News in Review: Freedom Riders (1961)

The News in Review column from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Freedom Riders

Nobody need be surprised at the reception which was given to the Freedom Riders in Alabama. Race hatred, with its violent undertones, still festers in The Deep South. When we remember this, the 'sit in' victories seem to have been too easy.

Neither should we wonder at the brutality of the Montgomery mob. Colour bars cannot be justified by scientific argument, because there is no evidence to support them. Violence is simply a substitute for reason. Here is fertile ground for the ignorant, vicious mobster to flourish unhealthily.

We should remember that many of the Southerners who are fighting so hard to keep the Negro down also fought not so long ago in a war which, we were told, was for racial freedom.

We can see now what that assurance was worth. Racial freedom cannot be safeguarded by the military victory of one capitalist state over another. It depends upon the ideas of human beings.

Capitalism, with its anomalies and insecurity, breeds many brutal and inhuman ideas. Race hatred is one of them. The Freedom Riders are tackling something which may be bigger than they think.


Kennedy calls

President Kennedy is certainly mobile. His top level visits showed that, after the years of dispute, the American capitalist class still concern themselves deeply with European affairs.

Even after the wars which were supposed to eliminate them, there are still enough conflicts of interest in Europe to start another international blood bath. There is no reason to think that a third world war need begin anywhere else.

Kennedy did not see Macmillan until after his important talks with de Gaulle and Khruschev. Was he reporting on what had been decided, whether Macmillan liked it or not? Was his call at London merely a face-saver for British capitalism?

Certainly, it showed that the days are gone when Britain's gunboat word was law and that international capitalism has new bosses to sort out its problems.

Do summit talks help in this? Experience says no. Eisenhower was one of the latest of the exponents of top man-to-top man chats, but when he left office the world was as far from a secure peace as ever.

In truth the representatives of the ruling class rarely, if ever, talk peace. They talk commerce, strategy, compromise; sometimes threats. Sometimes war. If Kennedy can be taught anything in this, he is probably learning fast


Lord Home in Portugal

Lord Home; according to the people who know him, is a most charming and amiable fellow. A master, perhaps, of tact. An expert at disguising any inner feelings which may embarrass his host. Just the chap, in fact, to send out to be chummy with a dictator.

Lord Home must have needed all of his resource during his Portuguese visit. If at any time he touched on the massacres in Angola, it was doubtless with the greatest of delicacy.

There is no reason to get het up about this. The Foreign Secretary did not go to Portugal to discuss ways of expanding democracy. He went to talk about the usual things: economic interests, strategic zones and bases, exchanges of weapons and so on.

These are the real interests of the nations of capitalism. Beside them, high flown concepts like democracy are insignificant. True, some governments—like the British—profess a deep concern for freedom. But their actions expose their hypocrisy.

Diplomats are the administrators of this hypocrisy. We may sometimes wonder at their cynicism, but we would be wrong to blame them for the faults of an entire social system. Nobody should support capitalism with one hand, and hold up the other in horror at its brutality and suppression.


Stick to your business

Mr. Walter Padley, President of U.S.D.A.W., made the headlines recently for his statement at the Bournemouth Conference of his Union. “Passionate speech brings triumph to Mr. Padley'’ they said.

Was his passion for a £1 a week rise, or for shorter hours? No, he was pleading the cause of the Leader of the Labour Party—of which he is an M.P.—in opposition to the Unilateralists.

The conference spent a whole day discussing Unilateralism. What has this got to do with Trade Unions? Trade Unions were formed long before the Labour Party, with the definite object of fighting encroachments on their members' conditions of work and standard of living by the Capitalist Class, not to solve the problems of a Capitalist Party like the Labour Party. Although the prime aim of the Trade Unions when they formed the Labour Party was to get representatives in Parliament, we now find the tail wagging the dog.

In our view, the sooner the dog has a tail amputation the better. Then perhaps Trade Unions will discuss at Conferences what they are really there for.


New Cunarder

This month, the invitations to tender for the contract to build a replacement for the Queen Mary will go out to the shipbuilders.

There seems to be little prospect that the new Cunarder will be very profitable. The government are sinking £18 million in the venture to keep British shipowners in the scramble for the transatlantic sea traveller.

Cunard argue that the best way of doing this, and of boosting British prestige, is to build a 75,000 tonner. Other shipping companies have their doubts about this.

Some workers may object to the government’s subsidy because they think that it comes out of the income tax and other taxes which they grumble about so much.

Let us set that one at rest. However much the State takes from a worker's wage packet—and however much they leave in it—he still receives, on average, about enough to live on.

The burden of taxation is borne by the capitalist class, which is as it should be. They can afford taxes, and it is their State machine.

The attitudes which the political parties have struck about the new Cunarder may cause some surprise. Why should the Tories be justifying a State subsidy for such an eminent private enterprise? Should not Labour be pleased that the government is helping to build a British prestige winner, and giving work to depressed shipyards to boot?

This is not the first time the requirements of capitalism have persuaded political parties to abandon what they call their principals.


A New Market For Russia

The involvement of the Russian bloc in Cuban affairs must be seen in the context of their desire to penetrate a Latin American economy which hitherto had been the exclusive preserve of Western Capitalism. But even with their huge increase in commerce with Cuba itself, their share in Latin American exports and imports last year was still only about 2 per cent of the area’s total trade, as against 47 per cent for the United States and 29 per cent for Western Europe. However, Russia has embarrassingly large exportable surpluses of petroleum and her highly industrialised satellites, East Germany and Czechoslovakia, urgently require outlets for manufactured goods and capital equipment. Meanwhile within Russia there is a growing demand for foodstuffs such as sugar, coffee, beef and bananas.

Most Latin American countries are utterly dependent upon the export of one or two main crops or raw materials only. Yet it is just these commodities that have suffered a prolonged decline in price in recent years bringing about a continent wide economic crisis. An important factor contributing towards this decline has been the hardening of U.S. tariffs against so many of the products that she herself produces. An even more significant factor, perhaps, has been the increasing competition from the emergent African states and Portuguese colonies. Because of their closer ties with Africa and the somewhat shorter distances for freight the Common Market has many advantages in further developing trade with Africa. We can expect, therefore, that Russian capitalism will seek to profit from this situation with increasing vigour and success.

To strike or not to strike? (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

“If I had my way,” said the gent in the bowler, “I’d chuck the lot into gaol.” “A bunch of layabouts, if you ask me; afraid to work. They don’t give a damn for the country’s exports, either. Do you know, I heard a case the other day . . . ” He was talking (need we say?) about strikers. .

This is fairly typical of the irritation which strikes provoke. When they occur frequently in one particular industry, irritation turns into exasperation. In the last London dock strike, the City's commercial interests made a strong demand for government action against the strikers. There were not many stiff collars in the coffee shops around Leadenhall Street who could be found to disagree with this demand.

This last fact is rather depressing, because it indicates a lack of class interest among a section of the working class. (Tell Stiff Collar that he is a member of the working class and watch him splutter over his coffee!) But those interests exist and sooner or later they operate, whether they are openly recognised or not. Stiff Collar is often compelled to do battle (well-manneredly, of course) for a rise in pay. He sometimes manages to screw a little extra out of his job in expenses, free entertainment and the like. Yet tell him that this is exactly what the docker, with his militant attitude and his little fiddles is doing, and you will find yourself in argument with an angry man.

