SPGB Meetings (1947)

Party News from the December 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1960)

Party News from the October 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Abundance and poverty (1960)

From the September 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The point is often made, and in the material sense has some truth, that workers in some of the Western countries have never had it so good, and in relationship to the “Hungry Thirties” in Britain, it looks good. Unemployment in this country is very low, and the majority of workers in comparison to the Thirties are not so badly off. Capitalism is, of course, in a boom period that in some countries seems to go on for ever. If this is true, and we accept it for the sake of discussion, does this mean that our case has lost its validity? The answer is no. Socialism is a world wide system of society and we cannot reiterate this too much, so let us look at comparisons of wealth.

In America, surplus wheat which is rotting in storehouses, costs the Administration $370,000 a day rent to store after the Government has bought it at fixed prices. There is also a world surplus of sugar of some 13.7 million tons. On the other hand, 1,700 million people are today living without sufficient food and shelter, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Again, the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief reports that food production in North America is up 20 per cent, and surplus wheat amounts to 1,382,000 bushels a year, and yet in the Far East there is less to eat than before the war. It follows therefore that the problems of the underfed and under-clothed is also our problem, wherever workers may be throughout the world.

There are both sympathisers and opponents of our case who say we do not support the struggles of these peoples to improve their conditions: this is not true. We support them in the only way that we can—with Socialist propaganda, showing that the movements to which they often give support are nationalistic in outlook and that they are aiming at changing masters and not the social system. A classic example of this is India, where they threw off the yoke of British Imperialism, but the Indian workers remain wage slaves.

Our task is not one of defending capitalism, in whatever guise. If we were to deviate from our purpose, of the establishment of Socialism, we would completely lose our identity and become another reformist party, one of the many who have made promises that could never be kept, within the framework of capitalism. No, the only solution lies in the understanding by the working class of the working of capitalism and the need for a classless, moneyless society.

Wheat farmers in America may not even be aware of the needs of society their first concern must be the profit made by sale of their corn. Wheat can rot in the storehouse of the North American continent and Indian workers can starve rather than sell the food at a loss. That is the stupidity of a profit making system. Socialism can and will provide the material and cultural needs of society as soon as the working class abolish for all time throughout the world a system that can produce super-abundance and poverty hand in hand.

Workers in the western hemisphere may think they are having it good.  Many families who run a car can now join the harassing and killing queues that line our roads every weekend or in the evenings they can watch .the “goggle-box" that churns out in the main a load of rubbish. And in the background the frightening spectacle of rockets with nuclear warheads that can traverse the world. Real wealth in human labour power that is dissipated on Blue Streaks, rockets or nuclear powered submarines could be put to the job of solving the real needs of the backward peoples, food, clothing and shelter and the right to live sane and intelligent lives.

The truth of the matter is we never had it so bad, and until workers realise that the problem of the eastern workers is fundamentally the same as that of his western counterpart, the capitalist world will blunder from crisis to crisis. To African workers we make a special plea. You are throwing off the yoke of imperialism and taking on the characteristics of national capitalism. Don't ask or expect us to support the various movements for Colonial freedom. We will not jump onto any nationalist bandwaggon in order to gain your support. Your problems in the last analysis are the same as ours. We want you to have a better life, and this you can only attain in a Socialist society.

Johnny Edmonds

The Rockefellers (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 11th of May there died in Tucson, Arizona, John D. Rockefeller, Jnr., son of that notable father, John D. Snr, a man well-known in the early American capitalist era as one of the Robber Barons, with a finger in many pies—coal, iron ore, but chiefly remembered for his control of Standard Oil (New Jersey). In fact, according to Victor Perle in his book American Imperialism, in 1949 Standard Oil handled one-fifth of the oil produced in the western hemisphere, and its marketing areas covered countries in which some 72 per cent. of the world’s population resided. The control of oil throughout the western world is in the hands of seven oil trusts, of which Rockefellers control three.

