Liberation and Loot in Austria (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Austria has had another liberation—the fifth in this generation, i.e. since the Austro-Hungarian Empire (which in its time and turn had itself played the role of “liberator” of other nations) became the simple Republic Austria. That was in 1918 when it was liberated from the Hapsburg Dynasty. In 1934 the country was liberated from the “Reds,” in 1938 from the Dollfus-Schuschnigg dictatorship, in 1945 from Hitler-Germany’s “national Socialism” and in 1955 we record the liberation from the Four-Power occupation. Although every one of these previous “revolutions” had at the time been declared by the respective engineers and managers and their Press as decisive and final (at least for a thousand years), who would have the temerity in the face of the almost general acclamation to assert that the present (1955) liberation was not a more outstanding event than the others? Does it not only bring final “freedom, independence, sovereignty, peace and social justice” to Austria, but also augur well as an example of good will and pacification returning to a greatly troubled world in general? In hundreds of articles and broadcasts this was impressed upon the people. The Vienna Press this time was unanimous. Nationalistic Press hysteria celebrated veritable orgies. After more than 260 futile conferences in these last 10 years, and another 9-day conclave behind locked doors this month of May, the foreign Ambassadors finally arrived at an agreement to be submitted to and signed by the proxies of the Four Big Concerns concerned, plus Austria. At long last, freedom and independence had been secured.

The ceremonies which included of course receptions and banquets took place in the Palace of Belvedere and the Castle of Schönbrunn (which latter had seen within its walls such other one time liberators as Napoleon, and subsequently housed the famous Vienna Congress in 1815). Workers had to work overtime to give an extra shine to the historic places for the occasion. The delegates were feted and profusely photographed—their pictures must have gone round the whole world. Crowds called for the repeated appearance of the ministers on the balcony, just as they had done at the Hotel Imperial in 1938 after the entry of yet another liberator in Vienna. All the church bells rang out; a special thanksgiving service was celebrated in St. Stephen’s Cathedral by H.E. Cardinal lnnitzer himself, who, like the late great “Socialist” statesman Dr. Renner, had in 1938 voted for Hitler and the Anschluss. If the Holy Trinity of Press, Radio and Pulpit, were unanimous in jubilation, it cannot be said that the people as a whole justified the exuberant enthusiasm with which they were credited by the publicity directors. Not only cynics, jesters and sceptics, but earnest and thoughtful folk generally) many doubtless pondering over the distressing and uncertain fate of their husbands, sons and brothers still behind the iron curtain, did not seem to be able to forget their cares and worries or get themselves to believe in the bright future that was said to be ahead.

Was it that after all these boasted achievements of freedom and independence the mass of the people discovered that, as a witty Frenchman said: “The more it changes, the more it is the same thing”; was it that people's thoughts turned to the Monday morning when those who were dependent on an employer or, worse still, dependent on the dole or public assistance, would start the “new era” of freedom and independence not in abundance and security, but in the same penury as yesterday? Or was it that when Austria's minister showed from the balcony of the castle the signed document to a waiting crowd, another historic episode sprang to people's minds—the picture of Mr. Chamberlain (back from a conference with Hitler—flourishing the "Peace in our Time” document from another balcony a twelve-month only before the outbreak of World-war II? Or was it the knowledge that the liberators did not give freedom and independence as a free gift, but exacted a high price for it and imposed a heavy burden to meet? Was it that the people could already hear the well-known call for increased production, and sacrifices to be brought for the blessing of freedom and sovereignty? Was it the constant consciousness of all these wretched, harassing and depressing things that did not allow the people as a whole to justify the universal enthusiasm alleged to stir one and all?

The fact is that, though there certainly is general and well justified relief here at the prospective departure of not only the Muscovite, but of all the other occupation elements from Austria, the working-class have become more or less tired of promises and sceptical of Treaties and Pacts made by statesmen and politicians on behalf of their masters. Socialists hope that the truth we keep hammering in, namely that all the freedoms in capitalism put together still leave the mass of mankind shackled and unfree, will soon be realized in wider circles and that the workers will at last strive for the ONE FREEDOM which is not a farce: the emancipation of the working-class of the world from the thralldom of the exploiters of labour.

Now what credentials had and have all these liberators, past and present, for their actions? What cause have they served? Have they served the all-important cause of ridding the world from poverty, insecurity, class-conflict and war? What problem have the 45 wars and “revolutions” in the last 100 years solved for the mass of the people—the working-class? Have the unspeakable tragedies, the untold ruins and rivers of blood and tears been justified that accompanied “liberations” down to this day? Has the fundamental status of the world's wealth-producers as mere objects of exploitation been altered or even advanced one iota towards one of free men? Is it no longer a condition of the workers’ very existence that they have a job in some profit-making enterprise? Have they even secured the miserable enough right to work? Ask the young who left school, or those whom Capitalism calls old, too old at 45 or even at 35, and they will tell you heartrending tales of woe of their difficulties in securing that indispensable thing: a job with some employer, i.e. with some exploiter! “Collier's Magazine” (7.1.1955) brought a revealing picture of a queue of “old people” lined up at a Chicago Labour-Exchange with an article headed: “Shocking as it is, people in the prime of life are denied jobs because of their age.” And what was the solution offered by secretary Mitchell of the Department of Labour in this “freedom and independence” enjoying U.S.A.? “Find places for old workers and MAKE PROFITS from their production, or be taxed much more heavily than now in order to sustain them as non-workers.” (As if you helped a man by sustaining him in idleness and casting him out of society.) No sentimentalities here about human dignity. “The only solution,” says Mitchell bluntly, “is to HIRE the older worker and MAKE A PROFIT from his production.” Just about the same time a debate is raging in a Vienna Trade-Union paper (Solidaritat) on the very same subject of the “too old for a job.” Among a number of letters reproduced in the paper was a mournful but otherwise courageous epistle from a woman saying, among other things:

  “Science endeavours to prolong man's life. What for? You are hardly 40 years of age—willing to work, with sense of duty and with much experience in life, but practically cast out of human society."

We are often told that we must wait for Socialism because of the lack of understanding and of human dignity of the millions of workers in the "backward” countries. Well, since Capitalist spokesmen in advanced and cultured countries can insult the workers by, for instance, distinguishing between them and “intellectuals,” and telling them to their face with brutal bluntness that they are nothing but HIRED objects to make profit from, and since these spokesmen can get away with it with impunity, we ask, where is the difference between the cultured and the uncultured slaves, as far as enlightenment on their social position and a sense of human dignity is concerned? With all your greater experience and opportunities, you have not yet learned that it is the damnable system of Capitalist exploitation that is the cause of your and their misery and degradation! Indeed, in Russia and in China the need of repressive measures and an all-penetrating secret police, the terror the purges and forced labour camps (not to speak of the massacres) by which the Bolsheviks established and maintain their regime of State-Capitalism, would show that there was and is as much opposition in these backward countries as in the Western World. Neither the frequent frank and outspoken confessions in avowed Capitalist publications of the shocking features of modern society, nor the evident humbug and hypocrisy, the lying, deceit and cant of “Socialist” and “Communist’’ leaders seem to stir you to intelligent action in opposition to the horrible system they all serve and want to perpetuate.

But to revert to our latest “world sensation.” In order to illustrate by concrete example the difference between facts and fiction (which differences are often blurred these times), here is what one of the actors in this sensation, the Soviet Union, pretends to stand for, as stated in the organs of the Russian occupation forces and the Communist party in Austria:

  “All that oppressed humanity has ever dreamt, all that the founders of scientific socialism had predicted in their works, has here (on one-sixth of the earth) been realized. A new era in the history of mankind began in 1917."

Now many of the Baltic and Balkan countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, half of Berlin and part of Austria, have had the “new era,” the Soviet dream of humanity brought to them.

