Cuban Background (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

To anyone who follows the Latin American scene, so many aspects of Cuban politics seem familiar that there is a danger of failing to see just what distinguishes the Cuban question from the traditional turmoil in that part of the world.

When Spain’s colonies in the New World fought for independence a hundred and fifty years ago, their main source of inspiration was revolutionary France and the young United States. However, in one fundamentally important respect they fell short of the requirements of real social change; a unified and coherent class demanding the overthrow of the outmoded system on the strength of its mastery of the new productive and social forces.

As the present situation in the Congo shows, not all independence movements are the expression of a powerful embryo bourgeoisie, ready to effectively take the place of the former Imperialists on the backs of the local working-class and peasantry. The ousting of Spain from the Americas was due more to the weakness of Spain than to the strength of its colonies. The social vacuum, the rapid collapse into anarchy could not, in those days, become the concern of a United Nations Organisation acting as a broker and a policeman of international capital. The high-flown language of the constitutions drawn up by the South American disciples of Washington, Jefferson and even Tom Paine was not matched by the level of economic and class development in their respective regions. From Mexico in the north to Argentina in the south, the whole continent was to relapse into a state of autocracy where power rested with decadent, constantly feuding landowning interests.

At the turn of this century, the needs of European Industrialism led to the “Scramble for Africa”. Perhaps less spectacularly, and certainly without the formal annexation of territory as was the case in Africa, a similar process began in the Americas. The outcome of this process has, to a remarkable degree, run parallel to Afro-Asian developments. Britain, France, the USA and then Italy, Germany and Japan have, over the years, poured capital in and drained profits out. Vast rail networks were established. Soon hides and grain, meat and coffee, sugar and bananas, were flowing onto the world market.

The precious metals that had provided the funds for Spain’s “siglo de oro”, its century of supreme power and culture, were no longer of prime importance. Not silver from the mines of Potosí, but tin from neighbouring parts of Bolivia, was to become the source of immense wealth for the mighty foreign Corporations who were equally busy in their exploitation of copper and nitrates from Chile, petroleum from Venezuela, quebracho from Paraguay, and so on. Countries, most of them larger than any in Europe, were to become utterly dependent upon a single crop; here coffee, there bananas or sugar.

Guatemala, which in its time played the rôle of David to the American Goliath, is known as a banana republic. In Cuba, on whom the mantle has fallen, it is sugar that dominates. True, tobacco from these parts is justly famous throughout the world. In view of Cuba’s increasingly intimate relationship with the Russian Capitalist bloc we may yet witness the paradox of the Havana cigar as a status symbol of the Russian ruling class. We shall see bloated Commissars yet! Nevertheless, it is sugar that is Cuba’s economic life. As goes sugar so goes Cuba—boom or slump; it is the basis of its foreign trade which in this context means, overwhelmingly, trade with the USA. Fidel Castro now challenges the status quo.

As a “middle-class” Robin Hood, Fidel readily appealed to an American public weaned on the exploits of Davy Crocket. At the point where it became evident that in serving the needs of aspiring Cuban Capitalism the existing order of things would be upset, Castro fell from his pedestal. He was unmasked as the harbinger of “Communism” (read, Russian influence) in the Western Hemisphere. The bearded warrior of the mountains was romantic no longer.

The modern history of Cuba could be written around its relations with the United States. Of all the former Spanish colonies it was the last to break from the grip of the old country. It did so only to find itself a virtual colony of its erstwhile ally; to such an extent that there was an American governor at first, and US troops were not withdrawn from the island until eleven years after the signing of the peace treaty with Spain in 1898. US marines returned “to restore law and order” in 1920. The United States census of 1947 revealed that their industrial investments alone were only slightly less in Cuba than in Brazil; $64,000,000 as against $65,000,000 (Germán Arciniegas, The State of Latin America, p. 302). This figure later increased.

Trade Unions

Through this century, Cuban government has been a succession of “strongmen,” as Time magazine likes to call them, who have depended upon American patronage. Fractional alterations in US sugar tariffs in line with the protectionist demands of Hawaii or Porto Rico have had overnight repercussions on the Cuban economy. Laws passed by the US Senate actually reducing Cuba’s sugar quota, as in 1951, when the quota was varied in favour of Trujillo’s Dominican Republic, Peru and Porto Rico could mean and often did lead to gross economic instability. In working-class terms this means unemployment, destitution.

Out of bitter experience there grew in the 1930’s a significant labour movement. In a limited sphere, in the cigarette and cigar factories and the Havana docks, Spanish immigrants of the Anarcho-Syndicalist school had introduced the principles of trade-unionism at the turn of the century. In more recent times a far wider range of trades has become involved although at the price of Stalinist influence out-weighing that of the old Anarcho-Syndicalists who, for all their faults, did not compromise their class interests with the state requirements of a world power as do the so-called Communists. In fact, the Communists’ record in Cuba puts them in a rather curious position in relation to the current “togetherness” of their home and “mother” countries.

Batista, murderous and corrupt, Farouk to Castro’s Nasser, had been given Communist support in his early years of power (M. Poblete,  El movimiento obrero latinoamericano, p. 196). It was he who gave the Party legal recognition. Batista came to power first in October, 1940. In December of that year the second congress of the Communist-slanted Workers Federation of Cuba, T.U.C. of sorts, drew up a statement with which a Socialist could scarcely disagree.

“Cuban workers …. resolve to struggle against the Imperialist war, to expose its Imperialist character and the war-aims of both belligerents and to develop a nation-wide movement to ensure that our country keeps out of this criminal conflict“.

When “you know what” happened, new instructions were given out. The first resolution to be carried at the third: congress of the C.T.C. went as follows:

“The supreme task of the labour movement at the present time is to concentrate all its efforts and to use all its might towards the defeat of the Axis. Workers organised under the C.T.C. are willing to collaborate with all those in favour or national unity, that is to say, willing to subordinate any grievances that may arise within the country in their over-riding interest in destroying the foreign enemy. For the duration of the war, Cuban workers wish to avoid strikes and disputes likely to interfere with production.”

The congress called upon working-class youth to volunteer for service at the war-front.

C.P. just in time

Communist support for Castro’s guerrilla struggle came late but, like Russia’s entry into the war against Japan, in time. At this stage, however, it would be a mistake to regard Castro as a Caribbean Kadar, a mere puppet of the Eastern bloc. Like many a Nationalist before him he is attempting to play off one great power against another in the hope that advantages will accrue to the would-be elite he represents. It is the universal demand of the Latin American bourgeoisie to free their respective national economies from the preponderance of Anglo-American capital.

