Editorial: What the Labour Government has Done. (1930)

Editorial from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A word to those who voted Labour.

It is now a year since the Labour Party took governmental office. They came in to solve unemployment. They have failed, and have proved by their failure the emptiness of their professions. The unemployed problem is still growing greater. The peaceful professions of Labour leaders are offset by the bombings of Indian peoples, and increased attention given to preparedness for aerial warfare.

As far as can be seen, the principal achievement of the Labour Government is the provision of fat jobs for some of its supporters.

Many workers gave support to the Labour Party on the ground that it was doing “something now”! which would bring us nearer to the realisation of our aims and hopes. In fact, however, the Labour Government has shown itself as the legitimate heir to the place and policy of the dying Liberal Party. It was never Socialist, though some of its leading members toyed with the name.

There were some who hailed the triumph of Labour as the beginning of the end of Capitalism. They have suffered a delusion, and unfortunately, in many instances, with the awakening, has come a feeling of despondency and disgust with everything ; an attitude of mind that is summed up in the bitter remark, “What is the good of anything?”

The position is somewhat similar to the feeling aroused after the Russian Bolshevik movement changed its direction and commenced to build State capitalism in Russia, first reached Europe, there were many who saw in it the commencement of the imminent social revolution, shook hands with each other and joyfully hailed the dawn of the new era. But it was a false dawn, and as the darkness again gathered, their joy gave place to despair, and, in some cases, to a cynical attempt to make profit out of the situation that developed.

Among the supporters of the Labour Party are numbers of working men and women who have given all they had in energy and money to an honest and wholehearted support of that party. Misled by emotional appeals, and failing to grasp the fundamental facts of the workers’ position, they expected from the Labour Party what it could not accomplish—and what many of its leaders knew it could not accomplish. For twelve months they have been hoping against hope that something really important would be done to grapple with their oppressive conditions, but all they have been met with are photographs of Labour leaders in court dress smirking at them from the daily papers.

We ask these disillusioned supporters of the Labour Party not to give way to despair, and not to meet our attempts at explaining Socialism with hostility based on the false idea that our principles are like those of the Labour Party. We ask them instead to refrain from judgment until they have read our literature. When they have done so, they will find that we have been pointing out to the workers what to expect from Labour leaders for the last twenty-five years. And the result has proved the truth of our contentions. They will also learn why it is that we have opposed the Labour Party and, if they are prepared to give our case a little careful thought, its fundamental soundness will be borne in upon them.

Here is the basis of the case in a few words :

The worker sells to the capitalist his labour-power for a weekly or daily wage. After a few hours’ work the worker has reproduced the value of his day’s wages. But the capitalist has paid him for a day’s work, or a week’s work, as the case may be, and consequently the worker continues working until he completes the period. The value he produces during the further hours of work is “surplus value,” which does not cost the capitalist anything, yet goes into his pocket. It is this fact that splits society into two opposing” classes—a small number of wealthy on the one hand, owning the means of production; and the vast majority of society on the other hand, owning only their power to work. Until this class organisation of society is changed by a fundamental revolution abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, there cannot be a permanent improvement in the condition of the working-class. Attempts at amelioration by fiddling with secondary matters are like trying to abolish a tempest by pouring a few barrels of oil on the sea.

Notes. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wealth !

“How much shall we and our guests spend on the wonderful social programme which began in May, and will continue till September?”

“It can hardly be less than £50,000,000; it may be far more.”

. . . . . . .

“Wealthy Americans, accompanied by wives and children, spend £10 to £30 a day at London’s luxury hotels. Rents up to £200 a week are paid for the more elaborate furnished West End houses at the height of the season.”

(“Daily News,” 13/6/’30.)

* * *

Churchill discovers overproduction.

In his Romanes Lecture delivered at Oxford on Thursday, June 19th, Mr. Winston Churchill made some interesting admissions about the inadequacy of the capitalist system, and about the inability of the economists to understand capitalism. The “Daily Telegraph” (20th June) reports him as follows : —

“Mr. Churchill examined the classical doctrines of economics, with their insistence on private enterprise, individual effort, and non-interference by the State, and said that we could clearly see they did not correspond to what was going on now.

If, he proceeded, the doctrines of the old economists no longer serve for the purposes of our society, they must be replaced by a new body of doctrine equally well-related in itself, and equally well-fitting into a general theme.

The root problem of modern world economics was the strange discordance between the consuming and producing power. We were faced with the Curse of Plenty.”

* * *

Birth Control & Unemployment.

The Birth Control Movement have issued a leaflet explaining that France cured unemployment there by means of Birth Control.

Fewer babies— fewer out of work — prosperity — and plenty to eat at Nature’s table.

It’s very simple. Whilst curing unemployment, somehow they left most of the French workers in poverty.

Why are the numbers of out-of-works fewer in France ?

The explanation must be sought in the economic position of the French population, as well as in the post-war reparation work in France, as well as her military situation. An article on this matter will appear shortly.

Answers to Correspondents: Is Christianity “fizzing out”? (1930)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received from a reader the letter which is printed below :—

Clapton, E.5. 31/5/30.

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,

I am a regular reader of the Standard, and admire the good sense in most of the articles, but I should like to know if the writer of the article on religion in the April issue includes the Christian religion ; if he did, I should think he requires a dose of logic. If the circulation of a party’s organ is any criterion to go by, there is no evidence at present of a “fizzing out” of the Christian religion. Last year’s world sale of the Bible was 42,000,000. Compare this with 30 years ago and you will find a good increase. I am sure he must be at sea a little.

All modern movements for the uplifting of the worker received their impulse from the religion of Christ, and probably the writer of “fizzing out” would not have the ability to write if it was not for our religion.

In conclusion, I should advise you to improve your articles on religion if you wish to maintain your good reputation.

God Bless You.

Yours very sincerely,

H. F. Roberts.

P.S.—I should be glad if you would let me know if the religion of Jesus helped Amy Johnson.

Our Reply.