So let us try to put this strike question in its place. Strikes are inconvenient: we know that. Transport strikes, for example, can cause a lot of suffering to the workers whom they leave stranded. But the strength of a strike is often measured by the inconvenience which it causes: there would be no point in coming out if the strikers’ labour was easily dispensed with. The strike, in fact, is a weapon. If conditions make a weapon necessary, then there is every reason to make sure that it is the most powerful that is possible.

Is there, then, any need to have such a weapon? Are strikes really necessary, or are they just the work of disgruntled and childish layabouts? We all know that we go to work because we must have wages in order to live. Stiff Collar needs them. So does the docker and the dustman. Our employer does not give us our wages as a favour, or because he thinks we have done a good job. They are the price of something we have sold to him; they are the price of our working ability. Whenever something is sold, there is immediately set up a mutually antagonistic relationship of buyer and seller. The buyer’s interests are in paying as little as he can for whatever he is buying and the seller's are in getting the highest price he can. This applies to the sale of a worker's labour power; it expresses the division of interest between employers and employees and the unity of interest among the working class. This is what forces Stiff Collar to ask for his rise, and to work his expense account. This is what brings the docker to strike.

But, says Stiff Collar, some workers are always coming out on strike—and for such silly reasons; does it do anybody any good, to use a weapon so indiscriminately? He has a point there, For, apart from the tactical requirements of a strike—that it should be solid, short and simultaneous—workers should make sure that they only strike for a worthwhile reason. They should strike only for something which is of value to them as workers.

Unhappily, this does not always happen. There are strikes by one set of workers against another, often over trivial disputes. We have all heard of the demarcation strikes in the shipyards, when men downed tools over who should bore holes or who should chalk lines. There have been strikes by ’’white” workers against the employment of ”coloured” workers. Last October, for example, the dustmen of Westminster City Council threatened to strike because a Jamaican had been promoted, so that instead of emptying the dustbins into the dustcart he would be driving the cart. Such strikes are deplorable, because they are aimed against other workers instead of against the employers, and because they ignore the unity of interest which all workers, everywhere, have with each other.

The most recent example of this sort of strike—or threat to strike—came out of the application of the Steel Company of Wales for an import licence to import American coal. S.C.O.W. wants the coal because it is at present about sixteen shillings a ton cheaper than Welsh coal. We might have expected the National Coal Board to contest the application; it is a threat to one of their big markets. But Mr. Robens was dead-heated in his protest by the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers, who also had strong words to say on the matter. “ So long as we are able to produce all the coal we need at home, imports are unnecessary," said Mr. Will Whitehead, president of the South Wales N.U.M. The next day, a delegate conference at Porthcawl passed a motion which threatened to use the miners' “industrial strength” to prevent the importation of the American coal.

We may appreciate the fact that the Welsh miners are anxious to keep their jobs, which they fear will be jeopardised by the cheap American coal. But this, at best, is to see only one side of the coin. For every export from one country is an import into another. What if American car workers struck against the import of British cars into America? Over 130,000 such cars went to the States during 1960. Or if the miners in the countries which import British coal came out on strike in protest? A monthly average of 455,000 tons—including bunkers—went out during 1960. And what about the steel workers in this country? Most of them probably agree with the theory that cheap coking coal means lower steel prices (it doesn't), which means that more British steel may be sold and that their jobs may become more secure. What if they struck in favour of the import of cheap coal from the States?

There is a simple way out of this maze The working class throughout the world, whatever their job or colour of skin, should realize that only one sort of strike is worthwhile. That is one which is aimed at protecting or advancing their interests against their capitalist employers. Such strikes are worthy of wholehearted support from all sections of the working class. Strikes which are directed against other sections of workers can only damage working class interests as a whole, because they attack the very unity in which workers must find their strength.

There is even more to it than that The miners who are resisting the imports of American coal are lighting their employer’s battles. The National Coal Board want to protect their markets, and at the same time they would like to take over the markets which are exploited by the coal industries in other countries. They would also like to control the market for fuel in this country—witness their smart advertising campaign and the financial inducements they offer, in competition with the oil companies, to householders who are thinking of installing central heating. In this, they are just like any other capitalist concern. Certainly, they are no different from the steel companies, who are all in favour of making their own product as cheaply as possible and exporting as much of it as they can but who, as Mr. Whitehead cannily points out, would not like to see cheap Japanese steel pinching the market in Great Britain.

Capitalism is rife with divided interests. The working class, who depend for their living upon selling their mental and muscular energies, should ignore them all, save one. That one is their own interests as a subject class. When they have come to grips with that, they will get down to some fundamental questioning of society. We shall see them all at it. The miners will be doing it, and the steelworker. So will Stiff Collar and the gent in the bowler.

Ivan

The Passing Show: Democracy (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy

We make no apology for returning to the subject of Sir Thomas Moore, the Conservative M.P. for Ayr Burghs. Sir Thomas is the man who advocates a return to flogging and more frequent hanging as the answer to our troubles. But he only supports these punishments in cases of petty violence. Where a dictator is able to carry out a long and widespread campaign of violence, then Sir Thomas (provided he agrees with the tyrant’s brand of politics) is all for it. In the early days of Hitler's regime he was an outspoken supporter of German Nazism; and he is still a loyal champion of Spanish Fascism. On June 7th he wrote to The Times defending General Franco's regime, on the grounds that he imposed "law and order" on the country when, in the thirties, Spain was threatened with "communism on the march to impose its usual stranglehold on freedom”.

Only a week earlier, on May 31st, there had been the news of the sentencing of thirty-two agricultural workers to terms of up to 15 years' imprisonment by a Madrid military court, on the charge of "spreading communist propaganda" (a blanket term which, in Spain, covers any criticism of the regime). This is only the latest of a long series of trials of political opponents which Franco's courts have held since he—having shown himself more successful at violence and killing than his opponents—came to power in the Civil War. These thirty-two farm workers, and the thousands of others in Franco's political jails, would no doubt be interested to learn of Sir Thomas’s contention that Franco seized power in order to forestall an attempt to put a "stranglehold on freedom" in Spain. To defend Franco on these grounds is like giving a medal to a man who saves a child from drowning, only to stab it to death immediately afterwards.

Democracy

But, of course, political freedom need not be Sir Thomas's concern. If the Communists were in power in Spain, they would probably (not necessarily, of of course, as Yugoslavia shows) ally themselves with Russia—which is now the main overseas enemy of the British ruling class. Franco and his Fascists, on the other hand, would come in with the British ruling class in any war against Russia. So Sir Thomas supports Franco, and Mr. Butler goes to Spain as Franco's guest, saying it is a shame that Franco Spain has been left out of things for so long. What do they care for the fact that the Spanish people are deprived of democratic freedoms? Democracy is a useful catchword in time of war: but if the interests of the ruling class demand it, democracy is shrugged off without a second thought.

Borgwards

Just as state control was applied here to rescue the coal and rail shareholders from the complete loss of their investments, so nationalisation—or municipalisation—is used for the same purpose in other countries. A news item from Germany in The Times (7-6-61) ran:

  Dr. Johannes Sender, who took over the direction of the Borgward car manufacturing company in February, said today that the firm would have to cut its staff by another 2,500 people. In March the board empowered the management to dismiss up to 2,500 workers. Borgwards was taken over by the Bremen municipal authorities earlier this year after it ran into financial difficulties.

The local Social Democrats would find the sacked five thousand workers a troublesome audience, if like the Labour Party here, they tried to persuade them that municipatisation was really for their benefit.

Raw material

An advert aimed at capitalists has recently been appearing in the more expensive newspapers. It tries to persuade industrial concerns to move to Durham, or at least to open new works there. Headed “All the workers you need in County Durham," it goes on “good hard workers, ready and willing to learn new skills".  It gives a picture of a crowd of them.

