Notes by the Way: The Fabians and the House of Lords (1957)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fabians and the House of Lords

In the Socialist Standard for February, 1907, was an article about the Fabians which opened with a quotation:—

“ The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts."

This little gem had been spoken by Mr. H. Snell, of the Fabian Society.

The writer in the Socialist Standard had appropriate comments to make on this typically Fabian proposal for running other people's lives. He began:—

"So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their ‘Socialism’ is government by bureau, and ‘naturally’ (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. ‘Naturally’ they want the plums. ‘‘Naturally’’ they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing."

Our writer hit the nail on the head when he said the Fabians aimed to occupy the seats of authority and in the course of time many of them had their little hour in the Labour Governments, where they showed that their “superior brains” could no more cope with the chaos of Capitalism than could those they affected to despise, the political aristocrats and the business men.

One of the “reforms” supported by the Fabians was the abolition of the House of Lords. They came to be glad that they hadn't succeeded because it was to be a final refuge for a number of Fabians, including Sidney Webb (who wrote the Fabian tract demanding abolition of the Lords), and Attlee, and of course Mr. Snell, who became Lord Snell of Plumstead in 1931 just about the time two million unemployed were wondering how their Fabian trained leader had managed to get things in such a mess.

Macmillan Must Go!

If we were Labour or Communist vote-catchers we would be campaigning for “Macmillan Must Go!" and telling anyone silly enough to believe it, how successful we had been with our last campaign for u Eden Must Go!"

Since the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904 there have been ten such campaigns for getting rid of a no-good Prime Minister. There have been rather more than ten governments because some of them, after being pushed, pulled or squeezed out have managed to get back again. When we survey the list we marvel at the rich variety. Scots, English, Welsh, and half-American (Churchill); spell-binders like Lloyd-George, and others who didn’t know how to gild the lilies of oratory; philosophical types like Balfour and Asquith and "plain, blunt men" like Baldwin;; semi-Pacifists and war-mongers; business men and professional politicians; the relatively poor and the passing rich; religionists and agnostics; aristocrats and commoners; Tory, Liberal, and Labour.

There are the differences: What of the similarities? They have all had a strange belief that the country was very lucky to have them at the helm. They have all come in generously promising how much better they will make life for the people and have all gone out little lamented.

And what difference has it made in the one thing that ought to be of paramount concern to the workers, the question of establishing Socialism in place of Capitalism? Just no difference at all. That job has yet to be done and it won't matter in the least whether the next Prime Minister who tries to administer Capitalism is Mr. G., or Mr. B., Mr. X or Mr. Y.

“Why We Left the Communist Party”

A group calling themselves the Nottingham Marxist Group, has issued an eight-page leaflet under the above title. As a criticism of the leaders of the British Communist Party from the standpoint of members whose confidence was first shaken by the dethronement of Stalin and then shattered by the Russian Army's onslaught on the Hungarian workers, it is effective enough. But that is all it is. In no way does it justify the claim that the group are Marxist in outlook. Indeed the limited range of their criticism clearly shows that they are not. Their case is against “the politically and morally bankrupt leaders of the Communist Party," but not against the idea of leadership and if it were not for their view that it is in practice impossible to change the leadership they would he working for new leaders in place of the old. They fail to see that a Socialist Party has no use or place for leaders.

They condemn various comparatively recent consequences of dictatorship in Russia and Hungary, but nowhere do they show an understanding of the fact that Socialism is incompatible with dictatorship. They do not explain how it was that they accepted the dictatorship and only woke up to some of its inevitable consequences at a late stage. Above all they do not square their claim to be Marxist with their tacit acceptance of the absurd belief that the Russian dictatorship is Socialism. This ought to have been the central theme of their declaration because every criticism they make stems from the fact that the social organisation in Russia and Hungary is and always has been Capitalism. They do now see that Socialism cannot be imposed by force and they quote from an American Communist journal:—“Socialism . . .  could not be imposed on a country by those means”; but they do not face up to the truth that that was the original, impossible, aim of the Communist group that seized power in Russia, and that dictatorship and a police state were the inevitable outcome of that attempt It was then that the Russian Communists “betrayed” the principles of Socialism, not at some later date, as the pamphlet would have us believe, when the “cult of leadership” was carried to such lengths as to endanger the stability of the dictatorship itself.

The Not-so-Stupid Tory Capitalists

The Hon. William Douglas-Home, writer of successful plays and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate standing on one occasion as a “Progressive Independent," and on another as “Atlantic Charter" candidate, wrote to the Observer (3 January, 1957) advising the Tories to apply in foreign politics the policy they have used so well at home. He described the latter as follows:—

“. . . they never seem to realise that a controlled withdrawal is precisely what they have conducted with considerable skill in domestic policy since the industrial revolution, and that to this policy, and to this policy alone, they owe their survival. Whereas any attempt to preserve the status quo would have resulted in either their total extinction or a revolution, or both.”

Strikes by Hungarian Workers

On January 13 the Russian imposed government of their Hungarian colony announced a new decree imposing the death penalty for a number of acts, many of which would in most countries be regarded as normal trade union and political activities.

The Manchester Guardian (January 14), quoting B.U.P. and Reuter despatches from Budapest, had the following:—

"The death penalty was introduced in Hungary today for anyone calling a strike, damaging factory machinery, or committing  'any kind of offence directed against the State.’ The death sentence could be ordered for distributing leaflets, or for entering a government factory without permission, according to the new regulations, announced in a supplementary paragraph to the martial law declared in December."

The News Chronicle and other newspapers gave similar versions. Only the Daily Worker (January 14) managed to twist this new decree almost out of recognition. They left out the reference to strikes and reported it as:—

“ Death sentences may be imposed on people who ‘ sabotage or interfere in any way with public utilities and other essential enterprises'. "

But if the Hungarian workers in Hungary may now be hanged for striking, Hungarian refugees in Britain have shocked a lot of people by refusing jobs offered to them and by coming out on strike. The Sunday Despatch (January 16) reported:—

"Eighteen refugees walked out of their jobs at St Albans because they were dissatisfied with their pay. They were receiving an average of £7 a week as cooks, waiters, carpenters and farm workers. Mr. G. P. Bannister, manager of the Employment Exchange at St. Albans, said: ’They expected £14 or £15 a week. Most of them want to go to America or Canada'. "

This sort of conduct will get the Hungarians disliked by the employers and before we know where we are we shall hear the Hungarians denounced as unwelcome agitators. Being spirited in demanding the right to strike in Budapest is not at all the same as continuing to behave like that here.

But British workers ought to be delighted that the refugees do not intend to become a source of cheap and servile labour. And if the incident makes British workers more assertive in trying to raise their wages so much the better.

Exodus to Canada

And while the Hungarians pour in the Britishers pour out as fast as they can, Canada-bound for preference. Rhona Churchill, in the Daily Mail (January 8, 1957), made inquiries and these are her conclusions:—

“ Emigrant applications at Canada’s London and Liverpool offices have now reached 20,000 a week.

John Bull Taxpayer has had enough.

Emigration figures had been falling off. Then suddenly the Butler austerity Budget of October, 1955, doubled the numbers, calling at Canadian immigration offices, the Macmillan squeeze Budget of April, 1956, trebled them, and Suez, with its promise of more Budget austerity three months from now, increased them sixfold.

A quarter of a million Britons, tired of being told for ten austere years: ’Belt-tightening today means prosperity tomorrow,' and, finding that tomorrow never comes, are now actively organising their escape, believing that Britain has no sound financial future to offer their children."

But while the exasperated British workers flee from the rigours of “Welfare State" Capitalism to seek paradise in Canada the Canadian Railwaymen were on strike because they too have grievances against their “free enterprise” Capitalism.

Profits and the Ugly Head of Politics

For a century or more business men, stock exchange speculators and economists have recurrently dreamed of a beautiful world in which Capitalism would function “naturally” without being disturbed by politics. The latest is Mr. A. G. Jenkins, City Editor of the Empire News (January 3,1957).

’’So much for the short-term view. Dividend limitation, nationalisation, confiscation and many other 'ations’ loom ahead when politics rears its ugly head, and for the moment this may discourage buyers of industrial ordinary shares."