As early as 1926, in a polemic with Lozowsky, chief of the Profintern, Haya de la Torre, of Peru, pioneer student of the development processes of backward countries within the Imperialist orbit, denied the accusation by the Communists that he favoured unconditional support of Japan in the event of a war between that country and the U.S.A. Nevertheless, he considered it would be a valuable opportunity to take advantage of their rivalry (Haya de la Torre, El antimperialismo y el APRA, p. 101). A mightier rival appears on the scene and, one by one, the Latin American rulers see how to use their bargaining position to diversify their means of production and to intensify or quite often to initiate industrial development. Back in Havana from Prague just recently, a Castro man announced he had secured promises to establish thirty new industries by East European concerns. Of course, for a small power to attempt playing off the great powers involves considerable risks. It is sometimes swallowed up in the process.

The overthrow of the Batista clique with its record of gangsterism in the Chicago tradition, has been followed by a vigorous and forward-looking regime under a new dictator; what in Spanish is wryly called a “dictablanda” rather than a “dictadura”, a mild dictatorship whose authority is used towards social reorganisation rather than to feather the generalissimo’s private nest. Be that as it may, the massive programme of nationalising most Western owned utilities, agrarian reform meaning the breakup and redistribution amongst the rural population of the great estates (a retrograde step from the long term point of view), the attack upon widespread illiteracy add up to a really serious attempt on the part of Cuba to enter the Capitalist arena on a more equal footing.

“In Europe, Imperialism is the culmination of a series of developments within Capitalism and is characterised by the export of capital and the capturing of markets and sources of raw materials in the economically backward countries. However, what in Europe is (according to Haya de la Torre whom we are quoting) ‘the last phase of Capitalism’ is in Latin America the first. For us Indo-Americans, imported capital marks our first step in modern capitalist society” (Haya de la Torre, El antimperialismo y el APRA, p. 51).

Pending a dramatic awakening of working-class consciousness within the metropolitan powers, the repetition elsewhere of our own bitter experience seems inevitable, though tragically so. But this much, at least, we can say: that the Socialist, on the strength of his Marxian analysis, cannot be deluded into believing that this latter-day development of Capitalism, the most inhuman of all social systems, whether of the state-owned variety or not, is the first stage of our revolution; the beginnings of a society built democratically by a conscious, international working-class to serve human needs on the basis of common ownership of the means of living— Socialism. Would that it were!

Eddie Grant

Finance & Industry: If only prices would come down! (1961)

The Finance and Industry Column from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

If only prices would come down! 

A woman reader of the Evening News (28/11/60) wrote referring to the old saying that what goes up must come down, and asked if this applies to the cost of living; “if so I haven’t noticed it”.

About 99 per cent. of the population would say, if asked, that they “want prices to come down”. They don’t really mean this. What they mean is that it would be very nice if the prices of the things they buy went down and the price of the thing they sell went up. The worker would like to sell his mental and physical energies to his employer at a higher price (a higher wage) and at the same time get more for each pound he spends, through lower prices in the shop. And manufacturers who sell industrial products would like to see those prices go up and all other prices (including wages) go down.

One exception to this general attitude is the common practice of trade unions of associating themselves with their employers in approving higher prices. Thus the railway unions approve higher fares and the coal miners higher prices for coal.

But coming back to the question in the Evening News, would workers be better off if prices were lower? France a few months ago and Russia this month gave one kind of answer to the question, the answer being that it did not make any difference. What happened was that France cut the face value of her currency by 100, and the Russians cut their rouble by 10. At the same time all prices, wages, fares, etc., were cut in the same proportion, so everyone was in just the same position as before.

But on some occasions prices have not been reduced by this kind of government action but have fallen under the influence of trading conditions. Did the workers gain then?

It happened in 1920-1922. Between November 1920 and December 1922 prices fell on average of 35 per cent.; like being able to buy for 13/- some article which had cost 20/-.

But in the same period wage rates fell on average by the same percentage (or perhaps a little more). So the worker who could buy articles at lower prices had fewer shillings in his wage packet to buy the articles with.

It was a time when unemployment was heavy and conditions were particularly unfavourable for trade union resistance to wage cuts.

New Russian Rouble

The declaration of the Russian government that as from 1 January 1961 the official rate of exchange of the rouble will be 2.52 to the £ which will make it of higher value than the dollar and equal to about 8/-, will not mean much in practice since (unlike the dollar) it is not tied to gold and is not freely convertible into pounds or dollars. Commentators in the newspapers mostly take the line that the aim of the Russian government is prestige, the satisfaction of having at least a nominal exchange rate greater than that of the dollar. In addition however there is already the long term purpose of making the rouble eventually a gold backed world currency acceptable in inter-national trade as the pound and dollar have been.

The Daily Worker (17/11/60) anticipates that “the new exchange rates and the change in the gold content of the rouble herald the opening up of peaceful competition between the rouble and the dollar”, and “It may not be long before the rouble begins to challenge the dollar for primacy in world trade”.

There was a time when even the Daily Worker would have recognised that the trade war between capitalist states is anything but “peaceful competition “.

Rouble Millionaires

The Daily Telegraph (6/12/60) tells of a Russian woman who got into the ranks of the rouble millionaires by a piece of private enterprise that landed her in jail for three years. She ran an organisation, complete with a lawyer as secretary, a “scientific consultant”, an accountant, and a network of agents selling cure-all herbs at 45/- a packet. When arrested she had 700,000 roubles (worth about £60,000 at the old rate of exchange) and had just bought a country house for 300,000 roubles. “Her daily earnings would sometimes amount to 5,000 roubles, or eight times a worker’s monthly wage”.

The Economic Horizon

A year ago most of the political and economic forecasters were happy about the boom time ahead and still confident that if anything went wrong the government could fairly easily take the steps that would put the economy back on expansion. Now they are not so sure. The fact that they are all asking the question is itself a pointer to growing uneasiness, made greater by the foreseeable but generally not foreseen collapse of motor exports.

Now it is accepted that America and Canada are likely to have unemployment greater than in any year since the end of the war and there is the natural fear that British export trade may fall further and the jobless increase in number.

Gone is the post-war optimism based on the belief that they could always dip into the Keynesian remedies and keep everything under control. One of the current activities is the setting up of export councils to boost the sale of British goods in overseas markets, including the Export Council for Europe set up by the Federation of British Industries and manned by “some of the most prominent men in British industry and commerce ” (Financial Times, 11/11/60).

But before anyone accepts that the export problems of British capitalism can readily be solved by pushing into other markets (and thereby crowding out some other would-be sellers) it has to be remembered that other sections of the capitalist class would have had the same idea. Canada has appointed a “super salesman” to head its export drive, in the person of a new Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the American government is trying to boost their exports. Sweden, too, is aiming to solve its problems by more exports, and their eyes are fixed on the market for their goods in Britain. And to add to the troubles of all of them Russian exports are finding their way into many of the world’s competitive markets.

Paul Bareau, the new economic editor of the Daily Mail (25/11/60) argues that the present troubles in this country are due to “the excessive optimism and rashness of the years 1958 and 1959. Restrictions on hire purchase should never have been completely removed. This freedom was abused and we are now paying the price”.