This offering of human beings as promising raw material to employers bent on the extraction of surplus value is surely degrading both to the men themselves and to those who planned and those who read the advertisement. One might advertise cart-horses in much the same way. One of the many advantages of Socialism is that human beings will be considered as human beings, not simply as so much factory-fodder.

Expense accounts

The next time you read figures showing the gross inequality of incomes— after tax—in this country, the next time you hear of the handful who get £120 and £140 per week after tax, compared with the millions who get less than £20 and the millions more who even get less than £10, remember that this is by no means the whole story. The directors' fees, the share dividends are only part of the real income of the owning class Besides the actual money, which is taxed, there are the large allowances on the expense accounts, which are untaxed. So excessive have some of these junketings on expense accounts become in America that the American Treasury investigated the position, and has now released some evidence showing what has been happening. “Safaris in Kenya, lavish living in Las Vegas and in the Caribbean and the maintenance of yachts have all been tax deductible " (The Times 8-5-61). An insurance man was allowed 97,500 dollars for “personal expenses ”. The president of a dairy went on a six-month safari, and took his wife with him: he was allowed $16,443. A corporation which owned luxurious facilities on a sub-tropical island, including its own fishing cruiser, and aircraft to take its executives and their guests down there, was allowed $375,000. A supply firm had its own yacht, ranch and hunting lodges, and was given a tax-allowance of £473,140 to cover its expenditure on them and on night club entertainment. If we can be sure of anything, it is that the ordinary workers in these firms never saw these sub-tropical islands, or the hunting lodges. These devices are simply ways in which owners of firms obtain the means of luxurious living without having to reveal too enormous personal incomes. For to confess their real incomes (apart from the extra tax) would show too clearly to the workers the vast gap which separates the upper from the lower class.

Alwyn Edgar

Finance and Industry: Capitalism's Sensitive Spot (1961)

The Finance and Industry column from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism's Sensitive Spot

It has long been noticed by observers of capitalism that among the crimes it punishes most savagely is anything which affects the sanctity of the currency, In Britain the maximum penalty for counterfeiting gold and silver coins (which includes the current cupro-silver substitutes) is penal servitude for life. Nothing more clearly highlights the essentially capitalist nature of the Russian social system than the news that the extension of the death penalty in that country includes the offences of uttering or passing forged currency or securities, and there are sentences up to five years and confiscation of property for speculators.

According to David Floyd (Daily Telegraph, 2.6.61) a big case is now before the courts of speculators who are alleged to have made 20 million roubles in a year (2½ million at the official Russian exchange rate) by illegal dealings in foreign currencies and gold.


European
 Common Market

In an interesting article on why British capitalism ought to join up with the Continental group (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg and Holland) to form a solid unit with 250 million population, the City Editor of the Sunday Times recently argued that in no other way can capital be found large enough to meet the needs of the coming world grouping There will, he says, be four dominant World Powers, Russia, America, Europe and eventually China; and unless Britain joins in, British capitalism even with government aid will not be able to provide the vast capital needed for large-scale industry, automation, and military developments including rockets. He expresses the opinion that Russia has been spending on rockets as much as the total British cost of arms and armies.

In the 19th century and up to 1939, British capitalism could keep abreast of the development of costly techniques, but can now no longer do so.


The Employers’
Attitude

Because under near "full employment", it has not been quite so easy for employers to discipline the workers as it was before the last war, it is often claimed that worker-employer relationships have undergone a fundamental change. Mr, Appleby, Chairman and Managing Director of the Black and Decker power tools firm, in an interview published in the Evening Standard (29.5.61) expressed a point of view that reads just like any past declaration that the capitalist is in business to make profits, and does so by a mixture of stick and carrot: "Bob Appleby runs the Black & Decker concern here on one main principle which he explains quite bluntly, ’ We are in business to make profits', he says. The more pressures and incentives we can exert on people, the better we shall succeed.' "

Everyone in the factory, from managers downwards, is paid on a basis that includes a considerable element for increasing output.

It seems to have been very for the firm as its profits have gone up in ten years from £260,000 to £575,000.


The Cost
 of Advertising

Though advertising costs are sometimes very high for particular articles, especially when a new product is being launched or there is fierce competition for the market, the total cost of all advertising is not as large as might he expected.

According to an estimate of the expenditure on all forms of advertising made by Dr. Mark Abrahams and published in the Observer (19.3.61) the total in 1960 was £455 million. It has however been rising fast and is expected to touch £500 million this year.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Lesson in Futility (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marches from Aldermaston and Wethersfield, treks from London to Holy Loch. Sit downs and arrests in Whitehall. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Direct Action Groups seem to be more intensely active as the days go by.

What is the Socialist attitude towards these demonstrations? No one can reasonably oppose a spirit of protest against intensifying hideousness in the instruments of war. But to treat the subject, as do the campaigners, in isolation from its causes is to make of C.N.D. an endeavour of impotence and futility. Here, on occasions like the Aldermaston and Wethersfield marches, were organised public protests against nuclear weapons. Yet throughout the whole proceedings there was no expression of antagonism towards the social system of capitalism which imposes upon each of its national capitalist groupings the need to have the most effective means of successfully waging war against their rivals. The leaders—supporters without exception of the existing social order—were cheered to the echo for their references to a capitalist world turning to nuclear disarmament for humanitarian reasons.

It is not inconceivable that governments will eventually give up the thought of waging nuclear war. The latest development in H-bombs has made these weapons so widely destructive that the use of them might well mean the destruction of the coveted markets and the extermination of the coveting capitalists themselves. Thus, to avoid the danger of destroying themselves and the very market expansion they are seeking, the various capitalist groupings, through their governments, may revert to “conventional” warfare.

This, however, is no solace. The colossal funds which governments have provided for the development of nuclear weapons reveals the financial lengths to which they will go to ensure the armament supremacy which, in the capitalist struggle for markets, alone offers a reasonable chance of triumph over rivals. And, now accustomed to greatly increased provisions for defence, they would be quite prepared to spend huge sums on “conventional” weapons.

Who can tell but that these weapons, if multiplied and further developed, would not be just as disastrous as H-bombs? We know, in any case, that with or without the bomb, war takes a sufficiently hideous toll in bloodshed and misery. And in a capitalist system which compels, from time to time, a resort to force, wars will inevitably arise. To denounce “the bomb” whilst acquiescing in the social set-up that brings it into being is contradictory and absurd.

It is for that and the added reason that it draws popular attention from the vital necessity of changing the social order that the Socialist Party of Great Britain opposes the C.N.D. The object of the working class should be the ending of a system which, at worst, offers universal annihilation through H-bombs and, at best, brings death to millions through other destructive alternative weapons.

F. W. Hawkins

The Cuban Cockpit and Castro (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

(1) The Background

In April, the American backed invasion of Cuba by a force of U.S. trained exiles became yet another issue that could have triggered off world war. As the invasion was under way, the American President warned Russia that “in the event of any military intervention by outside force the U.S. is ready to protect this hemisphere against external (our emphasis) aggression ” (Time, 28/4/61.)