Mr. Jenkins thinks Capitalism would be nicer without the serpent of politics and other “ations.” He should think again. If there were no political machine to be controlled by the politicians bent on keeping Capitalism going, our class divided society would disintegrate. One “ation” would, indeed, be taken away, but Mr. Jenkins would not be pleased for it is “exploitation," and if there were no exploitation of one class by another there would be no rent, interest or profit, no Stock Exchange, and no City Editors.

Over in Bombay the great Indian iron and steel concern of the Tata Company knows better. They don’t want to rule out politics; on the contrary they have just appealed successfully to the High Court for the right to make contributions to political party funds.

"Mr. Justice Tendolkar allowed a petition by the company for confirmation of alteration in its memorandum enabling it to make such contributions. He said that expenditure by way of donations to political parties could in the long run be economic.

”The petition said the company was at present carrying out a Rs. 750m. (£57m.) expansion programme and any further expansion would depend on Government approval. The company’s prosperity was therefore bound up with the policy of the party in power.”

(Financial Times, 12th January, 1957). 

The Indian Capitalists, who used the nationalist movement to establish themselves as a Capitalist India, learned all the tricks and devices of Capitalist rule practised by the British ruling class.

The Communists and the S.P.G.B.

Letters written to the Daily Worker by members of the S.P.G.B. have been refused publication recently. This is not in itself surprising but the reason given deserves comment. A letter from the Editor, J. R. Campbell (October 10, 1956) included the following:—

“It is true that the Daily Worker does not propose to publish letters dealing with insignificant political bodies like the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Our space is precious and we have to devote it to more important questions.” 

We can imagine the indignation of the Communists if, say the Daily Herald were to give the same reason for not publishing their letters. And of course we can guess that J. R. Campbell (responsible recently for the suppression of reports from Budapest by its own correspondent) may have other reasons for not wanting the Marxist case against his party to be put before his readers.

One small point about Campbell’s letter is that he addressed the S.P.G.B. member as “Dear Friend” and ended it “with best wishes.”

Another letter (January 7, 1957), this time signed “with all good wishes” by the Assistant Editor of the Daily Worker, Mick Bennett, informed our member that “the role and influence of the S.P.G.B. has declined over the years largely because of its conscious deliberate policy of remaining a small sect devoted largely to the theory that until all the working class have been sufficiently educated in Marxism they will not be able to get rid of Capitalism.”

This implies that the S.P.G.B. used to have more influence and was therefore worthy of the notice of Communists but, except on very rare occasions, the Communist Party has always maintained the policy of ignoring the S.P.G.B. and declining debates. But the official reason given for this in the early days was that there was no time or place for discussion because revolution, here and in the world generally, was "just around the corner.” Privately members of the C.P.G.B. were advised to keep away from discussion with the S.P.G.B.

Bennett's letter (in the last sentence quoted above) re-iterates the Communist’s case that Capitalism could be got rid of in speedier ways than by building up a movement of Socialists. What a pity we can't have from him his explanation of the total failure of Communist governments in Russia, Hungary and elsewhere, to get rid of Capitalism and introduce Socialism.

Brotherly Love from a Christian

A reader sends us an article by Pastor W. W. Kirkby. published in the Elim Evangel (December 8, 1956), called “Ambitious Russia,” which sets out to describe the imperialist aims of the Russian Government; including, so the writer says, the conquest of Israel as a main objective.

It is full of the common misconceptions about the social system in Russia (the writer of the article thinks it is Communism and that Marx was responsible for it), and about the driving force behind the Russian Imperialism (the writer naturally fails to recognise that it is like the imperialism of the rest of the Capitalist powers).

One interesting item is an alleged quotation from Karl Marx in which he is made to say that as “loving my neighbour” has not changed the world, “let us see what hatred can do.” (No source is given).

But just to show how different the Christian and his God are the article ends:—

“Four thousand years ago God declared to Abraham, the father of the faithful: 'I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'

. . . That principle has been carried out right down the years, and in the future God’s curse is to fall upon atheistic and ambitious Russia.”

Edgar Hardcastle

The Sinn Fein Policy. (1907)

From the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Policy Foreshadowed.

“I had come to the conclusion that the whole system ought to be met with resistance at every point; and the means for this would be extremely simple: a combination amongst the people to obstruct and render impossible the transport and shipment of Irish provisions; to refuse all aid in its removal; to destroy the highways; to prevent everyone, by intimidation, from daring to bid for grain or cattle if brought to auction under distress (a method of obstruction that had put an end to church tithes before); in short, to offer a passive resistance universally, but occasionally, when opportunity served, to try the steel.”

The above lines were written by John Mitchel in 1847 when the Irish Confederation refused to endorse his policy of immediate resistance to the collection of rents, rates, and taxes. The portion relating to the transport and shipment of Irish goods referred to the exportation of Irish produce in a time when the country was devastated by famine and thousands were dying of starvation.

Parnell’s proposition to the Nationalist members, “to withdraw from the British House of Commons and organise the people in Ireland to resist English rule at every point” was defeated on a vote of the party. The idea of carrying on a campaign of passive resistance to British rule in Ireland is therefore not by any means new, but the Sinn Fein Party is the first party that has attempted to organise the people for this object. It has already succeeded in winning over the youngest and most ardent of the Irish race; it has converted four of the official Nationalist members of Parliament including one of their whips, Sir T. G. Esmonde. At a meeting of the Nationalist Party in the House of Commons it was proposed and seconded that the Party adopt the Sinn Fein policy and withdraw from Westminster. In North Leitrim the member, Mr. Dolan, having embraced the new doctrine, is about to contest the seat against the official Nationalist candidate.

The Movement Realised.

The Sinn Fein Party claim to have a majority in favour of their policy in the County and District Councils in the country, and Mr. Sweetman, chairman of the Meath County Council, at the meeting of councillors from various counties proposed and caused to be discussed at length a resolution to this effect: “that we refuse to collect any more rates or taxes”. Thus we see that the Sinn Fein policy will probably in the future be the method adopted throughout Ireland to resist and if possible destroy the domination of “the thrice accursed British Empire”.

What is the nature and origin of the Sinn Fein movement? The words Sinn Fein mean “ourselves alone”, and those who are acquainted with Ireland know that within the last ten years a movement was set on foot for the restoration of the Irish language, customs, industries, music and art; started and organised  by the Gaelic League it was at first strictly non-political and non-sectarian, its ultimate object was an Irish Ireland, everything in language, clothing, manner and sport which was not originally Irish was banned and ridiculed, and the offenders were termed “Shoneens”, “Flunkeys”, and “West Britons”. The Gaelic League was a decided success and it did not exist long before it had a political party formed independent of all others and having for its object “Ireland a Nation”, not in the sense of a British colony, but independent of all external authority. This party was formed on the same basis as Wolfe Tone a century ago formed the “United Irishmen”, and like Tone it wanted “to unite Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter under the common name of Irishman”. “Our independence must be had at all hazards; if the men of property will not support us they must fall; we can support ourselves by the aid of that numerous and respectable class of the community, the men of no property”. Thus we see the Sinn Fein Party is the child of the Irish education movement, and is alluded to by the Parliamentarians as the “crowd of intellectuals”, “armchair agitators”, etc.

It sees the Futility of Compromise…

The Sinn Fein Party is now possessed of several weekly journals that voice its views. It has also published a large number of pamphlets that have aided considerably in bringing the Party to its present position. In their weekly journals the Sinn Feiners riddle the arguments of the Parliamentarians, they point to the fact that in 1847 the population of Ireland was 9 millions, while today it is about 4 millions after over half a century of labour on the “flure of the House”. That the Land Acts were fraudulent and did not even touch the question of the poverty problem, that a Liberal Government is now in office but not officially pledged to Home Rule; in short, that the Nationalist Party is ineffective as a weapon against British misrule in Ireland.