It is good to hear that Mr. Roberts is a regular reader of our paper. Long may he remain so. We are always glad to hear from our readers, either in criticism or in approval. Anything is better than a devastating silence. It is heartening to feel that the thoughts one hatches and commits to paper, find a response somewhere; that someone is moved to throwing either bouquets or bricks. The article to which Mr. Roberts takes exception was largely composed of the thoughts of others. First, an extract from the “Daily News” described the “unholy scramble for jobs” amongst the professional Christians. Then an extract from Robert Graves’ “Good-bye to All That,” in which he stated that under the test of war, the professional Christian was often a contemptible creature. Finally, there was a series of extracts from Haldane’s “Possible Worlds,” confirming Graves’ observations, and adding that the modern clergy are recruited from the dregs of the universities and that their income is diminishing and not likely to increase. Our restrained comment was, “Knowledge and correct action will kill capitalism ; religion will flicker out.”

Mr. Roberts disagrees. He thinks we require a “dose of logic” ; that we are at sea a little. As for logic—well, what are we to gather from the mention of 42,000,000 Bibles? Does Mr, Roberts believe there will be 42,000,000 more Christians than before? And will they differ materially from the Christians we meet every day? And will they behave any differently in the next war from that described by Graves and Haldane? 42,000,000 Bibles in one year is certainly a staggering figure, but what is quite as staggering is the futility of it all. What becomes of them? Where do they go? Crossword puzzlers must account for quite a lot, and in the tropics white ants must make a difference. The armies that have sprung up consequent upon the Christian treaties following the war would also affect the Bible market. You don’t see the connection?

Then you must have another quotation, this time from Brigadier-General Crozier’s “A Brass Hat in No Man’s Land.” He describes the use which the military authorities made of the Chaplains and their religious ceremonies and beliefs, in the following pointed phrase :—”The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have, and of them we made free use.”

However, we need not labour the point. The final enquiry of Mr. Roberts as to whether the religion of Jesus helped Amy Johnson, is one upon which, up to the time of writing, we have no exact knowledge. Our only source of information, the daily newspaper, has only mentioned petrol so far, and this appears to have been sufficient. We have never heard of the religion of Jesus being used in the way suggested, or undoubtedly Major Segrave would have availed himself of it in his similar desperate enterprise.

W. T. Hopley

* * *

There is rather an amusing commentary on the wide circulation of Bibles in that very religious country—the U.S.A.

The Gideon Bible Society—sometimes called the Giddy ones—collect funds from the rich to supply a Bible free to every room in every hotel, so that commercial travellers may have some spiritual consolation for lack of orders. It has often been noted that whilst articles of any value whatever are constantly stolen—the Bible is always left behind. And the only evidence of its nice, clean pages being disturbed, is the rude remarks scribbled in the margins.

Editorial Committee.

What Rationalisation Means to the Workers. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Times” for May 12th and the six following days published a series of articles on “Rationalisation.” The reason put forward for the articles was the failure of English industries to adapt themselves to post-war conditions by increased combination, cutting out the middleman and adopting massed production.

For ten years industries in this country have been faced with a depression that threatens to become permanent. The writers of “The Times” articles have no remedy to offer apart from capturing a larger share in the world market by becoming more efficient than foreign competitors. They instance Germany and America in particular, as countries that have forged ahead of England through adopting rationalisation The four to six million unemployed in America and the growing tide of unemployment in Germany is an immediate reply to them, and also a prophecy of what the future promises to the English worker.

“The Times” editorial defines rationalisation as follows :—

“Brought down to its simplest terms, Rationalisation is nothing more or less than the technique of reducing costs. The first stage of this process consists in the elimination of unnecessary and wasteful competition by the formation of cartels to regulate production and to equate supply with demand, and the combination of producing units in “horizontal” amalgamations. Once this has been successfully accomplished, the way is open for a very large number of economies. Among the more obvious of these sources of saving are the suppression of redundant staffs and middlemen, through centralised buying and selling, the reduction of unnecessary specifications through more adequate standardisation, the closing down of obsolete plant, and the concentration of production on the best-equipped units, which can be kept working continuously on a single type of product, thus avoiding a great deal of wasteful duplication. In the sphere of labour costs tho economies made possible by amalgamation are in some respects even more important. The credit resources of big combines render possible large and frequent renewals of fixed capital and consequently enable the most modern labour-saving devices to be adopted on a scale which is impracticable for smaller units.”

A careful examination of the above quotation will make the fact evident that the essence of rationalisation is the production and distribution of a given quantity of goods by the employment of less labour than is required at present. A proof of this is given in the fourth article, where the writers point out that in the United States, by mass production, the output per man employed is much higher than in this country.

The claim made on behalf of rationalisation is that it will bring back “prosperity” to this country. The hollowness of the claim is exposed by the following quotation, taken from the first article :—

“Taking the world in general, the increase in productive capacity of the basic industries since 1913 has been far greater than growth in the volume of international trade. The various nations of Europe and Asia, to say nothing of the United States, have striven hard to attain a far greater degree of economic self-sufficiency. India, China, and Japan, for instance, have vastly increased their production of cotton goods; Germany has gone far towards replacing the plant which she lost owing to the transfer of Alsace and Lorraine to France; Spain and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; Brazil and Argentina, not to mention India and Australia, have all been building up manufacturing industries of their own behind tariff barriers. The competition in the export of manufactured goods has consequently grown keener.”

The irony of the situation is that the real cause of the depression, which is now international and promises to be permanent, is the fact that international production has far outgrown the world’s demands. The growth of rationalisation tends to make matters worse. The obvious trend of industrial affairs to-day is towards international combinations and the splitting up of the world’s markets among a few immense combines, which would restrict and accelerate production to meet the demands of the market. This will bring in its train a huge body of permanently unemployed that will become more and more menacing to each capitalist nation, and it will tax the ingenuity of future statesmen pretty heavily to find means to keep this huge body quiet and amused.