So you take your choice between those who say that there is no need to worry because the government can always take action to put things right, and those who say, like Mr. Bareau, that the government did take steps but they were the wrong ones and had the effect of making things worse.

However, Mr. Bareau is cautiously hopeful. “The coming year will provide plenty of problems; but they will not be the problems of a great slump”.

Edgar Hardcastle

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

The New Cyprus Republic (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

(I) The Exiles Return

The Cyprus Republic proclaimed to a 21 gun salute and a fanfare of trumpets at midnight on 15th August whilst inside the House of Representatives, the Treaty of Independence was being signed. Diplomatic protocol was rigidly observed throughout. Sir Hugh Foot, the retiring Governor, Archbishop Makarios, and Dr. Kutchuk, now President and Vice-President respectively of the newly born Republic made the speeches expected of them. The crowd cheered and went away to await the arrival of the contingents of Greek and Turkish troops. The troops were greeted at the port of Famagusta by their respective supporters with cries of “Long live the Turkish Army”, and “Long live the Greek Army”. They then entered Nicosia to banner greetings of “Freedom and peace-loving soldiers, we welcome you to Cyprus” from whence they proceeded to their camps to prepare for whatever “peace-loving” activities the future might call, upon them to perform.

This Nicosia reception, though far from being wildly excited, was riotous compared with the departure of the late Governor of Cyprus, from Famagusta a few hours earlier. To the accompaniment of a bagpipe lament Sir Hugh Foot and his family departed the island followed by the silent stares of the thousands of watchers assembled on the town walls to greet the incoming troops.

The real highlight of the day came later, with the arrival at Nicosia Airport of 23 Eoka men, exiled to Greece under the amnesty terms following the London Agreement. Any doubts that Eoka had the sympathy and support of the majority of Cypriots must have been dispelled by the scenes. Weeping, shouting, kissing, hugging, hand-shaking men and women slowed the six mile journey from the airport to a two-hour crawl, which ended at the Nicosia Stadium, packed to capacity, with the surrounding roofs crowded. Cries in unison of E-O-K-A changed suddenly to MA-KA-RI-OS as the new president made his appearance.

Here the drama of the day was enacted. Before hysterical crowds the returning exiles made their speeches, and were officially greeted by the President with phrases like …”Your heroism has surpassed the bounds of history and become a tradition . . . In your heroic faces the Cypriot people see again with tears of gratitude and great emotion the sacred symbols of the struggle.”

Very adroitly he proceeded to draw the stings of the exiles who must have been very conscious that their struggle had not borne the fruit expected. The man who had so obviously benefited from what was regarded as a sell-out then said, “A new stage of struggle lies before us. We must all jointly undertake these peaceful struggles not with the hand-grenade and the arms, but with the power of our souls in order to build our Republic on sound foundations and to ensure the happiness, progress, and peace of our people.” He concluded, “I am sure that with the same faith with which you fought on the battlefield you will fight now on the peaceful front.” Significantly, the anti-Makarios Ex-Eoka Fighters Association which had boycotted the celebration, had complained that eight of its members had been arrested and held for one night in jail for distributing leaflets attacking the London and Zurich Agreements—during these same celebrations.

The general tenor of opinion was expressed by the Greek paper Ethnos:

“Greek Cypriots must live not with the memory of what they suffered or how much they were wronged by the British, nor how much their differences are with the Turks, nor should the soul be filled with bitterness at the negation of national hopes. The celebration must be the expression of joy at independence and also the expression of the determination to carry on the new struggle.”

Mr. John Clerides, leader of the Democratic Union, after calling the new Republic a fraud said, “We shall not molest those who believing in this fraud have accepted political responsibilities in the new state. We shall, however abstain from their jubilation.” An understandable remark. since his son, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, had just accepted the position of Speaker in the new Parliament.

The Akel (the Cyprus Communist Party) view was expressed by their paper Haravghi, which called for a policy of peace and friendship abroad in order to secure markets for “our” products. Mr. Papaioannou, General Secretary of Akel, stated from East Berlin, after opposing the presence of British troops, that the Cyprus people must form a broad anti-imperialist front to overcome the impediments of the Agreements.

During the many press conferences that followed, the President continually stressed his “friendship with all countries” policy. Occasionally reporters would fire awkward questions, such as the Turkish woman who asked why, on national holiday, the Turks had cheered in the Turkish contingent and the Greeks had celebrated the return of Eoka. Or others concerning the President’s attitude to Grivas (“in spite of differences my warm feelings to Grivas have not changed”). Or a question on the possible trouble from Eoka. which was answered by the assertion that Eoka must work peacefully for the common good. The President’s training received in manipulating the minds of the faithful in church was standing him in good stead. Concerning the all important question of trade, it was made clear that “trade with all countries would be encouraged and developed within the framework of a sound labour and social policy, safeguarding the capital importance of labour and the imprescribable rights of the working people.”

Thus the domestic and foreign policy of the new Republic was as one would have expected. All would be well, provided “the imprescribable rights of the working people were safeguarded” and “friendship with all countries” could be guaranteed. Assuming that these statements were not intended to be tongue-in-cheek platitudes, one must suppose that the President’s knowledge of the real world is as deficient as those of his many supporters who believed that somehow or other, a change from colonial to self-government would result in full employment, peace, and prosperity.

R. J.

(to be continued)

This Business of Antiques (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Antiques are a fascinating subject, but also a vast one, beyond the scope of this brief article. Here we can concern ourselves with such aspects as their collection by the élite of society, their haphazard donation or loaning to museums and, later, the production of “fake” antiques as a result of our commercial system.

Our story begins with the archeological efforts of Sir Arthur Evans at Cnossos on the Mediterranean island of Crete, who revealed an early Grecian civilisation of a high order, until then unknown.

These excavations early in the 20th century prove that, nearly four thousand years ago and at least five hundred years before the pottery of Athens achieved its ceramic supremacy, the craftsmen of Crete were producing articles for ornament and use in gold, ivory and porcelain of excellent design and execution. This Cretan civilisation, together with its contemporary cultures in other parts of the world, represents mankind’s first steps from tribal society.

Two thousand years afterwards, the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79 created a primitive museum for many fine examples of Man’s early works of art later to be unearthed by archeologists. These excavations revealed floors of mosaic, mural paintings, gold and silver ornaments and bronze busts, all of great beauty—whilst similar operations at Herculaneum were richer still in the artistic craftsmanship of the period.

During the period between the contemporary civilisation of Crete, Babylon, and Egypt, and the unearthing of the Pompeian treasures, Man’s cultural activity portrayed changes in his development as he reacted to his material environment—changing it and then changing himself. From the 7th century B.C. up to the 4th century A.D. the pottery of Athens was symbolical of the stage of ceramic achievement of this period, whilst Byzantine art, a combination of Greek, Persian and Román culture, was influenced by the rise of Christianity, with the symbol of the cross embodied in many designs. Indeed this motif is still with us, although religious items are not good sellers in the modern antique trade and probably the “cult of the cross” is on the wane.