The Sinn Fein Party propose the immediate withdrawal from Westminster of the 82 Irish members and that the £30,000 now annually spent in maintaining this useless weapon be spent in sending consuls to foreign countries to open up markets for Irish goods. That all monies invested in the banks of Ireland at the present time be withdrawn and a People’s Bank be formed to lend money and transact all business at interest to cover only the cost of management. That a National Stock Exchange be formed in Dublin. That the people refuse to pay rent, rates, or taxes, and that the County Councils and other such bodies responsible refuse to collect same. That, if possible, no articles from which the British Government derives a revenue be consumed by the people. That the money saved in rent, rates, and administration be used in fixing machinery and starting the disused mills and factories, to revive dying industries and introduce new ones. That, in short, by common consent, by means of duly elected members or a general council of the County and District Councils the people of Ireland will refuse to recognise English law, authorities, or customs, and that henceforth Ireland shall be ruled only by the will of the people of Ireland.

Some of the chief spokesmen of this movement are large land owners and capitalists. Mr. John Sweetman owns a large tract of land in C. Meath, is a county councillor, railway director, etc. Edward Martyn is a landowner of County Galway, a J. P. and the exact reflex of the English capitalist. Sir T. G. Esmonde, Bart, M.P., is a bank director, railway director, and landlord. These and many other connected with the Sinn Fein movement give as their principal reason for supporting it the insecurity of their stock, the railways are not making any profit worth speaking of, the canals are idle, and so on.

… But is itself Futile.

From this it is quite evident that if the Sinn Fein movement succeeds profits are intended to rise at the expense of the Irish worker. The Irish capitalist class is still to remain the proud possessor of the land, factories, mills, railways, etc., and readers of this journal know what that means for the poor wretches employed.

The proud boast of the Sinn Fein Party is that Hungary was placed in much the same position as under Austria as Ireland is under England, and that when Hungary established her independence in exactly the same manner as the Sinn Fein movement proposes Ireland should, her trade increased by leaps and bounds, her population increased and new industries were developed, yet we know that today the Magyar is as much a slave as ever, and that there are in Hungary workhouses, prisons, asylums, unemployed, and all the other characteristics of the capitalist system. We know that the trade of Great Britain was greater last year than ever before, and that last year was nevertheless for the workers a year of great unemployment, poverty and privation. Even regarding the present success of the Sinn Fein movement it may be pointed out that the prospect differs vitally from that of Hungary in the important fact that Hungary was almost the equal in population and strength of Austria, and so was able to command political success. Hungary was also helped by the important tactical position it occupied as a barrier against Russian and Turkish advance. But as far as the condition of the people is concerned the Hungarian worker is not one whit better off than the Irish worker, whilst emigrants from Hungary may be counted by the hundred thousand, by whom, it is evident, the foreign exploiters are found at least no worse than the Hungarian masters from whom they flee.

For only Socialism can help the Workers.

In view of these facts it is our duty to warn our fellow-workers in Ireland of the futility of the Sinn Fein policy as far as they are concerned. There can be no relief for the oppressed Irishman in changing an English robber for an Irish one. The person of the robber does not matter—it is the fact of the robbery that spells misery. National divisions are a hindrance to working-class unity and action, and national jealousies and differences are fostered by the capitalists for their own ends.

The crowd of hungry “intellectuals” clamouring for jobs both within and without the Irish parliamentary party do not represent the interests of the working class in Ireland. They do not, indeed, profess to favour other than capitalist interests, provided that the landlord or capitalist be Irish, but the Irish capitalist is in no wise more merciful than the English exploiter. The national sentiment and perennial enthusiasm of the Irishmen are being exploited by the so-called leaders in the interests of Irish capitalism, and the workers are being used to fight the battles of their oppressors. The Irish capitalist rebels against the English capitalist only because the latter stands in the way of a more thorough exploitation of the Irish workers by Irish capital. Let the thieves fight their own battles! For the worker in Ireland there is but one hope. It is to join the Irish wing of the international Socialist working class and to make common cause with the Socialist workers of all countries for the end of all forms of exploitation; saying to both English and Irish capitalists: “A plague on both your houses”. For the true battle-cry of the working class in broader, more significant and more inspiring than mere nationalism, and that rally cry is: THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS!

J. McManus

Unsocialist (2024)

Book Review from the December 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

State Socialism in Eastern Europe: History, Theory, Anti-capitalist Alternatives. Edited by Eszter Bartha, Tamás Krausz and Bálint Mezei. Palgrave Macmillan, 2023. 356pp.

The term ‘State Socialism’ in the title of this book is used to refer to the system that existed in the Soviet Union and the regimes of the Soviet bloc from the late 1940s until the whole edifice crumbled from 1989 onwards. Though it is clear that this system was not socialism as we would understand it but rather repressive state capitalism masquerading as socialism, this has not prevented many academics who study the history of that era from continuing to refer to it as socialism and indeed as ‘really existing socialism’. And this is precisely what we find in this collection of 14 essays, which focus predominantly on aspects of how those regimes, especially Hungary, were organised in the period when they were part of the Soviet bloc. The way the editors describe it is as an attempt ‘to address the long theoretical, conceptual and political debate on the interpretation of “actually existing socialism” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe’.

But while such debate may give academics something to occupy their minds with, in reality the single most important thing to know is that the regimes in question were not in any sense socialist but simply represented a different – and invariably more repressive – way of managing the buying and selling system known as capitalism. That system, wherever it exists or has existed, is one of money and wages, economic inequality, and a small class of employers ruling the roost over a large class of employees, even if this consideration seems far from the minds of most of those contributing to this volume. The chapter by Susan Zimmerman on work and gender politics in ‘State-Socialist Hungary’, for example, while clearly the product of comprehensive and painstaking research, confines itself to description and analysis of how those particular aspects of capitalism manifested themselves in post-war Hungary and in no way challenges the idea of whether ‘socialism’ can exist within the framework of an economic system of buying and selling and production for the market. In his essay on Hungary between 1963 and 1985 (sometimes referred to as the period of ‘goulash Communism’), Bálint Mezei discusses what he calls ‘Hungary’s third road experiment of socialism’. Another chapter, jointly written by the editors as an introduction to the anthology and entitled ‘From Socialism to Neo-Liberalism: Lessons from Eastern Europe and Hungary’, states the book’s intention ‘to draw a historical lesson from the state socialist experiment in Eastern Europe and Hungary, which can be instructive in the search for an alternative to the global neoliberal capitalism’. Yet this too, despite its title, shows few signs of appreciating that the main lesson to be learned from the topic under discussion is that the passage from one system to another in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Soviet bloc was in fact a passage from one kind of capitalism (state capitalism) to another (private capitalism) and that the only viable alternative to either cannot be some form of ‘socialist state’, since socialism is by definition a worldwide, stateless society as well as one without classes, markets and contractual relations.

Close to 40 years ago (and so before the collapse of the Soviet-backed regimes of Eastern Europe), a book entitled State Capitalism: the Wages System Under New Management was published by Palgrave Macmillan, the same publisher as for the volume currently under review (State Capitalism – libcom.org). It stated the unerring truth that ‘private capitalism and state capitalism are equally suitable institutional arrangements for allowing capital to exploit wage-workers’, a truth vindicated by history since that time yet still not fully grasped by many academics. In addition, as an alternative to either form of capitalism, the book’s authors, Adam Buick and John Crump, also stated the need for a society that abolishes both the wages system and the production of goods and services for the market, replacing it with a system of voluntary cooperative work and production for use. The collection of essays currently under review also claims to ‘contribute to the discussion about anti-capitalist alternatives’, but its overwhelming focus is on the organisational variants of capitalism and, looking forward, with a nod to perhaps minor changes to the ‘neoliberal’ regimes that have now taken over that may allow a few more crumbs to fall from the table. A look back at Buick and Crump’s analysis would surely help the contributors to this volume to see the wood for the trees.

Howard Moss

Here and There: On Initiative (1933)

The Here and There column from the April 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Initiative

It is a commonplace argument of the apologists of capitalism that the possession of wealth is the reward for and the result of the initiative of its owners. Socialism, they argue, would destroy this initiative and progress would be impossible. Three reports in the Daily Telegraph for January 1st and January 2nd completely upset this claim.

