Letter: The voice of the provinces (1936)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from readers in Liverpool. Other readers may have something useful to say on the question raised.

“We notice that the S.P.G.B. was founded in 1904, which fact presupposes many years of consistent political interest in London.

“Despite the years which have intervened, however, your contact and influence in the principal industrial centres in the provinces, where it would be expected conditions would have produced the strongest support for your party, remains practically negligible. 

“It would be interesting to hear the considered opinions of your London members on this matter, and equally too the views of provincial members and sympathisers. Should sufficient interest be shown by the correspondence which this enquiry may provoke, we hope it may be found possible for your E.C. to arrange a few special meetings for provincials in London, say, on Sunday evenings, timed to fit in with the many half-day excursions from the provinces.

“Anyway, we are of the opinion that for independent thinking and resolute revolutionary aspirations, the average provincial can make circles round the politically interested London worker. In the provinces London is referred to as a political cesspool. Does this explain why most of the big 'stars' in the Labour world' are the chosen leaders in the provinces ?” .

Yours for Socialism,

“PROVINCIALS.” 

How Kirkdale was Fought. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

They were not responsible for the Kirkdale contest being fought upon Socialism, said Philip Snowden, M.P., at Smethwick on September 28, at an I.L.P. demonstration. No one can accuse the I.L.P. of a desire to fight upon Socialism. And the speeches delivered by Mr. Hill’s supporters prove that every effort was made on their side to turn the contest on anything and everything but Socialism. Mr. McPherson, M.P. (Preston), claimed that the Labour men in the House of Commons contained an exceptional proportion of P.S.A. workers and teetotalers. Mr. Stephen Walsh, M.P., asserted that they “would not confiscate the land or rob the landlords, but they would soon be in a position to say to the privileged classes ‘So far and no farther,'” a sentiment which met with loud applause. Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., appealed to them as “Ye Christian Men !” and asked them to vote for Mr. Hill because “Christ died to adjust social inequalities.” Mr. J. Seddon, M.P., referred to “the notorious fact that almost every member of the Labour Party belonged either to the Established Church or to one of the great bodies of nonconformity.” Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., stated that the Labour Party contained more religiously inclined persons, and took the pulpit oftener on Sunday than any other section of politicians. What was the real issue, he asked, involved in the contest ? It was this: that the electors would declare whether there was endorsement on all of the substantial points of the Government policy. A victory for Labour would show how the people stood, for this Government or against it. The conclusion arrived at would be, that if the Labour Party were defeated it would prove that there was a weakening of the Liberal trend. The Rev. E. F. Forrest (vicar of Pemberton) of the Church Socialist League, wanted Society shaken to its foundations so that “employers and employed might fraternise and class distinctions be abolished.” Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., declared that Tariff Reform was the real crux of the election, and that its adoption would bring about the ruin of the port of Liverpool. Mr. T. F. Richards, M.P., eulogised John Burns. It was just like some working men, he said, to haul down one of their own class. If it was possible for an engineer to be President of the L.G.B., why should not the democracy fill other high offices of State? (Which of the “high offices” is Richards after ?) Mrs. Cobden Sanderson (daughter of Richard Cobden), said if her father were alive he would be with her upon that platform. She pleaded for a Free Trade policy and accepted every word of the address of John Hill, “as the aspiration of a true Liberal !” And Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald explained that the Labour Party did not make Socialism a test for its candidates. We can, therefore, quite agree with Mr. Snowden that they were not responsible for the Kirkdale election being fought upon Socialism.

Jack Kent

The Kirkdale Bye-Election. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blatchford Eats his Words.