Examples of Celtic art are provided by 8th century bronze shields of Ireland and the famous Tara brooch of Dublin from the 10th century. Craftsmen in Scandinavia also produced many beautiful designs in bronze and silver, their Viking ship incorporated a bronze dragon prow reflecting the early Icelandic sagas, recorded by William Morris in his epic poem—Sigurd the Volsung. It is also interesting to note that in the 12th century their pagan gods, Thor and Woden, overlapped in culture the rising Christian symbol, in a similar way that the Cretan culture influenced early Greek and Román art.

The 16th century witnessed the introduction into Europe of Chinese porcelain with its motif dragon patterns and the purity of the Ming dynasty productions. These early craftsmen of China, produced a hard paste porcelain which was the forerunner of what is known all over the world to-day as “china”.

Two hundred years later saw porcelain being produced in England at Bow, Bristol, Worcester, Derby and Longton Hall, while in 1775 Josiah Wedgwood introduced his famous Jasper ware at Etruria and of course this popular Wedgwood is still being produced to-day. Much could be written of the beauties of Dresden Candelabra, Meissen Figurine, Sevres vases, Chelsea groups etc. but enough has been said in this context, we hope, to explain the origin of antiques. We must now pass from the historical side of the subject to the economic for a continuation of our brief review.

Economics of Antiques

The commercial rule for determining whether an article qualifies for the description of “antique” is laid down by H.M. Customs and Excise Department in that it must be at least a hundred years of age to escape customs import duty.

Unlike new commodities, antiques have no exact price ticket range, but the post-war demand, mostly from America, has produced a pretty keen market for certain items, such as old Ruby glass ware, Staffordshire pottery figurine, early Wedgwood, pewter plates and tankards, Sheffield plate, Georgian silverware and jewellery, flint lock and percussion pistols.

There are those who patriotically lament this drain on stocks of antiques in Britain. They would do well to consider the reason, which is that, in a buying and selling world—with commodities “constantly in love with money” as Marx aptly put it—antiques represent a use-value to those American buyers wealthy enough to purchase an 18th century background for their 20th century mansions. In such a transaction antiques represent the usual be-all and end-all of commerce—a profit to the British seller, whose patriotism melts, “like snow upon the desert’s dusty face” at every chance of a profitable deal. In any event the denuding of Britain’s art stores is no more cause for shedding working-class tears, than the loss of a few colonies from the British Empire. Art treasures may certainly change their geographical position, but, like the colonies, they remain in the ownership of the capitalist class of the world. However, although antiques may vanish from the shores of Britain, it may also be relevent to enquire from where they came.

The collecting of antiques in England was largely initiated by the Earl of Arundel who in 1624 sent his agent, one William Petty, on an art-hunting expedition to Greece. Apparently Mr. Petty excelled himself in this task, sending to England, many consignments of Grecian statues, bronze busts etc., in a prodigious effort to denude Greece of its native art. Eventually, so numerous became the collection of nude statues in the Earl’s garden, that Sir Francis Bacon (so the story goes) coming upon them for the first time, stopped short and exclaimed— “The Resurrection!”.

Some 270 years later, we find a sort of sequel to this transplanting of antiques from one geographical area to another in a controversy in the British Parliament about the return to Ireland of some very valuable ancient Irish ornaments, found in Ireland by a “poor” man and purchased by trustees of the British Museum for a paltry £600. During the discussion a Mr. Leighton quite logically asked where this system of restitution was to end and if the British Museum would return the objects they had taken from Greece and Egypt? Apparently this question fell on deaf ears, but then—any reader visiting the British Museum will find the answer.

In addition to the existence of genuine antiques, there is the problem, thrown up by the cesspool of commerce, of “faked” antiques which originally graced the drawing rooms and china cabinets of bourgeois mansions of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Fakes of old Chelsea porcelain are too numerous to mention. While Staffordshire pottery “Toby jugs” made last week and buried in the earth to produce signs of age, which may not deceive a connoisseur, are foisted on to many a dealer and eventually sold to the usual credulous “man in the street”. Items of furniture, appearing on the market as “Sheraton” or “Chippendale” mysteriously increase the production (not the profits!) of those early craftsmen.

Some years ago, the writer purchased a three-piece set of china figurine that appeared to be Chelsea, complete with the well known “gold anchor” mark. Actually they were produced by a ceramics manufacturer in France who specialises in faking the valuable early Chelsea art, no doubt at times with success! This counterfeit Chelsea was being produced in Paris as early as 1850, and in Belgium there is a factory producing counterfeit Sèvres and Dresden porcelains. The difficulty of detecting these spurious wares by amateur buyers is spotlighted by the fact that experts themselves are at times deceived. For instance, J. H. Yoxall, who was a member of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which investigated in 1898 some forgeries of antiques bought by the Victoria and Albert Museum, found that a platter of Palissy ware bought for the museum at £200 was a forgery from France, originally sold by the French makers at £10 each! This same Museum also paid several hundred of pounds for a Sedan chair supposed to be a genuine antique which had genuine panels only let into a brand new chair!

To give an up-to-date example, the Manchester Evening Chronicle recently reported on Indian artisans who have resorted to faking ancient statuettes by buying new sculptures and tarnishing them.

All this merely goes to show that so long as antiques are part of a buying and selling world, it is a branch of commerce that bristles with pitfalls for the unwary, as it is only an expert who can detect real age, for instance, by the Patina which is a result of the chemical action of light and air over the years.

Apart from the waste of energy and material in the production of fake antiques, most dealers, whether handling the spurious output to which the profit motive leads or the “real McCoy” are primarily concerned with the cash value represented thereby, and appreciation of their intrinsic artistic beauty is a secondary consideration.

Private collections of antiques are a bugbear peculiar to a class-divided society, because instead of being freely available for social enjoyment and cultural education, they are confined within the mansions of the wealthy in an ostentatious and snobbish display of opulence. As an illustration—at the recent exhibition of private collections of paintings (some 250) on view in Manchester City Art Gallery, one Reynolds had not been viewed by the public since 1884! Another very large beautiful painting by Stubbs of a grey mare and foals had been exhibited only once before. Just how much of the art heritage of the past remains hidden from society is anybody’s guess!

This state of affairs is, of course, the result of our class-divided society and will only be abolished through the establishment of a class-less Socialist society ending the buying and selling of the commercial system, thus opening up new vistas of social enjoyment of the artistry of mankind.

As it is, “Mine and Thine” is the ruling ethic in the art world of to-day, and along with a host of other privileges goes “an environment of objets d’art.” To have one’s walls adorned with a Reynolds, a Rembrandt, or a Millais, tables in antique silver with Sèvres porcelain, one must belong to the non-producing class in our present social system.