It was stated that Professor Haldane, who was Professor of Bio-Chemistry at Cambridge University, was resigning his position to take up a position at the London University. Some remarkable facts were given of his career. It was stated that he had produced in his own body the condition of certain diseases in order to discover a remedy for them. In doing so he had knowingly and deliberately endangered his own life in order to increase the knowledge of science in the conquest of these diseases.

Yet he does not appear to have had any pecuniary advantage in view.

Another instance was given in an appreciative obituary notice of Dr. Alfred Smith: Dr. Smith was one of the eighteen pioneers of X-ray work. In devoting his life to X-ray research, he fell a victim to X-ray dermatitis. The consequences for Dr. Smith were the loss of a leg, semi-blindness, and physical ruin. Unable to practice in his profession, his life savings gone, he was rewarded with a disused army hut to live in, and 35s. a week from the Carnegie Hero Trust.

The Daily Telegraph also gave the names of twelve others who had lost their lives in the cause of X-ray.

The same newspaper reported the trial of J. Geen, the associate of Factor, the fraudulent company promoter, who had successfully displayed initiative in relieving his fellow capitalists of millions' of pounds. It was stated of Factor that he was an illiterate, who "was even unable to sign his own name without difficulty.

Such are the rewards for initiative. It would be true to say that the ownership of wealth by the modern capitalist class is as much due to initiative as Factor’s millions were due to his academic attainments.

Some Effects of Capitalism

From Wépszava (“The People’s Voice”), the Hungarian Social-Democratic daily, for December 22nd, 1932: —

In 1932 down to December 20th 1,126 women began giving birth to children in the street, and were taken to a hospital or nursing home. 1,126 fearful blows in the face for Hungarian social policy, which does not even take steps to see that new-born children shall come into the world with a roof over their heads! . . . A mother who finds herself lying in the hour of her greatest stress in the filth of the street instead of on a clean operating table, not only feels that society has no use for her, but that her child is born with the chains of poverty shackling its limbs, and to a destiny devoid of hope.

And from The Star, December 22nd, 1932: —

The best study I have seen recently of the psychological effect of unemployment is the vivid report on life in the Austrian village of Marienthal which appears in “Character and Personality.” The 1,500 inhabitants have been workless since a local factory closed three years ago, and are living on 5d. per family per day.

The investigators got at the facts in an ingenious way. Before distributing clothing they called from house to house, inquiring into the need, and in this way secured an insight into the domestic conditions. They also organised sewing classes and made the keeping of household accounts a condition of membership.

The inquiry revealed that the unemployed, having time on their hands, lose all sense of it. They become unpunctual and slowly resign themselves to a state which renounces even the discussion of politics and the reading of newspapers.

After three years the inquiry tabled only 14 per cent. as unbroken in spirit. Of the rest most were resigned to enduring their present state and the remainder broken completely. “heedless of the future as of the present.”

We can imagine all the parsons and priests in the kingdom arising with a great self-righteous show of protests if animals were treated with a fraction of the inhumanity meted out to the unwanted wage-slave.

Incidentally, these conditions and their results on the workers in Austria are a somewhat tragic commentary on the notion held by many woolly headed persons that starvation makes Socialists.

In the House of Commons

During the debate on the Kenya New Lands Trust Ordinance, which deprives the Natives of Kenya of the right to their lands on it being required by the Kenya Administration or White Settlers, Sir J. Sandeman Allen, commenting on the protests on behalf of the natives made by several prominent clergymen, said: “ . . .  If Church dignitaries in East Africa confined themselves to their missionary work and did not try to do anything outside of their proper sphere it would be. better for all concerned.” (Hansard, February 8th, 1933.)

The social influence of the Church seems to be in its twilight. When it interferes in class conflicts, as in the “General Strike,” it is told—in the words of Mr. Baldwin to the Archbishop of Canterbury—to ” mind its own business.” In short, the business of the parson is to console and not to interfere.

The varied attitude of the British Government in foreign affairs makes a somewhat interesting and contrasting reading. Mr. J. H. Thomas, being asked in the House of Commons what there was to be gained in pursuing the policy of the Government in relation to Ireland, replied (amidst laughter): “I have got a few hundred thousand pounds more as a result of the increased duties.” (Hansard, February 9th, 1933.)

On Saturday, February 10th, a wireless debate took place between students of Yale University, America, and students of Cambridge University, England, on the subject of War Debts. The English case was for the complete cancellation of War Debts, thus summarising the attitude of the British capitalist class as expressed through its Press. The reasons given for cancellation were ingenious, and were to the effect that cancellation was really in the interests of the United States of America. Somewhat after the sanctimonious manner of the schoolmaster, who, having punished a pupil, claimed the punishing to have hurt the schoolmaster the most. In Kenya the attitude of the British capitalist class is one of the heavy boot; in Ireland, that of a. bullying braggart; but their attitude to America is—well, sycophantic is a mild word, perhaps Pecksnifian would be appropriate. The reasons, of course, are obvious. Beneath the tender solicitude for backward countries and the polished verbiage of diplomatic documents, there are hypocrisy and greed as crude and as vicious as that which characterised the early days of Capitalism..

Strange Bedfellows.

The Leader, February 7th, 1932, contained an article called “Blasphemous Attacks on Christianity.” Among other books that were quoted was our pamphlet (without reference to its source of publication), “Socialism and Religion.” The Leader is very concerned about these attacks and thinks leaders of the Labour Party, especially ”those who call themselves Christian Socialists,” should do something about it. The Leader is a "tipster’s ” journal, which thrives on the belief among millions of gullible workers that they can get rich quickly and easily from betting and competitions of the kind run by popular newspapers for large money prizes. (Quite recently, a mathematician publicly stated that the chance of winning a prize in one of these competitions was many millions to one.) It is perhaps quite fitting that those who thrive on one form of superstition should feel a brotherly concern for those who foster superstition in another form.

The I.L.P. Finds Inspiration.

During January, letters appeared in the columns of the New Leader from members of the I.L.P. on the subject of “ Religion and Revolution.” The varied views held aptly expressed the confusion of ideas of the I.L.P. on the subject, and ranged from the view that “Christianity is Socialism” to an attitude that more or less approached the Marxist position on the subject. In the issue for January 10th, Dr. John Lewis replies in what the Editor of the New Leader describes as an “able contribution” to the discussion. Dr. Lewis's reply is a typical piece of I.L.P. shuffling. He evades the essential points in the letters from critics of Christianity, and, like Paton in his reply to a similar discussion on "Parliament and Democracy,” attempted to placate and satisfy all the diverse elements that make up the I.L.P. Christianity, he says: —

. . . .Takes on a totally different form according to the period, and at no period is it a mere reflection of a static economic order. . . . At periods of crisis in which we are mainly interested, religion splits. One part sanctifies the obsolete; one part champions the new order.

Which, as historical summary, is fairly accurate. But his conclusion, based on the above, is as follows: —

To-day religion inspires, for the first time, a movement which can achieve its ideal by building a classless society, and finally overthrowing the exploiters.

Dr. Lewis's view, which he attempts to support with Marxist formulae, is that the demand for Socialism by the workers will express itself in a religious form inspired by Christianity. Dr. Lewis is, of course, entitled to his peculiar views, but to pretend that these are the views of Marx is sheer misrepresentation of Marx's explanation of religion. Had Dr. Lewis gone one step further he might have discovered that the forces which, in the past, determined that Christianity took on a “totally different form according to the period,” also determined the decay of Christianity in Capitalist Society. So much so that, for all practical purposes, Christianity is dead so far as the workers are concerned. It is almost a certainty that if Christianity ceased to be taught in the Schools and subsidised by the State, it would quickly take its place in the museums of antiquities.

It is an interesting explanation, however, that the I.L.P.'s latest pose as a “ real revolutionary party ” is so inspired. This is a new angle on the decisions of the Bradford Conference, which was perhaps a waste of time.