Speaking for Austria, most people here will, when the “new era” apostles are gone, think of their experience with the latter as a nightmare rather than as a dream of paradise. And this even though this country has not seen the Bolshevik’s blessings on the same scale as their own people and others have. Some people even speak of a Soviet “weak spot” for Austria and point to the “sudden” (after ten years!) decision to let the Austrian government take a turn in establishing their own “new era.”

No more convincing proof of the Russian liberators’ disinterestedness and generosity could be given than this “sensational” State-Treaty. After having for ten years had the onerous job of controlling and collecting the profits from no fewer than 454 large and small Concerns (including the Danube Steamship Co.) with some 63,000 workers, the Russian liberators will hand them back to Austria on payment of a paltry 150 million dollars, plus delivery of one million tons of crude oil annually for ten years, plus the right to seek for oil in various parts of Austria during eight years and in the event of the discovery of new sources to exploit them for 25 years, and plus other trifles. Then there is the renunciation of the further use of the prisoner-of-war labour-force. Considering the loss of profits which this entails for the Soviet government, they insist that Austria should make compensation by at least paying henceforth for the prisoners’ keep and eventual return home. Further proof of Soviet “chivalry” is also provided by their readiness to readmit into the paradise the 30,000 to 40,000 people who had for incomprehensible reasons forsaken the land where the age-long dream of humanity had been realized. (For equally incomprehensible reasons these refugees have declined the noble offer).

Why then, you may ask, were the negotiations conducted behind locked doors, and why this delay in releasing the full text of the Treaty? Could it be that, after all, the delegates had misgivings or pricks of conscience? Were they afraid that if all the articles were published unvarnished, people might discover discrepancies and disparity between professions and reality before the Press had done their preliminary doctoring and explaining away? (The Arbeiter Zeitung for example did their share of sugaring the pill by assuring the public that though the ransom Austria has to pay was no small amount, it was by no means too high a price for the full economic independence. . . .) Could it be that the delegates were ashamed of finding themselves in the same position as all their forerunners:—the negotiators of treaties after all the 45 odd wars of liberation in the last 100 years, of which the world now knows that it never was a question of liberation or lofty ideals, but of grab and loot? Had the hitherto fact of the grab of the goldmines in S. Africa by the British Capitalists, or the Treaty of Versailles (or any other of the dozens of liberation cum grab-crusades) been present in the delegates' minds? Did they perhaps become aware—as they studied the instructions received from their masters for the negotiations—of the manifest analogy of their position with that of thieves (having fallen out over the division of the loot) trying to come to at least a partial and temporary understanding after a ten year quarrel between themselves? Anyway, since another party of burglars, the German Capitalists, are now bitterly protesting against the confiscation of all their loot from the war, and with the thieves’ quarrels continuing unabated elsewhere, anything beyond registering with relief the withdrawal of occupation forces from this theatre of operations—Austria— would be misplaced and unwarranted. For, getting rid of foreign occupation Powers does not mean getting rid of oppression as the people also of many other lands in Europe in Asia and Africa must have learned to their bitter disappointment. So far liberations and revolutions have always meant the exchange of one bunch of exploiters for another, while native rulers of backward countries have often proved worse tyrants even than the foreign exploiters and oppressors they ousted.

The fact is that rulers and leaders all stand for the appropriation and accumulation of wealth by a world privileged class, wealth that is produced by and filched from the mass of the people through the modem wages-system. Asiatic and African leaders have not studied for nothing at the European and American universities.

If war is loot for all to see, it is not so dear and evident in peace-time, though loot is the pivot of the whole mechanism of Capitalism in war and peace. In peace, the robbery taking place, as it does, in the complex process of production, is obscured by the wages-system. Glaring proof of this legalized robbery is. however, the fact that a 100 years of marvellous technical achievements and tremendous increase of wealth produced by the working-class, have left them in a condition of poverty and insecurity. Once the worker comes to understand this crucial fact and recognizes it as the cause of his predicament, he will realize that all these fine words about “liberation. freedom and independence, peace and social justice” are but so many bourgeois slogans and illusions to hide the brutal facts of their thieving system. Already in the French Revolution which put the Bourgeoisie into power, it was “Liberté, égalité, fraternité ” which gulled the destitute masses into fighting the feudal enemies of their enemies, the rising Capitalist class, with the result that down to this day the above mentioned fine words mock the poverty-stricken French workers from every public building. It is certainly remarkable that it should still be possible for politicians to dispense and find listeners to these old outworn hollow phrases.

Enough has been said on the preposterous Nazi—and Bolshevik claim of having inaugurated a new social order, a “people’s democracy’’—this swindle is now too obvious and well known. But how little “freedom, independence and democracy” etc., mean to the working-class under Capitalism even in the “free world” countries: the U.S., Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, is shown by the fact that the status of the workers there is likewise that of property-less wage-slaves, dependent for their very means of existence, on the precarious chance of securing a job with some employer. Such a status does not and cannot make for the enjoyment of life. Work under such circumstances can never be identified, as it ought to and will be under Socialism, with real satisfaction and pleasure; it is only done to keep the wolf from the door. And wherever people have to work for wages, to make profit for an employer, any accident, illness, or other physical or mental disability—not to mention the factor of age—becomes something akin to a family catastrophe. The employers, even of the Welfare State, will quickly make you understand that they are not a welfare institution; but mean to make the Concern for which they have hired you, pay—the shareholders want their loot all the time.

Unfortunately, in so far as workers have not become altogether apathetic towards politics, they are, despite all disillusions), failures and frustrations still putting their trust in leaders and falling for the day to day affairs that invariably are only concerns of their enemies: the Capitalist class. It is a commentary on the policy and activity of the so-called “Socialist Party of Austria,” the “Communist” party and their fellow travellers everywhere that so far from getting the workers interested in, and educated to Socialism, they are busy assisting the Capitalistic state in building up still more devastating armaments. Not to be left behind by their big brother in England, who is all for the production of A-H-bombs, the Austrian Socialist Party and Communist Party, are now debating the form of the new army with at least ’‘conventional weapons.” No doubt, the S.P., having a quarter of a century ago organized the Schutzbund with a view to opposing by force of arms the power of the state, and thus invited the disaster and terrible fate it met in 1934. have learned a lesson. It is. however, not a lesson Socialists teach, but a lesson for leaders how to keep their jobs. The red colour of the banners carried by the ill-fated Schutzbund, with the inscriptions Freiheit, Gleichheit, Bruderlidikeit, Freundschaft,” etc., will be replaced by different dyes and inscriptions. It will be the red-white-red variety and perhaps the Double-Eagle. Sure, it will warm the cockles of the hearts of many an old Austrian soldier and general, though other people will contemplate the spectacle of trooping the colour, philosophically saying to themselves : Well, the more it changes, the more it is the same thing.

Rudolf Frank

Notes by the Way: Making Strikes Illegal (1955)

The Notes by the Way Column from the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Making Strikes Illegal

The increase in the number and extent of strikes has started discussion in Government circles of possible new trade union legislation. The Economist (18 June) warns of difficulties and has an interesting comment on the part played by strikes in Capitalism.

  “One idea that needs to be consigned firmly to the scrapheap from the start is the proposal that strikes as a whole should be declared illegal, and that all trade unions should be constrained by law to accept impartial arbitration upon their disputes. This proposal is unfair, undesirable and impracticable. It is unfair because the threat of a strike is a trade union’s last weapon for securing an increase in wages to which it feels that its members are entitled; and, in an imperfect world, arbitration in a country where strikes were theoretically debarred would always be less favourable to the workers than arbitration in a country where strikes are still legal The proposal is undesirable because the pressure towards higher wages exerted by trade unions is a dynamic as well as an inflationary force in any economy; it helps to draw resources into the trades that are most profitable, and it forces employers into the most labour-saving, and therefore the most forward-looking, forms of production. Last, but not least, the proposal is impracticable because the trade unions simply would not wear it, and would always find ways to flout any such dictatorial decree; if 70,000 engine drivers decided that they all felt too ill to work on a certain day, no government could put all the 70,000 in prison.”