That any one nation can secure a large part of the international market for any appreciable length of time against competing nations is now practically impossible. The vast strides made in the rapid gathering and diffusion of technical knowledge puts the leading nations on a level basis and prevents one nation from forging ahead of another. In the earlier days of modern industry, England, for various reasons, obtained a flying start and was for a while the manufacturing nation of the world. But the time has passed by when any nation could emulate England. In the heyday of England’s commercial prosperity, British manufacturers supplied foreign countries with the plant, machinery and technical education which are now being used by them to meet their own productive demands and secure a share of other markets.

The present trouble in India, which the Labour Government are handling in true accord with “the imperishable ideals of British statesmanship,” has its root in the fact that Indian industrialists have become conscious of the commercial importance of their steel, cotton and other industries and want a place in the sun-—or, in other words, a fair share of the plums !

At bottom, then, rationalisation is a move to bring the control of industry internationally into the hands of fewer and fewer people and thereby to tighten the bonds of slavery more closely upon the world’s workers. While on the one hand it aims at easing the present anarchy in production by adjusting supply to effective demand, and also tends to make production more efficient by technical and organisational improvement; on the other hand, it aims at making the worker produce more wealth for less wages and increasing the already huge unemployed army. The chasm between the working class and the capitalist class grows ever greater and greater, and can only be bridged by the abolition of the capitalist order of society—as Karl Marx so clearly pointed out many years ago.

There is an illuminating side to the wholesale movement for rationalisation. For decades the standing reproach flung at the Socialist was the charge that he proposed to abolish the small capitalist—that mythical being who is supposed to have raised himself from the ranks by personal effort and was alleged to be a steadily growing: fraction of the community. He has no place, however, in the rationalised scheme of things, he is to be crushed out—the rationalisers make no bones about it ! And he is to be crushed out because he is a hindrance in modern production. Ethical views do not count where economic interests are at stake. It remains now for the working class to point out to the capitalists that they also have become a hindrance to production, as they cannot organise their system to provide adequately for all members of society.

Gilmac.

A Look Round. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Red” Leader turns Green! Another “Communist Hope” gone.

Under the heading of “Larkin not a Communist,” the Communist Daily Worker, March 12th, reports a meeting addressed on March 9th in Dublin for the Workers’ Union. Talking of the approach of St. Patrick’s Day, Larkin said, “This nation needs a spiritual uplifting.” He then praised the Government’s famous prison, Mountjoy—as “the best prison in the world.”

Another statement was, “I am not a Communist and I know very little about Capitalism.” Larkin finished by asking the audience to remove their hats and sing the Free State national anthem.

The Daily Worker, with its usual confusion, says : “Larkin’s renegacy removes one of the obstacles to the formation of a real Communist Party in Ireland.”

It is not long since Jim Larkin went to Moscow and was elected to the Executive of the Third International. To give an International flavour to this body the five or six calling themselves the Communist League of Ireland were taken into the Third International, and Larkin, with his notorious nationalism, Catholicism, and Labourism, was at once pushed on the Executive of the “World Communist International.” That alone shows how anti-revolutionary the Third International is, apart from the long string of adventurers who became leaders in its ranks. Willie Gallacher and Larkin were usually in close company and the anti-Socialist ideas of Larkin were well known to the other “Communist” Leaders.

It was common knowledge that Larkin in New York was busy supporting the formation of a Labour Party there, and talked of the great work of the British Labour Party, keeping silent on how the Labour Party here had betrayed the transport workers in 1913, when appealed to by Larkin himself for assistance in the struggle.

Larkin is a member of the Catholic Church and always pointed out that he was “a good member of mother church.”

That did not stop his enlistment into the Bolshevik International, but now, when his church is busy denouncing Bolshevism, Larkin falls in to the Pope’s call. Such are the great recruits to the Communist Party. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear from such a Catholic stronghold as the Free State that Bob Stewart, the Communist official in Dublin, recently spoke there, and said that Russia was fighting the Greek Orthodox Church only, and not the Holy Catholic Religion. How similar are Jesuits and “Communists” in their handling” of truth, with their doctrine,” “the end justifies the means.”

* * *

Capitalist can't give details—But they ask us for them.

How often do opponents demand details of life under Socialism? They insist upon blue prints of the future before they will support Socialism, regardless of the fact that those details depend upon the conditions, knowledge, and wishes of the population under Socialism.

The Capitalists, however, ask for support of their policies, but even on trumpery reform measures they decline to prophesy details. Listen to Lord Melchett in his book on “Imperial Economic Unity,” advocating Empire Free Trade and asking for support now :

“If at this stage I am asked whether my policy involves a tax on this or that, I decline to answer, because that is a question which can be answered only after the problem of each commodity has been investigated from every point of view.”

Push that in front of the next anti-Socialist who wants details of an entire social system.

* * *

Who's to have the best poison gas ! 

The Duchess of Hamilton in her article in the Sunday Express (March 2nd) against Vivisection complains bitterly against the War Office under a Labour Government, experimenting by means of poison gas on animals at a Salisbury Plain military experimental camp. Cats, monkeys, goats, horses, etc., are used to test the efficiency of poison gas. The Editorial of the same paper, commenting on the leisured lady’s article, says that “it is no use suggesting that such experiments should not be conducted in this country when they are conducted in other countries. Such a course would merely place this country at a disadvantage.”

Has not Professor Levinstein, of the Chemical Industry, told us that poison gas in war is more humane and kills quicker—possibly more.

What would the noble lady have the Labour Government do ? What is a War Office for ? It is to prepare for War—for markets, territory, etc., wanted by Capitalists.

She doesn’t oppose war, but war on cats, etc. A Labour Government must carry on the research, or how otherwise would they get the best poison gas ready for the next war. These scientific men employed by the Government used 1184 animals for poison gas experiments between November 1st, 1926, and April 20th, 1929.

The Duchess asks that poison gas should be suppressed. She expects war to be carried on more “humanely.” She doesn’t suggest war should be abolished by removing the cause. That would be Utopian. It is quite scientific to agree to preparations for wars as long as you kill in a gentlemanly way, such as sticking a bayonet in another man’s stomach or dropping bombs. The Labour Government must continue poison gas experiments, of course, because every other capitalist government is doing the same ! So the Sunday Express comes to the defence of the Labour Government !