Harry Waite

Tiny (URL) Tips (2010)

The Tiny Tips column from the November 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard 

"The anti-Semitic Jobbik party captured 16.7 percent of the vote, making it the third-largest party in Hungary, next to the Socialists. Unknown vandals defiled the Holocaust Memorial with bloody pigs’ feet. The television channel Echo TV showed an image of Nobel laureate and Auschwitz survivor Imre Kertész together with a voiceover about rats. Civil servants can now be fired without cause. Krisztina Morvai, a member of the European Parliament for Jobbik, suggested that “liberal-Bolshevik Zionists” should start thinking about “where to flee and where to hide.” http://tinyurl.com/36stz7e

#    #    #    #

“These are dark-skinned people, not Europeans like you and me,” said Riccardo De Corato, who is Milan’s vice mayor. He later added: “Our final goal is to have zero Gypsy camps in Milan.” The campaign here is part of the most intense wave of anti-immigration sentiment to wash over Western Europe in years": http://tinyurl.com/2vesbpq

#    #    #    #

"Some 200 of France’s expelled Gypsies come from Barbulesti, said Ion Cutitaru, mayor of this town, 60 kilometers east of the capital Bucharest. Not all share the view that life is more bearable back home. Cutitaru, a Roma, said about half have already returned to France or other EU nations where begging brings in more money that the meager social benefits available in one of the EU’s poorest members. Long-term unemployed here receive the equivalent of just €10 a month for each child plus other monthly benefits of around €45". http://tinyurl.com/337eeww

#    #    #    #

"Ricky Baking is hunched over a tomb with a hammer and chisel. After several determined blows, the lid cracks into three pieces. He opens the rotten coffin to reveal the skeleton of a 65-year-old man, dressed in his burial suit and shoes. Baking steps into the tomb with bare feet, and reaches for the bones.

This isn’t a grave robbery – it’s an eviction. Like everywhere else in Manila, the North Cemetery has run out of space. Up to 80 funerals take place here every day, and demand for plots is so high most people can only afford to rent tombs. If your relatives fail to keep up the payments, another body will take your place. It’s Baking’s job to clear this grave so another coffin can be lowered into it later this afternoon. He’s done this so often it’s almost mundane to him. Land is precious in Manila, and people are prepared to endure incredible circumstances to claim their own piece. Baking’s family is one of hundreds that have set up home in the cemetery, jostling for space with the dead. “It’s much better living here than in a shanty town,” he assures me…" http://tinyurl.com/3y9uzhr

Editorial: Hungary and self-determination (1957)

Editorial from the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The member-states of the United Nations are pledged to uphold "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples," but at the same time the U.N. Charter forbids intervention “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State." So all that any government needs to do when flouting the first clause is to appeal to the second, by claiming that their action is a domestic matter, or that what they are doing is by invitation of the “legitimate” government. Thus, the British Government in Cyprus, the Indian Government in Kashmir, and the Russian Government in Hungary.

The charges against the Russian Government at U.N. Assembly in September 1957 were levelled to the accompaniment of much indignation and speechmaking, but the matter ended “with nothing more forceful that another appeal to the Soviet Union to withdraw her troops and relax the grip of her puppet regime.” (Manchester Guardian, 11th Sept., 1957). It was a foregone conclusion, for no government is at present willing to make war on Russia over Hungary, though the excuse will be stored away to be brought out again if occasion demands.

Louis Kossuth, 1848

It has all happened before, in 1848. Hungarian Liberals and Nationalists revolted to secure independence from Austria, and after initial successes, were crushed with the help of troops sent in by Russia. Then, as now, there was much talk about the so-called right of self-determination, and later on, when the Hungarian leader, Louis Kossuth, as a refugee, visited America, he was given a great welcome by, among others, the American lawyer who later became Republican President—Abraham Lincoln. In the early stages while fighting was still going on in Hungary, the following resolution was drafted by a small committee, with Lincoln as chairman, and passed at a meeting in Springfield, Illinois, on September 12,1849. (Reproduced from an article on Hungarian parallels between 1849 and 1957, in Saturday Review, New York, 16th Feb., 1957):

“That in their present glorious straggle for liberty, the Hungarians command our highest admiration and have our warmest sympathy: that they have our prayers for their speedy triumph and final success; that the government of the United States should acknowledge the independence of Hungary as a nation of free men at the very earliest moment consistent with our amicable relations with the government against which they are contending: that, in the opinion of this meeting, the immediate acknowledgment of the independence of Hungary by our government is due from American free men to their struggling brethren, to the general cause of republican liberty, and not violative of the just rights of any nation or people.”

The resolution, like the resolutions of U.N. assemblies today, was merely an expression of sympathy; the only positive action it asked for was the recognition of Hungary as an independent State, subject, however, to not offending Austria, “ the government against which" the Hungarians were rebelling.

A Lawyer’s Definition

In January 1852, when the fight was over and the Austrian Government was in control again, Kossuth toured America, and another meeting was held at Springfield, Illinois, addressed by Lincoln. The long resolution showed Lincoln’s thoroughness in his attempt to define in legally precise language what he called the right of national independence, the opening clause read: “That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.” This was the most forthright part of the resolution and, as we shall see, it was the part Lincoln was to throw overboard 10 years later.

In the other paragraphs of the resolution Lincoln declared that if such a movement for independence takes place, no other government has the right to intervene either to help or to hinder the struggle, and that the intervention of Russia in Hungary against Kossuth was, therefore, “ illegal and unwarrantable,” but as it had taken place, it would have been legitimate and meritorious for America or any other government to have resisted Russian intervention in Hungary. At this point the resolution cautiously lapsed into the non-committal:—

“ That whether we will, in fact, interfere in such a case, is purely a question of policy, to be decided when the exigencies arise.”

Circumstances alter cases

As often happens, the leader of the Opposition, when he gets into power, can hardly recognise the things he has been saying. In 1861 Abraham Lincoln became President and then refused to acknowledge the right of the Southern States to secede (notwithstanding clause one of his 1852 resolution on Hungary). He waged the bloodiest war of a 100 years to prevent secession. Lincoln did not pretend, as his admirers sometimes pretend, that the war was being fought to destroy slavery. He saw, however, that in the world as it really is admission of the right of any American State to go its own way would have reduced powerful united America to a disunited medley of small and weak States. This is true of the world today, and will remain true so long as capitalism is allowed to continue. Capitalist trade and the maintenance of private property demand central government with powerful military forces and defensible frontiers, and against this the so-called "natural right” and “international principle” of self-determination are merely fanciful; along with U.N. protests, they have no deterrent effect on the governments of the world. The nationalist movements organized to gain independence are not striving for any abstract principle, but for the power of a propertied class to operate capitalism within territory under their own control. High-flown talk about “principles of self-determination” may be an incidental aid in the struggle, but has no bearing on the conduct of affairs once independence has been won. There is, therefore, no real inconsistency in the action of one group achieving independence and then forcibly suppressing movement for independence on the part of another minority within the country. Britain, America, India. Pakistan, Ghana, Russia, and all the other national capitalist groups which pleach “self-determination” and flout it whenever important economic or strategic interests are involved, are all being true to the vital belief they have in common, belief in the necessities of capitalism.

So They Say: Menu: Air Pie — (1974)

The So They Say Column from the September 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Menu: Air Pie —

Popular romantic writers have a stock of words and phrases for instant effect on their suggestible readers: tender, moonlight, yearning, heavenly vision, and so on. Similarly, Labour politicians rely on a small vocabulary designed to make their followers salivate like Pavlov’s dogs — “fair shares”, "equal opportunity”, “make the rich pay”, etc.

On 8th August Denis Healey, Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the Labour Government’s plans for wealth and gift taxes. The proposed starting level for the wealth tax is £100,000. To the press, Healey “admitted . . . that the main reason for the taxes was to create a greater atmosphere of social justice in Britain” (Guardian). On television, asked specifically what benefit the working class would get, he said poorer-paid workers would feel better if they knew money was being taken from the rich.

Pavlov’s dogs, dribbling in response to stimuli, failed to notice that the bell ringing was not preliminary to but instead of dinner.