#    #    #    #

The Election Results

Naturally political commentators have been busy since the election trying to interpret the heavy fall of votes that reduced the Labour Party M.P.s to 277 in an enlarged House of Commons of 630 members. (At the 1951 election Labour won 295 in a House of 625).

The Economist's analysis (4/6/55) produced the following summary:—

  “It was not the swung, but the stay-at-homes, who decided the election. The total poll was 76.8 per cent., compared with 82.6 per cent in 1951. Within those totals (1) Labour polled 12.4'million votes compared with 13.9 million in 1951. One-and-a-half million people—or more than one out of every ten of those who voted Labour last time—did not this time feel excited enough to turn out. (2) The Conservatives polled 13.3 million votes compared with 13.7 million in 1951. As they piled up some 165,000 votes in four Ulster constituencies where they were unopposed last time, it seems that over half a million people who voted Tory last time did not vote this time (3) The Liberals polled 722,000 votes, about 8,000 less then in 1951. In the constituencies with unchanged boundaries in which they fought in both 1951 and 1955, however, their votes went up by an average of about 450 per constituency. More than the whole of their increase in the share of the votes in these constituencies was at the expense of Labour.”

The Labour vote was 46.4 per cent, of the total vote compared with the Tories’ 49.7 per cent, and the 3.9 per cent that went to Liberals and others. In 1951 Labour got 48.8 per cent, and the Tories 48 per cent.

The Communist Party ran 17 candidates and lost 15 deposits through getting less than one-eighth of the votes— total cost of lost deposits £2,250. But comparing their votes at this election with the vote obtained in the same constituencies in 1951 (or in 1950 if no candidate stood in 1951) it would seem that on balance the Communists somewhat improved their position. The total vote of their 17 candidates was 33,144. In 1951 their ten candidates obtained 21,640.

Of the Bevanites the Economist says:—

  “It is not necessarily true to say that Bevanite sitting members did badly in this election. Mr. and Mrs. Bevan, the Coventry duet, and Mrs. Barbara Castle, did do rather badly; but they were in the sort of areas where the general trend was towards a low Labour turn-out. On the other hand Mr. Mikardo, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. Harold Davies all did rather well.”

#    #    #    #

Remarkable Admission by Mr. Attlee

In a speech to a Labour Women’s Gala at Durham on 4 June Mr. Attlee spoke about the need for the Labour Party to carry on after their defeat in the General Election. Having mentioned the struggles “the blood, sweat and tears” of the present generation of Labour Party members and of their forerunners, he dealt with what remains to be done. And this is what he said :—

“We are nowhere near the kind of society we want We have an infinitely long way to go.” (Manchester Guardian, 6/6/55.)

Mr. Attlee meant by this that we are nowhere near Socialism.

Yet in 1949 in a speech at Walthamstow he said:— 

  "In these three and a half years you have had a new pattern set up in this country. The social reforms which we introduced nave not been patchy; they have represented a new social order. . . . We have had a great experience in democratic Socialism.” (Manchester Guardian, 22/1/49.)

In his Durham speech in June of this year Mr. Attlee claimed that the work of the Labour Party has endured despite their electoral defeat, because it has influenced the Tories:—

  “They have had to accept what we have done: in fact they claim to have done the same things only they say they have done them better. They have had to accept many things which 20, 30 or 40 years ago they would have denounced as heresies, impossibilities and silly Socialism.” (S. Times, 5/6/55.)

It is difficult to discover from Mr. Attlee’s various statements what conception he now has of the way in which what he regards as Socialism is to be achieved.

If in 1955 it is an infinitely long way off, what has happened to the “ new social order ” of 1949?

And if the "new social order” of 1949 was not to be taken literally but was Mr. Attlee’s fanciful way of describing some modest social reforms which the Tories also accept, how does Mr. Attlee think his Socialism ever will be achieved? For the Labour Party never envisaged the possibility of the Tories beating them at their own game of catching workers' votes with reforms, They never thought to see the day when a majority of the workers, having had Labour Government for six years, would prefer to see Capitalism run by Tories. Though, as it happens, this ought to have been no surprise at all to Mr. Attlee for in 1937 in his “Labour Party in Perspective” (p. 123) he wrote:—

  “The plain fact is that a Socialist Party cannot hope to make a success of administering the capitalist system because it does not believe in it”

Mr. Attlee’s dilemma is complete. For if he does not think the Labour' Party in office can make a success of the job of administering Capitalism how can he hope to win elections by showing that it is a success?

The Labour Party used to dismiss the S.P.G.B. case for concentrating on winning straight support for Socialism, with the argument that the workers did not want Socialism “an infinitely long way” off, but wanted a Labour Government to give them practical benefits now by removing the worst causes of discontent.

But now we have Mr. Emanuel Shinwell, Minister of Defence in the Labour Government, telling the Staffordshire miners that the reason Labour lost the election was that “most people were satisfied with things as they are. But they were dissatisfied with the disgraceful brawling in the Labour Party and by what seemed to be a scramble for power.” (Reynolds News, 12/6/55).

So the workers, after 50 years of Labour propaganda, do not want a Labour Government to give them practical benefits now but want a Tory Government to do the job.

Where does Mr. Attlee go from here?

#    #    #    #

Is it Foolish?

The following appeared in the Stratford Express (3 June, 1955):—

“How Foolish

  “It seems so simple to put a cross against the name of a chosen candidate—so simple that it is almost impossible to go wrong. Yet in these local divisions scores of people wasted their votes by spoiling papers in one of a variety of ways. In one of the West Ham divisions, for instance, there were 40 spoilt papers. Some people had added their name and address; some had scrawled the letters S.P.G.B. (Socialist Party of Great Britain) on the paper, while others had voted for each of the candidates and a few had put the paper in the ballot box completely blank. An indication of their state of mind, perhaps!"

It is, of course, the reference to the S.P.G.B. that concerns us, and it has to be taken in conjunction with the statement that it is “so simple to put a cross against the name of a chosen candidate.” But suppose you don’t choose either candidate. Suppose you are one of the million and a half former Labour voters who could discern so little difference between the parties that it wasn’t worth while voting.

Or, again, suppose you are a Socialist and do not want Capitalism at all, not Labour-administered Capitalism or Tory-administered Capitalism? What should you do then? Is it foolish to show on the ballot paper what you do want? It has at any rate had the merit that it caught the attention of the Stratford Express.

Of course Socialists would prefer to have their own Socialist candidates to vote for, but the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties, by agreement on the £150 deposit, made it very difficult for a small organisation to enter the field.

#    #    #    #

Peaceful uses of Atomic Power

All the people who are clamouring for “wars without H-Bombs” instead of working for a social system that won’t engender war, think they are being ever so humane and practical when they plead that atomic energy should be put to “peaceful uses for the good of mankind.” What they really show is that they haven’t learned the first thing about the cause of war.

Alongside the clamour about bombs, but attracting less attention, powerful groups of firms in all the leading countries are preparing for the struggle to gain the market for atomic equipment. One group of seven British engineering and electrical companies has formed the Nuclear Power Plant Co., which, according to the Evening Standard (19/5/55), has a capital of £1,000,000, but has behind it the £75 million of the sponsoring companies.

An Atomic Trade Fair is to be held in Geneva in August. A Financial Times correspondent reports:

  “The exhibition is to be attended by representatives from 84 countries and companies from the U.S., France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Holland and Norway will be exhibiting their designs for atomic power plants and for nuclear energy equipment of all sorts in an effort to gain future business in competition with the U.K. from countries less experienced in atomic power development.
  “Russia will be exhibiting atomic energy designs and equipment of many types, and her exhibit may rival those of Britain, the U.S. and France—the largest exhibitors.”