* * *

“The Community Spirit.”

Mr. Ramsay McDonald presided at the Annual Dinner of the London Morayshire Club on March 1st, and among the guests were Lord Inchcape, Lord Furness, Sir Alex­ander Grant, and several other millionaire exploiters and opponents of the working class. So we learn from the Daily Herald (March 2nd).

This is the “United Front” of “Labour” and Capital. No class war spirit there.

* * *

The small shopkeeper finished !

“10,000 shopkeepers mainly trading in the villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”

“Bankruptcies among small shop­ keepers have increased 50 per cent. since the war,” said the manager of a trade protection agency.”

These two quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd), shows how the large stores have benefited by increased travelling facilities which brings the customers into the bigger cities.

The Capitalist Press are compelled to admit that the “small man” has no chance to-day. Only a week before the same paper told us about the rich men who started with nothing. Now they confess that modern competition causes large numbers to finish up “with nothing.”

C.

Answer to Correspondent. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A. Mole (Manchester). The statement that “the very development of capitalism makes socialism more inevitable” was not an error. The phrase will be explained in our next issue.

Notice to Correspondents.

All correspondents must enclose their name and address to ensure their letters receiving a reply in this journal. A nom-de-plume may be used for publication and all matter should be written on one side of the paper.

If the anonymous correspondent who has sent some questions on Marx, will send his name and address together with actual references to Marx's Capital, we will then be able to deal with his letter.

Hull Branch. (1930)

Party News from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attention of readers in the Hull district is drawn to the formation of a Branch. All who wish to co-operate in the activities of the new Branch are asked to communicate to the Secretary, Mr. V. Coupland, at 287, Beverley Rd., Hull.

S.P.G.B. Propaganda Meetings. (1930)

Party News from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "New" Socialism (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. G. D. H. Cole, who explains how to "deal” with unemployment in the I.L.P. paper, The New Leader, also contributes a series to the columns of Everyman Weekly. One article is called "Socialism, Old and New,” but his ”Socialism” is neither old nor new—it may be Coleism, but it isn’t Socialism. He explains that the old Socialist method was to nationalise industries. Not entirely nationalised, but some in State hands and others in private hands. Mr. Cole does not point out that Socialism means social or common ownership, and, therefore, does not mean Government or private ownership. But even Nationalisation is too strong for this I.L.P. contributor, who is now an economic advisor to the Labour Government! He explains the "New Socialism” thus:

   Meanwhile, on their side, the Socialists have not been standing still. There has been an' evolution of opinion among them fully as notable as that which has taken place among economists or employers. Broadly speaking, most Socialists (and nearly all the younger Socialists) have ceased to regard nationalisation in the old sense of the term, as something desirable in itself and inherent in Socialist policy, and have tended to transfer the emphasis of their argument from the need for national ownership of industry to the need for effective public control.

According to this, "Socialists” certainly haven’t been standing still—but standing on their heads. Ownership is the basis of control, and while the workers do not own they will not control. While another class owns, that class will always control the workers’ lives—by control of their means of living. Mr. Cole asks:

   Can we not have, instead of nationalised industries in the old sense, great recognised public utility corporations working under social control, and co-ordinated into an efficient whole by means of a State economic agency? It does not need great changes and it may need no change of ownership at all, to convert the railway service into a public corporation of this sort.

Public Utility Corporations, controlled publicly—owned privately! That is the new Socialism. But America contains plenty of these firms, and they are just as much capitalist as any other concerns with the added monopoly power of vast businesses in control of the entire field. Exploitation of the worker and the large profits of the capitalist continue. Public control, what is that? Where it is not ordinary Government regulation it may be State, employers and workers represented on a board. And as the State is the agent of the capitalist—as Labour Rule as well as Tory Rule shows— the workers’ voice is in a minority—especially when the so-called workers' representative is usually a Labour leader looking out for a "future” for himself.

Later in the article Mr. Cole confesses that his new "Socialism” is simply the old capitalism. For he instances two so-called publicly controlled businesses in this country in which "public” control was established by Tories and Liberals. He says:

   "Socialists are apt to forget that the railways and electricity Acts of late years were passed by anti-Socialist Governments.”

No, we do not forget—Socialists remember and know that Liberals and Tories and Labour tools of capital will establish Government regulation of large utilities in order to harmonise these services with the general interests of the capitalists who use these utilities.

The railways—Mr. Cole’s own illustration —are privately owned. And the real control lies in the owners of the largest shares who decide by the number of shares how the railways shall be run. In the interest of the Traders the Government regulates their charges, but does not stop them making profits out of their employees who do the work.

Labour misleaders, like Mr. Cole, will confuse the workers with false ideas of Socialism. The function of the Socialist is to explain the nature of Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism under private or public control means a working class working for wages (when it pays the capitalist to employ them), it means a parasite class living on profits in the forms of dividends on shares, public loans, etc., which all come out of the results of the workers’ labours.

Government control or ownership does not alter that.

Socialism means common ownership by the workers of the means of producing wealth, and also of the product.

Many who don’t know, think that the object of the Labour Party is common ownership. Others think that it is only Government ownership of industries. The truth emerges that the object of these alleged Labourites is public control, thus leaving ownership as well as control safely in the hands of the owning class. Liberals, Tories and “Labour” can unite on this; and when this capitalist objective is achieved the working class will be where they are now—slaves of capitalism.

Adolph Kohn

Will Independence Help India? (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anyone who reads the English newspapers and also the journals which put the point of view of the Indian Nationalists, will find himself presented with two pictures of Indian affairs and Indian problems which clash very violently with each other. From the Indian side we are told that the 320 million people who live in that huge area are suffering great wrongs at the hands of tyrannical British authorities, and are united in a desire to overthrow foreign rule and establish their right to govern themselves outside or inside the British Empire as they may freely desire. It is admitted on all sides that millions of the peasants and workers in India are desperately poor, permanently undernourished, and subject to devastating diseases in time of famine. In 1918-1919, during an epidemic of influenza, the loss of life reached the enormous total of 12 millions, equal to about a quarter of the population of this country. And poverty is not the only evil which persists in India after generations of paternal British government and innumerable promises of benefits to be showered on the Indians by their foreign masters.

