100 Years of Reforms (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are indebted to “The Economist” December 30th, 1944, for the opportunity we are taking of quoting, somewhat more fully than is customary with quotations. The article which appeared in the above issue was called “Condition of the People.” We feel the editor of this shilling weekly (beyond the reading range of the average worker), will not begrudge us the liberty we are taking of so freely quoting from its columns. Our plea, in justification, being to draw attention to their review, their comments.

Now for the quotations with our few brief comments by the way.

“A hundred years ago a young and ardent revolutionary, Friedrich Engels, wrote a book on ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.’ In the closing days of this year, it seems appropriate to attempt a review, however sketchy, of working class conditions in 1944…..

Indeed, to draw any detailed comparison between conditions in 1844 and 1944 would be a waste of time, since there can be no comparison between two incomparables. When Engels wrote his book the total population of the British Isles was less than 20 millions. People lived and worked under primitive barbarous conditions, herded together like cattle in their tenements, they were illiterate, half starved, filthy and diseased. The only relaxations were liquor, horse play and sex. Typhus and the yellow fever spread through the infested dwellings, but the toll of life was no matter because workers were plentiful and cheap.

“. . . . The infantile mortality rate was as high as 155 per thousand . . the average expectation of life in the labouring class in Liverpool was only 15 years. Not for nothing were the 1840’s known as the hungry forties. . . . There are still dark satanic mills in Lancashire and the West Riding. London still has its East End, Glasgow its Gorbals, and Manchester its Ancoats.”

Just one comment may be made here : —

Despite the amenities of life which the more fortunate workers of our day were able, before the war, to experience compared with a hundred years ago, the war years, notwithstanding their fuller employment and purchasing potentialities, find the workers, nevertheless thwarted in a variety of ways, from enjoying a higher standard of living. A few obvious factors may be mentioned; the rationing and coupon system (restricting purchases to bare necessities), black marketing racketeers, which the Government are incapable of controlling, theirs being an unconventional way of buying and selling, with the profit motive the one and only objective —i.e., Capitalism. The “black market” therefore, rules on the luxury or “extra comforts” line.

On top of all this is the aggravated misery of average home life occasioned by the bomb, black out, plus overcrowding which housing shortage causes.

Astutely, the ruling class have also fostered, on a gigantic scale, “national savings,” thereby encouraging the workers to “deny for the sweet by and by.”

The “Economist” continues : —

“But whatever the improvement in health and nutrition, the problem of the rich and the poor, the inequalities of wealth have not been eliminated. Disraeli’s ‘Two Nations,’ still exist. The most recent estimate of the distribution of property, that of Mr. H. Campion, shows that in 1936, out of a total of 16-17 thousand millions of private property …. approximately 85 per cent. was held by 1.8 million persons, or 7 per cent. of the total adult population. Moreover, three quarters of the adult population possessed less than £100 worth of property and 1.5 per cent. of the adult population had property of £10,000 and over. These estimates show that whatever levelling up at the bottom may have taken place and however the relative share of the middle classes in property may have increased, the property structure of Society has not altered fundamentally. (italics ours).

“Mr. R. Titmuss in his “Birth, Poverty and Wealth,” showed that before the War, the infant mortality rate among middle and professional classes was 33 per 1,000 live births, compared with 77 among unskilled labourers.. The class divisions are even sharper in Education. The calculation that only 2 per cent. of the population go to public schools, yet 57 per cent. of the members of Parliament come from the public schools is a striking illustration of the existence of privilege.”

The “Economist” quoting from “Birth, Poverty and Wealth” ibid :—”unsatisfactory sites of homes and villages, insufficient supplies of water, unsatisfactory provision for drainage, grossly inadequate provision for the removal of refuse, widespread absence of decent sanitary conveniences, the persistence of the unspeakably filthy privy midden in many of the mining areas, gross overcrowding and huddling the sexes together in the congested industrial towns and villages, occupation of one roomed houses by large families, groups of lightless and unventilated houses in the older burghs clotted masses of slums in the great cities.”

As the “Economist” says, “the above is not a passage from Engels, it is an extract from the report of a ‘Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland in 1917’ quoted in the 1944 report of the Scottish. Housing advisory Council, with the comment that: ‘these evils have been only slightly mitigated by housebuilding between the two wars.’

“. . . . 40,500 houses in Scotland still have no independent water closets and no sanitary conveniences of any kind. Conditions in Scottish mining areas, according to the recent report on the Scottish coalfields ‘can only be described as deplorable.’ The facts disclosed by the evacuation survey ‘Our Towns’ in 1943 can only be understood against the demoralising background of slum conditions. Public opinion was understandably appalled at the descriptions, unemotionally related by trained social workers, of the dirty and verminous children ridden with scabies and other skin diseases, with disgusting sleeping and feeding habits, of the negligence and fecklessness of their parents. It showed how ignorance and folly were exploited by all kinds of money lenders, clothing clubs, insurance touts, quack doctors and vendors of patent medicines …. they belong to the ‘submerged tenth’ the ranks of the unemployables and the ‘irreducible minimum.’”