Inevitably, as a result of this class division, the shoddy goods of multiple stores provide a tasteless and cheap façade for the Pre-fab, semi-detached and tenement homes of the mass of humanity.

We see, therefore, that it ¡s the commodity nature of antiques that stands in the way of their social ownership and so long as they remain such they will be used as status symbols of false values in a snobbish world. But make no mistake; appreciation of the arts is no biological peculiarity of the minority rulers of society, neither has it anything to do with the colour of one’s blood. It is simply a matter of having time to devote, and access to artistic productions, in order to appreciate them.

This Socialism alone can provide and surely this is not an impossible task for modern man to achieve.

G. R. Russell

50 Years Ago: Patriotism and Scarlet Coats (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our ruling class can see that their Continental rivals are determined to obtain as large a share of the markets of the world as possible, and that sooner or later this must culminate in world-wide disruption. Hence their anxiety on the score of “patriotism.” Lord Esher gives expression to his anxious thoughts in the suggestion that “patriotism” is an attribute of the empty-headed. “How can you expect,” he writes, “recruits for your Territorial Force, when you dress them unbecomingly?” One paper, commenting on his noble Lordship’s article, suggests “a scarlet coat and a towering headdress” as the most effective appeal to the “patriotism” of the working class, though whether on the old, tried and trusty ground that those who have least in their heads must make the greatest show on them, or on the later calculation that now the workers are discovering how little country they have to fight for they may be induced to fight for their togs if only they are sufficiently removed from the humdrum drab of the corduroy to enable them to forget that they are countryless workers, does not transpire.

[From “The Decline of Patriotism” by J. R. R., Socialist Standard, January 1911.]

Books: On Maps and Chaps (1961)

Book Review from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Geography”, said Mr. Bentley in one of his famous clerihews, “is about maps” and history—”about chaps “. But, as Mr. Andrew Boyd points out in his recently published book, geography is really about them both.

Those who remember Mr. J. F. Horrabin’s pre-war Atlas of Current Affairs and the way in which he dealt both with maps and chaps will certainly be interested in Mr. Boyd’s An Atlas of World Affairs (Methuen. 6s. 6d.). It is another of those convenient compendiums so useful to anybody with an interest in keeping abreast of the many events and developments in the world but who find themselves with so little time to do it. It will naturally be of interest to Socialists, in particular to writers and speakers.

The book consists of 70 maps, clearly drawn and annotated in black and white, each with its accompanying page of background information. Those maps which are inter-related are efficiently cross-referenced. The subjects they cover are many and varied and provide an impressive picture in themselves of the problems and complexities of the modern capitalist world.

Strategy, trade, production, race tensions, nationalism, disputes and troubles of every sort, are translated into graphic terms. So are the areas of the world where they happen—Africa, Cyprus, the Middle East, Korea, the Arctic, Europe with its trade divisions, France and North Africa, Poland’s frontiers, the development of China, these and many other aspects of the current world scene are mapped and factually described.

Of easy reference and readability, attractively produced and printed, it is in short an ideal repository of compressed information at a very reasonable price.

Stan Hampson

Letter: When and how? (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

When and how?

When—and how? For more than half a century you have preached socialism. For nearly that long I have read your literature and listened to your speakers. Constantly I ask; when and how. Your speakers repeat, parrot-fashion; “When the workers want socialism they will have it”. Fine, but this is dependent on the question, “How?”, to which you have no answer. Propaganda by itself is useless. There must be a plan of action. Do you envisage a time when it will be impossible to recruit a single soldier, sailor or airman; when at a General. Election not a single vote will be cast; and when workers will all simultaneously and spontaneously, without leadership or organisation of any sort, suddenly refuse to work for their capitalist masters? Supposing such a fantastic state of affairs could come about what then? How do you set up and how administer the socialist society?

It is true that the Labour Party, by attempting to bring about a socialist society through a process of gradual reform has foundered because it was forced to compromise with capitalism but it is also true that the Soviet by bloody revolution overthrew the capitalist society yet the workers are certainly no more free than they were under private capitalists. Private capitalism has simply been succeeded by State Capitalism. I certainly do not expect to get the answers to my two simple questions but I suggest that the SPGB thinks about this problem. By all means continue your good work in converting the workers to socialism but please, for the sake of convinced socialists co-sider, when—and how?

B.W. 

London, W.10.

Reply:

Here is a pleasant surprise for B.W.—answers to his questions. The first one—”When”—he answers himself: “When the workers want Socialism they will have it.” To the second question— “How?”—the answer is much the same. When the great majority of workers in this country and all over the world are convinced Socialists then they will handle the business of bringing about a Socialist society without any difficulty. They (the workers, including the administrative and supervisory workers) already handle the much greater problem of running a capitalist society— much greater because the necessary production and distribution of goods is complicated by problems of exchange, of payment, of credit, of competition, of national frontiers, of strategic considerations, and so on—all of which will cease to exist when capitalism is abolished. Besides that, many workers, are at present employed on useless jobs (bank clerks, insurance men, bus conductors) or directly harmful ones (soldiers, munitions makers) thus greatly reducing the number of workers available for the useful work of production and distribution. And at present the workers do this much more difficult job—of running capitalism—when it is not even in their own interests. Under Socialism they will have a much easier task which will be in their own interests. It is hard to see why our correspondent thinks that the same people who are now doing a very difficult Job will not in the future be able to do a much easier one.

Our “plan of action” is straight-forward: to make Socialists. Why does B.W. think there will be “no organisation . . . of any sort”? The Socialist Party is the very organisation he is looking for. As we state in the Declaration of Principles we publish every month “The Socialist Party of Great Britain . . . calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner”. The organisation is already here—the too! of the working class in the Socialist revolution. All that is lacking is a majority of class-conscious workers, and we are doing our best to bring that about.

B.W. says “Do you envisage a time when it will be impossible to recruit a single soldier, sailor or airman; when at a General Election not a single vote will be cast”—presumably B.W. means for capitalist parties, since our appeal to Socialist workers is to vote for Socialist candidates or write “Socialism” etc. on the ballot paper. B.W. is correct to describe such a state of affairs as fantastic. When “nobody” is prepared to join the armed forces or vote for capitalist parties these institutions, because of that fact, will have ceased to exist.

If B.W. has been reading our literature and listening to our speakers for as long as he says, he should know that the Labour Party has never attempted to bring about a Socialist society, whether by gradual reform or otherwise. It aims at nothing more than state capitalism, and a “welfare state”. A state capitalist party will never bring about Socialism. As for Russia, the Soviet revolution overthrew the landed aristocracy, and brought in capitalism —at first partly private and partly state, now wholly state. It is perfectly true that the workers are no better of under state than under private capitalism, but this is only what the Socialist Party has been saying since its inception.

Editorial Committee.