But the Rockefellers, according to the obituaries of “Junior,” were noted for their “beneficence." It is reputed that between them they gave away some £350 million, and were still able to leave, as reports have shown, £200 millions (senior) and £150 millions (junior). These are staggering sums of money. And “Junior’s” will make no mention of any settlement for his six children and their various offspring, so it must be presumed that they have been well provided for. Some readers may say, but at least they gave some away, for the Daily Telegraph, May 12th, reports that “He devoted himself to furthering the schemes for human betterment initiated by his father after establishing his fortune." What from our point of view is important, however, is to whom it was given and why. Part of the answer to the first point is contained in the Telegraph of the 12th. “Educational Organisations benefited the most.” It seems highly probable that Marxian economics and the Labour Theory of Value plays no significant part in these “Educational Organisations,” for remember, education as taught today is primarily to fit workers into the productive and administrative organisation of capitalism and not to teach them Socialism.

Next comes “Religion,” another barrier to working class emancipation. Then “Public Parks, Roads, and the restoration and historic structures and antiquities.” No doubt the workers of the slum dwellings of all the major cities in the U.S.A. will appreciate that they can walk in the parks and pray in a well-restored church. Lastly, “Great sums to youth.” How this was distributed was not mentioned, but it is unlikely that these funds were used to propagate Socialist ideas. They were obviously spent to eulogise and bolster the capitalist system.

So, as commendable as some people may think was his “beneficence,” it is interesting to note that the people from whom this wealth was expropriated, his own workers, received little or nothing of what was rightfully theirs. Why he gave away these vast sums of money is a matter of some conjecture. One reason surely was to avoid taxation, but possibly also to buy immortality.

Socialists hope that in the not too distant future, people will see these so-called philanthropists in their true light—of leeches who grow fat on the mental and physical energies of the working class. Although “Junior” is dead, the Rockefeller Empire will continue, for neither father, son nor children ever took part in the production of things for use. At least it will continue to flourish until workers decide to own and distribute the fruits of their labour themselves.

Johnny Edmonds

Right to Strike (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arising from an article appearing in the Sunday Times headed “The Right to Strike" on the 14th February, 1960, there appeared in the correspondence column on the following Sunday a very interesting letter, also under the heading “The Right to Strike.” Amongst other things, the contributor made the following observations: “I personally believe that in a free society, the rights of an individual to apply or withhold his labour must be maintained in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, such as a major threat to the life of the community.” He also said: “Thus in a tightly integrated society, where interdependence characterises all major spheres of activity, any one of a large number of small groups could by the irresponsible use of rights, affect the very ability of the population to live.” He then went on to quote as examples, “The medical profession and workers in sewage disposal, water supply, power supply, and other vital services.” It would seem that although trade unionists should have the “right to strike,” under no circumstances should they use it.

His conclusion, however, deserves close examination: he said, “The only solution lies in a much greater attention by the management to all aspects of human relationships and—preferably at an early age—the inculcation into the minds of working people their duties and responsibilities as trade unionists and citizens living in the second half of the 20th century.” It reminds one of the Jesuit claim that a child of seven taken into the Roman Catholic Church remains a Catholic for life.

This argument of “responsibility” has been used in the past, for instance, in connection with the recent threatened railway strike. But throughout his letter the contributor, except for his reference to the management's greater attention to “all aspects of human relationships," puts no responsibility whatsoever on the capitalist class. This is understandable, for as a section of society who produce nothing, their responsibility is only to themselves. Their responsibility is to profits not to people. These profits can only be maintained at the expense of the working class, and when, because of the refusal of sections of the capitalist class to meet demands for increases in wages, trade unionists take action by using the strike weapon, the whole force of the capitalist class, through the medium of the Government, Press and sometimes trade union leaders, is used to prate about “responsibilities" to society. No-one, of course, talks about the responsibility of the capitalist class to workers trying to raise families on £7 to £8 per week (e.g., the railway workers). No, their plight is conveniently forgotten "in the interest of the country.” What humbug!

However, one thing should be clear to trade unionists on these issues. The capitalists cannot do without us, but we can dispense with their services, for they do not sow neither do they reap; they are, in fact, a useless, parasitical class who are a permanent brake on society.

Now, back to our contributor. One would think he was a pillar of capitalism—perhaps Mr. Macmillan, the Tory Prime Minister, or the Tory Minister of Labour. But anyone who thought this would be wrong. It was Mr. Carron, President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Trade unionists may be surprised at this—we are not.

