or “steady” job, which almost inevitably spells inescapable monotony.

But this is not all. The lives of the toilers have always been narrow, drab, and monotonous. But to the slave or the serf, and even the peasant of our own day, the world itself was a relatively small place, often not much larger than the village or district in which he lived.

To-day, however, the whole world has been knit together by commerce and communications, and the horizon of knowledge has been enormously extended to include every land and every race and nation. Modern literature opens up for the reader the whole world, and describes—if only superficially—every part of the earth, every class in society, and every period of the past. Even the penny newspaper brings us news from “the ends of the earth.”

By contrast, then, with what the imagination can offer, the real everyday life of the mass of the population to-day appears vastly meaner, duller, and narrower than ever it did in the past. The imagination has been stimulated, and a yearning for variety, beauty, colour, and excitement produced which in real life can find no outlet, no satisfaction. Hence the widespread efforts to escape from reality into the boundless world of fiction and romance, and hence the enormous consumption of romantic literature and the fascination of millions by the “movies.” Naturally, it is the adolescent and young people who are primarily affected—youth is the period of romantic visions, but there are no restrictions of age in the drawing power of the cinema. Once the habit of seeking emotional stimulus in the “movies” has become rooted, it becomes almost a necessity of existence, as anyone can discover by a few minutes’ conversation with a “movie-fiend.”

Doubtless the thirst for thrills and the desire to escape from deadening reality is as readily satisfied by the stage-drama and the novel, but the motion-picture has peculiarities that make it well fitted to be the most popular vehicle to this end. It tells its story in visual pictures instead of verbal description, it can be exceedingly vivid and convincing, and it is cheap and easily accessible. The cinema demands less mental energy than reading, requires less imagination than the drama, and calls for only a small amount of intelligence. It is therefore eminently adapted to the recreational and imaginative needs of a population starved of beauty and intellectually stunted by over-work and mal-education.

The cinema has thus become the popular entertainment of capitalism par excellence. Its development is so immense that it even threatens the regular theatre with near extinction. Its audience is the most gigantic in the world’s history. Its statistics are almost incredible. In 1920 the estimated number of picture-theatres in the United States was 17,000, and the daily attendance ten millions. The figures for the British Isles in the same year were 5,000 picture-theatres with an average daily attendance of six millions—the attendance having almost doubled in three years. As far back as 1917, the attendance for the year in the British Isles was well over one thousand millions (“Ency. Britt"., new vol. 30).

The social influence of the cinema, and its value in direct propaganda, is immense. In its indirect influence in fostering and inculcating all the mental habits and moral ideals of the bourgeoisie, in cultivating a worship of wealth and luxury, and an unthinking response to nationalist sentiment, its effect upon the minds of the workers is pernicious in the extreme, doing much to blind them to the fundamental cause of the very drudgery, degradation, and meanness of life which impels them to seek oblivion and stimulation in the glamour of the film.

We shall not here discuss the artistic level and possibilities of the cinema. It is sometimes claimed that it has a brilliant artistic future, and this may be so. One thing, however, must be insisted upon, and that is, that the admittedly low artistic standard of the majority of moving-pictures is due first to the low intellectual development of the vast masses of wage-slaves who form their audience, and secondly to the necessity of hiding from this audience the truth about social life. It is not due to the incapacity of this producer or that—the producers are business-men first and “artists” a long way afterwards, and—“what pays goes.”

In conclusion : may we hope for a healthier, more artistic, and more intelligent standard of popular entertainment in the future? The answer is plain. So long as the mass of the people have to endure arduous, monotonous toil and poverty, so long will the present widespread craving for thrills and illusion continue. Existing conditions of labour leave the average workers mentally and physically exhausted and with neither time nor inclination for intellectual or cultural development. While these conditions remain, the prevailing popular forms of diversion will be those which readily stimulate the crudest emotions by the most obvious means and make little call upon the intellect.

While, therefore, it is quite likely that, with the growing revolt against capitalism, a small but increasing section of the population will demand and receive a higher standard of recreation and of dramatic art—such a section of course exists to-day—until capitalism is destroyed, things will remain much as they are or, possibly, for a time, even become worse.