Party News (1961)

Party News from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Islington Branch and CND

In September last the Islington Branch Organiser received a letter from the Islington Campaign Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, giving details of their local activities. The latter stated they were prepared to send a speaker to give an address on Nuclear Disarmament, or, if it was preferred, they could show a film which they considered would be of interest. Or, if the Branch preferred, they would be prepared to debate with the Party.

The Branch decided that a debate would be a good proposition and immediately the local CND Secretary was contacted by telephone. He was advised that we accepted their proposition to debate and that the Branch could and would make all the necessary arrangements. The CND Secretary stated that he would have to put the matter before his committee. Islington Branch wrote confirming the telephone conversation, giving suggested dates and asked if the CND wished to hold the debate in Islington or elsewhere, also the motion suggested for debate.

The letter was acknowledged and it was stated that the Committee had agreed to the debate and that definite arrangements were awaited. All details were supplied. The proposed date was Thursday, December 22nd, and the venue, the Main Hall at the Holloway Co-operative building. The subject. “Nuclear Disarmament or Socialism?” Our representative’s name was given. All the arrangements were confirmed by the CND.

Three weeks later a letter was received stating that they had appointed a new secretary and a new committee who had reconsidered the matter and had decided against taking part in the debate. The reason given by them was that the policy of the new committee is not to argue for or against any particular philosophy. They offered to send a speaker as an alternative and ended their letter by remarking that they regretted the change of plan, “but as CND embraces all religions, creeds and philosophies,” they hoped “we would understand and try to bear with them.”

Ealing

Last month’s film show “Can We Be Rich?” given by Comrade Hardy, was very successful and has encouraged the Branch to try to arrange for three more shows to be held in January, February and March. These will alternate with lectures and discussions—altogether a fairly heavy programme which we hope members will make every attempt to support. Further details will be sent to all members and will, of course, appear in the Socialist Standard.

Woolwich

During the past year Woolwich Branch has maintained its activity and has had many discussions on current topics and the Party case.

The Branch has recently ended a satisfactory outdoor Propaganda season at Beresford Square. The number of meetings held and interest shown indicate that this is worthwhile and essential Party activity.

It is intended to pursue this method of propaganda next year and to continue to obtain the services of speakers and the sup-port of members.

A welcome is extended to all who would like to attend the branch. Time is always set aside for discussion after branch business.

Coventry Group

It may interest readers to know that a Socialist Discussion Group has recently been formed in Coventry. The first meeting of this Group was held on Monday, November 21st, in the Coffee Room (upstairs) “Craven Arms,” High Street, near Broadgate. Meetings will be held Monday fortnightly thereafter, all proceedings commencing at approximately 7.30 p.m.

Coventry members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain have been instrumental in organising this Group, the general aim and purpose of which will be to work towards the formation of a Coventry Branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Generally. discussions will be held on Socialism and anything pertaining to it, and it is hoped to organise some lectures also. No one will be precluded from attending by virtue solely of views divergent from the S.P.G.B.s—obviously. And all—within the inevitable and necessary limits of an organísed discussion Group—will have complete freedom of expression.

You are cordially invited to attend any of the meetings—and the Group members will be pleased indeed to welcome you.

Meetings : Mondays, January 2nd, 16lh and 30th.

Head Office

Comrade Gilmac is regularly at Head Office from 2 to 7 p.m. (later on Tuesday) from Monday to Friday. He is happy to supply information about literature or any other Head Office matters. Telephone : MACauley 3811.

Please note when writing to Head Office, always write the name of the Party in full. It so happens that a local firm uses initials for its title and they are similar to ‘SPGB.’ No doubt we might get some of their correspondence and it is more than likely they receive some of ours, so in order to avoid confusion write SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN on all Head Office correspondence.

Phyllis Howard

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

News in Review: Unemployment at Renault (1961)

The News in Review column from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unemployment at Renault

“1900 workers sacked”. This was a news item in France-Soir of November. 3rd. The 1900 workers were employees of the French nationalised Renault motor car manufacturing concern. The discharges took place because the market has become overstocked and orders have fallen off.

This is a familiar feature of capitalist enterprise everywhere but the point to note is that Renault is a nationalised concern. Nationalisation has lost its appeal for most workers in Britain, but those who still think that it is a good thing should make a note that when the market becomes overstocked, even nationalised firms cannot continue to produce commodities for which there is no sale. They have to lay off the workers who have become surplus to requirements.

In the present case many of the workers at first declined to take their final pay packet and went to their benches as usual. They yielded, however, to the foreman's explanation that in view of the management's decision they could do nothing about it.

This brings to light one of the curious features of capitalism. Workers don't seem to object to slaving away week after week producing something, no matter what it is, so long as they draw a pay packet at the end of the week. They wouldn't mind if they kept on producing cars so that in the end there were so many of them that they had to run along on top of each other on the roads.

These contradictions are inherent in the capitalist order of society. Is it not time that workers started thinking about some other system—a system where goods could be produced to serve people's needs, where these needs could be assessed and production arranged accordingly.


Fact, Fact, Fact

Thirteen years ago, the Sunderland Corporation erected a lot of prefabricated houses. They were supposed to last for a few years, until better accommodation could be found.

Fact: These houses are now overdue for demolition—many of them are damp and cold. But there is no prospect of rehousing their inhabitants.

Fact: Sunderland already has its hands too full with its present slum clearance programme to pay much attention to the plight of the people in its prefabricated slums.

Fact: Sunderland has built 15,000 houses since the war. There are 11,000 families still on the Corporation's waiting list.

Fact: Capitalist politicians have always promised to solve the housing problem. The problem is in building a lot of the cheap-houses which workers can afford—and making their building pay. Under these conditions, society never even starts to solve the problem.

Fact: Workers in Sunderland—and the rest of the world—can end their housing problem by building a world where houses are put up for human beings to live in, and not for rent or sale.


Pay off

Did a lot of workers misunderstand that boom in hire purchase? Did they think that, because they didn't have to pay a deposit, they didn't have to pay anything?

Perhaps the salesmen forgot to make it clear when the contracts were signed. Apparently a lot of people took on commitments which they could not fulfil and have piled up a great heap of bad debts. Some hire purchase companies, caught in the fierce competition of the boom, are now seen to have fallen in with very uncertain clients. As a result, there have been rumours in the City about the stability of two of the finance houses concerned and much talk of setting up a central record of credit- worthiness, where the H.P. history of any buyer could be checked.

This may solve some of the problems of the finance houses. But the central problem—the thing which causes hire purchase and all the other makeshifts— remains. Workers want the better things in life, sometimes for the convenience of using them, sometimes because their possession carries social standing. But very few workers have the money to buy these things, unless the hire purchase salesman lends a hand.

So they accept a lifetime mortgage on a house, years of sometimes swingeing repayments on a car, washing machine and so on. It needs only moderately bad times to come along to upset this precarious scheme of things entire. And what has happened to the economists who assured us, in the post war years, that nobody would let a boom run away with itself again? The cut-throats in the hire purchase world have shown us that capitalism is just as unstable as it was in 1929.