We are very sceptical of the statements and attitudes of trade union leaders, for we can remember that many trade union leaders supported the capitalist Labour Government and their wage-freeze policy in the years 1947 to 1950, much to the detriment of the workers.

Johnny Edmonds

The Catholic Church and Authority (1960)

From the June 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every Sunday evening without fail, there is a religious programme on television. Sunday, May 1st, was no exception. The contributor to the programme was none other than his eminence, Archbishop Heenan of Liverpool, who had some interesting and outrageous statements to make on authority and tyranny, which were later reproduced in the Universe. Some of the characteristic evils of our time, he said, were “Defiance of Authority ” and “ Unofficial Strikes.” He forgot to mention, however, that authority invites defiance when it is oppressive. On the question of unofficial strikes, it should be made clear that workers take action by striking only when they feel that they have a legitimate grievance.

The Archbishop then entered the realm of sport. “You can’t even run a football match without authority. What would happen when a game got dirty if no one obeyed the referee?” Too true, Mr. Archbishop, but surely this is a very poor parallel? Capitalism is a dirty game in its entirety. Football, especially when it is not being played for money, is usually clean, but even so the workers do not make the rules under capitalism, neither do they pick the referee.

He then proceeded to say that “Some people think the Church is like a totalitarian state. Of course, there are bullies amongst the clergy, as there are in other groups, but on the whole, we are not tyrants." Well, well. It seems that some of the Delegates of God have been reading their texts instead of their newspapers. Talking of totalitarians and tyranny our minds go back to Mussolini and Franco. Did not the Church of Rome support the Christianising of those Abyssinian savages with dive bombers, and did they not also give support to Franco against the democratic government of Spain? Surely the Pope is a classic example of complete authority, for remember, the Roman Catholic Church argues that as the word of God on earth, the Pope can do or say no wrong.

But the Archbishop's field ranged far and wide. “It is not the Church but the law of God that forbids divorce and contraceptives." Seeing that both these things are products of modern society, one wonders when and where the directive came to oppose them. The writer well remembers the look of horror on the face of the local parish priest when he suggested that contraceptives would probably assist the health and economic position of a relative after she had produced her ninth child. “The Lord will provide” was his answer. But the Lord was meagre in his provision, for her husband was unemployed and they lived in two rooms in a Bermondsey slum.

Archbishop Heenan also had a prayer for the upholders of authority. "Have you any pity for those who exercise authority? It is so easy to think that the man at the top has done pretty well for himself. The night before an execution I pray for the Home Secretary as well as the criminal.”

Now this is the limit. The Archbishop presumably thinks that the problem of deciding is as acute as the problem of losing one's own life—and after all, the Home Secretary can always change his job. The Archbishop has also a lot to say about guidance, but of course he surely would not advise that the criminal go free, for that would be a blow to authority. In our view, he could have well spent his time considering the barbaric practice of capital punishment.

It seems that as all the other advertisers on ATV have to pay for time on the air, the Archbishop can congratulate himself on a free half-hour of advertisement. In this day and age it is tragic that leaders of the Church can put over this rubbish and unfortunately it will be accepted, by Catholics in particular, for blind acceptance of the teachings of the Catholic Church is its major rule. It is one of the most backward of all religions, one that breeds on ignorance and poverty. We ask all Catholic workers to seriously examine the contradictions and arguments of Roman Catholicism, and they, too, will see that they are irrational, and will set about achieving a sane and intelligent society. Tyranny will be a thing of the past and the mumbo jumbo of the Church service will be replaced by intelligent discussion of the real world where men will walk with pride and dignity and not in fear of the myth of Popery and repressive authority.

Johnny Edmonds

The E.T.U. and the Press (1960)

From the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists take every opportunity of examining and commenting on all the facets of capitalist society, including that much-publicised field, at the moment, anyway, trade unions. We oppose all other political parties, but when dealing with trade unions the fact that the leadership of any particular union has a political bias does not affect our judgment of their activities on the industrial field. As good or as bad as they may be, we recognise that trade unions are the weapon of the working class in the field of industry, and we therefore support the principle of trade unionism, rather than trade unions.

