The Passing Show: The fruits of leisure (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fruits of leisure

There was an interesting interview with Professor J. D. Bernal in the last issue of the Sunday Empire News before it joined the ranks of those fallen in the newspaper war. “Properly developed and properly utilised, the world can amply support its people”, said the Professor. There could be an “abundant” society, with working time reduced to four hours a day, three days u week. The Professor went on :

“There would have to be a change in culture. People will be educated, fully or part-time, up to the age of 30. Probably they will retire at 45. If they wanted, they could take months or even years off work.

In fact, people who didn’t want to wouldn’t necessarily have to work. Five per cent of the population could produce all the food that was needed for the rest, and another 10 per cent could produce all the goods that were necessary.

They could explore all the fruits of leisure, the arts, the crafts, music and painting. In space exploration there would be all the adventure for the people who wanted adventure. And equal scope to grow roses or something for the people who did not want adventure.”

Professor Bernal was simply giving facts which support our contention that the productivity powers developed within capitalism have now reached the stage when an abundant non-coercive society is possible—what we call Socialism. Unfortunately, however, instead of devoting his efforts to work for this new society, Professor Bernal continues to give his support to the Communist Party and the Eastern bloc—which are dedicated to state capitalism. Some of those supporting state capitalism may do so partly because they do not realise that a Socialist society is possible. Professor Bernal, though, clearly has not got this excuse.

Property

Jesus is reported to have told one man who wanted to join his band of disciples “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor” (Luke, 18, 22). However, it would be unwise to assume that those who claim to be Christians have got any great desire to follow this advice, as one old woman found out recently. A widow of 71, she “was sentenced to seven years’ preventive detention at London Sessions . . . for stealing two brass ornaments from St. John’s Church, Islington. It was stated that she had 16 previous convictions, nine for stealing ornaments from churches” (The Guardian, 12/11/60). This unfortunate perhaps doesn’t realise that whatever the Bible may say, in a capitalist society the Christian churches hang on to their property as tightly as, if not more tightly than, anyone else.

In sentencing the woman, the Chairman of the Sessions remarked: “You have lived a drab life. I suppose you have no ambition except to go back to prison and indeed I am told you would prefer to go there as you have no home outside. It is probably the best place for you.” If this is true, it means that one of our fellow members of the working class prefers the inhumanities of jail to the joys of the “free” life outside it. This will take some explaining away by the advocates of our supposedly “never had it so good” society.

Substantial number

Sir Roy Welensky, the Rhodesian Federal Prime Minister, recently defended the present Rhodesian set-up in the Federal Parliament. As part of a list of advances towards “multi-racialism” which he claimed had been made, he said “In private life there are already a few African professional men operating under European conditions in cities and there is a substantial number of successful African businessmen.” But Sir Roy was wide of the mark in giving this as a reason why the existing settlers’ government should be left in undisturbed control of Rhodesia. The “substantial number of African businessmen”, the developing African capitalist class, is in fact the main reason why the days of the settlers’ government are numbered. A government based on landed interests can hold on for a certain time in certain conditions when capitalism is expanding in a country. It may lean over backwards, as it thinks, in its efforts to be fair to the growing capitalist class. But when a country’s capitalist class comes to maturity, then nothing will content it but the full control of political as well as economic power. Welensky and his settlers, in fact, as the rulers of Rhodesia are doomed.

Alwyn Edgar

Notes by the Way: A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers (1949)

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

A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers

The Daily Worker (12/10/49) had an article on “Hire Purchase—New Style ” in Hungary. It appears that in “Socialist” Hungary “hire purchase . . . . is now organised as a State enterprise,” and is “no longer a means whereby manufacturers can sell expensive goods to poor people, but one designed to help the poorest and largest families.”