With the re-organisation of society on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, and the consequent disappearance of slavery and drudgery, will come a rebirth of the real spirit of association and conscious co-operation that capitalism has done so much to destroy. Public recreations will become again truly social, and they will be the vivid expression of the joy in life and the fellowship of free and equal men and women. A wider and nobler education will make possible the utilisation of an abundant and increasing leisure to understand and enjoy the titanic, wonderful drama of the universe in which we live. Artificial and hectic amusements and exaggerated melodrama will no longer be necessary in order to make us forget the meanness and narrowness of our lives. Only that art will flourish that genuinely represents the unfettered response of the human mind to the beauty, the wonder, and the tragedy of the Universe and Life.

R.W. Housley

(Conclusion.)

50 Years Ago: The Film Crisis (1999)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “We all thought that the forty-five percent quota and the promise of other measures to come . . . heralded a new day for British Film Production . . . How wrong we were. The business of making Britain’s films has not been so unstable since the crisis of eleven years ago. Equally therefore the employment of A.C.T. technicians has never during the same period been so uncertain . . .” 

Thus reads the editorial of “The Cine-Technician” for November-December, 1948, and this is indeed not one wit an exaggeration of the position confronting workers in the film industry today. It indicates (in admirable fashion) the hopes and aspirations of workers which have been ruthlessly smashed against the bedrocks of capitalism which constitute the film industry—as indeed all industry. It is estimated that sixteen out of twenty-seven feature studios are idle with an unemployment figure of twenty-five percent of all personnel, whilst those retaining their jobs know just what a serious threat is presented to wages and conditions when negotiations on a new agreement between unions and employers commence in April this year.

Those who thought film making was in some measure “different” from other sections of industry were rudely awakened by the same old demand last year to cut costs, stop up output and increase efficiency. The first strong protest against the worsening conditions was the Denham film strike of November, 1948, following the issue of notices to ninety-two employees. The union executives refused to back the strike which lasted three days and failed to prevent the majority of these workers being dismissed.

(From an article by “FILM WORKER”, Socialist Standard, April 1949)

Rationalisation and Unemployment. (1929)

From the June 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

We were amused last year when the Government started to solve the problem of the 250,000 out-of-work miners by transferring them from the mining areas where there are no vacant jobs, to those places where there are vacant jobs. This would have been simplicity itself if there had been any such places, though in that event it would not have been necessary to set up an Industrial Transfer Board to coax the unemployed man to seek the vacant job. Some 20,000 have been transferred, and nobody knows how many of these have been thrust into jobs which were not vacant.

We suspect, however, that the politicians responsible for that venture were not greatly concerned about its success or failure. While it was useful for election purposes, the existence of an unemployed army of a million or so does not, and need not, cause sleepless nights to the Capitalist class or their politicians as long as the workers in the main, whether in work or out, accept as a necessity the Capitalist system of which unemployment is but one feature.

There are, however, many people whose sympathy for the unemployed is beyond question, but whose remedies for the problem contain just that same silly fallacy. They treat each industry or each country as if the workers in it alone suffered from unemployment. By disregarding the same problem due to the same causes in every other industry and country, they are then able easily enough to solve the problem by the simple device of transferring the unemployed in industry A to industries B, C, and D, and by emigrating the surplus population of country Z to countries X and Y.

The Unemployed Miners.

The Labour Party proposes to put the mining industry on its feet again by nationalising and reorganising it. The elimination of wasteful and inefficient methods, both on the productive and marketing sides, will enable it to regain its lost world markets and develop new ones, including the supply of coal for the manufacture of bye-products. This is the theory.

Our first criticism is that competing mining industries in Europe and America are busily doing the same thing, and the relative position of each will be more or less the same after the process as it was before. Each will be more efficient and all will be faced with the same problems as now.

The main point is that greater efficiency does not solve the problem of unemployment.

Between September, 1924, and September, 1928, the number of miners employed decreased from 1,082,340 to 859,259, and over that period the output per man shift rose from 17.33 cwts. to 21.13 cwts.

Thus the fall in numbers employed far exceeded a fall in total output. (See Ministry of Labour Gazette, February, 1929.)