America's “egg-heads” had hardly recovered from their exertions in campaigning for the election of President Kennedy, the bright young “progressive", before they were to be distressed and dismayed by the dishonesty and hypocrisy of his policy towards Cuba. Much more important still has been the harmful effect upon the American alliance and the less committed countries within its sphere of influence. The Guardian editorial of the 22nd April summed up these feelings and did not mince its words in the process. “American policy towards Cuba” it said, “has lead to resounding and deserved humiliation. . . .  the Kennedy administration appears to be guilty of deliberate intervention in the internal affairs of another country”. The editorial went on to say as a result the United States had made Dr. Castro stronger than before; she had made his régime still more oppressive and dictatorial; and thrown him still farther into the arms of the Soviet Union. . . .  Neutral governments have universally condemned him (Kennedy). Even in the Western Alliance he has wantonly thrown away much of the good will he previously enjoyed". What the Guardian regretted most of all was that American policy has facilitated Russia’s aim of posing as the “protector of small nations” struggling to free themselves from foreign tutelage. “He has made the watchwords of democracy sound like a camouflage for imperialism ”.

The Guardian summed up the feelings common to most of the junior partners of American Capitalism but we must point out that evoking democracy as a camouflage for attaining normal capitalist objectives pre-dates the Kennedy administration by many, many years. Two hideous world wars were allegedly fought to safeguard “freedom” against dictatorship and militarism but we know otherwise. Now that Russian economic development has reached such a high pitch, who need be surprised that her ruling class attempts to disguise its sordid objectives by hypocritically evoking the ideals of Socialism?

Like Germany and Japan before her, Russian capitalism is a latecomer in the world arena. Necessarily she is on the offensive. The American bloc, of which West Germany and Japan at present form part, is on the defensive. But it is not democratic rights nor the aims of Socialism that motivate their policies. It is the maintenance or enhancement of power, trade and class privilege that each government has as its function.

In January, the Socialist Standard carried an article which pointed out that for a small power to attempt playing off the great powers as a means of fostering its own economic development involves very considerable risks. The chief risk is that in freeing itself from subservience to one overlord it may well be forced to succumb to another. How is Castro faring in this respect? And, much more important so far as the Socialist is concerned, has the working-class in Cuba strengthened its bargaining position and extended its civil rights in the period in which the new ruling élite has been consolidating its position? Certainly, experience elsewhere in the held of bourgeois national revolutions of recent times has not been encouraging.

Throughout the former colonial or semi-colonial world, embryo capitalist classes or would-be capitalist intellectual-military élites are asserting themselves. Their aim is to supplant the foreign interests who, in the process of exploiting the natural resources of those parts, brought into being this rival social class. But just as the old powers find it necessary to disguise their rapacious motives under the cloak of the “struggle for democracy ”, so the new local exploiting class must obscure its cruel rôle in terms of the self-determination of small nations, their national liberation and the establishment of human dignity. As regards the claim of human dignity, it is true that with the ousting of the former colonial power, many an African, an Asian or a Latin American need no longer feel humiliated just because he was born where he was born and was what he was. That is an advance. But is he aware that in becoming a member of the working-class he is to face the greatest humiliation of all? That is that in the eyes of his employers he will not even be an inferior man. He, that is to say his ability to work, will become a mere commodity, to be bought and sold on the market. A cog in the productive process. Such is human dignity in the society into which he is entering.

The Socialist measures working-class progress in terms of its heightening awareness of its needs and aspirations. Consciousness in short, of its liberating rôle in history. Do workers realise the necessity of their building trade-union organisation that is independent of the employing class? Do they know the value of the strike weapon—and its limitations? Do they value and exercise hard won electoral rights and the right to dissent? Do they become more and more convinced of the need for a change in the very basis of present society if humanity is to survive and to reach its proper stature? These are our criteria.

The Nationalist teaches the worker to identify himself with his ruling-class. The Socialist says that the worker has no country and should recognise his common bonds with workers everywhere. Each new state that is set up has as its number one task the inculcation of a sense of differentness into its school-children and of their loyalty to a piece of territory quite arbitrarily arrived at. 

For the past year or so fierce argument has raged amongst Castro's admirers as well as among his critics in the outside world. Those who have viewed the scene through Bolshevik eyes have felt the necessity of “explaining” the social forces behind the Cuban revolution in the set terms of Leninism. Hence efforts have been made to show that, like China, it was the peasants' support that made victory possible as the workers played no great part. Then realising, perhaps, that the peasant's classic demand is for the land he worked and that state-farms (called cooperatives) would replace estate farms more efficiently, a new angle was developed. Truly speaking, they said, those working on the sugar plantations were not peasants at all but sharecroppers hired and fired by the three month season. Concerning the other end of the social scale, it is being debated whether it was a middle-class revolution betrayed because so many of its staunchest professional and managerial supporters have been alienated by now.

These knotty problems can be unravelled, however. According to Geografia de Cuba, a book quoted by Theodore Draper in his well documented article in Encounter last March, the population was more urban than rural and increasingly so. Of the 40 per cent who were dependent upon agriculture for a living over a quarter were classified as farmers and ranchers. The urban population was mostly literate but nearly half the rural population was not. But whatever their category, the mass of the people have readily given their support to a régime that promises to put an end to seasonal unemployment by diversifying agriculture and which is making strenuous efforts to raise the educational level of the people.

India and Brazil stand out as exceptions of great significance but since 1917 virtually every country entering upon the threshold of capitalist production has been failed by such middle-class elements as existed when the change came. Rarely has nature related the perfect juxtaposition of coal and iron that so favoured the pioneers of British capitalism. Coming so much later onto the scene there is the problem of important sections of the working-class being already organised to resist encroachments. Vast sums of money are needed to establish communications. Tariff walls are all around. In these circumstances and bearing in mind the extent to which the middle-class is compromised to the metropolitan power, it falls to a determined and far-sighted section of that class to actually throw off the fetters, often at the expense of some of the comforts and privileges of the class as a whole. Cuba’s capitalist system is being ushered in by a revolutionary élite of this kind who had grasped power on the strength of popular discontent.

(2) Political Democracy

How do the trade-unions fit into all this? Except for a pioneering few that were built up under anarcho-syndicalist influences at the turn of the century, most unions date from a much later period and were set up under Stalinist influence. Nevertheless, within their limits they became quite valuable working-class instruments. Under very great pressure they carried on through the Batista dictatorship and came out more or less intact. This was partly due to the fact that in the early days of the guerrilla war the trade-union movement remained neutral. Support for Castro came from professional and managerial circles who still lacked the constitutional rights promised as long ago as 1940 and from an increasing number of the rural population who saw him as the man who would at last enact the land reforms that had been promised in the same constitutional proposals.

The Communist Party (PSP) at that stage was deeply compromised by its history of collaboration with the Batista dictatorship. As late as April 1958 it broke, in effect, the general strike called by Castro since the key transport workers under CP leadership did not join in.

A few months after Castro’s triumphal march into Havana, the union elections that were held put most of the country’s union branches firmly in the hands of his 26th July Movement National conferences of various union federations during June, July and August secured him control over most of these groups. It should be noted that the new government had debarred from the elections trade-union figures belonging to several groupings other than the 26th July Movement who had managed to retain office in their unions even though they had fought against Batista and this was because of the solid rank and file support they enjoyed.

At the congress of the local TUC (CTC) early in 1959 there was a struggle between the pro- and anti-communist elements within Castro’s movement, the anti-communists having held power since his victory. According to Robert J. Alexander in his new book, The Struggle for Democracy in Latin America, both Fidel and his brother Raul intervened on behalf of the pro-communist elements. As a result all but one of the leading anti-communist figures were purged from the Executive. Since then the government has taken stringent measures to regiment the organised workers. By decrees promulgated early in 1960 all collective bargaining was abolished and all matters previously dealt with through joint negotiations were to be submitted to the Ministry of Labour for arbitration. Already troops have been used to bring recalcitrant workers into line. When a Conference of the Building Workers Federation in April 1960 refused to obey the orders of the CTC purge committee to dismiss its leaders, soldiers were moved into the meeting hall and the conference was brought to a summary conclusion.