The Worker correspondent does not explain how it is that in “Socialist” Hungary there should be “poorest families” unable to get what they need without hire purchase, but he describes a feature that will make the financiers of hire purchase here and in U.S.A. turn green with envy. One of their bugbears is the worker who gets the goods and defaults on payments or manages to disappear before he has paid them off. If they would take a tip from Budapest it need never happen again, for in that blessed land “hire purchase payments are deducted from pay at work. If the purchaser changes his job the payments are transferred to the new job.”

* * *

Cupboard Love for the Trade Unions

The Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties are all, so they say, anxious to save the trade unions. In 1927 the Tories “saved” them by introducing the Trade Disputes Act which among other things made it more difficult for trade unions to provide funds for the Labour Party and compelled the Civil Service and Post Office unions to disaffiliate. The Act made it necessary for each member of a trade union to indicate his desire to pay the political contribution, thus reversing the clause of the 1913 Act which required those who objected to paying the political contribution to register their objection. It was designed, as everybody realised, to hit at Labour Party funds, and did so effectively. Labour Party trade union membership dropped in 1927 from 3,240,000 to 2,025,000, and income from affiliation fees dropped by £15,000.

In 1946 the Labour Government restored the pre-1927 position with a consequent big increase in trade union affiliated membership and funds. Trade union affiliated membership in 1947 showed an increase from 2,635,000 to 4,386,000, and trade union affiliation fees jumped by about £25,000 to £77,000.

Now the Tories are proposing if returned to power to reopen the question and Mr. Churchill claims— though on what evidence is not known—that about a third of the members of trade unions are Conservatives.

As the accumulated funds of the “registered” trade unions (representing about 85 per cent. of the total trade union membership) amount now to over £50 million, the interest taken in them by the three political parties is not surprising.

Even under the present arrangement of “ contracting out” of political contributions, a considerable proportion of trade unionists do not pay, as can be seen by the difference between total membership of the unions and the number of members who pay the political contribution, i.e.,‘ membership on which the unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. In 1947 the Agricultural Workers' Union, with 130,000 members, was affiliated to the Labour Party on a membership of 71,000. The Transport and General Workers' Union (membership 1,264,000) was affiliated on 800,000; and the A.E.U. (742,000) was affiliated on 609,000.

* * *

Whither India?

Nehru, Prime Minister of India, calls himself a Socialist and declared in 1946 that his party intended to set up a “Socialist Republic of India” (News Chronicle, 22/11/46). Like his friends and admirers, Attlee and Cripps, all he meant was that he would make use of socialist phrases as a bait to keep the Indian workers acquiescent while his government got on with the job of building up India into a first-class capitalist Power. India needs foreign capital which British investors under present conditions are unable to supply in anything like the amount needed; hence Nehru’s wooing of the U.S.A. capitalists, who in their turn are anxious to find a safe area for foreign investments. On October 13th Nehru addressed both Houses of Congress at Washington and had not a word to say about his proclaimed intention of establishing Socialism—that is only for home consumption before working class audiences. Instead he buttered up the Congressmen and Senators with the usual poppycock about how the Indian Constitution “had been greatly influenced by the principles and ideals enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence ” (Times 14/10/49.) The whole of his speech requires interpretation in this way, but his audience would certainly know how to “read between the lines.” What, in effect, he was saying was that his Government have the workers well in hand, will not line up with Russia, and will give security for American capital.

What he asked in return, and this of course was the real purpose of the visit, was in the concluding phrases—“But we . . . need much mechanical and technological aid,” and “we shall, therefore, gladly welcome such aid and co-operation on terms which are of mutual benefit.”

In short Nehru was assuring them that they need not take seriously anything he may have said about destroying Capitalism and putting Socialism in its place.

* * *

The Tito-Stalin Slanging Match

The root of the Tito-Stalin conflict is the desire of the Russian ruling clique to incorporate Yugoslavia economically and militarily into the Russian system and the counter efforts of Tito’s group to strike a better bargain with U.S.A. A fairly close parallel can be found in the way the Italian ruling class changed sides in both world wars; both countries are industrially weak and both occupy a strategically important position, but nevertheless one that is exposed to pressure from those who wield combined naval and air power in the Mediterranean.