In line with this reasoning, let us take a look at the Electrical Trades Union. Readers will no doubt be aware of the large amount of publicity that has been given to it—charges of malpractice, rigged ballots and Communist Party interference in the running of its affairs. In fact, over the last two years, the working class, and the electricians in particular, have been subjected to a veritable barrage of “information” and “advice” about their leaders. This culminated in the re-election of the General Secretary, Frank Haxell (much to the disgust of the daily and weekly press) with a lower majority than he obtained five years ago.

In the past, members of the Communist Party have been elected to trade union posts and although the press have commented on these, it has not been with the same ferocity and abuse that has been meted out to the E.T.U. There is no doubt that the Communist Party's allegiance to the Soviet Union has been largely responsible for this, but this is not the only reason: another, and, we think, more important view was contained in an editorial printed in The Guardian (25/2/60). under the heading “T.U.C. Troubles.’’

  The strike weapon was forged in the last century, when local industry was largely self-sufficient, and a strike was often the only way of bringing grievances to attention. Today a strike should be a weapon of last resort—it is absurd to make thousands of workpeople in the motor factories lose wages because of a dispute in one firm that happens to make a vital component.

And it offers a solution:

  If power to call a strike were delegated to a Motor Industry Committee of the T.U.C., the strike would become the weapon of last resort that it ought to be. 

No doubt this would be an admirable solution for the capitalist class. One can imagine the inter-union strife that would go on between the smaller craft unions and the large unskilled unions, especially in the motor industry, before they even agreed that a strike was necessary, with the consequent delay and effect on the workers’ wages and conditions. And if the observations of some trade union leaders like Mr Carron of the A.E.U. are any guide one could visualise an attempt to outlaw strikes with the approval of the T.U.C.

Now, where does the E.T.U. fit into this? First, it must be made known that although they are the seventh largest union in the T.U.C., they have no representative on the T.U.C. General Council. This is the result of the block voting of the two great general unions, the Transport and General Workers and the General and Municipal Workers, ostensibly because of the ET.U.’s “Communism,” but probably also because of their militancy and the fact that they have not always been prepared to play ball with the T.U.C. on a number of vital issues. Notably among these were their criticisms of the wage freeze when the Labour Party was in power after the war.

This, we contend, is the type of activity that should be supported by the T.U.C., not the Guardian “Motor Industry Committee,” which would basically protect the interest of the motor industry section of the capitalist class.

But this is not all. The Guardian Editorial also said:

  The real sickness of the E.T.U. is not the conduct of elections but the fact that its President and General Secretary were members of a Party alien to everything that British trade unionism stands for, and if the pitiful rump of electricians who care enough about their union to vote in its elections want to have Communists as their officers they are entitled to their choice.

No doubt The Guardian would like to see officers hand-picked by "appointments," as operates in a number of other unions. No, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The electrical worker today is one of the highest basic paid workers in industry. On top of this, he is a key worker. No wonder the vast monolith of capitalism, with its interdependence of workers, is worried about the E.T.U. So long as a trade union acts in the interest of its members it is fulfilling its proper function on the industrial field.

Perhaps the last word can be given to the Financial Times, which had this to say about the leadership of the E.T.U. (22/2/60):

  The leaders of the E.T.U. are clearly successful. They are able negotiators who drive a hard bargain, and they are not above uttering the occasional threat which everyone knows they will carry out.

In conclusion, we have this to say to trade unionists. Your right to strike has been bitterly fought for in the past: be careful that you protect it in the future, irrespective of the views of any newspaper or trade union leaders.

J. P. E.

Blogger's Note:

I'd bet one of my bitcoins that J.P.E. was Johnny Edmonds. Same initials and the connection with Electricians Union.

Obituary: Johnny Edmonds (1996)

Obituary from the February 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jonathan Edmonds was born during World War I into an Anglo-Irish Catholic family, somewhere in the middle of ten children, dominated by a devout mother. When he joined the SPGB in 1940, relations became estranged; when he became a Conscientious Objector she excommunicated him.

Under direction he worked on farms in East Anglia during the War, fortunately in the company of other socialists.

After the war he returned to the building trade and was general foreman for a firm that converted an old country house into what became the headquarters of the Electrical Trades Union, in Hayes, Kent. He moved to them as Estates Manager for the rest of his working life, starting with the converting of a hotel in Rottingdean, Sussex into a nursing home and a larger one in Esher, Surrey into a college.