— and an Empty Cup

The real response should have come from the rich, if Healey was attacking them so violently. Hear how they complained:

No one in the City jumped from 20th storey windows, fled the country or even squealed very loudly yesterday on publication of the Government’s Green Paper thinking on a wealth tax. It has singularly little effect on share dealings on the Stock Exchange . . . About the harshest comments on the paper were that it was 'a time-consuming irrelevance’, by the Association of Chambers of Commerce.

But not only do they not mind. The view expressed to The Guardian's business editor was that

the City would not mind a wealth tax if it enabled the Labour or any other Government ‘to institute a meaningful wages policy’.

It is accepted both in the City and by many business men that the wealth tax proposal could be a psychological advantage to the Government in persuading trade unions to accept a nil growth, or even a cut, in living standards over the next year or so.

What Can't Happen Here ?

The history of the “Watergate scandal” and its consequences leading to Nixon’s downfall from the US presidency was a showpiece of hypocrisy — Nixon’s, his accusers’, and the righteous commentators’. Could such a thing happen in Britain? The New Law Journal on 2nd August had some interesting comments.

Watergate ought to provide the necessary impetus to the Government to get on with the task of rewriting

the Official Secrets legislation as recommended by the Franks Commission without further prevarication.

While retaining the strictest security over those matters which are matters of national security, there is an urgent need to remove ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ classifications from all material which allows officialdom to maintain a cosy secrecy over matters which may merely embarrass, or be inconvenient to, slipshod or inefficient officials.

Which is saying, delicately, that the difference between America and Britain is not over what is likely to happen but over what is likely to be found out. Incidentally, there is a curious word misuse in the extract quoted. “Prevaricate” means go astray, transgress, be equivocal, deceive. The word for putting things off, which is what they mean, is “procrastinate”. A Freudian error?

Pass, Friend

Nixon’s successor, President Ford, is reported to be looked-on favourably by the Chinese government. They are pleased that he insists on military spending as a top priority, because of “their desire to see the strategic balance between the super Powers maintained in America’s favour to inhibit Soviet expansionism” (Guardian, 10th August).

The Chinese view is the one all capitalist statesmen must take — looking for advantage for their own trade and strategy, and never mind from whom. The report says:

Peking . . . will probably only devote a few delayed lines to Nixon’s departure. But the late President was, in any case, much less the architect of the new China policy than was Dr. Kissinger, and the latter’s presence on Mr. Ford’s Administration will certainly be welcome in Peking.

Blowing the Gaff

Fascists in Italy have been in the news with acts of terrorism. One would assume the Communists to be up in arms to extinguish fascism; and one would be wrong.

A State subsidy for all Italian political parties began operating in July; the Communists’ share is £7 millions. A veteran leader described the subsidizing of the fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano as “horrendous and ignoble, so bestial as to fill one with horror”. He was attacked by the party newspaper and his fellow leaders. Only the fascist movement was “horrendous” — but not the subsidy. The Guardian, 13th July, said :

Signor. Pajetta, and the Communists in general, also are opposed to Senator Terracini’s proposal that Parliament should vote for the disbanding of the MSI. The Communist line is that it can be defeated through the ballot box. Privately, they may also realize that a Fascist enemy is politically good to have around.

Plenty Amidst Poverty

There is a physical training game called "O’Grady’', in which the trainees have to do the opposite of what they hear. It must be like that in Communist countries, where equality and the expropriation of the expropriators are articles of faith — while inequality grows and the expropriators’ cigars get bigger.

The Observer had an item on 14th July headed HUNGARY'S PROPERTY BOOM. It was about the rise in house prices in Hungary following legislation to regularize the private ownership of property:

There has recently been a widespread move to acquire houses in the country, not only by the Communist élite, but also on a wide scale by the new managerial class.

Everything above the upper limit is classified as ‘luxury’. But such properties will not be confiscated, as they were when the Communists first took over.

Instead, the owners of ‘luxury’ residences will have to pay a special tax. This is levied on houses and apartments worth more than £20,000 at between ½ per cent and 1 per cent, depending on the number of rooms, and on holiday villas of the same value at between 1 per cent and 1½ per cent.

Getting Dark, Down Under

Our July issue had an article on conditions in Australia, where workers from Britain often go in the mistaken hope of shedding their problems. The unemployment figures released there on 12th August show 93,585 out of work, i.e. 1.90 per cent. of the estimated labour force. Vacancies fell by 21.3 per cent., from July, against the normal trend at this time of the year. The Parliamentary Opposition has predicted 100,000 unemployed by December, with inflation at 20 per cent.

The Guardian correspondent in Canberra wrote on 12th August that

the estimate could prove conservative. The Cabinet seems to have swung solidly against the Treasury argument for further deflationary action in the September 17 budget, for fear of union reaction against unemployment and the need to get voluntary wage and price restraints working.

United Fans Queue Here

The football season has begun; and its weekly accompaniment of numerous arrests and convictions as rabbles of "supporters” smash up everything and everybody they meet in the towns they are visiting.

When the epidemic was starting in 1969 the Notting Hill Anarchist Group issued a leaflet which really should not be left unnoticed. Extracts (our italics) as follows:

Football crowds have always been rough and managed to enjoy themselves. It’s part of the game. Things only turn really unpleasant when a large number of blue uniforms appear on the scene.

After alleging that the directors of football clubs pay the police to arrest “standing” spectators so that expensive seats can be put in the space they now occupy, the leaflet ends:

It’s good to know this anyway, and to get things straight in your own mind about what’s happening, but it’s not worth fighting it on your own . . But if you do get arrested, or anybody you know does, try and send somebody along to see us and we’ll see what we can do to help. The people who are giving out these leaflets will be standing in the same places after the game is over.

This inane truckling to (and half-incitement of) hooligans is supposed to represent a serious outlook on society. Pathetic, isn’t it?

Robert Barltrop

Tanks for the memory (1978)

From the September 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

"In the World Cup, Hungary were grouped with their bogey-team, the Soviet Union." 

From the programme for the recent England v. Hungary soccer international at Wembley.

The “Bootless” boom. (1913)

From the April 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Those who wish to understand the phenomenon of working-class discontent should give their attention to the table of food prices just furnished by the Board of Trade. It covers the exact period of the present Government’s official life, and is therefore a dramatic comment on the theory that the secret of Cheap Food lies in the maintenance of Free Trade. There is scarcely an article of diet in which these seven years have not recorded rising prices. Bread is higher by only 4 per cent. in the ordinary retail trade ; but, as contract supplies show an increase of 9 per cent., and flour is up 13 per cent., it is impossible not to suspect that the figure is steadied by a reduction of quality. Beef has risen by 14 per cent.—counterbalanced, if one likes to think so, by a cheapening of ‘second quality’ and ‘inferior’ mutton. Sugar is slightly above the level of seven years ago, despite the reduction of the duty, and the great tendency of the markets is shown by an advance of 19 per cent. on potatoes, 16 per cent. on eggs, 14 per cent. on butter, 17 per cent. on milk, 21 per cent. on oatmeal, 22 per cent. on bacon, and 25 per cent. on cheese.”

“The wholesale value of certain imported foodstuffs shows a still more startling discrepancy, the rise in tea being 21 per cent., rice 32 per cent., coffee 46 per cent., and tapioca 89 per cent. Taking the facts as a whole, they mean that the cost of living has exceeded any gain that the working classes have secured in the means of facing it. All that has been effected in the way of raising wages, whether by trade unions or by other methods, has been nullified by the trend of prices, and at the end of seven years marked by strenuous agitation and political effort the wage-earner finds himself worse off than before. The causes of this tragic conclusion may be complex, but one fact is plain—that the parties which have dominated legislation for these seven years as the self-appointed champions of the working man are completely off the track. Whatever nominal concessions they may have gained for him are fruitless, because they have persisted in ignoring the essentials of their position. Free Trade can neither check the clearness of living nor advance the remuneration of labour. In good times it only allows the worker to make ends meet, and in bad times it throws him on to the brink, or into the gulf, of destitution. While the wealth of the country is increasing and Mr. Burns talks of “striding the world like a Colossus,”the producers of wealth only see that life is made harder for them than ever. Under the operation, of Cobdenism the rich are growing richer and the poor poorer, and under these conditions we have no title to be surprised if a spirit of social revolution should exhibit itself in extending areas and with ever-increasing menace.”