Political democracy has been part of the price of the Cuban revolution notwithstanding that its reintroduction was the rallying cry of the "bearded ones” in their fighting days. On 1st May. Cuba declared itself on a level with Czechoslovakia by becoming a “Socialist Republic”. In the Soviet hierarchy it presumably ranks higher now than mere “Popular Democracies” which is what most of the satellites remain. Freedom of dissent whilst not entirely gone has been drastically curtailed. No opposition parties or newspapers have survived. Adlai Stevenson was reported by Time (28/4/61) as saying at the United Nations that nearly two-thirds of Castro’s first cabinet now form the leadership of Cubans in exile. It can be seen that those who fought with Castro in the belief that it was a struggle between democracy and dictatorship are silenced, in prison or in exile. Political freedom is something of such overwhelming importance to the working-class that it loses it at its peril. It does not exist in Cuba.

Eddie Grant

Armaments and Unemployment (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The disarmament conference organised by the Labour Party in January 1911 passed a resolution in favour of a campaign to secure the mutual gradual reduction of armaments; with a view to the ultimate disbandment of all armies and navies. It rejected a proposal for a general strike to prevent war and would not even discuss an amendment to the main proposal, which declared that disarmament could only be brought about by the abolition of capitalism and establishment of Social Democracy. Many interesting things were said at the Conference, including a declaration that the British Government was absolutely responsible for the world armament race, made by Will Thorne, M.P., who three years later was heartily supporting the war “against the German militarists". But what concerns us here is an amendment, debated at the Conference, which would have postponed any effort to reduce armaments until such time as a law had been passed providing full maintenance for workers who lost their jobs in the armaments industries. The amendment was defeated but the attitude persisted and is with us still: there are still many workers who believe that it is only armaments that keep capitalism busy, and that if governments reduce armaments, employment and trade and wages will collapse. How much truth is there in this belief?

It can be answered categorically from past experience as well as from general considerations that capitalism is not kept going simply by armament expenditure and therefore the effect that reductions of armament expenditure will have depends on all sorts of other factors as well. To start with, except in war-time, expenditure on armaments and armed forces represents only a small proportion of total national income and production—in Britain it is now about 7½ per cent, in U.S.A. about 11 per cent, and in other European countries very much less than 7½ per cent.

It is of course obvious that if the British Government suddenly destroyed all arms, gave up arms production and disbanded the armed forces, thus saving an annual expenditure of £1,400 million, it would create immediate problems for hundreds of thousands of redundant soldiers and armament workers, as well as for manufacturers with cancelled contracts. If trade conditions were already depressed at that time the effects might he severe and prolonged, but they would not be different in magnitude from the effects produced by any other sudden cessation of demand for labour and goods totalling £1,400 million a year. One factor to he remembered here is that what is called “defence expenditure" is not wholly or mainly on weapons of war; about half is on the food, uniform, buildings and pay military and civilian staffs.

In 1945 war expenditure was equal to nearly half the total national income. Then in two years it was cut from £5,000 million to under £850 million, and the size of the armed forces was slashed from 5 million to 800,000. The effect of this on unemployment was negligible though it involved millions of men changing their work and millions of others finding jobs after demobilisation. All that happened was that as the armed forces dwindled the numbers of workers m civilian employment grew, for capitalism was in a vigorous phase of expansion. Experience after the first world war was not the same. There was much more industrial disorganisation when the troops were demobilized and within three years came the acute though short lived slump of 1921.

British capitalism was still expanding in 1951 when the Labour Government launched the re-armament programme which more than doubled defence expenditure from £740 million to over £1,400 million. To make it possible other activities, including building and the capital expenditure on the Post Office and nationalised industries, had to be cut down because there were insufficient reserves of labour and raw materials to carry on the existing volume of civilian production plus the expansion of armaments, Within a year the Government reported that the planned expansion of armaments was itself falling behind because of these limitations.

America immediately after the end of World War It had much the same experience as Britain when it demobilized most of its war-time armed forces, but unemployment did not fall to so low a level.

Germany and Italy had a quite different experience. They were not going through a phase of expansion in the early port-war years and their demobbed soldiers and redundant munition workers largely went to swell the very heavy unemployment that lasted for ten years or more.

But later, though Germany's armament expenditure still represented only about 2 per cent or 3 per cent of national income and production, German industry has had several years of boom conditions with more vacancies than workers to fill them and hundreds of thousands of workers being brought in from neighbouring countries.

We can therefore say that though arms and armies play a considerable part in the whole field of production arid employment and can ax times exercise a considerable influence on the total magnitude, expenditure on them is no more decisive than any other expenditure of similar size, i.e. on average about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of total national production and expenditure, It all depends on whether capitalism is in an expanding or a contracting phase.

To put it in perspective, it may be added that while capitalism continues no government is in fact going to abolish its armies and armaments though, as in the past, there may be occasions when expenditure is reduced.

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: State Insurance (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Just as with Labour Exchanges and Old Age Pensions, so with the latest dodge, State Insurance, it is a soporific. All along the line of Liberal legislation an examination shows that the benefit go to the employing class, not to the employed. 

*

Lloyd George, at Birmingham, exposed the mockery of the claim that those measures are being introduced to benefit the working class. He said:

   "Take a brewer’s horse How well he is looked after—well fed, cared for and doctored. If he does not feel up to the mark he has got a guardian there specially looking after him. He says there is something the matter with his horse today. He is kept there, is doctored, until he is right. That is not merely humanity, it is good business.”

* 

Just so. To keep the worker in a fit condition ensures a greater output, and the increased efficiency resulting from such condition will enable the employer to wring more profit out of his victim, for, while the labour-power may cost a little more, the return is certain to be greater.

*

A paper issued by the Government contains still more significant statements from German employers who have experienced the working of similar insurance schemes. . , .

From the "Chemical Industry" comes the statement that:

  "From the standpoint of the employers these laws are remunerative to the extent that the efficiency of the worker is increased, and without the insurance laws correspondingly higher wages would have to be paid."

* 

Just as Germany a few years ago recognised that in order to obtain the markets of the world they must have efficient labourers, so today, the British capitalists, ever behind, realise that to combat Germany they most economise, they must obtain a better quality of labour-power — if possible — without increasing its cost. Hence there is a welling-up of the milk of human kindness in the capitalist breast, and we get State Insurance and the like.

[From the
 Socialist Standard, July. 1911.]

Forward to Socialism (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

First, let us have some facts about the position of the workers in this country today. So much political capital has been made out of the workers alleged “prosperity"  that if we merely succeed in getting the facts and establishing the truth, we shall have done something really worthwhile.

A few facts, then, about the distribution and ownership of wealth. One of the most recent assessments is Professor Morgans book The Structure of Property Ownership in Britain. Professor Morgan estimates that the total nominal wealth of this country today is £40,355 millions. Of this, 5 per cent or 1 in every 20 own a total of £30,000 million. That means that the remaining 95 per cent own a balance of £11,000 millions. In other words, 1/20 of the population owns 3/4 of the nation’s wealth. The remaining 19/20 own about a quarter between them, but of this 95 per cent over a half own nothing.

In I960 10 million people paid Income Tax on £10/20 a week; nearly 6 million paid on £3 to £10 weekly; while only 16,000 paid tax on over £10,000 a year income. That means that less than one in a thousand gets £200 a week. The number of millionaires in Great Britain increased from 37 in 1956 to 67 in 1961. An increase of 30 in live years. Some, such as Mr. Clore, Mr. Hugh Fraser and Mr. Cotton, are multi-millionaires. of the order of 15 to 20 million or more. As might be expected, many increased their wealth by vast "take over" deals.