There is no lack of experts—many of them officials in the consumer goods industries whose products are widely sold on H.P.—to tell us that the way out of this is to relax government restrictions. And there is no lack of prospective hire purchasers to support this view. In fact, the only solution is to have a world where things are made solely for use, not for purchase of any kind.


Footballers’ Strike

To many of the schoolboys who scuff out the toes of their shoes kicking an old tennis ball around a council school playground, the life of a professional footballer is a glamorous dream.

In fact, there is of course room at the top for only a very few, very good, footballers. These men can make a sumptuous living at the game. The rest have a hard time of it, on unremarkable pay and often under conditions of employment which an industrial trade union would not tolerate. Most footballers are looking for another job in their thirties, with little prospect of doing much better than a salesman or a shopkeeper. No professional player may publish a statement about the game without first having it vetted by his club —his employer.

The Professional Footballers' Association has asked to have the "slave" transfer system changed to abolish the ceiling on wages and to secure a share of a transfer fee for the player involved in the deal. To enforce these demands, the P.F.A. have threatened to call a strike. The bigger clubs can more easily afford to grant the players' demands, and foresee that to do so would help to defend their high position at the expense of the dingier clubs, many of which are already in deficit. It is, therefore, in the lower divisions that resistance to the P.F.A. is strongest.

Indignant fans, outraged players, angry club officials, have all had their say. Nobody, so far. has regretted that capitalist society makes a business of football and that the game is played, not for amusement and entertainment, but for investment. Like all the other superficially plausible criticisms of capitalism, the grumblings about the footballers' lot are as wide of the mark as a fourth division centre forward.

Bishops and Pawns

The Church of Rome takes every opportunity of informing the world at large that it is concerned with man's spiritual life and not his political one. Occasionally, however, its hypocrisy and cant blossom into the open, as was the case recently in Puerto Rica.

Governor Luis Marin of the Popular Democratic Party is noted for his support of birth control and easy divorce. This has aroused the ire of the Catholic Bishops of Puerto Rica, notably Bishop McMann, Bishop of Porce, the island's, second largest city. When recently the Governor stood for re-election, the antics of the Church were remarkable even for a country as backward as Puerto Rica. Early in the election campaign, Bishop McMann opened fire with a pastoral letter to be read in every church. He asked the Catholics, who constitute 90 per cent of the inhabitants, to throw out the Democrats and vote for a newly formed Christian Action Party. He also warned his brethren that to vote for Marin was a sin. During the election, the Bishop's efforts proved of no avail: the Governor was re-elected, and we would have expected the Bishops to quieten down. But not them. Having failed to terrify the Puerto Rican peasants by words, they are now literally putting the “fear of Christ" into them.

For a fortnight, at all Sunday Masses in San Juan Cathedral, the Pastor told his parishioners that they would have to confess to the sin of voting for the Democrats before they could receive Holy Communion. And what is more, before penitents could receive absolution. they had to promise not to vote for the Democrats again.

In this so-called enlightened age of ours it is important not to forget the power of the Church.

The Nature of the Universe (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lucretius (about 100BC - 50BC)

The Nature of the Universe 

Nothing can ever be created by divine power out of nothing. The reason why all mortals are so gripped by fear is that they see all sorts of things happening on the earth and in the sky with no discernible cause, and these they attribute to the will of a god. Accordingly, when we have seen that nothing can be created out of nothing, we shall then have a clearer picture of the path ahead, the problem of how things are created and occasioned without the aid of the gods.

Learn, therefore that the universe is not bounded in any direction. If it were, it would necessarily have a limit somewhere. But clearly a thing cannot have a limit unless there is something outside to limit it, so that the eye can follow it up to a certain point but not beyond. Since you must admit that there is nothing outside the universe, it can have no limit and is accordingly without end or measure. It makes no odds in which part of it you may take your stand: whatever spot anyone may occupy, the universe stretches away from him just the same in all directions without limit. Suppose for a moment that the whole of space were bounded and that someone made his way to its uttermost boundary and threw a flying dart. Do you choose to suppose that the missile. hurled with might and main, would speed along the course on which it was aimed? Or do you think something would block the way and stop it? You must assume one alternative or the other. But neither of them leaves you a loophole. Both force you to admit that the universe continues without end. Whether there is some obstacle lying on the boundary line that prevents the dart from going farther on its course or whether it flies on beyond, it cannot in fact have started from the boundary. With this argument I will pursue you. Wherever you may place the ultimate limit of things, I will ask you: "Well then, what does happen to the dart?" The upshot is that the boundary cannot stand firm anywhere, and final escape from this conclusion is precluded by the limitless possibility of running away from it.

Extracted from the edition published by Penguin Books (2s. 6d.)

Editorial: The "High Wage" Myth (1961)

Editorial from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every half-year the newspapers publish Ministry of Labour figures of the average earnings of manual workers, and the figures always excite, angry letters from readers who don't believe that the average is now over £14 a week.

The latest inquiry related to April, 1960, and it showed that the average weekly earnings were £14 2s. 1d. for men; £6 3s. Id. for youths and boys; £7 5s. for women of 18 and over; and £4 13s. 1d. for girls under 18.

For men the £14 2s. 1d. was for a working week of 48 hours, that is to say, it included pay for six or more hours’ overtime; also for night work and Sunday work, and all kinds of bonus additions to ordinary pay. It was before any deductions had been made.

Being an average it included some industrial groups with earnings far above the average and some far below it. The top section was the motor vehicle group with £17 10s. 3d. a week, and the lowest, central and local government. £10 15s. 6d. a week. If the motor vehicle inquiry had been made in November, with something approaching 100,000 on short-time, the figure would have been far below £17 10s.

In any event it should not be thought that the £14 a week wage is an average for all the 14 million men employed in all industries. It is in fact based on fewer than five million men employed in manufacture and some non-manufacturing industries, but it does not include agriculture, coal, railways or the distributive and catering-trades. (Nor does it include non-manual workers.)

If all the industries were included the average would be brought down quite a lot.

Many workers, including craftsmen, earn only their standard weekly rates or not much more, and, as the Royal Commission on the Police showed in its recent Report, the general level of skilled rates is nothing like £14. They obtained 34 craftsmen’s rates from the Ministry of Labour (as at November 1. I960) and found that the average for the 34 rates is only £10 8s. 3d. a week.

And the distributive trades are even worse off. The Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers is campaigning for higher pay and shorter hours for shop assistants and that Union is responsible for the statement that “one and a half million shop workers in Britain are only entitled to a wage of well below £10 a week for 46 or more hours’ work ” (Reynolds News, 4/12/60).