The Bulletin of the International Management Institute (Geneva, June, 1928) gives an illustration of the similar effects of rationalisation in a German group of mines. Between 1924 and 1927 the output per man rose by 60 per cent., the total coal output and sales rose by 10 per cent. and the number of men employed fell by 31 per cent. from 6,942 men in 1924 to 4,815 men in 1927. More work done by fewer workers. Unemployment resulting from greater efficiency.

Mr. Baldwin, speaking at Cardiff on May 15th, stated that the output per man in the South Wales mines “was 18 per cent. more than in a good year before the war.” (“The Times,” May 16th.)

Then Mr. H. N. Brailsford, after observing this process at work in America, offers his contribution towards a solution. Writing in the “New Leader” (January 4th, 1929), he suggested a simple remedy. If, he says, we develop the “home market,” this would

create a call for labour, especially in agriculture, which would soon absorb the surplus thrown idle by the progress of rationalisation (notably the miners).

So the miners “rationalised” out of the mines must go on the land. Good !

Putting the miners on the land.

But if Mr, Brailsford had looked a little further afield in the U.S.A., he would have observed that, owing to various causes, not ably “rationalisation,” the number of men forced out of U.S.A. agriculture is enormous. The March, 1928, issue of the Review of the National City Bank of New York states that during 1926 alone, “the net movement from agriculture to the cities . . was approximately 1,000,000.” Nevertheless, the supply of wheat is in excess of effective demand, and wheat growers have been faced with the “greatest slump of recent years.” (See “Manchester Guardian,” May 9th.) The New York correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” (May 22nd) said that the only solution for this glut was a “poor harvest” this year.

In this country we have been told that the decline in wheat and other arable cultivation can be offset by the development of dairy farming. This in itself means a vast decrease in the number of men per acre, as arable land is put under grass.

The effect of rationalisation in agriculture is the same as in any other industry, and the same in every branch. To take one instance alone, the ordinary farm milk-hand can milk and attend to 8 or 10 cows. Mr. R. Borlase Matthews, the noted writer on agriculture, tells us (“The Times,” June 6th, 1927) that with electric power and mechanical milking machines 150 cows can be tended by 3 men, whereas without these mechanical aids at least 15 would be needed. Thus the farmer increases the productivity of the farm and sacks some farm hands.

Agricultural Productivity.

The output of agriculture in England and Wales in 1925 was £225 million.

After allowing for price changes, this was the same as in 1908. (See “Agricultural Output of England and Wales, 1925,” Cmd. 2815, p.78.)

In the meantime, there had been a great decrease in the number of persons employed in agriculture and a great increase in the use of machinery.

Owing to changes in method of compiling statistics comparable figures are not available, but the decrease in persons was almost continuous and was very large. The following figures are taken from official sources and are reproduced in “Land and the Nation" (p. 146). This is the Rural Report of the Liberal Land Committee.

Between 1911 and 1921 the number of men and boys over 15 fell from 1,267,000 to 1,212,000. (These figures include farmers, small-holders, etc.) The decrease between 1871 and 1921 was 154,000. Between 1908 and 1913 the number of employees (excluding farmers’ sons, etc.) fell from 722,000 to 651,000. And between 1921 and 1924 the number of employees (including farmers’ sons, etc.) fell from 859,000 to 802,000. (See “Land and the Nation,” p. 146.)

The number of young men fell by 16 per cent. between 1924 and 1928 (Sir Daniel Hall in “Daily Telegraph,” January 24th, 1929).

On the other hand, the number of agricultural engines in use in England and Wales rose from 17,331 in 1908 to 83,535 in 1925. (See “Agricultural Output,” p. 108.)

Petrol or oil engines rose from 6,911 to 56,744 in the same period.

What about Denmark?

Mr. T. Shaw, Minister of Labour in the Labour Government, wrote in the “Morning Post” (February 18th) setting out his views on unemployment. He saw the solution in rationalising agriculture and making it efficient in all its branches, like agriculture in Denmark. How futile is the remedy is shown by the figures of unemployment in that country. The Ministry of Labour Gazette for January shows that the percent age of unemployment in Denmark on November 30th (the latest figure available) was no less than 17.6 per cent. as compared with 11.7 per cent. in this country.