In the lint quarter of 1960, there were mergers to the tune of £200 million. The first quarter of 1961 more than doubled this figure with £427 millions, which included the largest bid of all time—£130 million for Ford's Motor Works, besides £39 million for Odhams Press. Six per cent more retail trade passed into the hands of the great multiple combines in 1950/60.

How have the wage earners fared? From 1938 to 1960 real wages (i.e. what wages will actually buy) have increased by 22 per cent.  [London and Cambridge Economic Service] This is based on the Ministry of Labour's Price Index, which always starts an argument. What must be remembered is that this is for manual workers only (whose wages were low to start with in 1938). Were the clerical workers, local Government lower grade Civil Servants and teachers included there would hardly be any increase. Behind the purely nominal increases, real wages have remained practically stationary.

On the other hand, the workers staged 800 more strikes in 1960 than in 1959 with 200,000 more workers involved, showing that they are not as docile as their employers would like. Assessment of the situation in 1961 would be incomplete without some reference to Automation.

In practice, this means that more processes are controlled by pre-set electronic and other devices. The worker has less choice than ever in the character and quality of his product, and so is more completely than ever the appendage of a machine. It ensures that workers work regularly at a faster pace, and is a fruitful source of more surplus value and higher profits. The large amount of overtime worked, and long hours spent in travelling to and fro, do not improve matters. Working hours remained around the 46/47 hour mark. Where decreases ate obtained they barely compensate for Automation. In fact, 1960 might be summed up by saying that it gave the very best that workers can expect under Capitalism—plenty of work.

Unfortunately workers cannot get straight improvements under capitalism —they all have strings. Wages may improve, but with a big demand for labour, up go rents and the price of food and necessaries. So that, overall, it might be said that in spite of the fantastic technical developments of the last decade—the fundamental position of the worker (with his television set) remains the same. With the Frenchman he can say “The move it changes, the more it remains the same." And this, after hundreds of Reforms, scores of leaders, the finest Health Service, the best Insurance Scheme and the most democratic rights in the world.

Perhaps I ought to say a word about atomic power, space-flight, the penetration of the mantle of the inner earth etc. Apparently some people think that all this supersedes or invalidates Socialism. So far from refuting the analysis of Capitalism as a passing stage in social development which prepares the ground for Socialist society, they confirm it.

Marx can well stand on his own feet, needing no prop from anyone. All who take the trouble to read what he wrote, will find the definition of Capitalism as the explosive destroyer of the Old World. It is unmistakable. Does the following sound out-of-date? Is it old- fashioned? Victorian? 19th Century?

  The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarous nations, into civilisation. The cheap prices of all commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese Walls. It compels all nations to adopt Capitalist production. . . .
   It has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. . . .  It keeps on doing away with the scattered state of the population centralised means of production and concentrates property in a few hands. Independent provinces become one Nation, one Government, one law with one frontier and Customs barrier.
  . . .  The capitalists have created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.
 Subjection of Nature's forces to Man, machinery, application of chemistry to Industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole countries for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had ever a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

Now a word about the political scene. Conservatives still command a majority. For years now the Labour Party has been losing ground. So much so, that the Liberals have actually staged a revival.

Surely this is the tragedy of our generation! That the Party which claimed that it had successfully "united" all the motley crowd of which it was formed, should today be torn into contending factions is no fluke, but the inevitable result of its original blunders in [1906]. But that bewildered workers should turn back to Liberalism in their despair is tragic

The Labour Party was born out of the idea of working class political action. Many of its prominent figureheads claimed to be Socialists. Even more than this, they claimed to be "practical" Socialists who knew the way to get Socialism without explaining it to the workers. To quote from the Party's Foundation Manifesto:

  This political party of the workers can only be a Socialist Party because Socialism alone is based on the facts of working class existence. Socialism alone can free the workers from the necessity of selling himself for the profit of a master. Socialism alone will strip him of his merchandise character, and allow him to become a full social being.

This has never been understood by Labour, I.L.P., Communist and other Parties. It is for this reason that the Resolution which created the Labour Party stated that the new Party “would cooperate with any other group in support of any measure in the interests of Labour, in the House.” Capitalist Parties cannot work in the interests of the working class.

Why, the Labour leaders actually started activities with pacts with Liberals against Tories, they advocated, like Mr. Harry Judd of the S.D.F. at Northampton in 1900 “Unity to defeat the Tories" just as the Communist Party does now with the Labourites. This was the start of a 57-year record of job-hunting and place seeking, culminating in the Labour Government, in which the Labour leaders systematically opposed the very reform measures they had themselves used, to clamber into positions of power.

War, Conscription in peace-time, Strike-breaking by Troops, Wage Freeze, Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, they have supported all these and actually implemented most of them. Their Nationalisation schemes, with their disastrous failure to understand that Society (meaning today, the workers) or the “Community" cannot “control" industry without owning (that means taking them out of capitalist hands) through political power first, are bogged down and discredited. Their housing projects, as soon as they became landlords, bring them both opposition and hatred.

The myth of the working class marching steadily forward to Socialism by increasing Labour majorities is well and truly finished.

Horatio.

Coventry Re-Blitzed (1961)

Party News from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

We arrived in Coventry at about 11.30 a.m. and by noon we had our platform up and our literature displayed on our stand. The speaker opened the meeting and comrades moved to the various points, some selling “Standards” and pamphlets and others distributing “Introductory” leaflets with the address of the Coventry group stamped on them. Soon we had a sizeable audience and the questions came fast and furious.

In the afternoon an individual in the audience, using some youthful arrivals from the local beer shop, attempted to create some trouble. This eventually caused a rumpus and Party members were obliged to rally to the aid of the platform.

Soon after we had reopened the meeting, the local police arrived on the scene. They insisted that we close the meeting, but not before our speaker had put the issue to the audience and secured a majority vote of hands for us to carry on. Nevertheless, we were obliged to give way to the forces of the State, and dismantled our platform to cries of "Shame” from the audience — directed at the police.

During our 'break' we were approached by the police inspectors to whom we gave the necessary details of the Party, and this provided amusing incidents, such as our inability to furnish details of our "leaders”. Just think of it; 57 years organised and no leaders to show for it! What did emerge during the course of the discussion was the fact that the police had been sent for by the local stores; British Home Stores flanked us on one side and Marks and Spencers on the other Marks and Spencers certainly didn’t want Mars and Engels! The Precinct in Coventry is the city's open, ultra modern, traffic-free shopping centre, and our meeting had attracted so many people that it was impossible to get into or out of the stores on either side. The Superintendent of the police later remarked that, whoever we were, we certainly hit Coventry with a bang, and apparently this was loud enough to stop the “commercial symphony” being played on the cash register bells!

However, we finally fixed things so that we could open again, and this we did at 4.30 p.m.. though in a different spot. We shouldn’t have been speaking at the first one in any case. We carried on for about half-an-hour and then had to vacate the speaking place in favour of some hot-gospellers (this description provided by the police), who had apparently booked it. So back we went to the scene of our former triumph, and here we carried on a successful meeting with no interruptions until 7 p.m.

We distributed 400 "Introductory" leaflets, sold literature to the value of £2 9s. 3d., made numerous contacts for the Coventry Group, and rolled back to London, highly pleased with our day's work and determined to return to Coventry in the near future.