(Financial Times, 8/6/55.)

A Financial Times editorial (11/6/55) pressed the importance of these early stages “for competition will grow increasingly fierce and what is done now will determine the success of Britain in the future.”

The simple fact is that Capitalism's fierce conflicts for markets and raw materials, are not and cannot be "peaceful," whether the commodity on sale is atomic plant, coal, petrol, steel, textiles, or anything else. Here is the breeding ground of war.

This is very unpleasant reading for well-meaning Pacifists, but these are the facts of Capitalist life.

The rivalry in obtaining sources of uranium and other materials for atomic power, and in capturing markets for atomic equipment, will be just as fruitful of international conflict as were past struggles to acquire iron ore, petrol, coal, etc., and markets in which to sell the products.

#    #    #    #

The Millionaires’ Welfare State

According to the Daily Express City Editor (25/5/55) Mr. Harold Samuel has done very well for himself under the “Welfare State.”

  “They tell you that it is impossible to make a million in these days of super-high taxation. Well, young man, do not be daunted in your endeavours by such talk.
  “For here is West End property man Harold Samuel to prove that it can be done. And proving it three times over.
  “For under a share plan which comes this morning from Land Securities Investment Trust—key company in Mr. Samuel's property network—he lets drop that his personal stake is 692,000 Ordinary shares.
   “And in markets each of those 10s. shares command a price just Is: short of a fiver at 99s. In all £3,426.000.
   “Lush indeed has been the money-making of anyone who backed the Samuel's star when he took over Land Securities eleven years ago.
   “Then its shares were priced at 8s. a go in markets. Allowing for free issues each of those shares would now command a dizzy £66 apiece.
   “For the Samuel policy has been to build the group up big in property at a time when property values were rising even faster than his shares.
    “A policy which pays off handsomely—for Mr. Samuel.” 

Note the dates. The foundations of the “Welfare .State” were being laid in 1944 when various schemes were prepared under the Coalition Government and put into operation after the Labour victory in 1945. And it is in this period that Mr. Samuel has built up his three and a half millions. And what predominantly helped to push up property values was the Labour Government’s inflationary policy, faithfully continued by the Tories.

The Welfare State ought to have at least one very enthusiastic backer.

There are many others, too.

The rise in property values that helped Mr. Samuel has "been paralleled by the rise in share values on the Stock Exchange and for the same general reason. And Mr. Gaitskell, in the House of Commons on 16 June, 1955, estimated that holders of ordinary shares have gained £5,000 million through the share rise of the past 15 months.

And all the time, including the years of Labour Government, small savers who put money into the Savings Bank or Savings Certificates were having the real value of their savings whittled away by the same price rise.

This must be what the Labour Party means by a more equal distribution of wealth and what the Tories mean by a property-owning democracy.

#    #    #    #

Calling up Striking Seamen

The Daily Mirror (17/6/55) published the following:—

  “One hundred seamen involved in the unofficial strike of Cunard liner crews received preliminary notices of call-up at Liverpool yesterday.
  “They are men aged between eighteen and twenty-six. whose call-up was deferred when they joined the Merchant Navy.
  “Now they are unofficially unemployed and liable to be called-up. The notices they received by post yesterday asked them to say which service they preferred.
  “Many of them rushed to the Shipping Federation in Liverpool to ask what to do.
  “Strike leaders said: ‘They were told at the Federation that if they signed a form promising not to break any more contracts with the Maritime Board the call-up would be deferred again.
   “ ‘This is a form of intimidation.’
  “Normally if men under twenty-six leave a ship several weeks elapse before they are assumed to have left the sea and to be liable for call-up.'”

We need hardly be surprised at the action by the authorities but how do Liberals, who profess to be the protectors of individual rights against Tory reaction and Labour Regimentation, view the editorial in the Liberal Star (16/6/55) which urged the new Tory Government to take this step?

  “Surely Parliament must take a hand without delay. After all, the Minister of Labour and National Service have power to serve the strikers with their call-up papers.”

It is only fair to add that the Liberal Manchester Guardian protested at the Government’s action.

#    #    #    #

Co-operative Strike Beating

The Cooperative movement long ago forgot its origins and is just another Capitalist trading organization. But it does not so regard itself. It claims to be a movement to help the workers and is in direct association with the Labour Party and T.U.C. The following heading and extract is from an article in Cooperative News (11/6/55). They show that the trading operations of the Cooperative movement, conducted according to normal Capitalist rules within the framework of Capitalism, create precisely the same outlook as is to be found in any other trading concern. ‘

“Beat-the-Strike measures are in full swing 

  "By using their own transport and in some cases working late into the night, co-operative societies throughout the country are beating the rail strike. Coal supplies, which are the hardest hit, are being carried by societies' own lorries from the pitheads.
  “At Derby Society, coal department employees worked throughout last week-end restocking the coal yards. With the society’s own vehicles and tipper lorries borrowed from the building department, the society built up a sufficient stock to satisfy present demands.”

Of course those responsible for this will indignantly retort that they could not do anything else in the circumstances. Too true. Those who think they can "beat the Capitalists at their own game” have no choice but to strive to preserve the great illusion they have created.

#    #    #    #

Educational Progress?

At the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers the President, Mr. Frank Barton had something to say about the educational system. After mentioning that the hopes roused by the Butler Education Act had still not been fully realised, he said:—

  "Is this really surprising? Popular education has always had a parsimonious existence. It was conceived in poverty, born in penury, cradled in privation, and nurtured in frugality.
   “Unfortunately the niggardly attitude which characterised its introduction still persists. In this respect some local administrators are as much to blame as the central Government. Taking into account the increased numbers of pupils and the inflationary value of the pound, we are spending less to-day on educating the children of this country than we spent before the war. This can hardly be called progress.
   “Too many of our children are still being educated in overcrowded, under-heated, unhygienic, and badly lighted conditions. It is regrettable that one solution to the shortage of classrooms has been the utilisation of ugly nineteenth-century buildings with dark, dungeon-like passages." (Manchester Guardian, 30/5/55.)

Edgar Hardcastle

Nationalisation—The Labour Party's Millstone (1955)

Editorial from the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the minds of supporters and opponents alike the the Labour Party has always been associated with Nationalisation and up to 1945, it was a popular item in that party's, programme. It had the attractions of novelty and to “progressives,” including some in the Liberal and Tory parties, it promised to be a happy blend of warm idealism with practical realism. For the candidate at elections it was the way to win friends and influence voters. Now, saddening experience has taken off the bloom. Fewer than half the electors can be induced to vote for the party that sponsored it and those who really love it are fewer still. This does not worry the S.P.G.B., for we never had any illusion about it and never supported it; but for the Labour Party it is a disaster. In the fifty years since our formation in 1904, while we were warning the workers not to waste their time on nationalisation, because at most it could solve only Capitalist problems, the Labour Party were polarising it, campaigning for it, and resting their hopes for continued electoral victory on nationalisation proving a success.

We, too, were partly wrong. We were right in saying that nationalisation would solve no working class problem but we are now faced with the situation that British Capitalists decided, at least for the present, that nationalisation is of little use to them either.

It is not difficult to explain this. In the long boom years since the war it has been easy to sell and easy to make profits, and it is only the Capitalist whose wealth is invested in declining or depressed industries who looks hopefully on being bought out by the Government. Another reason, one that influences manufacturers and traders as a whole, is that the nationalised industries, notably coal and transport, have not given the anticipated low charges high efficiency and freedom from strikes. They may be wrong about this. It may be that the same industries left in private hands would have served the great body of Capitalists even worse; but be that as it may many of them have reached the conclusion that the experiment has failed them.