Conditions in America.

Then we have “experts” here and in the U.S.A. who tell us that this increased productivity and consequent reduction of staff in productive industry and agriculture need not disturb us, because the displaced men will find work in commercial and financial occupations. Thus, Mr. Herbert Hoover explains in the Fifteenth Annual Report of the U.S.A. Secretary of Commerce, how the men displaced from industry have been absorbed in “distribution” and in “professional” and “personal” services. This would be a plausible explanation of the absence of unemployment in the U.S.A. if, in fact, unemployment were absent. Unfortunately, there is heavy unemployment, and what is required is a theory explaining the existence of unemployment, not a theory explaining its non-existence.

The American Federation of Labour reported early last year that 18 per cent. of its members were out of work, and that on this basis they estimated unemployment amounting in all to six million (“Daily Telegraph,” April 3rd, 1928).

In this country we have Lord Ebbisham, President of the Federation of British Industries, admitting that rationalisation in the productive industries produces unemployment, but assuring us that the men relieved of jobs can go into commerce, finance and marketing. (See “Morning Post,” January 14th.)

Put the landworkers behind the counter.

So our miners who have been placed on the land by Mr. Brailsford, and then rationalised off the land, must look for salvation in the banks and the distributive trades.

Lord Ebbisham, when making this statement, of course overlooked the fact that there is already 6.4 per cent. of unemployment in the distributive trades (See Ministry of Labour Gazette, April), and that the recent rapid extension of the use of automatic machines of a large type has brought forth protests from shop assistants and small shopkeepers that their livelihood is being threatened still further. Recent amalgamations of big departmental stores have been accompanied by considerable economies in staff. In addition, it must be remembered that small shopkeepers, crowded out by the stores, are not entitled to un employment pay, and so will, in many cases, not register as unemployed.

What shall we do with the Bank Clerks?

And the Bank Clerks are also playing this great game of General Post. They, too, are being “rationalised.”

Mechanical ledger-posters and other machines are being installed with the result not only that staffs will be decreased, but scales of pay also. Mr. Clegg, President of the Bank Officers’ Guild, anticipates the reorganisation of the bank staffs in two grades, “the administrative being a small, well-paid body, chiefly of directors’ nominees, and the clerical a large and not well-paid body.” (“The Times,” May 20th, 1929.)

Two of the five big Joint Stock Banks have already decided on complete mechanisation, and the others are expected to follow suit in the immediate future. The “Daily Express” (May 8th) sums up the position in the following words : –

 The bank clerks of past generations will disappear and machine hands will take their place. . . . Bank clerks are naturally apprehensive. The introduction of the new machines opens up the prospect of wholesale unemployment.

In an interview reported in the same issue, the Secretary of the Bank Officers’ Guild told a “Daily Express” representative that

  two girls can easily perform the work of five or six men with the help of the machine …. The Midland Bank already has a considerable surplus staff as a result of the adoption of mechanical methods.

Let us all be Civil Servants.

But this problem, too, has been “solved.” In August last year, the “New Leader” had been explaining how the I.L.P. proposed to nationalise and make more efficient the banks of this country. A correspondent had claimed that “enormous economies could be effected.” This led to a Bank Clerk’s wife writing to ask what was going to happen to the bank clerks whose jobs were economised out of existence. (“New Leader,” August 24th, 1928.)

The Editor of the “New Leader” replied that the bank clerk’s wife need not worry, because the redundant staff “could usefully be incorporated in the Civil Service, which would require to be extended by the development of social activity in many directions.”

So our miner, after a brief sojourn down on the farm, and a briefer passage through a bank, will land eventually in the Civil Service, somewhat puzzled, but doubtless still trusting in the wisdom of his various leaders and still hopeful of a permanent resting place soon.

What shall we do with the Civil Servants?