Since the above report was written we have heard of two further propaganda ventures in Coventry. On June 10th and 17th London members joined with our Coventry comrades in running very successful outdoor meetings.

Branch News (1961)

Party News from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ealing

The branch is carrying on with its programme of fortnightly discussions during the summer months, alternatively with the usual business meetings. Comrade Jack Law gave a very interesting lecture on the Jehovah's Witnesses last month and will be giving another on the “Opening up of the American West” on July 7th. Members are asked to make this meeting as successful as the last. The weekly outdoor propaganda meetings have started at Earls Court and all members are asked to make a special effort to support them. They are held every Thursday, at. 8 p.m. A group of members went down to Southsea for an outdoor meeting on Sunday, June 25th. It is hoped to give a report on this next month.

Glasgow (Kelvingrove)

During May the branch held six meetings. Literature sales were SS. £1 9s. 0d., Pamphlets £1 0s. 8d., Collections £2 15s. 10d. Average audience 32. Members and a sympathiser attended four CND Rallies and sold £1 3s. 0d. S.S. and 13s. 10d. pamphlets. They had discussions with CND members and found some “ very sympathetic to our case,” who had “ met Party members in London.”

Nottingham

Comrade Powe gave a lecture to Leicester Secular Society on “Religion, Secularism, Socialism.” Fifty people were present and 8s. literature was sold. One open-air meeting was held in Leicester and two were held in Nottingham. It is hoped to follow up the Leicester meetings later. Literature sold 18s. Audiences at meetings: 40-50, 30-70, and 100 respectively. This is really good news as the Party has held meetings in Leicester in the past and it is most gratifying that we are renewing our contacts there.

London

A reminder of the meeting being held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, on Wednesday , July 19th, at 7.30 p.m. Comrades will recall the very successful meeting held at St. Pancras Town Hall in April. This was well organised and most stimulating for all who participated. Lessons were learned from this meeting and as a result the Conway Hall meeting should be exceptionally well supported and organised. Members and sympathisers—rally to the meeting and keep up the good work.

Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London.July 19th, 7.30 PM

Please note your diaries and bring as many friends along as possible. There is a good gallery and plenty of standing room, in addition to the spacious hall on the ground floor.

Bristol

Durdham Downs is the regular outdoor meeting place for the Bristol Group members who have been holding meetings this season. During the month of May four meetings were held, audience averaging 50 and literature sales 9s. 6d. The comrades are hoping that with constant support they will be able to continue throughout the summer with increasing interest from the workers of Bristol.

Canada

The candidate of the Socialist Party of Canada polled 149 votes in the British Columbia election. This result is surprisingly good in view of the fact that the Branch of the Party was only formed there comparatively recently and the constituency is mainly agricultural. Their candidate had two half-hours on T.V. and a brief appearance after the vote was counted. He also had twenty minutes on the local radio, and four days before the election another ten minutes, which was re-broadcast the same day. He also had a brief recording on the Canadian Broadcasting system, as well as two or three long-distance calls from prominent writers. each of which occupied about ten minutes, enquiring about the Object and Principles of the Party. One thing the Victorian members are sure of is that thousands of people have heard their message for the first time, and a lot of confusion about the relation of Socialism to Soviet Communism was cleared up. We congratulate our overseas comrades on the effort they have put in and the results they have obtained.

Ireland

We learn from the W.S.P. of Ireland that owing to the death of a recently elected candidate in one of the wards, they are again entering the election contest. They tell us that, in their opinion, the greatest single factor in obtaining their surprisingly high vote was because they emphasised the international nature of their message, and the fact that they are part of a greater movement. They also make this further statement :

  We are inclined to accept the view that the terrible apathy existing here, as elsewhere. is not as unhealthy as it would appear. The workers may not yet have awakened to the need for Socialism, but they are beginning to demonstrate that they at least realise that so far whatever party they have voted for no change ensues for them—hence the abstentionists are the real majority—they continue to accept capitalism, but they are not voting for it. We believe that, especially among such people, real effort on our part can carry the day and convince them that there is something worth voting for. The fact that we are small numerically does not mean that the influence of our propaganda is not being felt; many people are quite prepared to vote and think with us to the exclusion of all others, even if they are not prepared at this stage to join us. In this we see much hope.

Phyllis Howard

Election Manifesto (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Extract from the Election Address of the World Socialist Party of Ireland, Duncairn Ward, Belfast.

HOUSING

There have been innumerable Acts of Parliament aimed at ending the workers' housing problems; the Unionists have tried their way and we have the record of Labour parties in Britain and other countries. Yet homelessness and slum-dwelling have become an accepted thing in our society. House building, like every other productive activity under capitalism. is pursued for the purpose of profit-making, human needs are as nothing beside the great god profit. No party will solve the problem of bad and insufficient homes while profit remains the accepted system of social organisation. Only in Socialism, where production of all things, including homes, is solely for the satisfaction of people's needs, is a solution to be found.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Why are the unemployment figures getting greater every day? Certainly not because everyone has a sufficiency of the things workers produce, or can produce. Unemployment is just another permanent feature of a buying-and-selling capitalist society. As we have demonstrated, the capitalists employ the workers solely for the purpose of profit-making; if there is no markets wherein the things that the workers produce can be sold and profit realised, then workers are laid off. In Socialism, where human needs will be the only factor governing production, when a point is reached at which a sufficiency of all things has been produced. it will simply mean more leisure time for the producers without the attendant hardships of today.

"THE BORDER"

This is a question that the politicians use in all elections to good purpose. The World Socialist Party maintains that the so-called Border is yet another expression of our present society, and we as members of the working class neither gain nor lose by its removal or retention. The problems of the workers North and South of the border are similar and are not caused by the geographical Border, but by a division much more evil in its effects—the class border between us of the working class, who produce everything and own nothing, and the capitalists, who produce nothing and own everything. This is the “Border” Socialists wish to abolish.

The Belfast Campaign (1961)

Party News from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the object of creating opportunities for propaganda activities, bringing the name and object of the Party into prominence and demonstrating that they were not just another “left ” group, the Belfast Branch of the W.S.P. of Ireland decided to contest a ward in the Belfast Municipal Election. The deposit for nomination of candidate was £25. Though the Branch realised that they would lose their deposit, they considered the resulting propaganda would justify the expenditure.

They contested Duncairn Ward, as it was only in this ward that they had enough members to sign the nomination paper. It is a very thickly populated ward but not particularly suited to their purpose.

Voting locally is restricted to the occupier of a house and wife. Families living in dwellings that are sub-let, and adults other than the occupier and wife, are denied the right to vote. On the other hand a “property” vote enables businessmen and company directors, with branches or diverse business interests, to vote as many as eight times.

There is no free election postage in Ireland. Consequently the small group of Belfast comrades had to name and address the ten thousand Election Statements, and deliver them to houses over an area of 16 to 18 square miles. This was a colossal task, which took well into each morning, after holding meetings in the area during the evening and night. Their opponents contented themselves with touring the constituency with music, processions led by bunting-bedecked lorries, and loud-speaker exhortations telling people how to vote.

Every night, in spite of bad weather, a number of meetings were held. The first meetings were accompanied by three car-loads of police, motor cycle police, and several police on foot. Eventually it was reduced to a single motor cycle policeman. Places were visited where opposition was usually violent, but only once was a voice raised in anger against us.

When polling day arrived our comrades were astonished to find that the W.S.P. candidate had polled 824 votes — 11.4 per cent of the total votes cast. They also saved their deposit.