Italics ours.

The above has not been written for the Socialist Standard, but is culled from the columns of the “Pall Mail Gazette” (14.2.13). In it we are not only reminded of the paradox (if such it can be called under the operation of the anar­chical system of production for profit instead of for use) that “booming trade” and “wealth striding the world like a Colossus” do not necessarily mean “boots for all,” but, what is more, our ever-challenged contention of the worsening trend of working-class conditions under capitalism is once again substantiated and admitted by capitalist authority. It will be remembered that only a little over a year ago that other worthy agent of slave-holders, Mr. Lloyd George, reminded a more or less interested world that “to-day you have greater poverty in the land and a more severe economic bondage than you ever had before.”

Although the scribe of the “Pall Mall Ga­zette” criticises the “self-appointed champions of the working class” for “ignoring the essentials of the workers’ position,” and fails himself to state these essentials, yet anyone who knows for what section of the master class Mr. Garvin and his co-workers on the “Pall Mall Gazette” have to write, and what interests they have to serve, will be familiar with what constitutes for the said organ “essentials,” and the alternative policy to “arrest” the worsening tendency. And even “Labour leaders”—who are too blinded by their own selfish interests to perceive the utter futility of (and, in fact, mostly support) the petty quack measures advocated in the daily Press, which are merely destined to enable the present system of exploitation to continue working smoothly, in other words to consolidate the system—I say even those who thus use the ignorance of the workers for their own aggrandisement, will not fear, in the case of the “P.M.G,” any essential deviation from its old policy or suspect it of adopting the revolutionary attitude.

The daily Press will still admit that the appalling poverty and misery are confined to the ranks of the working class, but they are far from disappointing our influential “leaders of Labour” by speaking of such things as antagonisms of interests existing between capitalists and wage workers. One might as well expect the Keir Hardies aud Blatchfords themselves to insist on the necessity of understanding that the problem of poverty is essentially one of class, and can only be met by the organisation of the workers on the cardinal principle of the irreconcilable and uncompromising class war.

Thus, although the writer left the reader to draw his own conclusion, the “P.M.G.” has long made it sufficiently clear that its only alternative to the ravages of Cobdenism is—Tariff Reform ! Presumably the poor scribe thought it desirable, for the holy sake of “expediency” (or for his own sake) to refrain, at this juncture, from mentioning the sacred battle-cry.

The essentials of the working-class position, indeed ! Could it be expected that Mr. Garvin’s paymasters would allow a statement of the real essentials ? or the publication of the result of a scientific investigation ? No. The nature of the essentials of the working-class position is such as to make their propounding utterly incompatible with the respectability of the “P.M.G.” Their nostrums do not only not disturb the peace of the slaveholders, but actually lead a section of them to a better exploitation of, and a tighter grip over, their unfortunate victims. And Tariff Reform, the nostrum of the aforementioned organ, would, of course, not make an exception in this.

We need only look to the Tariff-enjoying countries both on the Continent and in America, to get the lie direct to the rhetorical assurances of those capitalist hacks who claim that tariff walls are a safeguard for the prosperity of the workers. From time to time hostile clamours are heard going up in those countries against the dearness, and the still further rising of the prices, of the necessaries of life, which unmistakably show that there is equally an inadequacy on the part of the workers of those lands “in their means of facing it.”

Such outcries often reach these shores and find prominence in the Press. Who does not remember the reports of the recent upheavals in France and Belgium, the revolt of the housewives in the market places, the chronic protests and popular demonstrations demanding the abolition of import duties on food-stuffs in Austria, Germany, Spain, etc., in the States as well as in South America ?

The following, which appeared in the “Daily News and Leader” for Feb. 28, is typical of these constantly recurring news items :—

“PROTECTIONIST DUTIES TO BE REDUCED OR ABOLISHED.”

“Rio De Janeiro, Feb. 26.”

“The Government has decided to proceed with the revision and reduction of protectionist duties, and has authorised the Minister of Finance to reduce or, if need be, to abolish import duties on necessaries of life. This step has been resolved upon by the Council of Ministers as the result of the popular outcries against the dearness of food.—REUTER.”

In it not also significant that the reduction of import duties formed one of the issues at the last Presidential election in the United States?

For all those workers who still are under the illusion that different fiscal systems can have any influence whatever on the economic position of the working class the present writer has a wish that their “walks of life” might lead them amongst the working population of foreign industrial centres, say, for instance, in Austria. He feels convinced that it would be an eye-opener to them, and that they would speedily find out that what the Welsh Apostle of Free Trade said a little while ago of Britain, namely, that “that condition of things was foreign to the barbarities even of the darker ages,” is perfectly true of Protectionist countries. Unemployment is just as acute. A Budapest daily, the “Neues Pester Journal,” for February 11th which came into the hands of the present writer, dealt editorially with the problem of unemployment in that city. Here is word for word what it said:—

“To day there are in our capital more than 30,000 unemployed, who, with their families, are faced with the most pressing destitution, and are unable to find work. Thereby it must be taken into consideration that these workers, in consequence of the misery in which they find themselves, are willing to take on any work and are only too pleased to earn 60 or 80 heller (6d. or 8d.) for ten and twelve hours labour. During the last few weeks the large timber merchants have had hundreds of applications from unemployed offering their services for 20 heller (2d.) a day.”

If we bear in mind that the total number of workers in Budapest is approximately 100,000, it will be clear what an appalling amount of human misery there must exist in this Protection enjoying country.

Instances showing the terrible plight of the workers all over the world, side by side with ever-improving means of wealth production and greater command over natural resources, could be multiplied, but space does not permit.

The truth is that the class interest of the owners of those means of wealth production stand in the way of their manipulation for the common benefit. It is the historic mission of the working class to organise in order to break down the barrier, but so long as they superstitiously believe in the “sacred rights of property” inculcated by their masters, so long will they continue to be the unconscious dupes of the political bunglers.

F.

Blogger's Note:

Early Socialist Standard writers had a habit of signing off their articles with only their initials or, in this case, a single letter. 'K' was Adolph Kohn,  'W' was F. C. Watts, 'A' was Alex Anderson and, of course, Edgar Hardcastle wrote for the Socialist Standard for many decades under the pen-name of 'H'. 

A hundred plus years later that obviously sometimes makes it difficult to identify lesser used initials in the pages of the Socialist Standard but sometimes the articles they pen reveal wee clues. My guess is that 'F.' was Rudolf Frank. 'F'. mentions in this article the condition of the working class in Austria, and also quotes from a paper published in Budapest. Frank would have been travelling in these countries at this time and would have had access to this information.

Notes by the Way: “Socialist" Hungary (1949)

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

“Socialist" Hungary

One of the latest additions to the fake-Socialist countries is Hungary and an organisation called the Hungarian News and Information Service exists to tell us about it. In a pamphlet called “Organisers for Plenty” we are given the same kind of stuff that the Communists have been putting out about Russia for many years and that the Labour Party puts out about “Socialist” Britain. It contains nothing at all in the way of evidence that there is Socialism in Hungary and plenty that there is not. We are told for example that there is, or will be, a comprehensive social insurance scheme so that the worker and his family “will be 'covered’ from birth to death.” The question any Socialist would ask is how could there be any need for “insurance” under Socialism. Against what evils do the Hungarian workers require protection if they have Socialism? It is only against the evils of capitalism that they need protection. The same comment can be made on the statement that the dispossessed owners of nationalised enterprises may be compensated “when the more pressing problems of production have been solved.” If Socialism exists how can they be compensated and what need would they have of compensation?

What kind of system it really is is betrayed by the statement that over 50,000 workers are to be taken from industry and agriculture “to be trained for State administration, the army, police and diplomatic services.”

One revealing give-away is a statement that in the drive for greater production “sometimes the boys on the job get too enthusiastic. In their anxiety to beat the production target they give less attention than they ought to the quality of the work turned out or to the use of defective materials.” As if workers voluntarily co-operating in production for themselves and other members of a Socialist community would fake production figures by defective work and materials.