The Indian Central Committee (a body of influential Indians appointed to sit in conjunction with the Simon Commission) last year submitted its report (published by H.M. Stationery Office, 1929, Cmd. 3451). The Committee have something to say about the neglect of the British Government to fulfil its pledges in regard to education.

   The primary education of the masses has . . . been repeatedly declared, during the last 75 years, to be the special care of the British Government in India. It is, therefore, worth while to examine the progress achieved in this direction during that period and to see how far it has kept pace with the repeated declarations of policy . . . In 1917, that is, 63 years after the despatch of 1854, only 2.59 per cent. of the total population were receiving instruction in recognised primary schools. . . . It is not surprising in the face of these facts that public opinion in India was profoundly disappointed with the rate of progress achieved, and became openly sceptical as to the professed intention of the Government in the matter. (Para. 24.)

The Committee rather cuttingly point out that the expenditure on education is about one-sixteenth of the expenditure on the army —“the true measure of the interest displayed by the Government in mass education."

According to the Indian Economic Enquiry Committee, which reported in 1925, only 8% of the population are literate.

Who Is To Blame?
Those who defend the British occupation of India do not deny that there is great poverty. They admit this and many other evils, but they reply that if British troops and British Government officials were withdrawn, India would cease to have any central government, and would lapse into anarchy. It would be at the mercy of the more warlike native races at home, or invading troops from outside. They point to the multiplicity of races and languages which exist in India; the bitter hatred between the conflicting religions; and the rigid caste system which prevails among the Hindus, and which results in millions of the so-called “Depressed Classes” occupying a position of the utmost degradation, aptly indicated by their name, “untouchables." British officials show that the methods of carrying on agriculture are shockingly primitive, and that any improvement is hindered by the native customs and religious observances. Ideas of sanitation and medicine are largely lacking, and in these and other respects the Indians as a whole grain much from the British occupation. So say the defenders of the present system of government. All of this is set out at length in the Simon Commission Report, 1930.

What, then, are we to believe? Ought we to side with Gandhi, the leader of the Indian Nationalists, in condemning the English Government (as many well-meaning people in this country do), or ought we to take up the attitude which is maintained by successive British Prime Ministers, that it is necessary to remain in India for the good of the Indians? Let us consider the matter a little further, and start by asking ourselves why the British Government is in India at all. When we know why the World Powers are all of them anxious to acquire colonies and spheres of influence abroad, we shall be better able to see the Indian problem in its proper light.

Why are British Troops in India?

The ultimate answer to this question is simply: “foreign trade and foreign investments." Every developed capitalist nation is faced with the same desperate problem of disposing abroad the surplus goods which its workers produce, but are too poor to buy. In every country there are a minority of rich people so wealthy that they cannot spend their vast incomes, and are perpetually seeking new foreign fields of profitable investment of the wealth which they cannot help saving. Every capitalist power needs, therefore, to find foreign markets and places for investment. This it is which leads to imperialism; to the conquest of the territory of “backward races ”; to armaments; and finally to war.

Read what the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said on the subject in a speech delivered in 1890, before the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce—

  All the great offices of State are occupied with commercial affairs. The Foreign Office and the Colonial Office are chiefly engaged in finding new markets and in defending old ones. The War Office and the Admiralty are mostly occupied in preparations for the defence of those markets and for the protection of our commerce.

This explains the British Colonial Empire. And what is true of Britain is just as true of other great powers—France, for example.

Listen to Marshal Lyauty, the French General who conquered Morocco-

  French soldiers are fighting in Morocco to acquire territory in which rise rivers capable of supplying power for electrification schemes which will prove of great advantage to French trade. When we have acquired the last zone of cultivatable territory; when we have nothing but mountains in front of us, we shall stop.
  Our object is commercial and economic. The military expedition in Morocco is a means, not an end. Our object is the extension of foreign trade. (“Star," 31 October, 1922.)

Now let us turn to India and read what the Liberal “Manchester Guardian” has to say (30th December, 1929).

  There are two chief reasons why a self-regarding England may hesitate to relax her control over India. The first is that her influence in the East depends partly upon her power to summon troops and to draw resources from India in time of need . . . The second is that Great Britain finds in India her best market, and that she has a thousand million of capital invested there.

Lastly, think over the bombastic utterance of Sir William Joynson-Hicks, now Lord Brentford (quoted in the “Daily News" 17th October, 1925).

   We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at Missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we should hold it. (Shame.) Call it shame if you like. I am stating facts. I am interested in missionary work in India, and have done much work of that kind, but I am not such a hypocrite as to say that we hold India for the Indians. We hold it as the finest outlet for British goods in general, and for Lancashire cotton goods in particular.

When you add to this the influence of the English families who look to the Indian civil and military services to provide posts for their sons, it is easy enough to understand why a capitalist British Government does not want to lose India.

Indian Capitalists or Indian Workers?

We have seen why British capitalists are interested in Indian affairs—a £1,000 million is an accumulation of property worth fighting for. But now let us see what are the interests on the other side. Who are the interests behind Gandhi?

Sir Basil Blackett, an authority on Indian Finance, in a speech at New Delhi on March 19th, 1929, pointed out that the capital invested in India is rapidly being concentrated more and more into the hands of Indian capitalists. He said that between 60% and 70% of the shares in Indian jute mills are Indian-owned. Indian capitalists are investing in Government loans, developing India’s production of steel and other goods, financing India’s foreign trade, and even investing money in other countries such as Brazil.