The “Economist” concludes on a note of appeal to authority, the Government, to be progressive in a policy of social reform. The “Economist” puts it like this, to quote again from their article : —

“‘Progress’ said Herbert Spencer, ‘is not an accident? It is, or should be, conscious policy, and that policy should be directed towards raising the level of the lowest paid. . . . The year 1945 which should bring the end of the War, will provide an unparalleled opportunity for progress towards these aims . . . reforms in education, health, housing and social insurance . . . family allowances. . . . Whatsoever Government is returned to power it will be committed to this programme of social reform.”

Concluding and summing up the “Economist” says :—

“But to say that there has been progress since 1844 is not enough, the question is whether the advances in social conditions have been commensurate with technical and scientific progress of the nations productive capacity, and the answer, on all the evidence can only be in the negative.” (italics ours).

The above quotations should be a reminder to the working class in their political struggle for emancipation from Capitalist exploitation. A hundred years of reforms, in which Conservative, Liberal and Labour have played their part in advocating, not forgetting the “revolutionary” reforms of the Communist Party.

The Socialist Party again reminds the working class that so long as the means of life remain the private property of the capitalist ruling class, they must remain enslaved to that class. It is the function of the defenders of private property to advocate and institute reforms, thereby prolonging the privilege of the capitalist and their apologetic professional political decoys. Likewise, it is equally necessary for the working class party, the Socialist Party, to be uncompromisingly hostile to, and independent of all other political parties. Because we are convinced of this truth, we are confident, that the workers will join with us in the task we have in hand. That task is the establishment of Socialism—the common ownership of the means of production and distribution—a revolutionary objective, to avert which capitalism will offer every reform under the sun. For such reasons the Socialist Party need not waste time in their advocacy.

Billy Iles

The Yellow Peril (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Miss Hoare was mentioned in the Daily Express of April 18th, 1945, as a person with quaint ideas. She has lived in Japan for 26 years, including nine months after the war started. This is what she had to say: “The Japanese are a most lovable, courteous and kind people. I was never afraid of them. I loved them and they loved me.” She went on to say that the Westerners have driven the Japanese into war and that before that they were peaceable, self-supporting and content. Historically it is true that Japan used to be isolated from the outside world, but it is not the Western world which now has driven the Japanese into war, it is capitalism. It was owing to the fact that a certain section of the ruling-class of Japan set out upon a programme of capitalist expansion with the object of obtaining cheaper raw materials and access to markets that the Japanese are at war. All war under capitalism is brought about for the same reason whether it is by Japan, Germany, Britain, Russia, or any other up-to-date country.

The workers of Japan, owing to their political ignorance support war in the same way as the workers of other countries support it. Until they understand the working of the present system of society they will continue their support. British fellow workers please note.

Chester.

How They Dealt with the Election Paper Ration (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the House of Commons on the 9th May the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, in answer to a question, said :

“The Government have given instructions that paper …. is to be made available for the General Election at the rate of one ton for each candidate …. the quantity to be increased by one quarter for independent candidates. . . . The headquarters of the established parties will, in addition be allowed paper at the rate of one ton for each candidate run by the party. In the case of the small parties, an additional five tons will be licensed. . . .”—(Official Report, 9th May, 1945).

The party having already decided to run a candidate in Paddington North, an application had been made for additional supplies of paper prior to this date.

On the 22nd May we were informed by the Ministry of Supply that:

“. . . . The allocation for Party Headquarters is restricted to the recognised parties having representatives in the House and the Socialist Party of Great Britain as such is not therefore entitled to any allocation for this purpose. . . .”

In a further letter dated the 29th May, the Ministry of Supply said that if we decided to put up a candidate he would “be entitled to a quota on the basis allowed to Independents. . . .”

It is not the purpose of this article to complain at the treatment meted out to us by the parties of capitalism, who, in possession of governmental power, have always been prepared to use it to suppress wherever possible the views of their opponents. Knowing them, we do not expect them to do otherwise. We do, however, place on record the purposeful ambiguity of the statement in the House of Commons which, when subsequently amplified by the Ministry of Supply, excluded from the ranks of “established” parties an organisation which has been in continuous political existence longer than most of the political parties at present represented in the House of Commons.

The care which the large political parties of capitalism claim to have for democratic institutions becomes a mockery when they use their governmental power to withhold from a minority organisation a large part of the material which they themselves consider to be necessary for the presentation of their own points of view.

Finally we wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons drawing attention to the facts set out above and received from the Speaker’s secretary, Mr. Ralph Verney, the following negative reply.