Reynolds News is the Cooperative Sunday newspaper and when it tells its readers “Don’t Shop at Sweatshops" it means the worst payers among the private traders, but though the Cooperative societies often pay rather more, their wage agreements are not exactly princely. The Cooperative Agreement made in July, 1959, fixed a rate for men shop assistants ranging from £8 15s. in Provincial areas up to £9 9s. in London, and in July, 1960, the Union applied for a national minimum of £10 a week in cooperative societies as well as a reduction of hours from 44 to 40. The claim has not been conceded. Large numbers of railwaymen and government workers get below £9 a week, along with the agricultural worker on his new minimum of £8 9s.

Notes on Economic History (3) (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Rise of the Merchants

The earlier feudal economy had to be curbed by the encouragement of manufacture through privileges and monopolies (thus breaking the power of the Guilds), through exemption from taxation, and through other forms of support. Skilled craftsmen were imported, industrial secrets were purchased or stolen. On the other hand, by official supervision of the whole process of production, industry was to be kept up to the mark, and at the same time the consumer was to be protected by subjecting the process of sale to inspection. Here the traditions and customs of the older urban economy showed their influence.

Another method adopted was the establishment of colonies and trading companies. The East India Company, founded in 1660, was given the right in 1661 to carry on war and make peace in non-Christian countries. Similar companies were set up by other Powers.

Attempts were made to provide cheap labour so as to promote and strengthen industry. One method was to encourage the increase of population (a special need in Germany in those days after the Thirty Years War); prohibitions on marriage was removed and payments made to fathers of large families. Another was to cheapen the necessaries of life, so that wages could be kept down. Foodstuffs were freed from import duty, while high levies were placed on exported grain, or its export totally forbidden. These measures were opposed to the interests of the agriculturalists but, though not openly advocated, were often put into practice, for example, in France by Colbert.

Finally the output of gold and silver was to be increased where possible by mining in the home-land, assisted by state subsidies if needed. The attraction of wealthy foreigners into the country, the prohibition of the export of precious metals, and similar measures, were to supplement and round off the expedients for increasing the national wealth.

A survey of mercantilist policy shows that its advocates placed great importance on money, but did not hold that money was an end in itself; they valued it for its productive effects. Thomas Mun, the mercantilist, wrote "money begets trade" and "trade increases money". Charles Davenant, of the same school, says "Foreign trade brings in the stock. This stock, well and industriously managed, betters land, and brings more products of all kinds for exportation; the returns of which growth and product are to make a country gainers in the balance". Colbert says the same thing from the outlook of the State financier: "If there be money in the country, the desire to turn it to advantage makes people set it in motion, and public funds benefit thereby".

It is necessary to remember that mercantilism differed greatly at different times and in different countries. In England, Holland and Italy, it was predominantly commercial; in France and Germany it was rather industrial. These variations notwithstanding, and allowing for differences in the details of application, all the European rulers and statesmen from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century were guided by the principles set out above.

In England, though agriculture and manufacture were not neglected, mercantilism had a strong commercial trend. Cromwell's Navigation Law of 1651 decreed that no merchandise from Asia, Africa or America should be imported, except in ships built in England, owned by English subjects, navigated by English captains, with at least three-fourths of the crew English. Sea-borne commerce from England to other European countries was to be carried either in English boats, or else in ships belonging to the country with which trade was being carried on.

These conditions meant a practical monopoly of the seas for the English, to the detriment of the Dutch carrying-trade. By a treaty of 1703, Portuguese ports were opened to British woollens in return for concessions to Portugal allowing the importation of wine into Great Britain.

In Germany and Austria, owing to the devastation of the Thirty Years War, the need to increase the population was of paramount importance. There could not be much endeavour to promote foreign trade. The main concern was to hinder imports from countries whose manufactured goods were so cheap that the compensation could not be met. A demand for laws to limit expenditure on clothes, food, furniture, etc. was a feature of mercantilism here.

In Italy, in conformity with the nature of the financial and commercial aristocracies of the republics of that period, the mercantilist school was especially interested in the balance of trade and monetary problems.

In France, Jean Baptiste Colbert was the most successful exponent of the mercantile system, especially after 1666 when he became controller general of the national finances. At the time he took office, French industry was a long way behind England, and even Germany, and the finances and administration were in a bad state. It was not long before internal customs dues had been largely abolished, canals had been made, and skilled workmen and contractors attracted from other countries. By such stimulants as State subsidies, protective duties, and the establishment of technical schools, French industry began to flourish.

Adam Smith considered the mercantilists as a school of united thinkers. This is not so. Mercantilism was essentially a vague principle of applied economics, stemming from the historical, economic, and political foundations of the period. The economists of those days, in order to further the advance from the feudal and localised urban economy to a unified national economy, had to put forward the ideas of the balance of trade, attach great importance to money, study the effects of customs tariffs, examine the source of national wealth, and thus come to form a durable though somewhat loosely organised unity.

It was the economics of early capitalism—the period of history in which Capitalists and Workers make their appearance, showing a difference in the form of the class struggle from the feudal period before it.

Bob Ambridge

Oscar Wilde and Socialism (1961)

From the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde; included in "Essays and Poems of Oscar Wilde". Penguin Books 2s. 6d.

Oscar Wilde died before the Socialist Party had been founded. It would therefore be a barren exercise at this stage to debate whether Wilde was a Socialist in the exact meaning of that term. What is beyond doubt is that there is in this essay much that the Socialist will agree with. and much more that could form the basis of rewarding discussion. There is no need to be off by the title: by "soul" Wilde clearly meant nothing more than mind—his choice of words has no religious implications.

It is true that part of the essay has little to do with Socialism in any economic sense—nearly half of it is taken up by a diatribe against any attempt at dictation to the artist, whether by government or public opinion. But when Wilde keeps to what is directly relevant, it is a joy to read his sparkling prose, and to see how he hammers his points home.

What of the do-gooders, for example, who try to alleviate the ills of society by well-meaning charity? Wilde writes:

Their remedies do not cure the disease; they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease. They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible . . . It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

Of the poor, Wilde says:

Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it.

As for those of the workers who accept their conditions, who have "made private terms with the enemy":

I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.

Wilde would have nothing to do with state capitalism that is now often passed off as "Socialism":

If the Socialism is authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first.

He saw that a revolutionary change in the economic basis of society was necessary, and that this would have inevitable repercussions in the social superstructure:

When private property is abolished there will be no necessity for crime, no demand for it; it will cease to exist . . . Though a crime may not be against property, it may spring from the misery and rage and depression produced by our wrong system of property-holding, and so, when that system is abolished, will disappear . . . Crime will either cease to exist, or, if it occurs, will be treated by physicians as a very distressing form of dementia, to be cured by care and kindness.

Of the future economic organisation of society, Wilde remarks: "The community by means of organisation of machinery will supply the useful things, and . . . the beautiful things will be made by the individual." By individualism Wilde means the full development of man's personality, the possibility of which has been crushed by the institution of private property. The whole essay could be summed up in this paragraph from it:

With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

This essay is a mine in which only half an hour's reading will reveal many Socialist gems.

Alwyn Edgar