When I first met him at Lewisham Branch in January 1948, he was one of two members who said nothing in the branch because they both stammered badly. The other member was the late Mick Miller. But gradually and with great determination. Johnny overcame this impediment and became a branch delegate at Conference and Delegate Meetings, and eventually sat as Chairman at these proceedings. He served on the Executive Committee for a number of years and was General Secretary in 1955. He was also a member of the Premises Committee that found us our Clapham office when the Party was forced to leave Rugby Chambers.

Outside of the Party. Johnny's main interest was music, both jazz and opera. Yesterday he would have played Jussi Björling and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, today would be the turn of Fats Waller and Louis Armstrong, of whom he could give a fair imitation. I still owe him for introducing me to Erroll Garner. He and his first wife Betty were skilled ballroom dancers at which they earned medals and won competitions.

Possibly, due to his previous speech impediment, Johnny tended to speak loudly and forcefully, and some people misunderstood this. Underneath he was a caring and generous person. The sort of person who would have given his all to make Socialism work. After all, he spent his life in trying to achieve it.

Unfortunately his first marriage ended in divorce; a couple of years after which he married Sylvia Lawrence, who died a few years ago. They had no children. It is to the son and daughter of the first marriage. Karl and Frances, that we extend our condolences.

Ray Guy

Southern Journey (1968)

Party News from the June 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

To arrive in Jamaica at 10 o’clock at night in 90 degrees of heat and humidity after leaving London 10 hours before at 35 degrees is a shattering experience, but this disappears when a slight, bewhiskered Jamaican holds out his hand and says “Welcome to Jamaica, Comrade Edmonds”; when a tall, brawny lad with an infectious smile grabs your bags, puts them in his car and within minutes you are sitting in a beer garden being introduced to various people and discussion begins.

Such was our meeting with Cornrade Dolphy and Comrade Barry—I never did find out his other name. The following day we were allowed to rest and in the evening a visit to a club and we sit down to discussion again. Someone walks up. “Hello there, George”. “John,” says George, “this is Bill. He’s interested in the Party”, and so another participant.

The following day, we are picked up early by Barry and George and travel 80 miles into the mountains to talk to a sympathiser who accepted the Party’s case, but was sceptical about the here-after. As an ex-Roman Catholic, I was able to convince him—I hope—that it was fear that was his problem, and we parted with agreement. This was the pattern of the whole of our stay.

Jamaica of course is a country of Montego Bay with its holiday resort, writers and retired millionaires, whilst Kingston, where we stayed, is the commercial town with the poverty and unemployment very familiar in the Carribean area. The United Fruit Company has major control of the Island’s agrarian economy, which is primarily sugar, bananas and coffee. The Daily Gleaner spends much of its time acting as referee between the two political parties’ attacks on each other for graft.

I must here pay tribute to the late Comrade La Touche. They speak of him with much regard and he must have contributed to the growing group of Jamaica.

And now a different kettle of fish; Wellington, New Zealand. Seeing the Airport, we were confronted by a large sign “Trotts here tonight”. For a moment, I thought politics were very active. Unfortunately, it was horse racing and not Trotskyists. However, our welcome to Wellington was as enthusiastic as Jamaica if not as colourful. One cannot speak too highly of Comrade Ron Everson and the band of Socialists who are doing a job of work in New Zealand. I think a remark of Com. Everson will suffice to explain—“I retired from work”, he said, “I couldn't propagate Socialism and work.” This is indeed true. With the assistance of his wife, Amy, he carries out the work of secretary, literature secretary, organiser and chief seller of Standards and Westerns—indeed a full-time job. He also has a “room for Socialism” in his house in Wigan Street where every Thursday they hold classes, and it was enlightening to see a group of young Comrades with a group of older members. As Ron says, we are getting old —we need the young 'uns, and I think they have some excellent tutors and material.

We visited several old members including Comrade Rolfe Everson, who alas died since I arrived home. I also was introduced to the Dockers’ Club and gave a talk on War, Want and Waste. It should have lasted an hour, but as it was raining, most of the lads were standing by, so the meeting went on for four hours.

Johnny Edmonds