The Yugoslav spokesmen have complained that the Russian Government tried to control the Yugoslav army, installed its own agents in the country; compelled Yugoslavia to export to the Russian market at prices below world level, and by setting up so-called joint industrial enterprises that are in fact controlled by Russia alone, sought to turn all the Balkan satellites into Russian colonies. This is the normal relationship that the stronger Powers try to impose on the weaker ones and it did not surprise socialists. The communists have been very much surprised because they have fallen into a trap set by their own tortuous propaganda. Having decided to pretend that Russian State Capitalism is Socialism they have ended by believing it, and have in consequence thought that the economic and class forces that push all capitalist states into rivalry and imperialism would cease to operate East of the “iron curtain." Forgetting their once-held view that international politics could only be explained by looking at the underlying economic forces the communists have been forced into the absurd “idealistic” explanation of the Yugoslav attitude that it is due to Tito and his colleagues having been got at, bribed and flattered by American agents.

An entertaining though tragic aspect of the conflict is the way both sides present their case under a cloud of Marxist phrases. In between blackguarding each other in the choicest invective the Stalinites accuse Tito of betraying Socialism—as if he ever had any to betray—while Tito smartly retorts with references to and quotations from Marx and Lenin. Telling the miners in Belgrade that Russia must not interfere in Yugoslav affairs, because Yugoslavia is one of the countries “which are building up Socialism,” Tito added: “ We must clear this matter up and say—as Lenin once said against Trotsky—it is possible to create Socialism in one country ” (Times 12/9/49).

A little later we find Tito working up the war spirit with talk about fighting to the death in defence “Marxist Leninism”—the enemy of course being the Russians who will be told they are fighting for the same principles. He was addressing high-ranking army officers after the manoeuvres:—

“It is better to die in battle honestly fighting for justice and truth than allow yourselves to be trampled on or bend your necks like slaves and sec the great principles of Marxist-Leninism destroyed without resistance.

"We have carried out these manoeuvres when attempts are being made to frighten our people, disrupt our unity, and render impossible the successful building of Socialism."

The Army, he said, would defend Yugoslavia “until the last breath and regardless when the attack came."— (Daily Mail, October 10th, 1949.)

It only remains now for the British and American Governments to “discover” that Tito is defending democracy. Already Mr. Bevin has dug out the old phrases about a small nation bullied by a big one (at the United Nations), and various articles and speeches have been made on the theme that Tito is really a very fine fellow.

* * *

Ship-owners and Shipyard Workers

Workers in the shipyards are worried. During October many hundreds were stood off, and we are told that “shipyards all over Britain are expected in the next few weeks to declare thousands of workers redundant” (People, 9/10/49). Most of them are skilled workers.

"They have been kept busy ever since the war ended on reconversion of liners and freighters back to peace-time requirements. Now that work is coming to an end. The rush is over. Demand for new ships is also slackening off and there is only enough work in sight in the shipyards to keep occupied the regular peace-time ship workers.” 

Among the factors disturbing the owners and workers is “growing foreign competition.” The Daily Telegraph (4/10/49) quotes an official of the Confederation of Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Operatives as saying that with the re-entry of Japan and Germany into the shipbuilding market, “there is no saying what might happen in the future.” And according to the Liverpool Dai Post (3/10/49, quoted in Daily Worker, 8/10/49) shipowners are also worried about the threatened undercutting of Atlantic fares by big, fast Russian liners and on 5th October the first Russian ship to dock at Montreal for years “undercut British and Canadian freight rates and secured a cargo of cereals for Britain” (Herald, 6/10/49).

There are problems here for both owners and workers. The sacked workers are assured by the Herald (14/10/49) that they have not much to be worried about, for they “will be quickly absorbed in other jobs,” the industries named being engineering and the building trades. They may be absorbed in these industries for a time, but the Herald does not take into account either the likely restriction of building or what will happen to these and all industries when Capitalism develops a major crisis. For the building trade there is already talk of curtailing of building plans as part of the plans the Government is considering in order to enforce concentration on the export trades.