At the conclusion of the poll the W.S.P. candidate made the following statement:

   "The Unionist and Labour Parties represent capitalism and the continued exploitation of the working class . . . this is an historic occasion; for the first time capitalism in both disguises has been challenged . . .  we are at the bottom of the hill, you are at the top, but we are ascending, you are retreating down the other side."

The fact that there were 824 votes (the bulk of whom may not yet be socialists), in one ward in such a conservative area as Belfast, is a harbinger of the progress of enlightenment. In their literature and from the platform, the Belfast members urged voters only to vote for Socialism if they understood it and wanted it, as outlined in the Election Address.

We congratulate our Irish comrades on the tremendous and self-sacrificing effort they put in with such good results, (t augurs well for the progress of the socialist movement in Ireland, and is heartening to their comrades in other lands.

News From The Belfast Front (1961)

Party News from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following item appeared in the Belfast Telegraph for the 8th May:

Future Bright for Socialist movement

   “For the first time in Ireland, the Socialist movement has now reached the stage where it is capable of offering a Socialist alternative at the polls, said Mr. William Skelton, chairman of the Belfast branch of the World Socialist Party, at a May Day meeting in Blitz Square, High Street.
   “It was a modest beginning, but the future was bright for the cause.
  “Mr. Calvert Moore, World Socialist Party candidate for Duncairn Ward in the forthcoming municipal elections, said it was sad to think that under the aegis of the Labour and Communist parties, the revolutionary ardour of the workers had been canalised into the safe stream of reformist politics. The only way to end the economic anarchy that was capitalism was to institute a Socialist society."

Britain and the Common Market (1961)

Editorial from the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Common Market has become a burning issue for British capitalism. After being convinced for years that it would fail, the Government has now belatedly realised that it may after all be here to stay. But so late have they left it, and so long have they dithered, that if they are to do something about joining they must do it quickly. Otherwise, it will be impossible for them to jump on the bandwagon at all.

Hence Mr. Macmillan's somewhat panicky efforts to get matters straight with the Commonwealth and his undignified haste to prepare the ground at home.

For it is clear that the issue of whether Britain should go into the Common Market is causing a lot of heart-searching in many quarters. Not only is the Government worried, but industry, the Commonwealth, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, even the trade unions. And not only worried, but very much divided. Even allowing for the fact that the Labour Party has long abandoned all pretence of being anything but an appendage of capitalism, it is indeed strange, for example, to see Mr. Michael Foot and Viscount Hinchinbrooke lined up against Britain's entry, at the same time as Mr. Shinwell vies with the Daily Express in concern for the Commonwealth. And on the other side, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, Rev. Donald Soper, and Lord Home certainly make an odd collection!

As far as industry is concerned, to the giants like l.C.I. the whole question is academic. They are going into the Common Market regardless of what decision the British Government may take. Confident of being able to compete on equal terms with the Europeans, the only thing they are afraid of is being left outside. On the other hand, there are many industries and firms that are very much afraid of meeting European competition and who are consequently violently opposed to going in.

The majority of the agricultural interests share this view, worrying whether their system of protection will disappear once the British market is thrown open to efficient Dutch production and the fast rising food surpluses of France. These anxieties are also shared by Commonwealth countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand whose agricultural outlets in Britain would be seriously threatened and who have nothing to gain and everything to lose in a unit which is largely self-sufficient in foodstuffs save for those of tropical origin.

These are only some of the conflicting economic interests which the Government is being called upon to resolve. Unfortunately for Mr. Macmillan on this occasion, however, the usual policy of British Governments when conflicting interests are at loggerheads to make a show of compromise that is really only a temporary camouflage for the dominant capitalist interest to have its way in the long run is a non-starter since the Common Market is itself in no mood for compromises. To them, it is either in or out. For the British Government, then, the long prevarication will soon have to end—a decision must be made one way or the other.

Strong rumour has it that the decision has already been made and that British capitalism is in. But this may be only part of Mr. Macmillan's softening-up tactics and the opposition may be stronger than he thinks. Whatever the outcome, it will throw interesting light on the political strengths of the various sectional interests in present-day British capitalism.

But much more interesting will it be to watch how the economic forces of capitalism, driving society’s development towards ever larger units, will eventually win the day—whatever the decision.

Notes on Economic History (9) (1961)

From the July 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is Economic Life? 

Adam Smith's ideas on the development of economic life led him to make a clean sweep of all feudal ties and servitudes. The abolition of serfdom, the introduction of freedom of occupation and industry, freedom of movement, political autonomy; these were the inevitable corollaries of the new doctrine.

A demand heavy with consequences, the demand for free trade, formed a logical and essential part of the demand for the abolition of all restrictions upon production and distribution. Smith's theory of free trade was as follows:—

If trade be freed from all restraints, through the working of competition, it will come to pass in the long run that every country will produce those commodities which its natural facilities enable it to produce most cheaply. Thus there will arise a natural international division of labour, which will rebound to the maximum benefit of each nations, for each will be able to buy all it wants in the world market at the lowest possible prices: while selling there to the greatest advantage those things which it is exceptionally fitted to produce. It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. (Wealth of Nations.)

In regard to the applying of these free trade principles, Smith was prepared to compromise. He agreed to the need of excise duties as a source of revenue, as also to the expediency of retaliatory duties imposed upon imports from countries whose policy was protectionist, and for duties for special purposes, for instance where an industry was judged to be essential for the safety of a country and was in need of protection. Smith, not being the dogmatist, as those who subsequently opposed his doctrines declared, was very cautious in practical matters.

Much of present day opinion of Smith's views is based upon the modifications his teachings underwent at the hands of Ricardo, and later still in the eighteen-thirties by the Manchester School of Free-traders. It is necessary to point out that Smith was not hostile to the landowning class. On the contrary, he considered that the interest of those who lived by rent was "strictly and inseparably connected with the general interest of Society" for their income increased proportionately to an increase in the general welfare.

Of the capitalist class he wrote that its interest had not the same connection with the general interest of Society as that of the landowners and wage-earners. For, he said, the rate of does not, like rent and wages, rise and fall with the booms and slumps that affect society. On the contrary, it is low in times of boom, and high in times of slump. Smith says it is always highest in countries that are going to ruin. To him, the interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the landowning class. He advocated high wages and freedom of combination, but he deprecated State interference in wage contracts.

Smith's teaching brought about an entirely different way of looking at political economy. It did this, first of all, by showing investigators that the source of wealth is not a simple matter. He regarded labour as the primary source of wealth, but the conditions under which labour had to operate were of vital importance, and especially the increase of productiveness by the division of labour. Smith regarded everything from the outlook of exchange in the market, he conceived of economic phenomena as centering in exchange in the processes of "trade", and his explanation of the motive force of economics was derived from this conception.

Smith's chief contribution to economic doctrines was his neatly rounded and bold notion that economic life was a series of processes of exchange linked to each other. Herein lay such originality as he possessed. He finalised the physiocratic idea of the natural order, that is the harmonious encounter of numberless individual self-seeking economic activities. In his doctrine, exchange, the trading intercourse of separate economic agents, became the central manifestation of economic life. His system was not a theory of production, but a theory of price and value which he considered determined production just as much as distribution.

Like all economists worth considering, Smith endorsed the physiocratic concept of the average wage, termed by him the natural price of labour: "a man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation". The fact that the development of the productive powers of labour brought no benefit to the worker is stressed by Adam Smith. Smith notes that the productive power of labour underwent no really important development until labour was transformed into wage labour, and until the means of production had taken the form of private ownership, either of land or of capital. Thus, labour's productive powers did not begin to develop until the worker was no longer able to take for himself the results of development.

Bob Ambridge