The Simon Commission in Volume I. of its Report (page 23) says :—

   It was British capital that began the modern process of industrialism in India, but more and more commercial enterprise is falling into Indian hands. Most of the share capital in the jute mills on the Hooghly is Indian; the vast majority of the cotton factories of Bombay are Indian; and, while it was British enterprise which first established and developed the tea gardens of Assam and elsewhere, these undertakings are now carried on side by side with many that are Indian owned. India is now one of the eight most important industrial areas in the world. . . . Industrialism . . .  is displacing the village craftsman, so that large-scale manufacture is being superimposed on the ancient fabric of an elaborately sub-divided and predominantly rural society.

Here we have the problem in a nutshell. Indian capitalists want to have the profits of the developing Indian capitalism for themselves. They wish to be able to control the Indian system of taxation, and the Indian system of tariffs, and use them to further their own interests. They do not object to the exploitation of the Indian workers, but they do object to British investors getting the lion’s share; and they do object to British traders, exporting British-made goods to India, enjoying preferential treatment.

Fundamentally, the Indian Nationalist movement represents the interests of Indian capitalists. It is naturally supported by the Indian educated castes, who see the promise of fat jobs in the Indian Army or Civil Service, and in the legal profession.

As the “Manchester Guardian’s” special Indian correspondent wrote on 7th February, 1930, Indian independence “would mean the government of India by men drawn almost entirely from the urban Hindu capitalist and professional classes.” These are the men who control the Indian Nationalist movement.

What Should The Socialists Do?

What, then, should be our attitude? We can give a plain and definite answer. On the one side we are in no way whatever responsible for or defenders of the actions of the British 'Government; nor do we associate ourselves in any way with the British Labour Party. We are working for Socialism, and for that alone. We claim that only the establishment of Socialism can solve the Indian problem, and all other problems of national rivalries. Only Socialism will rid the world of this murderous scramble for foreign markets, and thus remove the need for colonies and for armaments to seize and retain them.

To the Indian workers we extend our sympathy in the sufferings which fall to their lot. We ask them, however, to recognise that their poverty is the result not of foreign rule—which is merely one of the evil by-products of capitalism—but of the capitalist system itself. Dominion status or Independence for India will not solve any working class problem. It will merely be a substitution of “India for the Indian capitalists” in place of “India for the British capitalists.” The only sound policy for the Indian workers, the only policy in line with their class interests, is to keep clear of the Nationalist movement, and carry on steadily with the task of organising themselves on the economic field for the defence of their interests against their employers, and organising on the political field for the ultimate achievement of Socialism in co-operation with the rest of the world’s workers. There is nothing in the programme of Gandhi and the Indian Nationalists deserving of working class support. Therefore, just as we urged the British and German workers in 1914 to refuse to be drawn into the quarrel between British and German capitalist Governments, so now we urge the workers of this country and of India not to allow themselves to be led into conflict by the parties of capitalism in their respective countries. Our watchword is not “Britain for the British” and “India for the Indians,’’ but “the world for the workers."

Edgar Hardcastle

Mr. J. H. Thomas and the Unemployed. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Thomas has proved himself once more the friend of the employers. How grateful they must feel to good old Jimmy.

The "Daily News” of May 5th, 1930, reports a part of a speech given by him to his constituents at Derby. Speaking of rationalisation, he says; "It will temporarily result in unemployment, but if I am satisfied that it is a remedy, and that the ultimate effects will be of lasting benefit, then my policy is not to refuse anything that is temporarily unpopular or unpleasant. I am prepared to risk the unpopularity, knowing | it must succeed.” Furthermore he says:

"We have to have a drastic process of rationalisation,” and then, "Protection has been suggested as a remedy for unemployment, but protectionist countries were suffering the same trouble. Regard must be had to the conditions of employment in competing countries.” "French, German, and Belgian workers could not be allowed to be exploited for our benefit.” And. finally, he remarks; "If women abolished short skirts, they would make the greatest possible contribution to the revival of the Lancashire cotton trade.”

What a noble and pathetic picture he makes as he prepares to sacrifice his popularity for an ideal, the ideal of rationalisation. How ignorant, or wilfully blind to the true facts he must be, when he insists that only temporary unemployment will result. Better and speedier methods of production mean that less labour is required, and if Mr. Thomas grants this, but says that the cheapening of the product will mean a bigger demand and the reabsorption of the displaced labour, then he must have forgotten, in the strenuous duties as a Minister, his experiences as a trade union leader. His dealing with the employers must have shown him how, when the cost of living decreases, wages fall. If wages fall, then the purchasing power of the workers in employment is no greater, and again, there is the fact of those thrown out by the rationalisation process, have their spending powers considerably decreased. Hence the increased demand is a myth, and Mr. Thomas has simply helped the bosses to displace labour and produce more cheaply, not temporarily, but permanently. The improvements that are made are never lost, but are the stepping stones to greater efficiency. His argument on Protection can, with the same reasoning, be applied to rationalisation. "Protection is no cure, because protectionist countries are suffering the same trouble.” Rationalisation is shown to be no cure, because rationalised countries are suffering just the same trouble. Rationalisation has gone on extensively in America, and on this the "Daily News” of January 14th, 1930, makes interesting reading. Two columns are devoted to unemployment in America, but just a short quotation will suffice:—

  The causes of this huge displacement of workers (nearly 4,000,000) are declared to be (1) Improvements in machinery, (2) the extension of cheap electric power, (3) the invention of labour- saving devices, (4) the processes described in Gt. Britain under the name of Rationalisation. Hundreds of thousands of these dispossesed men and women have found work in new and growing industries, but the new industries have not been sufficient to absorb the displaced labour. The situation is one that has a marked significance for Great Britain, because similar developments in the use of labour-saving machines and Rationalisation are, in the opinion of many, bound to have similar consequences. The problem of what to do with men and women “scrapped” by the relentless new machines, is baffling the best brains in American industry. It is like a gaunt spectre in the richest country in the world, and distinguished economists say that the situation must inevitably grow more acute as time goes on.