The attitude of the Labour Party leaders in this, to them, alarming situation has been confused and disingenuous. Some have thought it best to stick to the old propaganda because that is what their supporters are used to, while others have thought it expedient to try to find new ways of winning votes. So in the recent election the Conservatives found themselves fighting a divided and dispirited Labour army—those at the back pushed for more nationalisation while those at the front tried to keep their one-time favourite child, out of sight.

Indeed, some of them are now pretending that the Labour Party never really did attach more than minor importance to nationalisation, though the evidence of their former declarations proves this to be an absurd distortion of the facts.

In 1929, for example, the late Arthur Henderson, who was a Minister in the two Labour Governments of 1923-4 and 1929-31, and became Leader of the Party in 1931, made a forthright declaration that nationalisation was the fundamental issue dividing the Labour Party from its opponents. This was in the Foreword to a pamphlet, “The Success of Nationalisation,” written by Thomas Johnston, another prominent member of the Labour Party. This is what Mr. Henderson had to say:—

  "This pamphlet deals with a fundamental issue of modem politics. Nationalisation is a much abused word, and its meaning is often misunderstood and misrepresented. But as a matter of principle and policy it represents the dividing line between the Labour Party and the orthodox parties whose historical supremacy it has so successfully challenged.”

and again, after identifying nationalisation with Socialism, Mr. Henderson wrote:—

  “More clearly than ever as the political parties develop their respective economic policies, it can be seen that Nationalisation is the dividing issue between them.” (Italics his.)

The claims the Labour Party made for nationalisation in those days were varied: some to appeal to the Capitalist, some to appeal to the workers.

In “The Modern Case for Socialism,” published in 1928, Mr. A. W. Humphrey, a member of the Labour Party, quoted with approval the argument used by Chiozza Money (a Liberal who later supported the Labour Party) that nationalisation of the railways would provide cheap transport for manufacturers. Money had quoted the charges made by the privately run British railways by contrast with those on the German State railways: “The charge for carrying hardware from Birmingham to Newcastle (207 miles) was 15/- per ton, but from Dortmund to Rotterdam (153 miles) was 10/- per ton” (p. 195).

A second line of sales-talk for nationalisation was that it would improve the relations between employers and employed; which has an odd flavour now when strikes in the nationalised coal mines and on the railways are the order of the day.

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, twice Prime Minister in Labour Governments, developed this theme in his “Socialism: Critical and Constructive” (first published in 1921, re-issued in 1924 and 1929). He not only promised that this better relationship would develop but quoted an example that had, he said, come to his notice in some country (unnamed) where an industry had been nationalised.

  “They would never dream of going back to the old bad relationship. The managers themselves were happier in their work and found far more heartiness in it. The men had abandoned of their own free will the most provocative restrictions which they had enforced—or tried to enforce— as a protection against Capitalism, and which undoubtedly hampered production." (1929 edition, p. 169.)

That was the hope. We have recently seen the reality in the railway strike. Mr. Baty, general secretary of the strikers’ union the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, made the following statement to the Sunday Express (5 June, 1955):—

  “I agree one was entitled to expect an improvement in labour relations under the new set-up. But, in fact, they have deteriorated very considerably."

One of the arguments of MacDonald and other Labour leaders was that under nationalisation the old concern of the Railway Directors with the financial aspect would disappear. Mr. Baty, on the contrary, says of the nationalised railways:—‘The men at the top . . . are always looking round to see how they can avoid this or that item of spending.”

One ironical incident of the railway strike was the resolution passed by 1,000 strikers at Willesden demanding the dismissal of the members of the British Transport Commission (Daily Worker, 13/6/55). This Commission includes former officials of the locomen’s union and the N.U.R.!

Still another illusion of the Labour Party was that nationalisation would reap big profits and enable these to be used, at least in part, for the benefit of the workers. The late Philip Snowden, another leader of the Labour Party, put this in his "If Labour Rules” (1923, page 27)

  “Nationalisation would place at the disposal of the State the means of raising the standard of life of large numbers of workers.”

This may be judged by the recent complaint of the railway unions that their members wages have fallen behind the levels of private industries..

It was the belief of the Labour Party before it came to power that as industries were nationalised the benefits falling to grateful workers and grateful users would generate enthusiasm for more nationalisation and win ever increasing support for the Party responsible.

They can no longer believe in this and the election delivered a blow to their hopes in the Cleveland division where live many workers employed by Imperial Chemical Industries. During the campaign the threat was made that a future Labour Government would nationalise that firm, or part of it; which I.C.I. countered with a scheme of profit-sharing. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (18/5/55) reported that the Conservatives made this a prominent issue and that “trade unionists within the industry have reported that the men are threatening not to vote at all in the election.”

After the election the Economist (4/6/55) commented:—

   “A final striking result was the cut in Mr. Palmer's majority in the unchanged Labour seat of Cleveland, from 5,481 to 181; the workers in this constituency are largely employed by Imperial Chemical Industries, which Labour has promised to nationalise.”

The election has been followed by the Conservative Prime Minister’s announcement that his Government intends to encourage companies to introduce schemes of profit-sharing and co-partnership. The Tories now think that they can win votes by promising such schemes in place of nationalisation.

It only needs to add that the Socialist Party will criticise profit-sharing as it has always criticised nationalisation, and for the same reason; that Socialism is what the workers interest requires not the perpetuation of Capitalism whether as private Capitalism or as State Capitalism.

Party News Briefs (1955)

Party News from the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ealing Branch. Ealing Branch’s special May sales drive has been an overwhelming success. 53 dozen S.S. were sold altogether and the response of members was truly heartening. No doubt the target for the next campaign will have to be raised to 60 dozen. What is really required, however, is an even greater number of members to take up canvassing; with double the response from members, the sale of a 1,000 S.S. a month would be well within our powers.

The first of the Branch’s propaganda trips to Southsea (on 5th June), was very successful. Two carloads of members made the journey. The weather, for once, was fine, and a useful outdoor meeting was held all the afternoon. A second trip is projected later in the season.

The experiment of running the Ealing Green meetings on Saturday afternoon instead of the evening has met with a reasonable degree of success so far. Members are asked to do their best to support the meetings, which promise well.

The Branch is doing very well in most spheres at the moment. There is plenty of activity and interest, and attendance at Branch meetings is good and consistent. Some new members have been made or acquired and these have given useful support at a time when we are in urgent need of extra “manpower.” Ex-members and sympathisers are asked to contact the Branch and help play their part in further expanding the influence and activity of the Party in the area.


S.W. London Branch wish to contact Comrade Carnell, who has moved from the district and as the Branch is unable to contact him as they are unaware of his new address. The Secretary of the Branch at Head Office, 52, Clapham High Street, would be pleased to have news of Comrade Carnell.


Members and sympathisers are reminded that a list of Party pamphlets is given in this issue and the Literature Committee will be pleased to forward copies on request. Prices of pamphlets and postage rates are mentioned in the list. A subscription form for the Socialist Standard is also in this issue.

Although the weather has not been very helpful, it is hoped that when conditions permit, members will support outdoor propaganda meetings as often as possible. It makes the speaker’s job easier if members are at hand to help out with literature sales and to form a nucleus of an audience at meetings.

Branch Directory on back page of the Standard. There are several alterations this month regarding meeting days and change of secretaries addresses, so please refer to this in case your branch is one that has changed details.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Note:

From the same issue, see also 'Ealing Branch May Sales Drive'.

Speed and commerce at Le Mans (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The tragedy at Le Mans, French automobile racing venue, on 13th June during the 24-hour “endurance” test in which one of the drivers crashed to death among the spectators, 85 of whom were killed and others injured, is a grim reflection of the price men pay in the quest for speed—or so it appears on the surface.