The shipowners are also thinking ahead. On October 13th, when Mr. Attlee attended the annual dinner of the Chamber of Shipping at the Dorchester Hotel, Mr. Colin Anderson, the President, let fall a delicate hint that when they are in serious difficulties the shipowners will turn to the Government for some kind of assistance.

“We face a cold decade—we are already feeling the first frosts. Where shall we stand when the winter is really upon us? Rather than be slowly frozen even we may be forced to contemplate applying for the shelter of some form of counter-action—a garment which, in this case, perhaps only the State would be able to provide."— (Daily Telegraph, October 10th, 1949.)

Mr. Anderson (who by the way made his remarks in the course of a speech “ proposing the toast of the Government”) said that the shipowners are trying to work out a sensible way of retaining the valuable aspects of private enterprise, but doubtless “if winter comes” they won’t much mind the Labour Government buying them out with State-guaranteed bonds which will save them from the icy blast that will send the shipyard workers to the Labour Exchange and the dole.

* * *

The Co-operatives and the Sugar Industry

The Daily Express (16/9/49) suggested that the Co-operative societies may not be enthusiastic about the suggested nationalisation of the sugar industry by the Labour Government. It was pointed out that the Co-operative Wholesale Society was not represented at the meeting of Tate & Lyle shareholders when nationalisation was discussed and opposed. And there is a curious item of information in the same issue of the Daily Express, to the effect that the C.W.S., in addition to being Tate & Lyle's biggest customers are also “ the largest single shareholder in Tate & Lyle.”

* * *

Herald Editors Slip Up

On October 6th the Daily Herald editorial described the frigid reception Sir Stafford Cripps received at the Guildhall. Their comment was: —

”We might say that if the bankers and merchants of the City of London received with enthusiasm a pronouncement by a Socialist Chancellor, that would be sensational news. It would also be sinister news.”

But on the same page of the Herald we read the following about a meeting of Wall Street stockbrokers in New York addressed by Mr. Maurice Webb, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party: —

”. . . Webb was asked to explain Labour policy to the 24 most important stockbrokers on Wall Street. He was surprised when his only critic turned out to be an Englishman who had emigrated to the States years ago.”

* * *

Another Cotton Revolution on the Way

The industrial revolution made the cotton industry largely a woman’s industry and at present about two- thirds of the workers in the weaving section are women. Now as a result of technical changes recommended by the Cotton Manufacturing Commission it is forecast that men will replace women.

”Thirteen men sitting as the Cotton Manufacturing Commission have come to the conclusion that married women weavers—the bulk of the labour force in the industry—cannot adapt themselves as well as men to redeployment.”—(News-Chronicle, October 5th, 1949.) 

Another report (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49) says: “The industry must ‘redeploy' or perish. Redeployment—the rearrangement of machines giving highly- skilled operatives more looms, and increasing output and wages by up to 25 per cent.—was the essential part of the Commission’s recommendations.”

The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, K.C., told a Press Conference that “he wanted the industry to pay a wage sufficient for a married man to keep a family without his wife going out to work. He visualised the industry becoming predominantly
male instead of female” (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49).


* * *

A Scientist on Scientists

Professor J. D. Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, London, caused a stir by a speech in Moscow in which he said that science outside Russia and her satellites is under the direction of war makers. He subsequently explained in a letter to the Times (8/10/49) that when he spoke of “capitalist countries” he meant mainly America and not “Socialist Britain.”

The controversy produced a useful admission about the limitations of some scientists when they wander out of their own field, from Sir Edward V. Appleton, Principal of Edinburgh University. Speaking in Edinburgh on October 3rd, Sir Edward Appleton, who was formerly Professor of Physics and is Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, said: —

‘‘The statement by Professor Bernal is a striking illustration of the fact that the reliability of the scientist does not always extend beyond his own laboratory, and one often finds a scientist who, while not ready to accept any scientific result until it is fully tested, is quite ready to voice wholly untested opinions about other matters in the most prejudicial and dogmatic manner.”—(Manchester Guardian, October 4th, 1949.)