What does Mr. Thomas say in the face of these facts? He just owlishly blinks and turns to the ladies. If we do what he asks, our frantic endeavours to free our legs from our petticoats should melt a heart of stone, and perhaps Mr. Thomas will excuse us from being the saviours of the Lancashire cotton trade. The cotton traders, however, put the trade depression down to something more serious than short skirts. The day after the article on unemployment in America, our useful little guide, the "Daily News” of January 13th, 1930, reports the following opinion of those interested in cotton:—

  We have too much machinery. This carries with it a capacity for producing more than the market will take, and a consequent readiness of makers to sell their yarn and cloth at uneconomic prices in order to keep a foothold in the market.

Then since in this report they are not concerned with the workers, they go on to suggest that rationalisation, the elimination of small trading concerns, and the combining together of all the cotton interests so as to eliminate waste, etc., is the method by which the capitalists can save their industries. The “Manchester Guardian" of 25th April, 1930, reports that the National Union of Shop Assistants were discussing the dismissal of elderly assistants through the amalgamation of firms, i.e., rationalisation. The amount of labour affected assumes gigantic proportions, and cannot be dismissed so lightheartedly as Mr. Thomas would dismiss it. This rationalisation, upon which Mr. Thomas confers his blessing so assiduously, means that industry will become centred in fewer and fewer hands. The spoils will be less divided. The most efficient methods of production will be utilised, reducing labour to a minimum. Commodities must be produced cheaply if they are to compete with foreign rivals, and if British capitalists are going to secure overseas trade. Whether or no foreign workers are exploited more than British workers, only concerns Mr. Thomason so far that it means that foreign capitalists will prosper at the expense of British capitalists, and make Mr. Thomas' position more precarious. A point, however, in all this that Mr. Thomas never mentions, and which we must perforce bring to his notice, is his lack of concern over the position of the workers who are not unemployed. The vast majority are certainly not living in the lap of luxury, or does Mr. Thomas think that to have a job even at two pounds ten is the pinnacle of ambition realised? The workers employed and unemployed are in a position of poverty and insecurity. Knowledge and skill do not count now as they did formerly, and robots are more and more displacing higher paid labour.

Is Mr. Thomas concerned? Not in the least. He just smilingly prates about unpopular temporary effects, and urges the workers to support the employers in dismissing them.

Mr. Thomas himself is in a singularly happy position, and no doubt this it is which enables him to bear up so blithely under other people’s miseries. After failing for a year to carry out his promise of reducing unemployment, and seeing it in fact increase stupendously, Mr. Thomas leaves one Cabinet job for another equally highly paid. Workers who lose their jobs are not so fortunate.

May Otway

The Cloak of Religion (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the eyes of the class that is supreme in society, religion is for the people, as Napoleon once pointed out, but not for the rulers. It is something to stupefy or drive into a frenzy the mass of the people, as the needs of the governing class demand.

Since the days of the native medicine man religion has been a prop and a handmaiden to each ruling class, and a priestly group has evolved parallel with the growth of government. So much has this been so that each social revolution of the past has had a religious glamour cast over it and has involved modifications of the creeds of the defeated rulers.

Apart from its philosophic unsoundness, the success and the curse of religion has been its propagation of the myth of another world.

When the oppressed are weary from the hopeless struggle for existence, and might be moved to rise and throw off the yoke of oppression, the deadening hand of religion stretches out to them, bids them to be of good cheer and be patient, all will be well in the hereafter, where “all good people” will live in a heavenly rose garden. Many rise to the bait, as it is so comforting to think that this vale of tears is but a path to paradise. And so places of worship have arisen, palatial, beautiful and impregnated with incense; their pulpits have resounded with the mocking cry, “Come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” The promise has meant a good deal to those who looked for no rest on this side of the tomb, and has helped to blind them to the possibilities of rest in their real life.

Religion has not been a giver of rest but a scourge to drive the masses on to toil unresistingly. The demonstrations of scientists that religion is, on the one hand, an attempt of the ignorant to explain natural forces —of whose workings they are ignorant, and, on the other hand, a weapon in the hands of a ruling class to help to keep the workers in subjection—have made little progress in the workers’ minds in the past, because knowledge has been the privilege of the rulers and their henchmen, and the masses have lacked time and opportunity to learn.

In the later Middle Ages the ruling class in their own circle ignored the precepts they preached and permitted a considerable amount of scepticism in the writings of the professional groups, cynically conscious of the fact that it would never reach the understanding of the "lower orders.”

Of late years a change has gradually come, and from two directions; both of which are due to the profit-making root of present society—and are beyond the power of capitalism to cope with.

One cause is the mighty machine industry of to-day, which has demonstrated to workers, without the need of books, the natural source of supernatural phenomena, and, at the same time, the power of human capacity to harness the forces of nature. The oil engine, wireless, and the aeroplane have been among the remarkable educators of the average man during recent years.

The other cause is the cheap and wholesale production of literature which brings within reach of all, often in a very handy form, the very latest results of scientific investigation in all fields of thought, and also lays bare the method of scientific research.

Books are articles of commerce, like other commodities, and money invested in printing yields just the same kind of profit as money invested in oil production or any other ware. Consequently, newspapers print scientific reports and works of a scientific nature are written because the sale of newspapers and books is profitable. Workers read and learn, and their growing wisdom is reflected in a gradually clearer understanding of the world and their particular place in it.

Thus the blind scramble after profit leads the capitalist to dig the grave of his system, and, as the hold of superstitions weakens, the worker loses his reverence and respect for the things that; he has been taught to regard as the eternal institutions of divine wisdom. Religion, like a cloak, is thrown off when it is worn threadbare. In similar fashion, the system whose evils it has been used to cover is subjected to scientific examination, and failing to provide for the needs of the majority is displaced by one that does so.

Gilmac.

Can we get Socialism through Parliament? (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Communist Party was formed some ten years ago, it absorbed elements which changed their names without thereby abandoning their illusions. One of the most obstinate of these was the notion that because the machinery of government is controlled now by those who use it to maintain capitalist domination, an attempt on the part of the workers to capture Parliament and use it for revolutionary ends is foredoomed to failure. In support of this view, we are frequently offered the phrase of Marx, “The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it for its own purposes." (“Civil War in France," p. 28. Labour Publishing Co.'s Edn.)