The question arises, why all this speed? Why should men risk their lives in order that a German “Mercedes” shall “lick” an Italian “Ferrari,” or an English “Jaguar” prove faster than both? Surely speed for speed’s sake is not the only reason for ignoring a death roll of 85 and risking a repetition? Let Mr. Charles Faroux, Le Mans director, answer our queries. According to the Bristol Evening World, of 13th June, he says:

   “In an interview with the Paris newspaper Figaro: ‘Immediately after the accident I was asked to stop the race. In spite of the horror of the situation. I did not think the sporting trial should be stopped. The British set the example three years ago at Farnhorough. Even when a disaster of such frightful proportions occurs, the rough law of sport dictates that the race shall go on.’ "

After excusing himself on the grounds of a precedent set by the British and claiming what he describes as the dictates of the “rough law of sport"—Mr. Faroux finally comes to the point and lets the proverbial cat out of the bag.

  “M. Faroux said that if the race had been stopped . . . ‘Firms could have sued us for hundreds of millions of francs, arguing that we had made them lose terrific advantages obtained by a victor in the 24-hour Le Mans Race.’ ’’ (Bristol Evening World, 13th June.)

Apparently it’s the dictates of the “rough” law of commerce that worries Mr. Faroux. but in the trying circumstances he can be excused a little confusion of words. And so on with the race, despite the dead and dying, for what is at stake here is big business—national prestige and the sales that go with it for firms with a stake in the winning car. Be it engines, fuel, or sparking plugs, tyres, or even brake linings—there’s nothing like a win at Le Mans for pulling in the orders, human flesh and blood notwithstanding. Like all other commodities, cars are produced for sale only, and fast cars sell faster than slow ones in the same price range. Thus, rival firms compete against one another in the seething, constant struggle for trade which is expressed in incidents like Le Mans, with safety margins cut to beyond the limit. This is only one of the many facets of Capitalist trading conditions, which as we said earlier on, appears to be a question of speed—in actual fact it is a problem along with wars, poverty, slums and the H-Bomb. One cannot be solved without each other. Capitalism produces these problems; Socialism alone can bring an overdue end to them. Through the abolition of his wage- slave system, man will finally master his domestic affairs.

G. R. Russell

From Peons to Ions? (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the Party’s inauguration over half a century ago it has untiringly persevered with its case for Socialism, by the printed word, the street corner speakers, the platforms in public places—wherever the workers could be attracted, calling upon the world working class to end its problems of poverty, insecurity and mass slaughter.

The Party’s irrefutable case, built on the materialist conception of history, has analysed the capitalist system with all its contradictions and shown the synthesis of this outmoded economic system, which is the only inevitable road humanity can eventually take—in a word— SOCIALISM.

Only the world’s working class can establish this and ensure for the generations of the future the fuller, happier existence which is their natural goal. So far, sufficient numbers of the working class have not united for this common purpose. Nevertheless as it becomes more and more clear that capitalism has outlived its usefulness in social evolution, there accompanies it the hope that the workers will decide to speed the progress by understanding, desiring and determining to establish a Socialist society.

Now for many, possibly the majority, the sands could be running out. The choice and ability of changing society may not continue in its role of a latent probability in the good time of the working class. Today humanity is fast coming face to face with an ultimatum—one which may be utter and final—the fact of thermo-nuclear fission. The choice is becoming oppressive, the decision vital; be politically active or become radio-active. Change the social system of monopoly and privilege for the few, and the defence of these by the victims of the many or become radio-active vapour dominated by the capricious winds.

It is preferable to be integrated in a carefree world of humans, than disintegrated in universal infinitude as radio-active ions. The choice is the prerogative of the working class—socialise or ironize!

C. G. C.

The Outlook for China (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is becoming more typical of the stultified mental attitude of “schools higher learning” that they refuse to allow the most innocuous controversial subjects to be discussed and debated. In the growing atmosphere of fear and thought control which is prevalent today, the prohibition of academic debates between Annapolis, West Point and other collegians on the subject of the recognition of China caused even a most conservative President of the United States to state in his weekly press conference that he himself would have allowed such debates. Though the subject of the debate is of prime importance to the ruling classes and is considered quite a knotty problem by them, what are some of the fundamental issues involved in the whole China question, and who has the answers?

What will it be—Recognition of China or War, hot or cold? Will it be “peaceful coexistence ” or the culmination of modern science, mass slaughter by fusion. The problem of relationships of the United States with China as part of the world wide competition of nationalist states, is one aspect of the never ending struggles of capitalist powers. Drastic and swift as the changes in tactics may be, the current policy of U.S. Capitalism is that there will be no major war for a while, and that the economic competition will determine supremacy.

In line with the emphasis on economic development the Foreign Operations Administration is presenting estimates to the Bureau of the Budget. Military programmes will be cut down in Europe and economic programmes in Asia will be expanded. Economic aid to the countries surrounding China will be greater in 1955 than the $1,200,000,000 expended in 1954. Note well that it is the Government which is planning all this. State planners all, on either side!

Rapid Growth
China, it is feared, is developing faster economically than the “free countries” of Asia. Although there are no exact statistics on Chinese capital investment, ex-Premier Shigeru Yoshida of Japan estimated that the rate of capital investment in China was twice that of other Asian countries. The United States which poured billions of dollars into Nationalist China only to have it washed down the drain, still is trying to create, develop and control the market in Asia. With its tremendous economic strength the United States is attempting to contain the embryonic development of state capitalism in China. As a measure of the strength of the rivals, the gross national product, the total value of all production, in 1954 is expected to be between $350,000,000,000 and $360,000,000,000 for the United States, $200,000,000,000 for Western Europe, $160,000,000,000 for Russia and all her allies, and about $73,000,000,000 for the other Asian countries. China’s industrial development is, of course, now just beginning to accelerate.

What is transpiring in China is not Socialism, no more Socialism than there is in the U.S.S.R. Ruthless as were and are the methods of Russian State Capitalism, the child bids fair to outdo the parent. In the purges carried out since 1949 the total number executed is estimated at well over 10,000,000. Communist bureaucrats have replaced the larger land owners and the urban merchants who were mercilessly executed. Peiping, even after the purges, still officially claims a population of 582,000,000 in all of China. About 80 per cent. are peasants cultivating two acres of land or less. Josue de Castro in his “Geography of Hunger” well documents the chronic famines which periodically starved to death millions of Chinese, and the constant hunger which over two thirds of the population suffer. Land reform was eagerly received by millions of peasants even though they only received an acre or two at the expense of the wealthier landlords, who themselves might have had only five to 20 acres at the most. However, when Peiping undertakes to collectivize 100,000,000 peasant families within the next decade force indeed will be the midwife of collectivization, and the costs will be even higher than in Russia where millions died in the collectivization attempt.

Anti-Working Class
Communist apologists seem to glory in the death of millions as some sort of historical necessity. They, like the Nationalists who preceded them in power, take pride in their toughness and ruthlessness. A Socialist may ask whether this is the means by which will be made “the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.” Socialists think not. Socialists think that promoting the understanding of the meaning of Socialism in the majority of working class heads is of more importance in achieving Socialism than the bludgeoning of working class beads to achieve economic progress in backward countries.

The rapid industrialization of China will require large amounts of capital. Some of this capital will come from Russia. Certain countries of the West would also like to find a market in China for their capital goods. Whether under the direction of the entrepreneur, corporation or state, "capital is value that breeds surplus value.” Of all the commodities involved the commodity labour-power is the only one which "creates during its consumption a greater value than it itself possesses.” The Chinese State unhindered by any organized opposition of the workers will attempt to secure this labour-power at a price lower than its value, low as its value is by Western standards. Even then, as elsewhere, the efficiency of the worker must be increased and he requires more of the means of life to replace the energy expended. The value of the labour power of the Chinese worker is determined like that of an American worker. It is determined by the labour-time socially necessary for its production and its reproduction. However, as Marx wrote, “in contrast to other commodities a historical and moral element enters into the determination of the value of labour power.” Therefore, if there will be increases eventually in the standard of living under State Capitalism, they will be increases which are consonant both with the development and needs of capitalism, and also the results of the struggle to sell labour-power as a commodity to the state at its increased value.