“Dear Sir,

The Speaker asks me to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd June.

The Speaker’s responsibility to give opportunity for the expression of the views of a Minority is confined to the House of Commons; he cannot interfere with the decision of a Government Department, such as the Ministry of Supply, as to whether the issue of any particular commodity can be extended.”

Readers of the Socialist Standard will appreciate from the foregoing statement the difficulties under which we labour in making known the Socialist case at this Election.

Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.

By the Way: Women’s Sickness in Wartime (1945)

The By The Way Column from the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Women’s Sickness in Wartime

A committee headed by Mr. S. Wyatt, D.Sc., working under the Industrial Health Research Board of the Medical Research Council, have made a study of certified sickness absence among 20,000 women in industry. They concluded that: —

“Psychological disorders were most frequent and severe among married women with family responsibilities and among those employed since early in the war. . . . Leaves granted every three months to soldiers stationed in Britain eased the strain for some women, and many remarked that they had never had so many holidays, and doubted whether they could carry on without them.”—(Evening Standard, March 16th.)

They may confidently anticipate a very long holiday very shortly. As their trouble, according to the committee, is largely “psychological” (blessed word), they won’t mind themselves, or their soldier husbands, being on the dole.

“Freedom from Want” (40 per cent. Freedom)

Profits of the Dunlop Rubber Co. for 1944 amounted to £2,615,700.

The dividend on Ordinary stock is maintained at 8 per cent. The profit for 1943 was £2,765,797.

Ever-Ready Co. Net profit £588,935. Final ordinary dividend of 25 per cent. again makes 40 per cent.

Pressed Steel Earnings : after £420,000 for tax net profits up from £180,390 to £195,005. Ordinary dividend maintained at 27½ per cent. by final payment of 17½ per cent.—(Glasgow Evening News, May 16th, 1945).

Another Atrocity Camp

Under the heading “Objectors Camp found” the Evening Standard (April 28th), reports as follows : —

“American troops clearing out a pocket near the city of Wewelburg, miles behind the front, discovered a military installation no one dreamed existed in Nazi Germany—a camp for conscientious objectors.

How many people inhabited the camp is still unknown, for only 41 men survived at the time it was discovered. It was operated by S.S. troops, and also served as a concentration camp and crematorium.”

“Single Out—and Destroy”

A document has come into your correspondent’s hands which could not have been adversely commented on two weeks ago (May 17th). It is Montgomery’s letter to all officers and men in 21st Army Group on non-fraternisation.

Apart from repeating the current fairy story that World War II. broke out because the Peace Conference, after World War I., was “soft,” and the troops of the Armies of Occupation in 1919 were simpletons (“many soldiers were adopted in German households”): it goes on “There are Allied organisations whose work it is to single out, separate and destroy the dangerous elements in German life.” This is almost word for word the formula for the Gestapo, the Ovra, in Italy and the Ogpu in Russia. In other words, it is the time-honoured task of that hated institution—the secret, police. Thus the Ogpu was proclaimed “The Flaming Sword of the Revolution, to destroy its enemies.”

The convenient thing for the secret police which are called the “Security Police” in the British Army is, that they very largely decide who is the “dangerous element.” God help any poor devil with a funny nose, cross eye, crippled leg or some other abnormality which makes him conspicuous—as Marx indicated quoting the reports of British correspondents after the crushing of the Commune of Paris, 1871, unless he has wealthy or high-born German friends.

Thus the British Army has removed the “Gestapo”—and replaced it by the “Fiesepo”—Field Security Police.

Horatio.

Figures and Facts (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Why cannot we spend as freely for peace as we spend for war?” is the subject of an article by Norman Crump, City Editor of the Sunday Times, which appeared in the Daily Sketch, for May 28th, l945. He has much to say on trade and taxation, amongst it is the following :

“In 1942 people getting not more than £500 a year earned between them £5,200,000,000. Those getting £2,000 a year or more only got in the aggregate £540,000,000, or little more than one-tenth of the money earned by the relatively poor. If the Government wants more money it must go where the money is. The people with moderate incomes have the bulk of the money to-day, and so it is unavoidable that they should have to bear the brunt of such taxation as the Government, whom they return to power thinks fit to impose.”

It is often said that “figures cannot lie.” It is easy to prove that they can, but it is easier still for liars to figure and get away with it. We are not suggesting that Norman Crump is lying, or even that his figures are incorrect. On the contrary, we accept his figures; if anything giving him credit for understatement rather than exaggeration. Impressive, however, as the quotation—and indeed the complete article—reads, we cannot blindly accept the inference he draws from the figures. Let us see how they work out.

£5,200,000,000 contrasted with £540,000,000 gives an impression of a huge difference until we compare the recipients 22,000,000 and 34,000; or until we divide the £5,200,000,000 among the 22,000,000 “workers in factory, mine or farm”; Mr. Crump’s own description of “the people with moderate incomes.” When we find that the average earnings per year are £236, or just over £4 per week. Which provides the recipients with a very meagre living nowadays.

Next Mr. Crump says : “if we are to pay for our needs it is calculated that for every two tons of goods we exported in 1938 we must export three tons after the war. But in order to export we must persuade the rest of the world to buy our goods. And no one will buy them from us if he can buy them more cheaply elsewhere. It follows that excessive taxation would cripple our export trade by making our goods too dear in overseas markets. And if our export trade were crippled we could no longer import all the food and raw-materials which we need.”

Well, the cat is out of the bag and we know the worst. Instead of the new order they were promised the workers get the same old order. The pace being stepped up to increase production one-third over pre-war rate. There is no escaping the logic of Norman Crump’s reasoning. If markets at home, or abroad, are to be secured, our prices must be lower than our competitors. Whether the cheapness is accomplished by modernizing machinery or by speeding up the workers, the latter have to bear the burden. In the first case the new machinery displaces labour, and in the second they are worn out and flung on the scrap heap more rapidly.

That is the way capitalism works. Competition for markets. Producing and selling goods cheaper than the other fellow. It is what the Allied armies have been fighting for: “Our way of life.” What is this “way of life” so many millions have sacrificed so much to preserve for so few to enjoy? A system in which the means of life are owned by a relatively small class of capitalists, and the overwhelming mass of the people, the working-class, are enslaved by them.

We all know how the system works. Competition between workers to obtain and keep jobs, disputes and strikes daily over wages and conditions, wages being clamped down around the cost of living, and unemployment reaching astronomical figures with the almost continuous periods of slump. On top of all this comes the imperative demand that production per man-hour must be increased by one-third, and a hint from Norman Crump that any Government they may elect can do no other than tax their already meagre incomes.

This problem of markets is only part of the whole set-up. This plain talking to the workers that they must work harder and produce more cheaply, merely a piece of impertinence from an idle class to the class that produces wealth in all its forms. War invariably speeds up the pace of capitalist development. New devices and adaptations to the existing machinery of production have been prolific and far-reaching. With their application to peace-time industry many workers will be displaced, and competition for jobs will be keener.

Norman Crump is not the only man to tell the workers that they are in for a hard time. Responsible men of all three political parties have been warning them that there is no soft time coming. Nationalization cannot save them. With the Labour party’s claim that only nationalized industries can attract sufficient capital to make them efficient goes all hope, nursed by the ill-informed, that nationalization is socialism. Efficiency for capitalist industry is the Labour Party’s goal, as it is the goal of the Tories, with their slogan of free enterprise. From the worker’s view-point there is little or nothing to choose between them. The vile things they say about each other are, no doubt, largely true. The good things they say of themselves together with their promises are best ignored. In any case their promises will be forgotten after they are returned. The 1945 election presents the same spectacle of unreality for the workers as any that have preceded it during the capitalist era. The shallow nature of the issues. The utter lack of any deep principles affecting the well-being of the mass of the people, and the complete indifference to indisputable evidence that our way of life is in violent conflict with our environment and the scientifically established laws of social evolution.

During the war leaders have held the centre of the stage. Their foresight and planning for months, and even years ahead have been given the widest publicity, after the event. The ensuing victory being, of course, proof of their judgment and resource.

But the leader’s job in war is quite different to that of the leader in peacetime. Slogans are easily thought out to keep the workers minds on the job. Bait in peacetime confusionist propaganda of a subtle order must be adopted if the workers allegiance to capitalism is to be retained. If his thoughts are to be turned from contemplation of the sordid nature of his existence, and the possibility of establishing a system of society where the means of life will be common property, and he with his fellow workers will be able to plan life for themselves within the limits imposed by nature only. This is going to be a full-time job for the leaders of all capitalist parties. But they are on the losing side, because their ideas, when examined, are empty of realism. Like Norman Crump they can only offer a choice between two forms of capitalist government, neither of which release the workers from wage-slavery; and the liability to military service in defence of capitalist rights.

F. Foan

Parliamentary Fund (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Your Donations Needed

During the election campaign in North Paddington the Socialist case was made known at a very large number of meetings, indoor and outdoor, and through the printing of election addresses, posters and leaflets. This cost money and our Parliamentary Fund is now depleted. North Paddington was our first Parliamentary venture. It is only a beginning. We shall need money for further elections. Send your donations now to E. Lake, S.P.G.B., Rugby Chambers, 2, Rugby Street, London, W.C.I.

Our Election Manifesto (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are reprinting below our Manifesto on the General Election which, with the necessary addition of a direct reference to North Paddington and our Declaration of Principles, was issued as the address of our prospective candidate, Clifford Groves, in North Paddington.

1st June. 1945.

Fellow Workers,

Once again you are called upon to register your vote in a General Election. Before you vote this time think very seriously about what you are doing. Pay no attention to glib promises or airy phrases about a New World built out of the same sordid material as the old. The well intentioned, the knave and the fool can all give you promises. You must look behind promises to facts.

Our Class Position.

Why are you voting? Because you want an improvement in your conditions of life. You and your forbears have been voting for this purpose for a hundred years and how much better off are you? Apart from some niggardly and hard won reforms you are still as your fathers were, forced to work for a wage that at best does little more than keep you and your families on a poor standard of living. And all the time you are worried by the possibility of unemployment and a descent into the depths of misery. For many of you unemployment has been a constant feature of your lives since the end of the last war, which was also going to bring you a bright new world. When you are old most of you are forced to depend upon your children to keep you out of their meagre earnings as old age pensions don’t go far, when you get them.

The Hopelessness of Reforms.

Your grandfather can tell you the same story, and yet all the time politicians have come forward with the same threadbare promises and long lists of reforms. A leader of the Conservative Party gives support to this view. In the Evening Standard (11th May, 1945), Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, chairman of the Tory Reform Committee, wrote an article under the heading “My Creed for a Tory," In this he writes:

  “Social security is the chief bastion against misfortune in our homes. Great though his contribution to the problem, it is not the private preserve of Sir William Beveridge. One hundred and fifty years ago William Pitt was urging social reforms not dissimilar to those we discuss to-day.
  Other Tories—Disraeli, Shaftesbury and Lord Randolph Churchill—have led the struggle to improve the conditions of the people."

After a hundred and fifty years during which the Tories have exercised most of the governmental power you are still waiting for a real improvement in your conditions. Now they have given the bottle a new label, “Social Security/' but it still contains the same dirty water.

Tory, Liberal and “Labour” candidates have come and gone, each have had their turn as the government with all the opportunities that government gives, and still you remain where you were. Since the last war the Communist Party has bobbed up but they also have the old familiar list of reforms, no different in essentials from those of the other Parties. They also continually change and twist their party line to the needs of the tortuous foreign policy of Russia. In the course of the war the Communist Party changed its attitude towards the war four times.

The Commonwealth Party is a new arrival in politics but it also asks for votes on a policy of reform. If reforms could have helped you then you would not be where you are, because you have been deluged with reforms of all kinds.

The Fundamental Wrong.

There must be something fundamentally wrong somewhere. What is it? Let us examine a little closer your position in present day life.

In order to get your living you must get a job. It does not matter what work you do, whether you have to wear dungarees, a uniform, or a black coat and striped trousers, you must still get a job in order to live. To whom do you generally apply for a job? To a company, or a state concern. In working for companies and state concerns you are doing the work needed to feed, clothe and house the population. You are doing all this work as miners, mechanics, railwaymen, bakers, or anything else, including the relatively better paid jobs directing industry. That is why you are called the working class. You are the class that works, that depends for a living upon selling mental and physical energies for wages or salaries.

These are the facts. You know they are because you experience them. Let us go further.

All the time you are at work you are haunted by the fear that you may lose your job and maybe not get another for a long time, or even be thrown on the scrap heap of those whose working days are finished. On account of this you struggle with each other for jobs, try to beat the other man even though you think that he is a decent chap and has a wife and family dependent upon him. You humble yourself in ways that make you squirm and are respectful and subservient to those above you, and to the wealthy class in general, because you want to get or keep a job. You hurry to work in packed buses, trams and tubes fearful lest the hooter go or the line be drawn before you get there. What a Life for a “Free Born Briton” !

This is all true. You know it is however you may try to pretend to yourself that you belong to a higher type of worker. Now let us look at another part of the picture.

What are the companies and the state concerns to whom you apply for jobs? They are the owners of practically all the land, the factories, the machinery, the transport and everything else necessary to produce and distribute the things we need. But who in fact really owns these organisations? The people who invest money in them and direct their policies. That is to say they are owned by The Capitalists who invest money with a view to making a profit out of their investments. Very few of you ever have any money to spare with which to buy shares, and those who do can only buy so few that it is not worth talking about. But just as you live by selling your working power so the capitalist lives by the dividends he receives from the capital he has invested. This also applies to Municipal Undertakings which provide investors with interest on municipal stock they purchase.

How You Are Robbed.

From whence come the dividends upon which the capitalists live? From the results of the work you do. Let us illustrate this point by taking a particular instance. You and some of your fellow workers are employed by a certain company and that company pays you wages and salaries. Now if the company makes a profit they must make it out of employing you because your class does all the work of producing for the company. In other words you and your fellows produce a quantity of goods that sell at a value which is greater than the value of your wages plus all other expenses. There is a surplus and it is out of this surplus that the capitalists of this country, and the rest of the world, live luxuriously and amass fortunes.

The capitalists pay you as little as they possibly can and urge you to increase the amount of your production, because the more you produce and the less you take the more there is for them. They are helped in this process by the fact that you compete with each other for jobs and those who work most efficiently for the wages they get stand the best chance of getting and keeping a job. Efficiency does not necessarily mean doing the best job. You may be constructing jerry-built houses or doing similar shoddy work. Efficiency under capitalism means producing the greatest possible amount of profit for the capitalist which also involves working at high speeds. Sometimes, as in America, they pay higher wages because they have found they can get more out of you by doing so; that is by exploiting you more efficiently. But such higher paid workers are more rapidly exhausted, and, in the long run, are no better off than those on lower pay.

Another method adopted by the capitalists to increase what they can get out of you is the introduction of new Labour Saving Machinery and methods of production. This increases the amount of wealth each worker produces and reduces the number the capitalists need to employ—Puts many of you out of a job to swell the unemployed army. You will shortly feel the pressure of this more heavily than ever when the new machinery and methods developed during the war are applied to peace-time production.

The Class Struggle

From what we have said you will realise that present day society is made up of two distinct and opposing classes—the capitalist class who, by their shareholding, own the means of production and the products, and the working class, who own only their power to work and must sell this working power to the capitalists in order to live. The capitalist aims at getting as much out of your labour as possible by getting you to work as hard as you can for as little payment as you can live upon, according to the standard of living in your particular kind of work. You aim at easier working conditions and as much pay as you can get for the work you do. The unemployed army is essential to capitalism otherwise you could demand a wage that would cut out the capitalists' profit. It is the fear of unemployment that limits your wage demands and your demands for better working conditions.

It is this class ownership of the means of production that is the root of your troubles. This is what is wrong with society to-day. This is why you suffer poverty and insecurity and all the misery associated with poverty and insecurity. No reforms put forward by any political party touch this class ownership of the means of production; at best they only aim at easing some of the worst evils. Even in this they are generally unsuccessful as you know from your own experience. No sooner is one evil eased than another, maybe worse, appears in its place. While you remain dependent on the capitalists giving you a job, in order that you may live, reforms cannot relieve you of poverty and insecurity. The capitalists dare not give you unemployment pay on which you could live adequately because, if they did, many of you would prefer remaining unemployed and at peace rather than slaving at arduous jobs which return you little more. You will find this out once again when new unemployment schemes are put into operation.

Small shopkeepers and the like are inclined to believe that their interests are the same as those of the capitalists, but they are mistaken. In the main small traders are just glorified salesmen for large capitalist concerns and they generally work harder and for longer hours than the higher paid sections of the working class. They are dogged by the perpetual fear of ruin, so often realised, and if they lose in the struggle to keep going they have, for various reasons, a poorer prospect of getting a job than the average worker.

When you organise into Trade Unions you do so to fight for better wages and better working conditions. This is good as far as it goes because you are trying to resist the pressure of capitalism upon you, but in the long run you can do little while the capitalists remain the owners of the means of production. Even when you strike they have vast resources that can outlast your meagre resources, as strikes of the past have shown. But why content yourselves with fighting the capitalists for higher wages? Why not abolish the wage system altogether?

Well, we have pointed out to you what your position is now and if you will give it a little thought you will find that we have done so accurately. What we have stated are the facts of your position as a member of the working class. Can you get out of this position? Yes, you can.

The Capitalists Are An Unnecessary Evil?

To-day you do all the work of society yourselves. The capitalist does nothing except draw his dividends. He tells you that you cannot get on without him because, according to him, nothing can be done without money and he has the money with which to pay your wages. But money does not make anything and people have made things where money was unknown. Even your ordinary history books tell you about people who made the things they needed without having to use money. It is only because goods are bought and sold that money is needed. If buying and selling were abolished money would lose its function. If you distributed to your, selves the goods you produce you would not need wages.

What is Socialism?

Just as you produce and distribute goods now at the behest of the capitalist, in return for wages, which only enable you to buy a portion of them back, you could distribute them freely to the whole of the Community, including yourselves, to-morrow, without the need for wages. If all the people who make up society take over the means of production and distribution and own them in common, the work of production would still go on. But instead of an idle class taking for their own enjoyment a large portion of the wealth produced, they would take part in the production of it, and it would be distributed according to the needs of each member of the Community. That is Socialism.

There are people who will tell you there will not be enough wealth to go round. The answer to that is simple. For six years of war workers on the whole have lived no worse than in peace times and the capitalists have lived well, they have had plenty of wine to drink and plenty of money to spare for other luxuries. Yet huge armies, navies and air forces have been fed, clothed and housed; an enormous amount of labour has been wasted on armaments of all kinds; and hosts of officials have been kept on jobs that have no influence on wealth production. If all these people were engaged in useful occupation under a system of production for use only and not for profit there would be far more than enough to fulfil the requirements of the whole population, and no one would go hungry, poorly clothed, or badly housed.

Nothing short of socialism can alter your condition of life for the better.

The Cause of War.

Not only does capitalism doom you to a life of poverty and insecurity but it also causes wars, like the one you have just passed through with all its suffering and horror.

As long as goods are privately produced for sale at a profit, markets have to be found in which to sell them. The fight for markets helps to cause war. Capitalists with money invested in armaments stir up trouble to help sell their engines of war. This also helps to cause war. Sections of the capitalists struggle with each other for sources of supply of raw materials, like oil, and for Trade Routes. You are already witnessing this struggle commencing over air lines and shipping. These struggles help to cause war. In fact it is the profit seeking nature of capitalism that is the sole cause of Modern Wars. Let us hear Mr. Thorneycroft on the subject m the article from which we have already quoted.

This is what he says:

    “Security against want is in the long run less important than security against war. No man could lay his hand upon his heart and swear that he could give the latter.
   “Let us tell the British people bluntly that if they want security in any form they must remain a nation in arms. Whether the United Nations succeed or fail in establishing an international organisation, arms are needed. Our foreign commitments must be balanced with our military power."

There you have the admission of a prominent member of the Tory Party that the same old source of military conflict will remain, in spite of all the soothing promises about the end of all wars. And he is quite right. As long as capitalism exists war is always on the horizon. The only way to abolish war is to abolish its cause—capitalism.

Socialism The Only Solution.

If you will give the facts we have put before you careful consideration you must agree with us that Socialism is the only solution to your problems. We Socialists are neither dreamers nor good natured idealists. We are working men and women like you are. We are faced with the same Problems as you are; our interests are the same as yours. We have found the only solution to our troubles and we want you to join us in helping to overthrow capitalism and establish Socialism.

The Road To Socialism.

How can this be accomplished? Here is the answer. Society is controlled through Parliament. Parliament makes and administers the laws. It does so at present on behalf of the capitalist. That is to say laws are made and administered on the basis of the private ownership of the means of production. The laws are made to protect this private ownership. But you and your fellow workers are the people who have voted the nominees of the capitalists, and others who support the continuation of the wages system, into power at each election. Therefore if you want to abolish capitalism you must vote into Parliament delegates whose sole business will be to abolish capitalism and introduce socialism. This they can do as soon as a majority of workers like yourselves become convinced that Socialism is the only remedy for social ills and vote a majority to Parliament to introduce it

This Election Your Opportunity.

In this election you in North Paddington will have an opportunity for the first time of putting into Parliament a delegate for the purpose of helping on the work of establishing Socialism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain are putting me forward as a candidate with this object and your vote will show how far you have progressed in understanding your position as wage slaves tied to the wheel of capital.

We Are Workers.

The position we have outlined above we have been propagating for many years, but like you we belong to the working class and consequently we are poor. Our poverty has limited the amount of propaganda we could do. Our Literature will show you how steadfastly we have adhered to the same position since we first formed our party. Our Funds come out of our own pockets and those of our sympathisers. We have not, and we do not want, any rich benefactors, who might try to influence our policy. Our party is ours and it can also be yours. Now at last we have gathered sufficient funds to begin the attack on the foundations of capitalism through Parliament and it rests with you how soon we will be successful.

Remember we are not going to do anything for you, and no "leader” can get you out of wage slavery. It is you who must do the job yourselves. It is the working class itself that must take charge of its own destiny and Build a new society worth living in.

Do you want to live under a free social system, owning your own means of production and using them for the equal benefit of all, or are you content to remain a human beast of burden, fettered to the insecurity of life as a wage worker?

The choice is before you and your vote will register it.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain

Clifford Groves is the officially appointed representative of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Here are some facts about the Socialist Party of Great Britain

The S.P.G.B. is an entirely independent party.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is an organization which was formed in 1904 because of dissatisfaction with existing organizations. It is an entirely independent organization, and only by recognizing this fact, and appreciating the reasons for it, will the party's case be understood. The S.P.G.B. is not affiliated to, or associated with, the Labour Party or any other organization in this country. Its only association is with identical parties in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S.A.

It follows therefore that the S.P.G.B is not in any way responsible for the actions or policies of the Labour Party or any other party in this country.

The reason for this principle of independence is that the S.P.G.B. takes a fundamentally different view of economic and political questions from that taken by various parties in this country which claim to be interested in Socialism. In our view the Labour Party and other organizations are not following a path which will lead to Socialism.

Editorial: This Phoney Election (1945)

Editorial from the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voters who try to interpret the issues in the election by studying the more flamboyant utterances of the Party leaders may well wonder what it is all about. For five years the Labour leaders, endorsed by the overwhelming vote of their Party Conference, at the outset, have worked in the Government with the Tories in furtherance, as they claim, of the war for democracy. Then suddenly they part company and instantly Mr. Attlee finds that Churchill's proposed referendum on the continuance of the National Government is “alien to all our traditions," though it comes from the man who was claimed by the Labour Party to be the embodiment of the British tradition, and that it is a device “which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism."

Then in his first election broadcast Mr. Churchill retorts that “ Socialism)” by which he means the (State Capitalism of the. Labour Party, threatens us with a “Gestapo in Britain." “Socialist policy" declared Mr. Churchill, “is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. It is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State."—( Daily Express, June 5, 1945).

From which the innocent looker on may deduce that the “war against totalitarianism" has been conducted by Tories who are in favour of it and by Labourites who are in favour of it, and that whichever wins the election totalitarianism—ended in Germany—will be firmly established here.

Another equally phoney issue of the election is the alleged gulf of principle between the Labour Party, which seeks some form of State Capitalist ownership or control of certain industries, and the Conservatives and Liberals who are supposed to be opposed to it. Yet the nationalisation of the postal, telegraph and telephone services and the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board . . .  and similar monopolies by Act of Parliament were the work of Liberal and Tory Governments; and it was Mr. Churchill who in 1918 declared in a speech at Dundee that the policy of the Government of which he was a member was the nationalisation of railways.—(Times, December 5, 1918.)

Mr. Churchill declares that the election is a fight between individualism and Socialism and between his own Party and the “Socialist Party." By individualism he means capitalism, which has, however, long since got past the stage of a competitive struggle between independent small capitalists and gone over increasingly to giant monopolies.

The Labour Party, equally anxious to misrepresent the situation, accepts Mr. Churchill’s "terminological inexactitude" that they are a socialist party and declares in its Election Declaration (“Let us Face the Future"), “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party and proud of it"—and then proceeds to give us a blue-print of the State Capitalism that they propose to retain and develop.

Lord Croft, Parliamentary Under Secretary for War, even more wildly inaccurate thau his leader, Mr. Churchill, discovered that the in fact always anti-Marxist Labour Party, “wish to impose upon the British people the crude ideas of the German Marx."—(Evening Standard, 24th May, 1945) and reached a peak of falsification in the further remark that Marxism is “not so very different" from Nazism. He quoted a declaration by a prominent Hitlerite that Nazism was “Socialism" but forgot to add Hitler’s own repeated claim that it was based on the total rejection of Marxism. Lord Croft might more accurately have said that in respect of rigid controls Nazism has not been far different from the controls imposed in this country during the war by the Tories, Liberals and Labourites in the National Government.

The Liberal Manchester Guardian accurately appraises the smallness of the differences between the three largest parties. Criticising Mr. Churchill, the Guardian says:— 

   “Because it (the Labour Party) proposes a relatively modest programme of public ownership he leaps to extravagance about totalitarianism and the Gestapo. He would be more convincing if he got to grips with things: if, for instance, he showed why Major Lloyd George's 'Central authority' for coal is likely to secure greater efficiency than Labour’s ‘National authority,' why Mr. Hudson’s plans for regulated food imports are better than Mr. Bevin's, why the Government's national insurance scheme is better than the Beveridge plan, why Mr. Lyttleton’s ideas on the curbing of monopoly are sounder than Mr. Dalton's. But that, as Mr. Churchill knows, would give the game away. Good rotund eloquence meaning nothing in particular is far safer.”—Manchester Guardian," June 5th, 1945.)

The I.L.P. which in recent years has boasted that it had for ever shed its old illusion, was back again where it started, pleading to be allowed into the Labour Party—a plea that was rejected.

The Communists, having temporarily pigeonholed their year-long claim that the Labour Party is “the third capitalist party" is backing that Party in most constituencies though at Rhondda East, Pollitt, the Communist candidate, is running against a Labour Party nominee who is backed by the S. Wales Miners Federation the President of which, Arthur Horner, is himself a leading Communist.

No doubt the real reason for the election is simply that since an election had to come sometime the Conservative Party wanted to get in quickly before the workers had had time to taste the bitter fruits of victorious peace. As caretakers of capitalism they need re-election to handle the difficult capitalist problems during the adjustment from military war to trade war and they count on gaining a majority.

Reading between the lines it seems likely that a Conservative victory will be received with relief at Labour Party headquarters since if the Labour Party happened to win no one would be more embarrassed than themselves.

We confidently make one electoral prophecy. Whatever the result capitalism will be safe because the majority of the working class are not yet Socialists. Whether capitalism has a little less state control with the Tories or a little more with the Labour Party is not an issue that ought to concern the working class. When they know their own class interests they will make the issue Socialism versus Capitalism as the Socialist Party is doing in North Paddington. Our campaign in North Paddington is the beginning of the real electoral fight for the emancipation of tho working class.