It is, however, hardly necessary to add that the replacement of men by machines, and their displacement owing to the elimination of wasteful methods, goes on just as inevitably in the Civil Service. Foot-postmen are being replaced by a smaller number of motor-cyclists and motor-vans; the indoor handling of parcels is economised by the use of mechanical conveyors ; automatic telephone exchanges make the employment of telephone operators less and less necessary. For many years the total volume of old and new varieties of work in the Post Office has been increasing more rapidly than the size of the staff. The output per head is rising just as in the mines, and factories generally. The constant extension of Post Office work is offset by the increased demands made on the workers–and the machinery which is revolutionising banking is also being introduced into Government Departments.

The Conservative Government stated their intention of appointing a Civil Service Royal Commission to enquire into various questions. “The Times” then pointed out that

  there are many members of the House of Commons who believe that an inquiry of this kind might lead to a reduction in the number of civil servants (26 April, 1929).

So that prospects in the Civil Service look no more rosy than outside.

The Films and the "Talkies.”

Then we find our old friend Lord Ebbisham going a step further in his study of the problem. On Wednesday, May 1st, he addressed the Federation of British Industries on the trade prospects. He said that the falling-off in the pre-war basic trades had been offset by expansion in distribution services.

  Then there was the increased demand for entertainment and amusement, resulting largely from the post-war reduction in hours of employment. (Report in Times, 2 May, 1929.)

So now our ex-miner farmhand-bank-clerk-Civil Servants are to pin their hopes on the entertainment industry. The first objection is that although shorter hours may increase the time available for going to cinemas and theatres this is not of much use to unemployed men, who cannot afford the price of entry. But what is more to the point is that rationalisation is vigorously attacking the entertainment industry too. The percentage of unemployment in “Entertainments and Sports” is 11.1 per cent. (See Ministry of Labour Gazette, April.) Theatres are complaining more and more of their inability to compete with cinemas, and for many years now the unemployment among actors and variety artistes has been appalling. The latest development – the “talkies” – has spread consternation among the cinema musicians as cinema after cinema dispenses with its orchestra. The “Evening News” (April 30th) contained the following : –

  While all the talkie-talkie among the moneyed friends and the equally well-to-do opponents of the voice film is going on, there is a silent and melancholy drama happening in London.

 Cinema musicians are, orchestra by orchestra, being told to pack up their bows and violins, their ‘cellos, and all the rest and take formal notice of “the sack.” Most of them are accomplished players to whom the cinema seemed to promise a lifetime of steady work.

  Now the majority, scrapped by the talkie, do not know where bread and butter is to come from a few weeks hence.

  An orchestra recently played, brilliantly, behind closed doors a record for a British talkie that, when it is developed in America and sent back here for exhibition, will throw that same orchestra out of its job, and will circulate all over the country and similarly displace other orchestras.

The Musicians’ Union held a meeting to discuss the question on Wednesday, May 15th (See “Evening Standard” of that date.) Here it was pointed out that the new methods had the effect not only of causing unemployment, but also of lowering the salaries of those who succeeded in keeping their jobs. An official of the Union also made a very telling point. The Home Office have, in the past, kept alien musicians out of the country on account of unemployment. The official said : –

  An alien musician throws only one British musician out of work ; one ‘talkie’ may put a hundred out of work.

It is true, of course, that the declining demand for cinema actors and actresses who have not suitable voices is offset by the demand for others who have, but, in America, the home of the movies, unemployment is already widespread among actors. In January it was stated that there were nearly 9,000 unemployed in New York alone.

Miss Lya de Putti, the famous film star, also points out (“Evening Standard,” May 20th) that

  as crowds are not required in many talking films, “extras,” too, are being thrown out of work in hundreds.

Mr. Lawrence Wright, in a letter to the “Morning Post” (May 20th) on the “talkie” threat to the employment of musicians in the 10,000 cinemas of this country, stated that the “talkies” in the U.S.A. had “precipitated the most shocking unemployment among musicians in America.”

Good news for cigarette makers. 

The next move is obviously with Lord Ebbisham. One thing, however, he must not do. He must not try to put the ex-musicians at work making cigarettes. A representative of the “Daily Telegraph” (May 3rd, 1929) witnessed a demonstration of a new machine installed at the factory of the General Tobacco Co., St. Luke’s, London.