The realization that its mode of production is far inferior to that of the West impels the Chinese State to tremendous effort in the economic sphere. It is part of the dialectic of world development that some day will bring Socialism. Socialism is far from being established in China. Though the pessimist may echo the same sentiment about the advanced capitalist countries of the West, they are at least one step nearer. China is merely following the industrialization pattern of countries like Japan and Russia.

While someday the Chinese will produce automobiles instead of rickshaws, will produce all the various consumer 1 and capital goods that the industrialized West produces, and the commissars of the “People’s Democracy” will delude them with the propaganda that they have advanced into Socialism, the status of the Chinese workers will still be that of workers of the world over—wage slaves for a master class. Until this relationship is done away with there will be no Socialism.

W.

(From Western Socialist, Jan.-Feb. 1955).

Modern Times (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Rev. Frederick Thompson, chaplain of Lewes Prison, is reported as saying: “It is extraordinary the number of prisoners who do not want to go out again because they have not a happy home to go to.” (Daily Express, 25/3/55). One is reminded of a scene from the film “Modern Times.” Chaplin, because of his part in stopping a jail break, has been given preferential treatment. The prison is visited by a sanctimonious parson and his wife, after the parson and the governor have discussed Charlie’s record. The Governor informs Charlie that he is now a free man, but Chaplin pleads to be allowed to stay a bit longer, preferring his life in prison to the dubious joys of his new-found freedom. However, he has to be free, whether he likes it or not, and apparently the same can be said of many of the prisoners from Lewes Prison. What an indictment on present day society, this so-called civilisation gets more like the madhouse every day.

Phil Mellor

50 Years Ago: Ethics and the Class Struggle (1955)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The victory of the Socialist working-class is the only possible ending of this great struggle. This, however, does not mean the subjection of the Capitalist class by the workers: it means the abolition of Capitalism and the end of classes, for the great unprivileged masses cannot secure equality of opportunity without abolishing class privilege, and privilege is based on private property. The triumph of the great working majority thus involves the emancipation of all from class oppression, for the interests of the toiling masses are fundamentally the interests of humanity.

Socialism, is then, the ethics of humanity, the necessary economic foundation of a national code of morality. The interests of the human race are bound up with the aspirations of the oppressed working-class in its struggle with Capitalist domination. As it has very truly been said: “Militant, the workers’ cause is identified with class; triumphant, with humanity.”

From the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Ealing Branch May Sales Drive (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ealing branch’s sales drive of the Socialist Standard during May was very successful; a total of 636 copies were sold, of which 283 were to new subscribers reached by the door-to-door canvass. The attendance of canvassers was always good—a number of members tried their hand for the first time and found the work a most agreeable appetiser for their Sunday roast beef and Yorkshire. New areas were canvassed in Brentford, Hounslow, White City, Eastcote (worked by one member on his own) and East Acton. 170 copies were sold to people who have been taking the STANDARD on the door long enough to count as “ regular readers.” 

Canvassing is not all hard work; or rather, it is work with a spice to it Half-a-dozen comrades working on a street is an exhilarating sight; going from door to door, chinking the money, noting addresses for a call next month. Aqd there are good times afterwards, in the café or the “pub” with long talks and the atmosphere of comradeship thick like smoke in the air.

There are moments of humour too. Some time ago the STANDARD appeared with an article about football on the front page. One Ealing member, canvassing this issue, was confronted by a young woman. “I'll ask Dad if he wants it” she said, turning to call, “Dad! Do you want a book about football?” “No, I don’t!” came Dad’s reply, "You know I’m only interested in politics!”

Two members were covering a block of flats on a main road one windy morning in May and they agreed to split up and meet outside when each had finished his stint. The one who finished last, on coming out into the street, was surprised to see his companion darting and stooping this way and that in the middle of the road, avoiding the traffic with a palpitating turn of speed and agility. First reactions were that he had cracked under the strain (he is the branch literature secretary) and had taken leave of his sanity. But before the ambulance could be called he returned, breathless and oily, clutching a grubby scrap of paper on which he noted his sales for the morning. A passing wind, he explained, had whipped it from his hand into the road and it was valuable enough to take a few risks to recover!

All the effort in canvassing sifts itself down, over the years, into a hard core of regular readers. The Ealing member who has been taking the STANDARD to some of our older subscribers is almost a member of their families —they invite him in for coffee, lie takes them presents of sweets, has even visited them in hospital. They are good friends of the party, who really read our literature and. as one woman said, “... sit round the fire of an evening talking about the STANDARD.” An average of hours of work went into reaching each of these people. But they are overwhelmingly worth every second of it.

Ivan.

English Social Democratic Parties (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Neither Marx, who died in 1883, nor Engels, who died in 1895. were impressed by the early efforts made in England to advance the Socialist movement. Social Democratic Parties did not make their appearance until the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In the eighties the Social Democratic Federation, the Fabian Society, and the Socialist League, made their appearance, and in the nineties the Independent Labour Party. Of these parties the Socialist Democratic Federation and the Socialist League claimed to be based upon Marxism but the other two spurned “ imported ” ideas and based their “Socialism” upon “reason,” “justice,” John Stuart Mill and Stanley Jevons, liberally mixed with religion and out-of-date philosophical ideas. All of them, however, had three common characteristics; they had programmes of immediate demands that were similar, they took their starting points from the class division in society, and, although they fought each other with considerable vigour and vituperation they exchanged writers and lecturers impartially and combined for various purposes such as mass celebrations and protests against particular acts of Capitalist tyranny.

The movement that led up to the formation of these organisations was the offspring of a number of different organisations centred in Liberal-Radical clubs, groups of. freethinkers, land reformers, and admirers of Thomas Davidson—the American advocate of communities to “live the Higher Life.” who delivered some lectures in England about that time. An acute trade depression in 1879-1880 and another in 1884 contributed to the growth of these movements as also did the propaganda of Henry George, whose book, “ Progress and Poverty,” was published in 1880. Some of those who took part in founding the new parties had come into personal contact with Marx and Engels although the latter, who were not greatly interested in them, were engrossed with the progress of the movement abroad.

Looking at the literature with which the Social Democratic movement commenced one is struck by its general lack of punch and lack of concentration upon essentials. The single-mindedness, the passion, and the vigour of the Chartist movement had not been recovered. The people who were in the van[guard] of the new movement appeared to speak and write in a condescending manner, as if from outside the working class; some of them became prominent in art, literature, science, diplomacy, and spiritualism. Among these were William Morris. Walter Crane, Bernard Shaw, William Archer, Frank Harris, Havelock Ellis, Sydney Olivier and Annie Besant, although the most outstanding figures, from a theoretical standpoint, were H. M. Hyndman. Belfort Bax and Edward Aveling (the son-in-law of Marx). Frederick Lessner, an old member of the Communist League, and the International, also took a leading part in the movement although he tells us that Engels poked fun at him for his activities.

The real beginning of the movement appears to have been the formation of the Democratic Federation in 1881, although the Labour Emancipation League founded about the same time under the influence of Joseph Lane, had a clearer outlook and a more definitely working class basis. The Democratic Federation was founded by a group of radicals whose leading spirit was H. M. Hyndman, a man in a comfortable social position who had read Marx’s “Capital” on a journey to the United States in 1880 and was later an occasional visitor to Marx's house. Hyndman published the results of his reading in a little book under the tide of “England for All” in 1881. In the preface to this book he made a reference to the fact that he was indebted to the work of Marx but did not mention Marx’s name, and neither Marx nor Engels ever forgave him for this omission. It appears to us that they were unduly sensitive and suspicious. The actual wording of the paragraph of which they had complained was as follows:

"For the ideas and much of the matter contained in Chapters II and III I am indebted to the work of a great thinker and original writer, which will, I trust, shortly be made accessible to the majority of my countrymen.”