If any other evidence is required that the above criticism fits Professor Bernal we have the latter’s own letter to the Times; for without any evidence at all— all the evidence is against it—and obviously without any serious thought, he describes Capitalist Britain as “ Socialist.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Notes by the Way: Labour Party Chairman on Tory Nationalisation (1949)

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

Labour Party Chairman on Tory Nationalisation

Mr. Maurice Webb, M.P., Chairman of the Labour Party, is on his way from Canada to U.S.A. to answer “gross misrepresentations” about the Labour Government. Before he left he gave an interview to reporters: 

“ Much of the misinformation being spread in the United States is done by British people and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They blame all Britain’s troubles on Socialism, forgetting that only about 20 per cent, of the economy has been nationalised and the rest is private enterprise. And about 12 per cent. of the 20 per cent. was initiated by the previous Government.” (Manchester Guardian, September 10th, 1949.)

While he is clearing up misrepresentations he might start with himself and stop calling Nationalisation “Socialism.”

#    #    #    #

Can Yon live on 92s. 6d. a Week?

The Conciliation Board has rejected the railwaymen’s claim for a 10s. increase, also rejected the contention that 92s. 6d. a week is too little to live on.

“The Board cannot accept the contention that earnings, as apart from rates, should be excluded when assessing the adequacy of basic rates, nor is it satisfied that the minimum rate of 92s. 6d. is below the figure necessary to maintain the minimum standard of human needs.” (Times, September 9th, 1949.) 

It has been estimated by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics (“Bulletin,” July-August, 1949) that working-class cost of living has increased by 79 per cent. since before the war. If we make allowance for this increase of prices a present wage of 92s. 6d. is equal to a pre-war wage of about 51s. 8d. Actually the minimum wage fixed for porters in October, 1939, was 47s., 48s., or 50s., according to area, but the Railway Union complained that it was much too low, and no Trade Union official or Labour Leader would have defended 51s. 8d. a week.

Yet after nationalisation and four years of Labour Government a present minimum wage, which will buy no more than 51s. 8d. bought before the war, is defended as adequate by the Conciliation Board!

#    #    #    #

Is There a Shortage of Money?

The following needs no comment: —

“Application lists for the £6,500,000 offer of shares in W. H. Smith & Son (Holdings), the newsagents and booksellers, were open for only five minutes in the City yesterday morning. Even before the lists opened at 10 a.m. the brokers handling the issue had received applications from the public covering the amount offered by a large margin.

“By yesterday evening, although the count had not been completed, the public’s response was estimated at over £20 million.” (Daily Telegraph. September 2nd, 1949.)

#    #    #    #

Mr. Morrison’s Duty to his Country

At a press conference in Strasbourg on August 26th Mr. Herbert Morrison uttered a few words “before leaving for a three-week holiday in the South of France.” This is what he said:—

“ It is my duty to my country to get a holiday. It is merely an elementary duty of public service.” (Manchester Guardian, August 27th, 1949.)

The comment of the Guardian's Diplomatic Correspondent is, “ No one doubted it, but why so pompous about it?”

If a miner thought that it was his duty or pleasure and if he had the money to go to the South of France for three weeks, he would be charged with inexcusable absenteeism.

#    #    #    #

Production and Consumption, by Sir Stafford Cripps

In a speech at Washington, Sir Stafford Cripps gave the following information about production and consumption in Great Britain:—

“Industrial production in Britain is to-day at an all-time high, about 25 per cent. above the immediate pre-war level. Industrial productivity is rising steadily. In the first half of 1949 output per man was 4 to 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier and well above the pre-war figure. The average working week to-day is just over 45 hours. The volume of exports in the first half of this year was 51 per cent. greater than in 1938, the volume of imports 15 per cent. less. . . . In spite of the great increase in production, personal consumption has risen by only 4 per cent. over the past three years. The reason is that the extra output has been used partly to boost exports, partly to support the largest capital investment programme in our history which is currently absorbing more than one-fifth of the whole national output.” (Manchester Guardian, September 10th, 1949.)