 It was said to be the first of its kind in Great Britain capable of converting tobacco into the finished cigarette—plain or tipped—in five seconds, and at the record speed of 1,200 a minute. Only three persons were required to tend the machine, with an output equal to 700 workers under old methods. Another machine, which was also said to be the first installed in this country, was a cutter run by one man which turned out sufficient material to keep three of the cigarette machines going at the rate of over 200,000 cigarettes an hour.

Having got so far, and while we await further brilliant solutions of the problem, what about making work for the redundant Civil Servants by setting up another department to transfer the unemployed ex-miner-farm-labourer-bank-clerks to the pits, while the Industrial Transfer Board transfers them back again. Then the unemployed musicians can play them along the road, both ways ! One improvement, at least, there promises to be. Mr. Lloyd George’s road schemes would certainly facilitate the movement and counter-movement of the unemployed at the hands of the Transfer Board.

A question for the employers.

When these undeniable facts showing the displacement of labour by machinery are brought to the notice of the employers and the professional apologists for Capitalism, they usually fall back on two arguments.

First they reply that machinery reduces costs and prices, and that lowered prices result in bigger sales, which render unnecessary the dismissal of staff. But their actions do not square with what they profess to believe. Lowered prices will, it is true, generally speaking, result in increased sales, but if the increase were sufficient to require the employment of the whole of the former staff, why do the employers ever dismiss workers when installing labour-saving machines?

The employers could demonstrate their belief in their theory by pledging themselves not to decrease their staff, something they will certainly not do.

Their second argument rests on the belief that when men are displaced by machinery an equal number of additional men are required in the machine-making and allied industries. This ignores the effects of labour-saving also applied in these branches of production. Again the facts belie the theory.

The Ministry of Labour Gazette (April, 1929) reported the following percentages of unemployment at the end of March in industries directly concerned in the making of machinery. Engineering, 8.1 per cent.; Iron and Steel Manufacture, 17.6 per cent.; Tinplate and Steel Sheet industries, 23.7 percent.

The following brief announcement gives point to our contention : –

 Two hundred workers at Dowlais steel-works are on notice to terminate their employment owing to the introduction of new machinery (Daily Herald, May 8th.)

In the cotton industry a new automatic loom is being introduced so simple in its mechanism that one man can operate 25 looms in place of the present average of one man to 4 looms. The new looms will run for an hour or more without attention, and it is recognised that “dislocation of labour conditions would inevitably follow any large scale introduction of such a revolutionary piece of mechanism.” (See “Daily Telegraph” and “Manchester Guardian,” May 13th.) But even should there be a big demand for these and other machines, the existing capacity of the machine manufacturing plants is already well above demand, and they are, in consequence, not working full pressure. In spite of the recent growth of artificial silk production and the resulting demand for machinery, John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd., the textile machinery manufacturers, lament the “deplorably intense competition in the textile machinery industry.” (See 1928 Annual Report, “Observer,” May 12th, 1929.)

The truth is that unemployment is a feature of Capitalism as such, and cannot be solved in one industry or country while Capitalism remains. So long as the Capitalist class own and control the factories, the land, the railways, the cinemas and so forth, they will continue to operate them for profit. They will continue to decide when to have them working and when to close them down. They will decide how many men they will employ and they will go on under the pressure of home and foreign competition reducing costs by installing labour-saving machinery and thus adding to the army of unemployed.

So great is the wealth of the possessing class that their necessities, their luxuries and their charitable gifts leave them with a vast and increasing surplus out of income which they must needs re-invest. The productivity of the wealth-producers increases more rapidly than the spending of the Capitalist class. Goods are left unsold, and more and more wealth is re-invested, thus further increasing the volume of production.

Constantly more wealth is turned out by fewer workers, and the unemployed are compelled to fall back on private and State charity for their subsistence.

No “remedy” for unemployment is worth considering which leaves untouched the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, and leaves the workers dependent for their livelihood on the possibility of goods being sold at a price profitable to their masters. The Socialist remedy is the common ownership of the means and instruments for producing wealth, and the production of goods for the use of the members of society in place of production for sale and private profit. There is no other solution of the unemployment problem.

Edgar Hardcastle