In the volume in question, Marx was dealing with a particular experience of the working class of Paris, the memorable Commune of 1871.

“Paris," said Marx, “had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the Empire. Paris could resist only because in consequence of the siege it had got rid of the army and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of whom consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.” (p. 30.)

This same standing army forms, along with the State police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature, one of the principal pillars of the State handed down by absolute monarchy to its Republican successors. Marx uses quite a lot of space in showing that the reason why these same Republicans required an instrument of oppression was that they represented an exploiting class, the modern capitalist class; while the working class, having no class beneath it to oppress, could but rid itself of this part of the State machinery as of a burden.

It is curious to note, in view of all this, that the Communist Party claims Russia as an example of how to achieve working-class emancipation; a country, that is, where these pillars of the State (standing army, political police, bureaucracy, law officers, etc.) still exist in full vigour. One would imagine, if one took the declamations of “ Communists" seriously, that Socialism consists of the domination of the workers over the capitalists; as though the former could “exploit" or in some other way make use of the latter. The fact that Russian society cannot at present dispense with the capitalists is the clearest possible proof of the economical, political and mental backwardness of that country, and the limited scope for working-class activity. The last thing that Marx intended to imply by his oft-quoted statement was that Socialism could be imposed upon a nation of peasants by means of a “Red Army"!

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has pointed out from its foundation in its declared principles that the existing State is “an instrument of oppression" which only the conscious political action of the organised working-class could “convert into an agent of emancipation.” In other words, we have always advdcated revolutionary political action. The latter-day “Communists,” however, do not understand the meaning of this term. They do not appreciate the fact that revolution necessitates gaining control of the existing political machinery, not its mere destruction and the creation of something new out of nothing. Marx says, for instance, on page 32 : “While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society; instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business . . .  Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supersede universal suffrage by hierarchic investiture."

Marx, above all people, had none of the anarchists' contempt for “counting noses.” Nor did he share the delusion that the revolution could be achieved merely by punching noses (!) at the command of self-appointed leaders. In their desperate scramble to remain within the shelter of Lenin’s mantle the “Communists" of this and other countries have poured scorn upon voting, as a mere capitalist snare, without putting forward any alternative which would bear five minutes' intelligent scrutiny.

Society can no more dispense with administrative machinery than it can do without the material means of living. It is quite easy and quite correct, at present, to describe a factory as a capitalist instrument, seeing that it is an institution for extracting profit from the labour of the workers therein. Those who advocate organisation by factory committees overlook this; but even they would hesitate to say, "Let us smash the factories of the employers and set up factories of our own.”

Yet such a proposal would be quite as sane as the suggestion that we should destroy the State by means of "workers' councils" responsible to nobody but themselves. The publicly-elected administrative bodies are capitalist machines only so long as the workers regard capitalism as the necessary form of society. They can be converted into means of establishing Socialism so soon as the workers (i.e., the majority of the electors) realise its necessity.

This does not mean that every detail of industrial activity will be regulated by bureaucrats in Whitehall; but it does mean that the social revolution will be an organic development, not a mere chaotic breakdown. The class-conscious organisation of the workers has everything to gain and nothing to lose by democratic methods. Its development is in fact unthinkable without them, and when we are told that representative institutions, such as the ballot-box, are merely barometers, we smile.

Can one alter the political atmosphere by smashing the barometer?

The "Communists"take revenge for their rejection at the polls by denouncing polling as "a bourgeois device for deluding the workers," and then call on the latter to try conclusions with police-baton, and the only things that get smashed are the workers’ heads.

We of the Socialist Party suggest that these latter can be put to better use. We have sufficient confidence in their contents to believe that they are capable of assimilating the Socialist message, and our whole policy is shaped accordingly.

Eric Boden

The Illusions of Sir Oswald Mosley (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir Oswald Mosley has resigned from the Labour Ministry and made a great noise with his proposals to deal with unemployment. Though they are largely taken from the official Labour programme (Labour and the Nation) the Mosley plans are criticised and opposed by "official" Labour. An examination of his schemes shows that they are borrowed very largely from the Liberal Party programme, and hence Lloyd George sings their praise.

Raising the school age, pensioning some workers over 60, and making roads, bridges, etc.—these comprise the cream of Mosley's programme.

Do they deal with the cause of unemployment? Will they absorb the unemployed? Will they stop industry adding to the army of out-of works? The answer is No! Like Lloyd George's platform call, "We can conquer unemployment," the Mosley schemes play with effects and merely carry on the ordinary repair work the capitalists need to make their industry more effective.

Take cheap wage slaves over 60 out of the factory. Does that mean younger and more expensive workers will be employed instead?

Past experience shows that women and machinery will be used to keep down costs whenever production expenses are raised by legislation or Union activity. Young boys and girls taken out of the factory will provide another inducement to rationalisation by means of machinery, etc., and so, instead of older workers being employed, cheaper methods of production will prevent the increased employment of older workers.

Mosley and Lloyd George schemes—like the Labour Party policy, official or otherwise—simply mean that the ordinary and normal work of making repairs to capitalism is boomed as special relief work. Where it is not that, it is like making new roads—an attempt to increase the efficiency of capitalist production and distribution of goods.

Thirty shillings per week as a retirement pension may sound inspiring to Mr. Mosley, the millionaire, but it simply means the most pressing poverty for a married couple after a lifetime of toil.

Lloyd George and the Liberal manufacturers are uniting with the Labour Party on a common capitalist programme, not to solve unemployment—but to capture votes and pretend they are helping the workers. Both Liberal, Labour and Tory pin their hopes on rationalisation, which increases unemployment faster than relief work provides work.

None of these parties of capitalism face the fact that modern industry constantly and continuously produces an unemployed army of workers. The only way to cure unemployment is to stop the cause—the class ownership of the means of production.

Adolph Kohn