#    #    #    #

“ Nobody Knew the Difference ”

Some American politicians affect to believe that Britain has been revolutionised by the Labour Government’s nationalisation schemes, though they are not all so ill-informed. Mr. Hoffman, Marshall Plan Administrator, speaking at a Press Conference in Washington on August 29th was asked about this, and replied:—

“The coal mines in Britain were no better and no worse for having been nationalised. The same was true of the railways, and though the Bank of England was also nationalised, nobody knew the difference. (Times, August 30th, 1949.)

#    #    #    #

The German Elections

The general election in Western Germany, held in the middle of August, made the Social Democrats the second largest party in the new Parliament with 131 seats out of 402. Their total vote, 6,932,000, represented 33 per cent. of the votes as against 35 per cent. given to the Christian Democratic Union and 13 per cent given to the next largest party, the Free Democratic Union. The new Government is a coalition dominated by the Christian Democratic Union.

The results are an answer to those who thought that with the disappearance of the Hitler Dictatorship the electorate would give their votes to the Social Democrats, a party much like the British Labour Party.

The German Social Democrats, in spite of their reformist and strongly nationalist programme and policy designed to capture all sections of the population (except those who stand for Socialism), are thus shown to have made little headway. Their voting strength compares unfavourably with what it was 30 and more years ago. As long ago as 1912 they received 35 per cent. of the votes (“Labour Year Book,” 1916, P. 411). Then at the elections in January, 1919, after the setting up of the Republic, the Social Democrats were by far the largest party with nearly 40 per cent. of the votes (45 per cent. if the "Independent Socialists” are added), and remained the largest party until 1932. Their vote had, however, been falling and at the 1930 election was down to 25 per cent. of the total.

The Communists, who in 1930 obtained 13 per cent. of the votes, fared badly in the elections in August last, receiving 1,360,000 votes, about 4 per cent of the total.

#    #    #    #

The Faith of a “Christian Communist"

In accordance with the policy of getting the support of anyone no matter what his understanding of Socialism may be, the Communist Party accepts into its ranks people whose religious beliefs are quite incompatible with Marxism and with the views expressed by Lenin.

The following are extracts from an article,44 Why I Became a Communist,” by the Reverend W. E. Allen, published in the Daily Worker (August 31st, 1949): —

“ In the three years I have been a member of the Communist Party I have found in the fellowship of the local branch a comradeship, a sense of service to the people, and an intellectual honesty which I feel are truly Christian.”

"What Jesus expressed in religious symbols, Marx saw in scientific terms. Communism has much to give Christianity, and Christianity much to give Communism.”

It is odd that the Rev. W. E. Allen should find "intellectual honesty” in the Communist Party. In three years of membership and in his reading of Marx, which, he says, benefited his understanding, he must surely by now have discovered that the Communists are professed accepters of the materialist conception of history and he can hardly have escaped coming across their former use of the phrase from Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people.”

#    #    #    #

Communists Who Live in Glasshouses

The Daily Worker (August 19th, 1949) finds it very diverting that an American critic of the Labour Government should accuse them of aiming to "equalise incomes so that everybody will be approximately on the same financial level.”

The Worker says: —

“This is not only ‘news’ for Americans. Workers in Britain’s nationalised industries contemplating the salaries of the heads of the nationalised boards will find it strange, exciting and untrue.”

Bu who are the Communists to throw stones at the Labour Government? True the latter have forgotten their old advocacy of equality of incomes, but what about the Russian workers who can contrast the high salaries and incomes from investment in State bonds in Russia, with Lenin's declaration that as soon as they got power the Communists in Russia would likewise bring all incomes to approximately the level of pay of the workers?