Marx looked upon Hyndman as one who had pillaged his writings, and done so badly, for the purpose of his own aggrandisement. The last sentence of the above quotation, however, does not bear this out as he called attention to, and anticipated the publication of, the work upon which he had drawn. Whatever may be said against much of Hyndman’s practical activity he certainly did more than any other writer and lecturer to popularise both Marx’s name and his theoretical ideas when they were little known in England, and he got little but scorn for his work.

As the Democratic Federation became more outspoken in its opposition to the Capitalistic basis of society it frightened away more and more of its Liberal- Radical support. At a conference in August, 1884, the name of the Federation was changed to the Social Democratic Federation and at the same time it adopted, with some modifications, the Object and most of the programme of the Labour Emancipation League, which joined forces with it. The object of the Federation was now proclaimed to be “The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the Principle of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for All, and the Complete Emancipation of Labour"; a vague and unsatisfactory Object that left room for different interpretations and marked the limited political understanding of those who adhered to it. Attached to the Object was a nine point programme, and a list of palliatives for immediate attention. The programme was apparently intended to be a picture of the shape of future society, as the list of palliatives are preceded by the phrase “as measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption,” etc., and then follows a number of reforms such as the extinction of the National Debt. State ownership of the railways, national banks, cumulative taxation upon all incomes above a certain level, and so on. Two items in the part defined as the programme arc a striking example of the confusion in the minds of the founders of the Federation. Here are the two items: “All officers or administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community” and “The Means of Production Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property.” Thus the founders of the Federation had in their minds a society in which common ownership of the means of production would exist side by side with an exchange of products through the medium of money. In spite of the acceptance of theoretical statements and arguments derived from Marx’s work they had not grasped the fact that money is only required where exchange exists, and exchange only exists where there is private ownership of property.

To-day we are witnessing some of the fruits of this false and dangerous conception when State Capitalism, with all the paraphernalia of buying and selling, wage slavery, profits, and millionaires, is propagated by labour parties as an example of Socialism in being. When the means of production are commonly owned by the whole of society there will be neither the place nor the need for the exchange of products, they will simply be distributed according to the needs of people, and therefore money will disappear as it will have no function to perform. It appears to us that the confusion has arisen partly from a failure to grasp the implications of common ownership and partly from the occasional use by Marx and Engels, in some of their writings, of the expression "means of exchange ” to denote means of distribution like transport, centres of distribution, and so forth. Unfortunately, the

Social Democratic Federation retained the reference to the common ownership of the “means of exchange” throughout the whole of its existence and thus helped to fortify the nonsensical views of numerous currency cranks. It may be added that if all the reforms advocated by the Federation had been accomplished the fundamental condition of the workers would have remained unchanged and yet, although 60 years have passed since they were framed, most of them are still the subject of wasted agitation.

Another booklet written by Hyndman, “Socialism Made Plain” which had been adopted by the 1883 Conference of the Democratic Federation, was now published as the official Manifesto of the Social Democratic Federation. Tacked on to this Manifesto were proposals for the State organisation of the unemployed, one item of which is a specimen of the feebleness of the rest. The first proposal is: “That no Government servant be employed at his or her present wages for a longer period than eight hours in each day. This alone would give room for many now out of work, seeing that the ordinary hours of work in the Post Office and other State Establishments are from ten to twelve hours, or more, in the day.” If the framers of this proposal had looked back over the previous 20 or 30 years they would have seen that, although hours of work were gradually being reduced, unemployed figures were steadily going up. What they overlooked was that as long as a system of production exists that is rooted in buying and selling for the purpose of profit, unemployment is one of its essential and permanent features. Under Capitalism unemployment can neither be abolished nor even reduced to small dimensions permanently. If there were no unemployed to threaten the security of the employed there would be nothing to stop wage demands of the workers from eventually reaching a point that would threaten the existence of the profit upon which the Capitalist lives. While the Capitalists retain control of the political machinery and the workers remain politically ignorant such a threat to the basis of the system will not be allowed to become operative. It is true that during and since the last war the workers have been in a strong position, which they have only used to a limited extent, but these times will pass away, as the experience after the first Great War demonstrated.

Gilmac.

(To be continued)

Five Minutes on Socialism - No.2 (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our last talk in the April issue we discussed, briefly, the economic and philosophic basis of Socialism and also the erroneous statement that Socialism exists in Russia, China and other countries applying totalitarian techniques.

China's industrial background is one of foreign exploitation by British, French, Japanese and others. This resulted in two-fold opposition—from the workers and from the educate propertied class who were envious of the foreign exploiters.

The Communists fermenting this situation, expounded the role of patriotism and National Independence as being a working class issue. The result of this teaching (which still continues) can be seen in the recent struggle for internal power among the leaders resulting in the purging of some few weeks ago. If Russia's experience is any example, the spate should increase. The final results may well provide a future struggle between China and Russia. In the long run the situation will become clearer as the Chinese workers realise that they suffer as much exploitation from their own ruling class as they did from the "foreign devil." Socialists here again differ from all other parties when they say that the quarrels between various Capitalists groups are of no concern of the workers of their respective countries.

It is held by some that Socialism means "share with your neighbour" and knowing his neighbour, very often the worker is not so keen. "Anyway," says the worker, "religion teaches this I want to apply it." Socialism does not say this. Socialism means the Social ownership of the means of wealth. It is claimed that we owe the production of wealth to outstanding men of ability and that the creation of a "common denominator" of living will result in a lack of initiative. Such people should enquire into how Capitalism has rewarded its inventors, etc. Hargreaves, inventor of the "Spinning Jenny," suffered from dishonest manufacturers and died in want. John Kay, inventor of the "Flying Shuttle," starved to death. And one could go in this fashion.

Socialism is now possible but under Capitalism ownership remains the prerogative of a minority class. When production and inventiveness are no longer shackled to the profit system but serve the advancement of all, then, and only then, will initiative be given real encouragement.

W. Brain

The Films (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

From time to time Hollywood gives us a film which is worthy of our attention. In this category we may place On The Waterfront, The Barefoot Contessa, and more recently Marty. All these films present not only a high standard of technical skill and acting ability, but also, and this is what makes them particularly interesting, an unusually accurate reflection upon some parts of contemporary life.

This is perhaps most obvious in Elia Kazan's On The Waterfront. It is the story of the docker who is gradually awakened to the reality of the life around him; of his increasing antagonism, his rebellious stirrings, and his final successful combat with the crooked union bosses. This is a film to see not only because of the skill which has gone into its making, but also because it rings true.

The Barefoot Contessa is as subtle as On The Waterfront is obvious. Here is a biting satirical essay upon wealth and power. There are lines in the film which one feels had they appeared in a film of five years ago, would have resulted in the writer making a sprightly appearance before the Un-American Activities Committee.

Of the three, however, Marty is undoubtedly the pick. Here is a film which is pure joy. No great Hollywood epic this, but the simple tale of the search of a very ordinary American, a butcher by profession, for a spouse. The whole thing reads as true to life as the usual product is false. No de-luxe kitchens, no stupendous cars and fashionable clothes, no slinky blonde who makes the rest of her sex pale into masculine insignificance, this is reality; and because it is is real it pulls at the heart strings and tugs at the emotions with devastating effect. There can be few people who could possibly sit through this film without recognising their own experience as they flash before them on the screen.

This is a film about real people living in a real world. Here are depicted social problems of this day and age, problems of loneliness, of old age, of inadequate housing, of artificial social values; they are all paraded before us. The film has no answer to these problems, even though hero and heroine are reunited at the end of the final reel, but at least it has the courage to pose them. We can but hope that this trend in realism, which has already been felt—particularly in the Italian and Mexican film, will be continued, and that the cinema public will not only become aware of life's problems but also realise their solution.

Michael D. Gill