One example of the puff designed for foreign consumption is the statement that “two weeks' paid holidays are provided which can be spent in over 350 holiday centres which rival Blackpool and Bournemouth." The gilt is somewhat taken off when this is read in conjunction with statements in different parts of other publications issued by the same organisation that the number of workers who “will receive holidays this year at considerably reduced prices or entirely free of charge" is “over 300,000" and that the number of trade unionists is 1,600,000, and the total population 9,500,000.

The pamphlet also admits that some of the Hungarians are asking “whether the planning, working and sacrifices in which the majority enthusiastically participate, is the Socialism they hoped for.” To which all the answer the writer of the pamphlet can give is that “those are they who never can see the wood for the trees.”

Capitalism Teaches

A recent issue of the journal of the Indian Post and Telegraph Workers (P. & T. Worker, February. 1949) is dedicated to those who built up the organisation, and carries a salute to “the brave and valiant heroes who are languishing behind the bars in a Free India"! It appears that they made the mistake of thinking that Indian capitalism administered by Indians would be different from Indian capitalism administered by the British. Here is the story in brief. Because of low wages and a rising cost of living the union called its members out on strike for higher pay. The government promptly retaliated by arresting the General Secretary and other officials. The next move was a meeting of the Union Executive on 24th February at which resolutions were passed, one protesting against the action of the government in interning the union officials and the second calling off the strike.

Housing in London

On 26th May Mr. C. W. Gibson, Chairman of the L.C.C. Housing Committee addressed the Town and Country Planning Association on the problems of London Housing. Mr. Gibson, according to a report in the Manchester Guardian (27/5/49), gave figures of the housing already completed and of plans for the immediate future and also the length of time it will take to complete the job even if all goes according to plan. The “grand total of houses" provided by the Councils and by private builders since the bombing is 140,889 including new, rebuilt, and repaired dwellings. The Council plans to build 100,000 new houses “as quickly as possible," also to pull down all the slums as soon as possible and put up houses in their place, a total of at least 200,000 new houses and flats.

Then he went on to describe the magnitude of the whole problem.

"This task could not be completed in a few years; the authors of the London plan envisaged fifty years of hard work. To cover slum clearance, rehousing, dwellings destroyed by enemy action, and replacement of border-line property which had “ripened into the unfit category" would require 150,000 dwellings. There had also been 380,270 new marriages during and since the war, most of them creating a new demand for a home for a young family.” (Manchester Guardian, 27/5/49.)

What comes after Labour-administered Capitalism?

In a speech to the Young Conservative Organisation at Filey on 2nd June, Mr. Anthony Eden asked what is to come after the Labour government.

“Nobody, he said, appeared to be particularly happy about the nationalised industries, and railwaymen were not, it seemed, enthusiastic about the changes which nationalisation had brought to their service. Within a few years, he believed, nationalisation would seem to be old-fashioned, and many would wonder why it was ever thought likely to provide a remedy for the problems of our time. What was to succeed it. Communism or a vigorous progressive interpretation of free enterprise?” (Manchester Guardian, 3/6/49.)

Perhaps we can do a little to enlighten Mr. Eden. And we may as well start at the end and deal with Mr. Eden's question whether Labour government will be succeeded by “a vigorous progressive interpretation of free enterprise.” We can assure Mr. Eden that there will be no return to unrestricted competitive capitalism. It is our own view and happens to be supported by no less an authority than Mr. Eden himself. For in a speech at Southampton on 8th June, while he claimed that the Tories if they got power would denationalise steel and road transport, he added:

“We shall not de-nationalise the coal industry or the railways, but it does not mean we shall not do a great deal to improve their present operation.” (Daily Mail 9/6/49.)

So it seems that a Tory government will promise us less, but better, nationalisation.

Now let us clear up other confusions. Nationalisation is State capitalism, it is not Socialism, it is not a stepping stone to Socialism and has never been supported by the Socialist Party. If those who mistakenly supported nationalisation had taken the trouble to read the Socialist Standard any time in the past 45 years they would have known that nationalisation would not provide a remedy for the problems of our time.

Lastly, though we cannot give a date, we can promise Mr. Eden that sometime the workers will turn their backs on all forms of capitalism and establish Socialism.

Another Self-made Man

On the death of Lord Leverhulme, the Evening Standard (27/5/49) gave an account of his life under the title “The man who made an empire—and £12,000,000,” The “empire” referred to is the Lever Bros, and Unilever concern valued at £70,000,000, and it was, of course, “made” like all the wealth of the capitalists, by the working class. Lord Leverhulme himself, at the death of his father in 1925, had shares worth £2,400,000. The Evening Standard values his shareholdings at current prices as over £12,000,000.

Hidden Reserves of the Shell Oil Companies

The following is from the City column of the Daily Mail (8/6/49.)

“New light on the vast financial strength of the Royal Dutch-Shell group of oil-producing, refining, and marketing companies was given in the final dividend statement last month, when profits for 1948 were revealed at the ‘record’ total for any industrial concern of £44,565,000.

“Today, in the full report of the Shell company, chairman Sir Frederick Godber makes further remarkable disclosures—to supplement the holding companies' balance-sheets.

“For instance, at December 31,1948, he states, the book value of the group’s shareholdings in public companies amounted to the equivalent of £41,069,000.

“The market value, however, was £164,862,000, showing an excess of market over book value of no less than £123,793,000 on these investments alone.

“This, therefore, has in effect been a ‘ hidden ’ or inner reserve of the group.”

Shortage of Manpower?

One of the forms of waste inseparable from a private property system results from the litigation that goes on over the ownership of property. A choice example was reported in the Evening Standard (30/6/49). In 1896 a Chancery action began over the division of an estate worth £100,000. The action has been going on ever since and a petition is shortly to be heard to finish it. The Evening Standard report tells us that “one 81-year-old managing clerk . . . has been dealing with the case since 1895. Nine firms of solicitors are engaged in the matter.”

Communists and Railways Strikers

The Daily Worker (1/6/49) made a hit when they pointed out that British newspapers which condemned the unofficial strike of the British railwaymen were quite sympathetic about the strike of the Berlin railwaymen against the Russian occupying authorities. Obviously the Press was pleased to see the Russian government or its agents embarrassed by a strike and only too anxious to be able to show the Russians up as strike-breakers.

But the criticism cuts both ways. If the Communists are interested in the welfare of the workers and not merely the stooges of the Russian government why is it that they never uttered a word in support of the German railwaymen or in condemnation of the Communist strike-breakers? The Daily Worker claims that the strikes of British railwaymen were justified because they did extort concessions not otherwise forthcoming. Exactly the same has happened over the Berlin railwaymen’s strike.

“Socialist” Brains

Replying to criticisms of the high salaries paid to members of the Nationalisation Boards, Mr. Herbert Morrison at the Labour Party Conference used the argument that they needed first class men and would not be able to get them unless they paid something approaching the market rate. This incidentally was the argument used by Lenin in Russia 30 years ago when he abandoned the Communist principle of more or less equal pay for workers and managers.

But Mr. Morrison went on to use the following phrase:

“We have not only to socialise physical assets; we have to socialise the best brains in the business world.” (Daily Herald, 11/6/49.)

This, of course, is the purest humbug. Having the mines and railways, etc., run on capitalist lines by National Boards instead of by private companies is not “socialisation.” And what does Mr. Morrison mean by socialising business brains? What the government has been doing recently, according to the Daily Mail (19th, 21st and 22nd February, 1949) is to circularise city banks and financial houses and industrial concerns asking for men “with financial and commercial experience” to take up work in the nationalised concerns. It is not a question of finding men with technical knowledge of coal mining or railway transport—there are plenty of them in the industries already—but of recruiting men with financial and commercial experience, that is men with experience of the workings of capitalist finance and trade. If production and distribution had really been socialised, i.e., if we had Socialism, that kind of experience would be the one thing not required

One last question to Mr. Morrison concerning his argument that you have to pay high salaries in order to get non-Labour Party business men to serve on Nationalised Boards. Why does this necessitate paying equally high salaries to the members of the Boards who are already members of the Labour Party? Did they too, stick out for the market rate?

Edgar Hardcastle