Very appropriately at this moment comes the statement of one of the admirers of Russia, Professor Bernal. He visited Russia again last month, 15 years after ah earlier trip, and on his return he commented: "How they have changed! The standard of living of the better-paid workers is higher than here. The shops are filled and there are no queues.” (Daily Express, November 10th, 1949.)

We are asked to admire “Socialist” Russia because the "higher paid workers,” not the workers as a whole, are better off than are workers in capitalist Britain!

#    #    #    #

A Labour Prophet has a Fall

At the Labour Party Conference in May, 1940, when the Labour Party decided to enter the Churchill Government, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, M.P., made a prophecy about the outcome of the war:—

"We shall have a trembling capitalist system which can never recover again. We shall have broken the back of the vested interests, and we can build a socialist commonwealth which will be a powerful factor in the world.” (Daily Herald, May 14th, 1940.)

On the 10th anniversary of the outbreak of war Mr. Greenwood gave a message to the Daily Mail (September 3rd, 1949) which included the following: — 

“This peace has not yet been won, and Britain’s effort to-day must be directed towards the fullest use of all human and material resources, so as to play our part in the reshaping of the whole world.”

British Capitalism is indeed in a bad way, but what the Labour Government is now doing is to direct all their efforts to trying to put it on its feet again while urging the workers to refrain from making demands that would stand in the way of British capitalist recovery. The Labour Party’s latest pronouncement of policy is appropriately called "Labour Believes in Britain,” not “ Labour Believes in Socialism.”

#    #    #    #

Why no Celebration?

By a curious oversight the Daily Worker on August 23rd, 1949, forgot to celebrate a great occasion in Communist Party history; yet when the event occurred ten years ago they claimed that it was a "Victory for Peace and Socialism.” (Daily Worker, August 23rd, 1939.) The event in question was the Pact of Friendship between Stalin and Hitler. Can it be that they now wish to forget that "Socialist” victory?

#    #    #    #

Education and the Standard Oil Co. of America

"The Lamp,” a periodical published by the Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), U.S.A., reproduced in its issue for November, 1947, an address by Frank W. Abrams, Chairman of the Board of Directors, on "The Stake of Business in American Education.” Some of the points made by him are interesting as indicating how big business regards education. His first main point is that the better educated the population are the more they earn and therefore the more money they have to spend on such things as books, newspapers, houses, and, of course, motor cars. His next point was that education increases the workers’ output—"business depends upon education not only to provide more profitable markets but to provide more productive manpower.”

"As every foreman knows, a worker who has had some practice in learning at school usually turns out to be better at learning in a factory. He catches on more quickly not only to the how of his job, but the why of it. His training takes less time. He has a quicker and better grasp of problems and ideas. He is more apt to think about what he is doing and to come up with useful suggestions concerning it. If he has gone through college, he has had an opportunity to acquire the broader perspective and the capacity to think in terms of ideas and trends, which are indispensable in the higher management levels.”

"If business and industry could not draw upon a large reservoir of educated man-power, they would be handicapped in every phase of their operations. American education does a job for business and industry. If our hope of an advancing American economy involves reducing costs, increasing individual productivity, and devising better ways of doing things, we must consider that we have a major interest in helping American education and educators in their work.”

On the financial side he mentions that "many corporations underwrite the expense of research projects in college and university laboratories which they feel will be valuable to their operations. Others grant scholarships.”

He thinks, however, that more should be done in the direction of providing money for endowed educational institutions.

Mr. Abrams also thinks that education makes for political security for the existing social system.

"The experts in this field are convinced that education produces not only a difference in the volume of opinion, but also a difference in the kind of opinion. People with information are inclined to have moderate opinions, whereas those without information are apt to be extremists.”

Of course it all depends on the kind of information. What Mr. Abrams is saying to his fellow big business men is that if they put up the money they can influence the kind of information supplied by the educational institutions and thus help to make America safe for Capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle