Portrait of a Monopoly: The British Match Industry (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The arrangements we have described above form a complete and integrated monopoly . . . and the system as a whole operates, and is likely to operate, against the public interest as respects the supply both of matches and of match-making machinery.”

In these forthright terms the Monopolies Commission sums up its report on the British match industry, the sixth and latest of its investigations into restrictive practices in the United Kingdom.

The information now made public by the Commission throws revealing light on the way monopolies develop and operate, and on how they are maintained. It shows also what profitable ventures they can be for those capitalists able to form them and keep them going successfully. Drawing on the Commission's report, and using it to illustrate the practices common to all monopolies, let us examine the monopoly that has grown up inside the British match industry.

The Foundations of Monopoly

The first objective of any company seeking to carve out a monopoly must be to obtain control over the production and distribution of the particular commodity it is interested in. It must make itself, for all practical purposes, the only firm in the industry. In the British match industry, one company has succeeded in doing this.

This company is the British Match Corporation, otherwise known as B.M.C. Formed in 1927 as a holding company from the amalgamation of Bryant and May (and its subsidiaries) with Masters. Ltd., it is today responsible for almost the whole of the British home output of matches—about two-thirds of total consumption.

Linked with B.M.C. is another monopoly—the Swedish Match Company. Older readers may remember it in connection with the activities of Ivar Kreuger, the Swedish millionaire—speculator. It is this combine, with ramifications throughout the world, that provides the. remainder of the matches required in the U.K. These imports, it should be noted, are in turn controlled and distributed in this country by B.M.C. Taking home production and imports together, it is therefore obvious that B.M.C. is in almost complete control of the British market; for the mathematically-minded, the exact proportion is 92 per cent. These figures show clearly that the essential foundation of a monopoly—a stranglehold on output and distribution—has been most successfully obtained by B.M.C.

Also to be noted is the fact that Swedish Match, with 30 per cent. of the Ordinary shares in is actually its largest single shareholder. With this voting power behind it, it can of course wield considerable influence should the need ever arise.

Preserving a Monopoly

It is difficult enough to succeed in establishing a monopoly: it is even more difficult to maintain it and keep it thriving.

First and foremost, there must always be a careful watch for possible rivals. These must be rooted out quickly and dealt with ruthlessly. The record shows B.M.C. and Swedish Match to have been adept at this and it is most interesting to see how both partners have played their part in dealing with the threats of competition that have arisen from time to time.

On the home front, B.M.C. has made use of two methods, both very simple and both very effective. The first has been to undersell its competitors by offering cheaper brands of imported matches at reduced prices in selected areas whilst keeping the general level of its prices unchanged. In this way it has succeeded in keeping down competition at very little cost to itself. The second and perhaps even better method has been to charge its competitors high prices for essential raw materials, of which it again happens to be the sole controller. On this particular point the Commission found that B.M.C. was charging its competitors 77 per cent. more for certain chemicals than its own subsidiaries.

The part played by Swedish Match has been just as effective, by virtue of the fact that in its turn it has a monopoly over the machinery used in match-making. This has been more than enough to keep potential large-scale competition in check, as the following will show.

In its report the Commission mentions that two attempts have been made by other firms to start manufacturing matches on a large scale. The first of these was the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which in 1932 thought of setting up its own factory. In the subsequent negotiations in which Bryant and May became involved, the Society was actually offered some shares and Debenture stock in B.M.C. This offer was not taken up, and in 1936 the Society came to a definite decision to begin the manufacture of matches on its own account. Its efforts in this direction were completely unsuccessful as it found itself unable to obtain the necessary machinery. In 1938 it approached Bryant and May for permission to use certain machinery the rights in which, it understood, were held by that firm. The reply, which can hardly have been unexpected, was: “we hardly think you can expect us to assist you to obtain machinery which is destined to replace some, at least, of the goods we have hitherto supplied to the Societies.” Instead they proposed a deal between the Society and one of their subsidiaries, whereby profits would be divided between the two. This proposal was rejected by the Society, and it made a further attempt to get the necessary machinery. It was again unsuccessful.

Yet another concern tried for five years prior to 1934 to start manufacture on a commercial scale, again without success. In this year a most remarkable letter was sent to B.M.C. from the President of the Diamond Match Company of America (he was also a director of B.M.C. and of Bryant and May) reporting that he had arranged for some “friends” to employ an American technical expert who happened to be already under contract to this concern. The agreement reached with this expert included an understanding that he would “tactfully and earnestly work to discourage” the concern. His “consideration” for this agreement was $600 per month, to which Diamond had agreed to contribute one third, and the letter asked B.M.C. to make a contribution. This letter is so revealing of what goes on behind the scenes where monopolies are concerned that it is worth reproducing in full:—

"I have arranged to have friends employ Mr. . . . . on some experimental work that has nothing: whatever to do with the British Match Industry and will not affect to the slightest degree any of the operations abroad in which you are interested. My friends have had to reach a definite understanding and make a confidential agreement with [Mr. . . .]. which under no condition must be given publicity either here or in Britain. They have obligated themselves to pay him S600.00 per month. It is understood that [Mr.  . . .] may be called from the United States to work for . . . Ltd. [an English company]), and if he is called to go to England to do work for these people with whom he has a prior contract, he will not be paid by my friends. It has also been agreed, however, that he will tactfully and earnestly work to discourage . . . Ltd., that he will do nothing to get out of his contract with [. . . Ltd.] which would encourage them to hire some other expert or have machines made for them elsewhere. If he succeeds in discouraging [. . . Ltd.] and in getting out of his obligation to these people, then he will work exclusively for my friends for a period of three years and during this period of time will not do any outside work for any other interest whatsoever. [Mr.  . . .] has told my friends that he personally is tired of the English company, who have been continuously deceiving him, putting him off, and have been unable to date to get responsible people on your side to go forward with matters as promised and outlined. [Mr.  . . .] thinks that in the near future that he will be able to drop all connections with [. . . Ltd.] and that [ . . . Ltd.] will cease to exist as a living match producing possibility.

“In confidence, permit me to say that of this S600.00 my Company will contribute one-third of this monthly amount just so long as [Mr. . . . ] does no work whatsoever for [ . . . Ltd.] or any company interested in match making in Britain or Canada. Do you care to make any contribution in this matter?"—Report, page 120.

The result of this appeal was that B.M.C. also agreed to make a contribution of one-third. It continued making regular monthly payments until May, 1943, by which time, presumably, no further trouble was to be expected from the concern in question.

The Rewards of Monopoly

Finally we come to consider the rewards of monopoly. They are indeed substantial and worth all the effort put in to obtain them. On the manufacturing side, for example, Bryant and May's profit before the war averaged 35 per cent. annually, and that of its main subsidiary (Moreland) 45 per cent. The average profit of Masters was about 26 per cent. In 1950, according to the Commission's calculations, Bryant and May's profit was 16 per cent., Moreland's 34 per cent., and Masters' 30 per cent., the lower figures reflecting the operation of Government price control. On the import side, where distribution only is involved, pre-war profits averaged 10 per cent. dropping to 4½ per cent, in 1950.

The Commission’s strictures on B.M.C's costs and profits were most severe:

"The profit on sales of all three B.M.C. manufactures whose costs were examined was very high before the introduction of statutory price control, and the profit of the two lower cost manufacturers was still very high, having regard to the relative slight trading risk. B.M.C. has told us that it is its policy to make as much profit as it can, and that in its view competition insures that the prices charged are fair. Since it is clear that B.M.C. has taken all possible steps to eliminate competition, with marked success, and there is, in our opinion, virtually no competition in this trade, this safeguard is illusory, and it is not surprising that profits have been high.

“We conclude that there is scope for the reduction of both costs and profits of B.M.C. and that it is unlikely that either would have remained as high as they have if there had been any effective competition.”

The Commission’s Remedy

The remedy put forward by the Commission is, not unexpectedly, a dose of State intervention. Some of its members, however, disagree on the strength of the dose to be administered. Three of them, who state their views in a minority report, are all for a more “drastic” remedy than that prescribed by the other members of the Commission. This, they suggest, should take the form of a Government buying agency, armed with exclusive powers to buy all matches, whether home-produced or imported. In effect, they seek to oppose a monopoly seller with a monopoly buyer.

The majority of the Commission, however, are not impressed by this “drastic remedy.” In their opinion, it would lead to still greater rigidity in the trade and might not result in cheaper matches anyway. This latter Observation is certainly borne out by the results of State interference so far, and should be particularly noted by Labourites who so airily assume that State-control reduces prices. The majority’s preference is for a more thorough system of price-control on the part of the Government. This, they themselves admit, is only a partial remedy, and they agree that it would leave the present market-sharing arrangements between B.M.C. and Swedish match untouched.

Nobody can be very impressed with either of these remedies, not even the most ardent supporter of capitalism judging all issues by the direct and immediate effect they have on his pocket.

The Real Remedy

The Commission’s report is now with the Government, and it will be interesting to see what the Tory defenders of private enterprise and free competition finally decide to do with it. As for the Labour Party, hard up for policy and feeling rather out of things, they will probably do their best to blow it up to be something of much greater importance than it actually is.

For our part, we would make just one point. Monopoly is nothing new to capitalism; indeed it is inseparable from it. It is the logical outcome of the drive for profit, and experience has shown all over the capitalist world that as fast as one monopoly has been suppressed, another springs up elsewhere. The history of “trust-busting” in the United States is a perfect example of this. The remedy of bringing in the State does not put an end to monopoly; all it does is to replace private monopoly by the monopoly of the State. Whatever the advantages a State monopoly may have for the capitalist class, it is nothing for the working-class to get excited about. They should have had enough experience of the workings of State control by now to realise this.

Monopolies will disappear only when capitalism disappears. It is not monopoly, but capitalism, that is the issue. Socialism, the real remedy, will do away with both. When, as seems likely before long, the Labour and Conservative Parties create yet another storm in a teacup over what is to be done with the British match industry, workers should remember this.

Stan Hampson

The Passing Show: Indo-China (1953)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Indo-China

Last month this column examined recent events in Indo-China from the standpoint of the relations between France and her three Indo-Chinese colonies, which are now called “Associated States.” This month it may be of interest to investigate the manoeuvres between France and the United States which arose from the same events—the advance of the Viet-Minh into Laos and their subsequent partial retreat. As against the native ruling class in Indo-China, the French Government was able to play the part of spider: but in relation to the United States, the French rulers were forced to fill the humbler role of fly.

* * *

Keep Out: Private Property

Even before the Viet-Minh moved into Laos, the American stand was clear. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, who although he was defeated in the Presidential election spoke for the entire American ruling class in this matter, said in Saigon that the United States would continue its “indispensable aid to the Associated States so that they should be able to take their place among the independent nations of the free world" and he added that “the United States was following with attention the first steps of the Viet Nam Government towards democracy” (The Times, 8-4-53; the references that follow unless otherwise indicated, are also to The Times). In other words, Mr. Stevenson wanted the Associated States to free themselves from the suzerainty of the French—with the result that the extension of American economic and political influence in that part of South-East Asia would become much easier.

The French ruling class understands quite well the American intention; and when Laos was invaded by the Viet-Minh, and the Laos Government issued a strong appeal for help “to the United Nations, to the allied countries, and to the free peoples,” The French Government followed this up with a much more moderate statement, addressed only “to the free peoples” (16-4-53). It seemed that the Laos Government would not have objected to the landing of American armed forces; but the French statement was carefully framed to exclude the possibility of the Americans turning Indo-China into another Korea, since that would lead inevitably to the transfer of Indo- China from the French to the American sphere of influence. As The Times delicately put it, “ it would almost certainly loosen the ties binding France to the Associated States of the French Union ” (29-4-53).

* * *

I took a harp to a party

The United States was not at all reticent about offering its “help.” Mr. Dulles, the American Secretary of State, went to Paris and urged the French Ministers to bring the “aggression” in Laos before the United Nations (29-4-53). Back in Washington, he announced publicly—and, no doubt he hoped, temptingly—that the Administration was considering channelling new military assistance to the French-led forces in Laos (30-4-53). A few days later Mr. Dulles sent along two or three dozen American transport planes in Indo-China, as an earnest of the “assistance” the French would get if they only agreed to internationalise the war in Indo-China (4-5-53).

* * *

But nobody asked me to play

The days went past, and the French made no move to call in the United Nations (which, in the present state of world power, means the United States). The only overt reply to these repeated American offers and gestures was a speech in Saigon by M. Letourneau, the French Minister for the Associated States, who said that “France was determined not to abandon any of the states associated with her” (6-5-53). While these words were obviously intended first for the consideration of any of the Associated States which might feel tempted to get out of step, their significance was presumably not lost in Washington. This speech, in fact, may have shown the American Government that this particular tack was hopeless. Laos itself could not appeal to the United Nations because it was not a member; France clearly was not going to; but there was always the chance that the Americans might get a foothold yet in Indo-China by means of Siam.

Now Siam is as much within America’s sphere of influence as is Korea. It is ruled by a military junta, which has the active support of the Americans (notwithstanding their propaganda about “democracy” and “freedom”). As The Times said recently, “the obvious effect of American aid has been to strengthen the military oligarchy. It gains extra support with the arrival of every American carbine . . . The foundations of political power are the military and police barracks of Bangkok and not the village polling booths ” (30-4-53). 

* * *

So I took the darned thing away

“Faced with French hesitations” said The Times in a leading article, the United States Administration seems to hope that Siam—next door to Laos—may call attention to a slate of affairs likely to endanger the peace outside Indo-China” (11-5-53). But the same article went on to warn against such a step. “There are many member States which would make this an excuse for all the old attacks on the colonial system rather than an opportunity for dispassionate investigation And it is true that there is nothing more tiresome than bringing up your enemies’ faults for discussion, only to find that those present prefer to concentrate on your own shortcomings. However, the Americans went ahead. Ten days later the Siamese Ambassador in Washington announced that his Government intended formally to complain to the United Nations Security Council about the invasion of Laos (21-5-53).

Nevertheless, it seems that for once the American Government has missed the boat. With the delay caused by the intransigence of the French, the Viet Minh have had time to withdraw most of their forces from Laos, and it seems improbable now that the Americans will be given the opportunity to come to the “assistance” of the French in Indo-China even if the Siamese complaint is favourably received.

* * *

May Day, past and present

For years, in this country and abroad, the Social Democrats used May Day as an opportunity to advocate their remedy for the ills of society—state ownership of industry. May Day was often followed by a month of exceptional working class activity, including strikes, in which Social Democrats were prominent. Now, in a number of industries in France, the Social Democrats have had their way, and nationalisation has come. But what change has there been? The labourites in France still use May Day to proclaim the virtues of state-industry; and then, as trade union leaders, they bring the workers out on strike in those very industries which are now run on the system they advocate. In France this year there were five big strikes in May: in the merchant navy, on the railways, and in the gas, electricity and Paris transport undertakings (21-5-53). And all five of these industries are under what is called “ public ownership ” !

Since nationalised industry, with all the prestige and power of the state behind it, is stronger in disputes with the workers than private industry, all the Social Democrats have done is to change the boss’s name and give him a bigger stick.

* * *

Ninepence for Ninepence

Now that half a century of legislation has established the so-called “Welfare State,” none of the big parties would think of attacking it in word or deed. Family Allowances, for example, mean that the workers with large families, who formerly would have been the first to feel the pinch of low wages, and to agitate for strike action, are now to a certain extent pacified with a few extra shillings a week; and the money to pay these allowances (and the other benefits like free doctoring and the dole) comes from the workers themselves by way of national insurance contributions. Before this system was well established, however, there were some Tories who did not clearly understand it, and who were afraid that somehow the workers were going to get something for nothing. They believed Lloyd George’s tendencious slogan about “Ninepence for Fourpence’’ and Labour Party propaganda on the same lines. But getting something for nothing has always been the prerogative of the class which exacts surplus value; and the fear that the working class was going to usurp this age-old privilege drove the right wing of the Tory Party into panicky hostility to anything which smacked of benefits or allowances to the workers. A small section failed to recover its balance even after the Welfare State had demonstrated in practice that it certainly did not give the workers anything for nothing. The Conservative Party as a whole, while it saw how valuable the various National Insurance schemes were to the capitalist class, and while it even flooded the country with posters claiming to have thought of the whole idea first, still did not break entirely with the extremists; and the diehards could always depend on a sympathetic hearing in the Conservative papers.

* * *

Waugh on the Tories

But Mr. Evelyn Waugh’s latest book, a long short-story about “welfare-weary citizens” called "Love Among the Ruins,” and the review which it has drawn forth from the Sunday Express (31-5-53), may mark the beginning of a new development. Mr. Waugh, hitherto the arch-priest of the diehard Tories, is annoyed that the official Conservative Party has become so enamoured of the Welfare State that it is now claiming paternity; and in his novel, a forecast of the immediate future, he has Mr. Eden entering a coalition with Mr. Bevan, and he describes the “Euthanasia Department,” the scheme for which was "a Tory measure designed to attract votes from the aged and mortally sick.” From one Tory to another, this is a nasty crack. The irritation which a property-owner naturally feels when a worker, weary of his lot, absents himself from his task for a single day, is nothing compared to the fury aroused when the worker, still more weary, dares to absent himself from this world permanently by committing suicide. Anything which makes voluntary death easier, like euthanasia, is therefore anathema to a supporter of the capitalist system (though compulsory death is a different matter, as the history of the first two world wars shows us); and Mr. Waugh takes a serious step when he hints that the Tory Party would be prepared to support such a scheme in order to get votes. The Sunday Express has therefore joined the anti-Waugh camp. It accuses Mr. Waugh of being a bore, of being grotesque and tasteless, and puts his latest effort down to premature senility.

If one may take this episode as a straw in the wind, it appears that the Conservatives, and the handful of extremists who think like Mr. Waugh, have finally parted company. The Labour Party may take comfort from the fact that they and the Tories are now at one in their support of the Welfare State.

* * *

The great attack

President Eisenhower recently gave a warning of the power that is in the hands of the American ruling class if war comes. He said:

“To-day three aircraft with modern weapons can practically duplicate the destructive power of all the 2,700 planes we unleashed in the great break-out attack from the Normandy beach-head” (21-5-53).

This statement comes with special force to those who saw after the Second World War the wreck and rubble which alone marked the sites of what had been a score of flourishing Norman towns. It seems that Socialism is no longer merely to be described in the terms of our Declaration of Principles—a society we must bring about “that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom”; with the development of the atomic bomb, the progress of society has become a race between the advent of Socialism and the advent of social suicide.

* * *

Drawing one’s own conclusion

If the sun had shone on the day of the Coronation, we should not have lacked newspaper pundits and parsons to assure us that here was evidence that Heaven itself was smiling on the crowning of our glorious, slim, lovely, radiant (—plus other adjectives to taste) young Queen. As it happened, the day was cold and rainy. But so far we have neither seen nor heard any account which, from these facts, has drawn the opposite conclusion.

Alwyn Edgar

The Future of Leisure (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The phrase “working for a living” suggests a distinction between working and living which most people accept. But if “working occupies five or six days a week and fifty weeks a year, how much “living” is left?

That was the challenging question put to readers of the “Radio Times” some little while ago, in describing a programme on “What is Work?” The question is of particular interest to socialists, who advocate a form of society in which such a distinction between working and living (or the division of living into work and leisure) will no longer be recognised.

The present division which exists for most people between their work and their leisure is the product of historical conditions. Probably the concept of leisure as something apart from and opposed to work was unknown in societies in which there was no privileged class. Some primitive people have no word for “work” —work is for them the expression of living. And even the class-divided Greek civilisation evolved no separate word for leisure—the word they used also meant “school.”

The handicraftsman and artisan received a certain satisfaction from the work they did. They made whole articles, and used their skill and inventiveness to overcome the difficulties which arose. They were really educated by their labour. But the manufacturing division of labour under Capitalism has changed all that. A large proportion of workers are relegated to monotonous machine-minding and office routine, and few are able to gain real satisfaction from their work.

Even those who do make things that are useful to people often do not gain the pleasure of a good job well done, because of the tyranny of clocking-in, speeding-up, and down-to-a-price quality of products. Capitalist and worker alike are dominated by the need to compete successfully with others, since failure means an end to their “living"—yet success is bought only at the price of orienting one's life to goals that are trivial and artificial instead of basic and real.

Leisure Class

The emergence of a class in society that is not compelled to participate in production coincided with the beginning of private ownership. A leisure class was the outgrowth of an early discrimination between employments, some being considered worthy (“exploit” by the males) and other unworthy (drudgery by the females).

“During the predatory culture labour comes to be associated in men’s habits of thought with weakness and subjection to a master. It is therefore a mark of inferiority and, therefore, comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his best estate. By virtue of this tradition labour is felt to be debasing, and this tradition has never died out. . . . In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence. . . . A life of leisure is the readiest and most conclusive evidence of pecuniary strength and, therefore, of superior force; provided always that the gentleman of leisure can live in manifest ease and comfort.”—(“The Theory of the Leisure Class” Veblen, p. 36-8.)

Yet the fact remains that work is the foundation of any society. Hence, the value of work to society should be its prime consideration. But because, within property society, the dominating ideas arise from people who need not toil, and because a substitute for satisfaction from work must be found for millions who know it only as an evil necessity, leisure becomes the supreme goal.

Employment is a necessity imposed upon all but a privileged few. Consequently there comes to be a divergence between the conditions of working “for a living” and the kind of life which is held out by supporters of the system as desirable. The message preached is that the end of life is idleness and enjoyment. But workers, having absorbed the message, must return to the factory or office to earn the money without which they cannot live.

Machinery of Amusement

The means of mass influence—press, cinema, radio and television—all focus attention on those aspects of our lives that have nothing to do with everyday tasks. People figure in the “news” who are notable only for having money and time to spend. The constant display of wealth and leisure as desirable ends influences the standards of those who seek an outlet to express themselves which the conditions of their work deny them.

Various factors have combined to oust the old family-gathering type of popular leisure—doing has given way to watching and listening. Probably the Victorian party-piece was not as happily endured as many would have us believe, nor is the advent of television the unmitigated evil that some suppose. Nevertheless, leisure has largely taken on the form of a commodity that is passively consumed rather than an experience that is actively enjoyed. As Henry Durant writes in “The Problem of Leisure":

“All forms of leisure have become commercialised, endless devices are offered to the idle person, each to be enjoyed only on condition that he has money to pay. Without money he is condemned, unable to share in the pleasure and pastimes which press on him from all sides. But commercialisation does not merely erect a gate through which only those with the necessary fee can pass. It has a profound effect also on the nature of the fare offered. The ’machinery of amusement’ is run by business men actuated by business motives. Their concern is not primarily with the character of the entertainment or amusement they provide, for it is merely the means to the end of making profits.”

The ways in which leisure is spent are unavoidably influenced by the prevailing conditions of employment. Take, for example, the workers on a belt system in a factory who, in the course of their work, use only a small part of their brain capacity and nervous system. To stave off monotony their off-duty hours are mostly spent in such feverish pleasures as speedway and the more hectic forms of dancing—and their nervous systems inevitably suffer.

When work lacks interest it is either forgotten altogether on “knocking off” or else it is the subject of grumbling. It is not complimentary to be told that you can never forget your work; and those who do take their socially useless work seriously often develop boring personalities and have few interests outside their daily occupations.

Self-expression

Here we can do no more than touch upon the various ways in which people search today for something different, something outside of their own drab existence. The cinema is an obvious example that springs to mind, but there are others that are not so often considered. All the preparations, the plans, the excitements and the ballyhoo that surrounded the recent Coronation surely demonstrate the emptiness of most people's everyday lives. And what of the weekly football pool coupon that excites study and comment out of all proportion to its importance? The punters are members of a Happy Circle, so they are told—and the atmosphere of mock geniality is shattered only when a court action is brought over winnings. Then it is admitted that the “Happy Circle" is just an advertising circular.

Some imagine that the socialist revolution either will or ought to bring a state of affairs where all will spend their leisure as the wealthy do now. Certainly the atmosphere in which they move is one to which the adjective “drab" hardly applies. Yet if you ask those who minister to the “needs" of the élite whether the latter really have the control over their environment that is the mark of free men, then the answer may surprise you. According to one writer, for instance, the rich take up gambling more or less because they are driven to it—they find they are “out of it" unless they join in roulette or whatever happens to be in vogue. And so they drift from one aimless diversion to another . . .

Whilst the first onset of mechanisation has taken all the joy from work, it may be predicted that its final result will be to return to human activities a freedom that is absent today. Man will then possess the machines and use them selectively, thus restoring dignity to all human occupations. Labour, in Marx's words, will be not merely a means to live, but itself the primary necessity of life.

Stan Parker

Slings and Arrows: “Be it ever to humble . . ." (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Be it ever to humble . . ."

Scoffers and cynics sneer when they hear Bishops and sanctimonious politicians talk about the sanctity of the home and the family as the foundation of Christian civilisation. But that they are sincere cannot be doubted even by the most disbelieving. Why else would they live in such comfortable circumstances? Obviously because they believe that if the foundation is right the rest of the edifice must follow suit. Thus, true to their principles and beliefs. Archbishops live in Palaces, politicians in mansions and Stately Homes, Queen in Castles (two), Palaces (three), and Stately Home (one), and dogs, as is fitting and proper, in kennels.

Since there are not sufficient mansions, palaces and castles to go round, we content ourselves with flats, Nissen huts and prefabs. “Mid pleasures and palaces,” wrote a Victorian songster, “though we may roam. Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.” Had he been alive to-day he might have added the words “even if it’s only a dog kennel.”

The New Statesman publishes each week a feature entitled “This England” consisting of extracts from newspapers submitted by readers, which show the lighter and more humorous and eccentric side of what is known as the “British character.” In its issue of the 13th June, 1953, the New Statesman published in this feature the following extract from the Times: 

“For a year a husband and wife have lived in a wooden dog kennel seven feet long by five feet wide at Ystradmynach, Glamorgan. The kennel is one of four in the corner of a disused allotment. Three are occupied by dogs and the fourth by Mrs. Dorothy May Norman and her husband, an engineer at a local power station.”

Reference to the Times showed that far from them being examples of British eccentricity this unfortunate couple lived in a kennel from sheer necessity, and not from choice. To journalists fond of writing about the glories of the welfare state and with comfortable homes in Hampstead or Bloomsbury and well appointed offices in High Holborn, the idea of people living in a dog kennel may be a joke. But each to his taste. Perhaps the juxtaposition of this item with articles by Mr. John Strachey showing where Marx was wrong, and that it was possible by legislation and “counterpressure ” to offset the evils that Marx denounced, may have given them cause for laughter which escape us.

According to the Times, notice to quit has been served on this couple and soon they will have nowhere to live, not even a dog kennel. But perhaps one of the Bishops or politicians may invite them to share their homes till further arrangements can be made, and thus keep the foundation of our Christian Civilisation in being.

* * *

Three Cheers for the Red, White and Blue

Those, who since the last war have watched the manner in which British capitalism has become almost a colonial dependancy under the hegemony of the United States, might well expect that our foremost leaders would have objected and raised some form of protest. Instead, most of them have actually supported dependence on America. There was no one to demand the return of independence to this once mighty Power, until Coronation Day, when appropriately enough the following clarion call was issued:

“How the Yankees now parading London's streets must laugh when they see multitudes of Union Jacks. It is Britain’s national flag. Once it was meant to symbolise our power and independence. To-day the Yankees determine British policy.

"THEY dominate our Army, Navy and Air Force. 

"THEY tell us with whom we may trade and with whom we may not trade.

"THEY cause our lads to be killed in their war in Korea . . . If those in Westminster Abbey were real patriots they would help to send every Yankee back home. . . .”

Who is this leader who on Coronation day tried to imbue the nation with a sense of patriotism and national independence? None other than that staunch defender of the Union Jack, that heir to the traditions of Palmerston, Wellington, Drake and Raleigh, that paragon of patriotism, Mr. Harry Pollitt. There are of course several shortcomings in this appeal, but one cannot have everything. Suffice it that the clarion call has been made, and if Harry does not tell us what to do with “our” Army, Navy and Airforce, when the Americans are made to hand them back; well we must find out for ourselves. And as for being allowed to trade with whom we please, that would be wonderful, except that we can’t quite think of anything we have worth trading. The most interesting feature of Pollitt’s call to action, is, of course, the use of the collective pronoun. It serves to remind us of what “we” have lost by our dependence on the Americans.

In the first Elizabethan era, its most famous writer wrote a play in which a clarion call appears which has rallied Britons for three centuries, and has immortalised the hero who uttered it. Is it too much to ask that some playwright of the present Elizabethan era will do the same by Harry Pollitt? We hope not, and we feel sure that when that call is heard throughout our land there will be none who will not feel uplifted. "Cry, God for Harry, England and St. Joe!”

* * *

Anti-Americanism

There is a more sinister aspect to the grotesque posturings of Harry Pollitt and the Communist Party. Since the erstwhile Allies quarrelled over the postwar settlement, the Communist Party has indulged in stirring up anti-American prejudices. They refer to “Yank” in almost the same manner as Fascists refer to “Yids.” Should some unfortunate girl be assaulted by an American soldier, then it is headlined in the Daily Worker. But should Americans give large contributions to flood relief funds then one requires a microscope to find any reference to it. In their spoken propaganda they harp on this anti-yank theme with the same assiduity as Mosley once tried to work up prejudice against Jews.

There is no baseness from which the Communist Party will shrink in its effort to follow in the footsteps of their masters in the Kremlin. But they had better be careful. Not for the first time, Moscow might suddenly change policy, catching Harry Pollitt and his friends on the wrong foot, again not for the first time. Then, in their efforts to catch up with the change they might trip and break their political necks. An event which would be unmourned by all who know the Communist Party for what it is.

It was said of Shakespeare that “he touched nothing he did not adorn.” Of Mr. Pollitt and his Party it might truly be said that they touch nothing they do not degrade.

S.A.

Editorial: Tobacco workers' dilemma (1953)

Editorial from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the annual conference of the Tobacco Workers' Union, held in London in June, the delegates were discussing unemployment which has recently increased in the industry. The president of the Union, Mr. D. G. Bowry, drew attention to a problem affecting tobacco workers.

“In a number of our factories we have had to endure short time. We have seen the elimination of certain smaller manufacturers with certain dismissals of staff. Yet we are told that if we are to survive we must produce more. It seems to me that we in our industry are tossing up with a double-headed penny. If we produce more we are faced with redundancy, and if we produce less we are faced with the same medicine.”—(Manchester Guardian, 12th June, 1953.)

The point was neatly put; but Mr. Bowry did not state the problem fully and did not offer a solution.

Stating the problem fully he would have included all industries everywhere, not merely the tobacco industry in this country. He would not have called the factories “ours,” for in no country do the factories belong to the workers or to the community as a whole; in all countries all industries, including those run on nationalised capitalist lines, are run for profit not solely for use.

Consequently it is all workers, in all countries, who are tossing up with the double-headed penny. If they produce too little they get the sack; if they produce too much they work some of their number out of their jobs. And if they follow a happy mean their fate is just the same whenever an industry (or all industries) suffers from one of capitalism's chaotic phases of “overproduction” in relation to the market as did textiles last year. Nowhere at all are the workers free from poverty and safe against insecurity.

This is not what the workers are told. All governments and employers, and many labour leaders, tell the workers that if they produce more they will be better off and will be safeguarding themselves against unemployment.

As it happened, a day or two after the Tobacco Workers’ conference the Sunday Express (14 June) published an article by Dr. Ludwig Erhard, Minister for Economic Affairs in the West German government. In it Dr. Erhard offered to Britain and the British workers the advice he offers to the workers in Germany. Recently, “travelling in his fast Mercedes car he went round the Ruhr urging more steel production," and he would tell the British workers:—

“ It is no use for a working man to say, ‘I’m safe whether I work hard or not.’ It is no use saying: 'I won’t go without food even if I’m not worth a job ’ . . . But I would also add this: If you work hard you should eat well. If you eat well, you will work.”

Dr. Erhard thinks that British industry has nothing to fear from German competition as “there is room in the world for both British and German exports." He notes just one difference between Britain and Germany: “ our men work harder and faster.”

But one thing Dr. Erhard forgot to mention is that in West Germany there were at the end of March 1,392,870 registered unemployed!

So far what we have said could only strengthen Mr. Bowry in his conviction that we live in a hard, cruel world, for we have not yet attended to the remark he made at the end of his speech, that he would be “quite happy to hear the solution to this dilemma."

We are quite happy to supply the solution though surprised that among those tobacco workers there was nobody able to do so on the spot.

The dilemma glimpsed by Mr. Bowry is just an aspect, an inevitable one, of capitalism. And the only cure for capitalism is Socialism.

If, as so often happens, the tobacco workers hear the solution and then dismiss it from their minds on the ground that Socialism calls for a radical change of thought and action and is therefore difficult to grasp and endorse, they should remember that that difficulty will be as nothing compared with the miseries of poverty, unemployment and war they will undoubtedly suffer if they go on hoping that social reforms and Labour Governments and nationalised capitalism will get them out of the mess they are in.

Human Nature and Socialism: The Role of the Socialist (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the previous issue.

3—The Role of the Socialist

Let us try to see how socialists can use their knowledge of man in society to achieve social change. We must first discuss human nature a little further from a theoretical standpoint, in order to relate it to other socialist theories, and in particular to historical materialism.

There are two main points about human nature that are implicit in Marxist theory (though Marx and Engels avoided the term “nature” in connection with “human” because of its idealist associations). One is that it is essentially subject to change, and the other is that it is entirely made up of the behaviour and powers of individuals or groups within their environments.

Human nature is to be understood neither idealistically nor mechanically, but dialectically. It is no single universal form or essence which individual human beings share; nor is it the mere sum total of those individuals. It is the sum total of the needs, desires and activities of human beings in society. In other words, man can be no more than what men actually do in their historical and social environments. Thus human nature is essentially the history of humanity, and has nothing to do with any idealistic concept of some changeless entity called man.

Man has evolved as a species slowly and continuously through all the various phases of human society, from tree-climbing anthropoid to his present status. This evolution has been social, cultural, psychological— but hardly at all biological. It is therefore in a dual sense—biologically and socially—that human nature is to be understood; and this is why it has been truly said that human nature changes in some of its respects because it remains the same in others.

Production and Change

Of all the factors determining historical development the decisive element is the production and reproduction of life and its material requirements. Men must be in a position to live in order to be able to make history. The production of the immediate material means of subsistence, and the consequent degree of economic development form the basis upon which all other institutions, concepts and ideas have been evolved. All these things must be explained in the light of the material basis of life, and not vice versa.

Against this, the idealists portray history as though it were dancing to the tune of men’s ideas, or, more precisely, the ideas of a few “great men.” So determined were Marx and Engels to combat this line of thought that they ran the risk of being accused of saying that the production of the means of life is the only factor causing change. But, as Engels points out,

"Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else has a passive effect There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself." — ("Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence," p. 517.)

At each stage of history there is a sum of productive forces and relations of individuals to things and to one another—all handed down to each generation from its predecessor. While these forces and relations are modified by the new generation, they also prescribe the conditions of life of that generation. In short, circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.

Men are products of certain conditions, and therefore changed men are products of other conditions. But it must never be forgotten that conditions are changed precisely by men. Man changes history, and is thereby himself changed and, in this sense, “all history is but a record of the continuous transformation of human nature ” (Marx).

When production was primitive, man’s simple biological needs determined his activities—but as production developed his needs developed also. In the process of production man is driven to a fuller comprehension of the world in which he lives. By acting on the external world and changing it, man changes his own nature.

History-making Animal

The basic difference between man and other animals—the change-over, as it were, from non-human to human—is when he begins to produce his own means of subsistence. This is not to say that animals don’t produce. The difference is that human production is premeditated, planned action, directed towards definite ends. Again, this doesn’t mean that no animal acts according to a plan. But, with man, consciousness takes the place of instinct, or, to put it another way, his“ instinct” is a conscious one.

“What distinguishes the most incompetent architect from the best of bees is that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he constructs it in reality,” wrote Marx. The labour process ends in the creation of something which, when the process began, already existed in the worker’s imagination in an ideal form. We may say that what ultimately distinguishes men from other animals is consciousness of method in production. The animal merely uses external nature, and brings about changes in it by his presence. Man, by his changes, makes nature serve his ends.

Yet man is not only a nature-controlling animal. He is also a history-making one. He is the sole animal who has worked his way out of the merely animal state —his normal state is one of consciousness, one to be created by himself. Man’s mastery over nature, of which he is a part, consists in the fact that he is able to know and correctly apply its laws.

Man has achieved a considerable measure of success as a nature-controlling animal, but when it comes to history-making there is much less cause for satisfaction. Broadly speaking, human action has achieved its desired end only in exceptional cases, and much more often it has achieved the exact opposite. Unforeseen effects have predominated, and uncontrolled forces have been far more powerful than those set in motion according to a plan.

These and other considerations lead socialists to believe that man has not yet made truly human history. “Only conscious organisation of social production,” says Engels, "can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species.”

Understanding and Co-operating

The question may be asked: why has man, who has been so successful in developing his powers of production, made such a failure of history? The answer is that men have made bad history because they have been unable to prevent the means of production from conflicting with the relations of production. They have been so preoccupied with having to “make a living” in competition with others that they have had no control over the long-term consequences of their actions. The history and human nature that have resulted have thus been unplanned and mostly unintended.

In the process of controlling nature man has been scientific, in the widest sense. But in the process of making history he has not. Man makes a machine by manipulating suitable materials in a certain way according to a planned purpose. On the other hand, he makes history as an indirect result, almost a byproduct, of quite another activity—that of competing with his fellow-man to “earn a living.”

The conditions of property society have never been, and can never be, such as to allow men to solve their problems with a collective will or according to a collective plan. The dominating motive being individual self-interest, their efforts clash, what each individual seeks is obstructed by others, and what emerges is something that no one sought.

Man has had greater success in his efforts to master the forces of nature than those of society, which dominate him as a power independent of himself. Slave to classes and to the conditions of class society, man (whether as owner of property or non-owner) has been merely a class animal. He has not yet become truly human, in the sense that he has been passive instead of active in the historical process that makes human nature.

The case for Socialism amounts to saying that history, like the control of nature, ought to be planned and consciously organised. It ought to be produced, like any other product, for a purpose, and this purpose ought to be broadly human, not narrowly individual. It should aim at the transformation of human nature to make man integrated, complete, and balanced through the free use of his creative energies.

The role of the socialist consists in his capacity for understanding the world, for understanding its natural and historical movement, and for co-operating consciously with all the factors that are working towards classless society. We are able to speak of Socialism as a potentiality because it already exists in the minds of men in an ideal form, just as the house exists in the architect’s imagination even before the blueprint stage.

Without classes, human nature can at last become the product of human science rather than the by-product of class struggle. With the abolition of class control of economic forces, when the whole of society has gained mastery of the conditions of social life, man will be able to exercise real control over his own nature. With the release of his human powers from capitalist servitude, he will be able to shape his environment so that it promotes the fullest possible development of all his faculties.

Stan Parker

(Next Article: Capitalist Patterns of Behaviour.)

The Suez Canal in World Affairs (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Suez Canal is the gateway to the Orient, the connecting link between East and West, between Britain and the members of the Commonwealth in the East.

The story of the Canal and the struggle for control of this area is told by Hugh J. Schonfield in “The Suez Canal in World Affairs,” published by Constellation Books, London.

Many centuries ago the wealth of the East was brought to the Mediterranean via Egypt. About 2,000 years B.C. a canal was built joining the Red Sea and the Nile. This canal, called the Canal of the Pharoahs, was silted up and rebuilt during successive reigns and renamed under succeeding empires. Finally it was closed in 776 A.D. while Egypt was under Arab domination. Then trade between the East and West declined, in the 13th and 14th centuries Marco Polo and other travellers opened up the Northern Overland route to India and China. The growth of the aggressive power of Turkey blocked this route. A new route was sought. Christopher Columbus sailed west and Vasco de Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope. The Cape route gave successively the monopoly of Eastern trade to the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the British. To gain and maintain this monopoly Britain made herself mistress of the seas.

France with her southern seaboard on the Mediterranean was interested in opening up the ancient route to the East through Egypt. But competition with the Cape route was impossible while goods had to be carried by camel to Alexandria, then transhipped. A canal between Suez and Cairo was suggested, but the political and practical obstacles seemed insurmountable. Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire and it was thought that there was a difference of 30ft. in the sea levels of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. English merchants aware of French designs sought privileges in Egypt. Both French and English governments sought influence in Egypt and Turkey and when war broke out between England and France in 1793, France tried to establish herself there, but Britain put an end to these territorial ambitions by defeating the French at the Battle of the Nile.

About 30 years after, an Englishman Lieut. Waghorn started a postal route to India via Egypt demonstrating practically the advantages of this route. Engineers investigated the question of the difference in sea levels and a sect founded by the utopian socialist Saint Simon set up an organisation to examine the question of a canal financially and technically. An alternative scheme for building a railroad was put forward, supported by Britain. But France continued to retain her interest in the canal. Both Governments sought concessions from the Viceroy of Egypt who played the one against the other. When the Viceroy died, Britain received a concession to build a railroad because she had paid court to his successor. The dispute between France and Britain might have become serious if they had not been already allied in prosecuting the Crimean War.

The advantage gained by Britain was offset when Ferdinand de Lesseps received a concession from Mahomet Said, the next Viceroy, authorising him to form an international company to build a canal. The British Government opposed the venture and effectively warned off British capital from taking part in it. But after the construction of the canal Britain realised her mistake and bought up about half the shares. Then in 1882 when rioting broke out in Alexandria British troops took possession. Britain wished to preserve the right to defend the Canal if any Power attacked Egypt and to guarantee with other Powers to keep the Canal open in peace and in war. Other Powers disagreed but a compromise was reached with the Convention of 1888, which made Turkey nominal guardian and guaranteed to keep the Canal open in any circumstances. But Britain still remained in Egypt.

Germany, seeking means of expansion, seized on the possibilities of the undeveloped near East and set out to build the Berlin-Bhagdad Railway which would offset Britain's domination of Egypt and her use of the Suez Canal. When war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1914, Egypt lined up with Britain and closed the Canal to enemy shipping. Turkey, seeking to regain control in Egypt set out to invade it. Britain made Egypt a Protectorate and with the defeat of Germany and Turkey became guardian of the Canal.

In 1922, Egypt was declared an independent stale but the Egyptian Government was dissatisfied with the conditions of the declaration. Italy's longstanding threat to Britain in the Mediterranean culminated in the declaration of war against France and Britain in 1940. The Canal was attacked by air and Egypt was attacked by land from Libya. Because of Italy's lack of success Germany took a hand. For a considerable time the Mediterranean was closed to allied shipping but with the halting of Rommel at El Alamein the Canal was made safe to send aid to Russia in the effort to defeat the Japanese in the Far East.

Since World War II, Egypt has sought to terminate the 1936 Agreement which allows British troops to occupy the Canal Zone. But Egypt, like all other belligerents in war, has shown that she won't pay any attention to the 1888 Convention which guaranteed to keep the Canal open to all shipping in peace or war. In the conflict between Israel and the Arab League, Egypt stopped supplies going to Israel.

Mr. Schonfield's story of the Canal shows its importance to the capitalist Powers in peace and in war.

Today Egypt wants Britain to evacuate her troops from the Canal Zone but Britain is reluctant to do so until she is assured of strong Middle East defences. Certain sections of British capitalist class opinion would like to make the Canal Zone the central base in these defences because of its geographical position, and oppose handing over to Egypt this base with its hundreds of millions of pounds worth of installations. Other sections of the British capitalist class remember the limited use of the Canal during the two world wars and its vulnerability to land attack and are of the opinion that the North East Mediterranean coast with the mountains behind forming a barrier to landborne troops would provide a more suitable base. They claim that the Canal will decline in importance with the increasing use of air instead of the sea for conveying troops and equipment.

To understand why the Canal is important it is necessary to know something about present day society. The means of producing society’s needs are owned by a small section of society, the capitalist class, and the vast majority, the working class, must sell their labour power to the few who own those means of production. In exchange for their labour power the workers receive wages that are very often barely enough to live on. What the workers produce over their wages allows the capitalist class to live comfortably and increase their capital. To realise this surplus the capitalist class must sell their goods and must find raw materials with which they can be produced. This means that there must be trade routes to bring the raw materials from where they are produced to where they are needed and to take the finished articles to the markets where they can be sold. And to protect these trade routes in event of war the different sections of the capitalist class struggle for control of strategic points.

Mr. Schonfield would like to sec the dream of Ferdinand de Lesseps come true. He would like the Canal used for the benefit of humanity. He would like the Canal used to build up the backward countries and raise their standards of living. But if the Canal is to be used for the benefit of humanity the means of living will have to be the property of all society. Then goods won’t be produced and exchanged for the profit of the few but distributed solely for the use of all.

J. T.

Socialism and Questions of the Day (1953)

Party News from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have now prepared a pamphlet under the above title which we are sending to the printer. Unfortunately we have no money in hand at the moment to meet the cost. Will members and sympathisers send us what donations they can immediately so that we can pay for deliveries of the pamphlet as they come. It will be a pity if we cannot have this pamphlet on sale for the summer propaganda season.

The question is urgent so send us money as quickly as you can.

Blogger's Note:

Funds were found and the pamphlet was published in 1953. Unfortunately, this particular edition of Questions of the Day is not available on the SPGB website.

SPGB Meetings (1953)

Party News from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1953)

Party News from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mitcham Discussion Group held its first meeting when Comrade Turner opened a discussion on Socialism. Considerable interest was taken by the audience of twenty people and the discussion continued for some time. It is hoped that a good attendance will be maintained when this group meets again. As a permanent meeting place has not been arranged, will members and sympathisers interested in this group please contact the Propaganda Committee at Head Office.

*     *     *     *

A Party Sympathiser in Dublin who has frequently contributed to the Party Funds has again written us and sent Five Pounds as a donation to help on the work for Socialism. This is greatly appreciated.

*     *     *     *

Donations to Parliamentary Fund. In response to an appeal in the May Socialist Standard the total received to June 16th was £69 14s. We regret that these figures were not available for the June Socialist Standard.

*     *     *     *

Hackney Branch are organising a speakers’ and general knowledge class and discussion group at Bethnal Green Town Hall on alternate Thursdays from July 2nd at 8 p.m. It is hoped to encourage members to take the Party platform and for the class to run outdoor meetings later in the year. Any members and sympathisers who can come along will be very welcome.

*     *     *     *

Hackney Branch’s outing to Brighton on June 7th was fairly successful; being attended by 18 members and two children. A meeting was run on the sea front (Fishmarket) from 3 p.m. till 8.15 p.m. being supported by some 10 members of Brighton branch. It is hoped that a similar outing can be arranged in September.

Phyllis Howard

Korea—Cradle of Conflict (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many of those who have been fighting in Korea probably do not understand the reasons why they have been called upon to risk life and limb in this particular theatre of war; a large number probably had not even heard of that country before. It may be just as well for the interests of the great powers concerned that their workers have been kept in ignorance of the role of Korea in world affairs otherwise it might have been difficult to induce them to fight.

An Ancient Culture

With a history of 4,000 years the Koreans are an old civilised group with a high cultural level linked with that of China. They have substantially contributed to the cause of progress—printing was first brought to Europe from Korea. Korean celadon ware is considered to be amongst the most beautiful pottery to have been produced anywhere in the world.

A veritable Korean renaissance followed the founding in 1392 of a new dynasty (which dynasty has lasted until modern times) and in order to emancipate the population from the burden of learning Chinese ideographs an alphabet of 26 letters was invented so simple in outline and of such phonetic adaptability that they can learn to read in less than a month. They also invented the first metal movable type anticipating Europe by 50 years. Astronomical instruments of a high order were made and a whole new literature flourished. It cannot therefore rightly be said of the Koreans as it has been said of other people subjugated and exploited by capitalist powers, that they are in need of the civilizing influence of the West.

It is only since the eighteen seventies, that is. since industrial capitalism opened up Asia, that Korea has been a cradle of conflict. The Chinese ruling class considered that control of the peninsula was necessary for defence of their Empire and up to this time exercised a suzerainty over it. As Li Hung-chang, the famous Chinese viceroy put it in 1879, “Korea is the wall protecting China's Provinces, the lips protecting the teeth.”

China has been constantly threatened by the rising powers of Russia and Japan, both being busily engaged in wresting territory and concessions in Manchuria from the Chinese.

China has had the fear that Korea would “ripen like a pear and then drop into the jaws of Russia.” There were ice-free harbours for ice-bound Asiatic Russia and a footing on the mainland for Japan to be obtained as a result of successful adventures in Korea. A French expedition under Admiral Rose was severely handled by Korean forces and forced to retire from the scene. Again in 1871 an American flotilla was sent to repeat Commodore Perry's exploit in Japan but after killing a number of Koreans the American fleet left. In 1876 the Japanese succeeded in forcing Korea open. In 1894 through the Japan-China war Japan succeeded in forwarding Japanese influence at the expense of the Chinese.

The Japan-Russian war began with Japan guaranteeing the independence of Korea but ended with the Treaty of Portsmouth when the United States assured the Japanese that they would look favourably on the Japanese assumption of authority in Korea. In 1905 the Japanese by force instituted a virtual protectorate and finally annexed Korea to the Japanese Empire in 1910.

A Valuable Consolation Prize

Quite apart from the strategic value of the peninsula the wealth of the gold, copper, coal iron and tungsten resources and the profit obtained from exploiting the 19 million population is quite a considerable consolation prize for the successful “liberator” of Korea. Tungsten is used for hardening steel and is an essential in present day armament making, and as it can be found in but a few places in the world, the output from Korea is particularly sought after.

The Korean War

In 1945, after the defeat of Japan, the U.S.S.R. seized their chance when, by an apparent blunder on the part of the Allies, they were able obtain a belligerent occupants’ mandate in North Korea. The Chinese have for long been well aware of these aims. Even in 1894 when Russia was making friendly overtures to China Li Hung-chang wrote:—

   “Russia is to-day our greatest friend and our most to-be-feared enemy. She is our friend because Great Britain and France pose as our friends also. She is our greatest enemy because what the Russians call the trend of her destiny makes her so. She dominates all Northern Asia and hopes some day to have preponderating influence in China. She will help us to keep Japan out because she herself wants to get in."

In 1950 the American forces in South Korea defeated the North Koreans. This was the moment for China to step into the breach in North Korea to prevent, firstly, the Americans seizing the whole peninsula and possibly eventually installing a puppet Japanese control and, secondly, to forestall the Russians from completely taking over in North Korea.

Development of Chinese Patriotism

There were, however, further advantages for the Chinese in engaging in a foreign war. The Peoples' Republic of China, which had wrested control from the Chiang Kai-shek regime in 1949, were faced with many problems in carrying out their policy of developing China along Western lines. One of the legacies they had to take over from the past was the absence of patriotism. It is necessary for the protection of any capitalist ruling class if they are to survive in the jungle of world capitalism to have a working-class willing to fight for the fatherland. The war in Korea provided a chance for developing the beginning of Chinese patriotism. The Government succeeded in getting popular support for the war by identifying the maintenance of the rising standard of living in China with the necessity of repelling foreign enemies. The task was made easier by the U.S. being the supporters of the former discredited and very unpopular Chiang-Kai-shek clique.

There was the added advantage in giving the government a chance to glorify the Chinese army. Their armed forces are a great help to any ambitious capitalist group who wish to continue exploiting their own workers and if they can also seize the preserves of other national groups. But unfortunately for the rulers in China, soldiering is a despised occupation, and this attitude on the part of the general population has a harmful effect on the maintenance of reliability and efficiency of the armed forces. The internal propaganda which accompanied the military adventure in Korea helped to reform this view which was so harmful to the armed forces and therefore against ruling class interests. Many workers get killed or maimed in the war; the workers pay the price but the rulers obtain the benefit.

Was it worth fighting for?

An armistice has been arranged and there is a prospect that the war to “liberate” Korea will come to an end. Devastation, disease and death are the lot of many of the unfortunate inhabitants of this war-ravaged country, and together with the casualties of the many foreign nationals involved the military adventure in Korea has exacted a heavy toll. But it has been worth it—for the ruling class. China has obtained part control of North Korea at the expense of the U.S.S.R. and has driven into the Chinese working class a measure of patriotic spirit. The U.S.A. have retained control of South Korea with its strategic importance and vast mineral wealth. The U.S.S.R. have retained a large measure of control over the civil administration of North Korea, and in exchange for arms and ammunition supplied to China for use against the U.S. has obtained the bulk of Chinese exports at low prices. Japan has made plenty of profit on war supplies to the Allies, and may in addition, eventually be allowed by the U.S.A. to extend her influence in South Korea.

So in conclusion, Korea—cradle of conflict—is a pawn in power politics.

Frank Offord

The Future of Leisure (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The phrase “working for a living” suggests a distinction between working and living which most people accept. But if “working occupies five or six days a week and fifty weeks a year, how much “living” is left?

That was the challenging question put to readers of the “Radio Times” some little while ago, in describing a programme on “What is Work?” The question is of particular interest to socialists, who advocate a form of society in which such a distinction between working and living (or the division of living into work and leisure) will no longer be recognised.

The present division which exists for most people between their work and their leisure is the product of historical conditions. Probably the concept of leisure as something apart from and opposed to work was unknown in societies in which there was no privileged class. Some primitive people have no word for “work”—work is for them the expression of living. And even the class-divided Greek civilisation evolved no separate word for leisure—the word they used also meant “school.”

The handicraftsman and artisan received a certain satisfaction from the work they did. They made whole articles, and used their skill and inventiveness to overcome the difficulties which arose. They were really educated by their labour. But the manufacturing division of labour under Capitalism has changed all that. A large proportion of workers are relegated to monotonous machine-minding and office routine, and few are able to gain real satisfaction from their work.

Even those who do make things that are useful to people often do not gain the pleasure of a good job well done, because of the tyranny of clocking-in, speeding-up, and down-to-a-price quality of products. Capitalist and worker alike are dominated by the need to compete successfully with others, since failure means an end to their “living"—yet success is bought only at the price of orienting one's life to goals that are trivial and artificial instead of basic and real.

Leisure Class

The emergence of a class in society that is not compelled to participate in production coincided with the beginning of private ownership. A leisure class was the outgrowth of an early discrimination between employments, some being considered worthy (“exploit” by the males) and other unworthy (drudgery by the females).

“During the predatory culture labour comes to be associated in men’s habits of thought with weakness and subjection to a master. It is therefore a mark of inferiority and, therefore, comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his best estate. By virtue of this tradition labour is felt to be debasing, and this tradition has never died out. . . .  In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence. . . . A life of leisure is the readiest and most conclusive evidence of pecuniary strength and, therefore, of superior force; provided always that the gentleman of leisure can live in manifest ease and comfort.”—(“The Theory of the Leisure Class” Veblen, p. 36-8.)

Yet the fact remains that work is the foundation of any society. Hence, the value of work to society should be its prime consideration. But because, within property society, the dominating ideas arise from people who need not toil, and because a substitute for satisfaction from work must be found for millions who know it only as an evil necessity, leisure becomes the supreme goal.

Employment is a necessity imposed upon all but a privileged few. Consequently there comes to be a divergence between the conditions of working “for a living” and the kind of life which is held out by supporters of the system as desirable. The message preached is that the end of life is idleness and enjoyment. But workers, having absorbed the message, must return to the factory or office to earn the money without which they cannot live.

Machinery of Amusement

The means of mass influence—press, cinema, radio and television—all focus attention on those aspects of our lives that have nothing to do with everyday tasks. People figure in the “news” who are notable only for having money and time to spend. The constant display of wealth and leisure as desirable ends influences the standards of those who seek an outlet to express themselves which the conditions of their work deny them.

Various factors have combined to oust the old family-gathering type of popular leisure—doing has given way to watching and listening. Probably the Victorian party-piece was not as happily endured as many would have us believe, nor is the advent of television the unmitigated evil that some suppose. Nevertheless, leisure has largely taken on the form of a commodity that is passively consumed rather than an experience that is actively enjoyed. As Henry Durant writes in “The Problem of Leisure":

“All forms of leisure have become commercialised, endless devices are offered to the idle person, each to be enjoyed only on condition that he has money to pay. Without money he is condemned, unable to share in the pleasure and pastimes which press on him from all sides. But commercialisation does not merely erect a gate through which only those with the necessary fee can pass. It has a profound effect also on the nature of the fare offered. The ’machinery of amusement’ is run by business men actuated by business motives. Their concern is not primarily with the character of the entertainment or amusement they provide, for it is merely the means to the end of making profits.”

The ways in which leisure is spent are unavoidably influenced by the prevailing conditions of employment. Take, for example, the workers on a belt system in a factory who, in the course of their work, use only a small part of their brain capacity and nervous system. To stave off monotony their off-duty hours are mostly spent in such feverish pleasures as speedway and the more hectic forms of dancing—and their nervous systems inevitably suffer.

When work lacks interest it is either forgotten altogether on “knocking off ” or else it is the subject of grumbling. It is not complimentary to be told that you can never forget your work; and those who do take their socially useless work seriously often develop boring personalities and have few interests outside their daily occupations.

Self-expression

Here we can do no more than touch upon the various ways in which people search today for something different, something outside of their own drab existence. The cinema is an obvious example that springs to mind, but there are others that are not so often considered. All the preparations, the plans, the excitements and the ballyhoo that surrounded the recent Coronation surely demonstrate the emptiness of most people's everyday lives. And what of the weekly football pool coupon that excites study and comment out of all proportion to its importance? The punters are members of a Happy Circle, so they are told—and the atmosphere of mock geniality is shattered only when a court action is brought over winnings. Then it is admitted that the “Happy Circle" is just an advertising circular.

Some imagine that the socialist revolution either will or ought to bring a state of affairs where all will spend their leisure as the wealthy do now. Certainly the atmosphere in which they move is one to which the adjective “drab" hardly applies. Yet if you ask those who minister to the “needs" of the élite whether the latter really have the control over their environment that is the mark of free men, then the answer may surprise you. According to one writer, for instance, the rich take up gambling more or less because they are driven to it—they find they are “out of it" unless they join in roulette or whatever happens to be in vogue. And so they drift from one aimless diversion to another . . .

Whilst the first onset of mechanisation has taken all the joy from work, it may be predicted that its final result will be to return to human activities a freedom that is absent today. Man will then possess the machines and use them selectively, thus restoring dignity to all human occupations. Labour, in Marx's words, will be not merely a means to live, but itself the primary necessity of life.

Stan Parker