Appeals to “Socialists” to close up their ranks and help in every possible way to return Mr. J.. Hill to Parliament are falling fast and furious and the usual reasons are being advanced by those whose policy is changed as often as is demanded by the necessity to maintain the circulation of their newspapers, secure the attendance of the public in large numbers at their meetings or to bring themselves into prominence as “leaders” of the working class. Mr. Robert Blatchford, who for weeks in the columns of the Clarion has been explaining “Why the Labour Party is no good,” now urges all, Socialists and Labour men alike, to help to swell the ranks of the “useless” Labour Party by returning a candidate who will be as useless as the best of them. In the Clarion Election Supplement Mr. Blatchford eats his own words and declares that “the workers need a strong and United Labour Party” because “two ominous words, ‘Conscription’ and ‘Protection’ are being freely bandied about, and attacks, open or covert, are being made upon Trade Unionism and Education,” and further, “The Liberal Party may be a better Party than the the Tory Party, but the best Party for Labour is a Labour Party.” And this whilst the ink is hardly dry on his utterances on the failure of the Labour Party and his declarations that only a Socialist Party will do ! But then, Robert Blatchford is a journalist and also writes romances.

The S.D.F. Position.

Edward Hartley, too, calls us “To Arms ! To Arms !” He also, in Justice and elsewhere, has been asserting the necessity for a Socialist party, but like Blatchford and others, is not honest enough to admit that it exists in The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Hill should be helped because he “is not only the secretary of a strong and well-organised trade union (!) but a good Socialist who has advocated his principles for years.” But, Hartley adds, “Even if he were not a Socialist, but only a Trade Unionist who would stand firm on the principle of independence in political action, he would be better than the best candidate who could be selected as either Liberal or Tory.” We hope our friends who tell us they believe in our policy of hostility to all other parties, but who remain in the S.D.F. because they also believe that to be an uncompromising Socialist organisation, will note its willingness to support non-Socialists and even anti-Socialists under the conditions stated by Mr. Hartley.

The Liberal Attitude.

Mr. Hartley says also that the Liberals find the Tory candidate so acceptable that there is to be no Liberal candidate, but on the other hand, it may be that the Liberals find Mr. Hill so acceptable that they prefer to leave the field open to him. After all, if at the General Election they were willing to assist “independent” candidates, like Mr. Ramsay McDonald, Mr. T. F. Richards, Mr. Jas. Parker, Mr. G. J. Wardle and others into the House of Commons, why should they fight the Labour candidate now that they have discovered how “sensible, respectable and adaptable” the Labour members are ? As the Daily News admitted, when commenting on Mr. Gill’s address at the Trade Union Congress “no Liberal who is in earnest about his creed . . . can do anything but rejoice in the strength of a party at once so sincere and so reasonable.” And judging by his election address, no Liberal need fear the return of Mr. John Hill for the Kirkdale division. (Since the above was written the Kirkdale Liberal Divsional Council have passed a resolution urging the Liberal electors to vote for Mr. Hill.)

Mr. Hill’s Program.

The Labour Leader prints certain portions of Mr. Hill’s election address, and even from these it can be seen how far he is in conflict with the programs of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. Amongst other things Mr. Hill says :—

Aliens' Bill.

I deeply regret that through lack of employment at home British Workers are forced to go to other countries as “Blacklegs,” or stay at home and starve. I am in favour of a Bill to give Protection to British Workers by the prohibition of Aliens being imported to take the place of men on strike, or to undercut or displace British Worker.

Education.

As a Nonconformist, I believe in simple Bible study—the Bible is still my best book: at the same time, Bible lessons should only be given to children at their parents’ desire, as every parent should have the fullest opportunity to teach his child his own faith. I believe that religion thrives best and retains its sincerity without State interference.

Temperance.

As a total abstainer, I am in favour of the people of every town or parish having the fullest direct veto on the renewal of old licences or the granting of new ones. The common people ought to have the right to say whether or not temptation shall be beside their homes and amongst their children.

Franchise.

I am in favour of Adult Suffrage. Meantime, I would support the agitation for the extension of the franchise to women on the same basis as it now is, or may be, extended to men. I also favour the Bill giving married women the right to vote on their husband’s qualifications.

In conclusion.

As I am opposed to the present commercial system of production for profit, I would advocate in Parliament the Nationalisation of the production, distribution, and exchange of the common necessities of life. The enormous and ever increasing trade and wealth of the country is only tending to make the poor poorer, and rich richer and creating a luxurious, idle class on the one hand, and a starving unemployed class on the other. It is only by a more scientific system of society, a more just division of the products of labour, a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work, that the workers shall be emancipated.

And it is on utterances such as these that the Clarion, the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Trade Unions unite ! Such unity proves our case against them in regard to political action.

Mr. Hill’s Hotch Potch.

So far as we know Mr. Hill is the first “Labour” candidate to advocate the exclusion of aliens, and to adopt the Tariff Reformers’ position that the low wages and lack of employment of the working class here are due to the admission of aliens. Evidently Mr. Hill is one of the “working-men Tariff Reform missionaries” that Mr. C. Arthur Pearson threatens shall take the field against Socialism. The paragraph concerning “Education” conflicts with the resolution of the Trade Union Congress, the program of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., and again typifies the latitude allowed to “Labour” candidates for vote catching purposes, and proves conclusively how the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. will ignore their own programs in order to be “in the swim.” Both these two bodies, also, are pledged to public ownership and control of the drink traffic, a “reform” which Mr. Hill does not support. His reference to “the common people” is an insult to the working class, and his plea for a more just division of the products of labour is an admission that the present system is just and all Mr. Hill wants is to make it more so !

The Only Way.

There is one course for the workers of Kirkdale to adopt, although the result will be announced before these lines are in print,—Abstain from voting. A candidate who will pander to all sections, as Mr. Hill, with the support of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Clarion, is doing, proving thereby that he holds to no guiding principle beyond the personal desire to add the much coveted letters M.P. to his name, or, if we acquit him of this, showing conclusively that he does not comprehend the working-class position, is worse than useless to his class, and can only fall a victim, as the others have done, to the flattery and the hospitality of the master-class representatives. To serve the working class a candidate must stand as a rebel, be prepared to act as a rebel if elected, and to take all the consequences of such action. Prating about “a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work” after two thousand years of wars, barbarities, faction fights and other loving pleasantries which Christ’s followers indulge in, may be a good card to play in Liverpool and the appeal no doubt goes straight to the heart of atheists like Robert Blatchford, and the leaders of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. But neither by looking up to Christs nor down to devils, neither by appealing to politicians nor by relying upon “leaders” will the workers secure their emancipation. Only by realising that they are slaves, that there is no hope for them while Capitalism exists, that their emancipation can only be secured by abolishing, not palliating, the capitalist system and by organising themselves to take for themselves possession and control of all the means of producing and distributing wealth, will their historic mission be fulfilled. As voting for Mr. Hill would not assist them, but make the existing confusion worse confounded, we trust that the result will show that large numbers of the workers of Kirkdale have declined to vote for either of the candidates before them. But we confess we are not hopeful. The Social Revolution must be preceded by a mental revolution. Much deep study must be undertaken before the mental revolution is accomplished, and until then the workers will fall an easy prey to Labour Misleaders like Mr. Hill and his supporters.

Jack Kent

“If Mr. Hill is defeated,” says the Labour Leader of September 27th, “he will not be defeated on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of our Socialist purposes or faith.” And, it may be added, if Mr. Hill is successful he will not be successful on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of the Socialist purpose or faith.

Justice, however, declares it to be a “Socialist” fight. The contest, they say, is “one between Socialism and anti-Socialism.” “The fight is distinctly one for and against Socialism, and if Mr. Hill wins it will unquestionably be a Socialist victory.” In view of the candidate’s program, which Justice admits might be “more pronouncedly Socialist,” these words must have come as a severe shock to those S.D.F. members who assert that their organisation is “stiffening.” It is more flabby than ever.

Sting in the Tail: A sick society (1995)

The Sting in the Tail column from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

A sick society

Dr. Ian Burns is Glasgow’s public health director. He has recently been commenting on the relationship between health and poverty in Glasgow. What he has to say applies to all cities:

“If we are going to do something about Glasgow's ill-health you have to confront the poverty. The Government have acknowledged there is a link between ill-health and poverty but they have always said we don't know if the one is caused by the other, ” he said.

"We are saying it is, the link is empowerment. If you are unemployed, have no educational background, and don't know where your children‘s next meat is coming from, you have the sense of the system doing things to you" (The Herald, 21 December).

The sad truth is that medical care is a commodity. If you can afford it you can get the most modern treatment immediately, but if you are poor you can join the waiting list to get treatment from underfunded overworked NHS staff.

Hard core

The term “hard-core” is popular with the press. We have read of “hard-core pornography” and “hard-core criminality”. Now the Government have found “hard-core rough sleepers”:

“In a statement. Environment Minister Robert Jones said the Government's winter shelter programme, with up to 350 places in Central London, made it unnecessary for anyone . . . to have to sleep on the streets this winter'. ”

"It is clear, ” the Minister added, "that street level agencies are finding themselves trying to help a hard core of rough sleepers ” (Observer, 18 December)

However, Homeless Network, an umbrella group of 30 charities, report that 288 people were sleeping rough in late November, a seven percent increase compared with May and estimate that during the past year 3,000 spent part or all of their time sleeping in the streets in the survey area alone.

Government ministers climbing out of their chauffeur-driven cars for a night out at the Covent Garden Opera may console themselves that the street-sleepers strewn around are “hard-core rough sleepers”, but socialists know that not only has capitalism a hard-core but that it is an extremely bitter fruit for the poor, disabled and homeless.

What a wally!

The shallowness and double standards of politicians were epitomised by John Major’s insistence that schools should conduct daily “acts of worship” on a broadly Christian basis.

"Mr. Major said daily worship for all pupils allowed them to explore their own beliefs and helped build community spirit and shared values, and reinforced positive attitudes" (BBC2 Ceefax, 17 December).

What that bit about acts of worship (ugh) allowing pupils to “explore their own beliefs” really amounts to is the attempted indoctrination of young minds, or what was called “brainwashing” when Nazis and the so-called communists did it.

And just how do these acts of worship build “community spirit and shared values” in, say, Northern Ireland? Mind you. Major will hear plenty of “positive attitudes” being reinforced by the hangers, floggers, xenophobes and other Christian worshippers at Tory conferences.

Whether Major thought up such rubbish by himself or merely parroted what some Tory hack told him, doesn’t matter, because he is damned either way.

A sorry sight

On BBC News (22 December) an entire workforce marched arm-in-arm through Liverpool streets singing “Here We Go”. So full of patriotic fervour were they that they waved and even wore the Union Jack. This was obviously a big celebration.

And what was it all about? Only that Bryant and.May, Britain’s last match factory, had closed down and this was the workers' way of marking the occasion.

Perhaps these workers will reflect on what good their patriotism did them when they signed-on the following day.

The sporting life

According to the dictionary definition, sport is “pleasant pastime; amusement, diversion”. So what are we to make of newspaper headlines that scream “Doping Ban”, “Bribery allegations”, and “Football Manager Took Bungs”?

Just as the financial pages are concerned with Insider Dealing, Dirty Tricks Takeover Bids and all the other skulduggery' of the City, so athletics, cricket and football reporters are as much concerned with cheating, doping and bribery as with reporting sporting events.

The truth is that capitalism is a social system based on profit, greed and deceit. Sport inside capitalism is big business, so it is no wonder that it reflects the chicanery of the system.

In a socialist society human beings would be able to enjoy sport as a “pleasant pastime”; amusement; diversion". That is impossible inside the present production-for-profit system.

Canadian capers

Some Canadian students have invited Tommy Sheridan of Scottish Militant Labour to Canada to speak about socialism.

At the Euro-elections last June Sheridan’s manifesto, besides being full of pictures of himself and claims that he is “the people's champion”, “hammer of the Tories”, etc., carried an article entitled “What Is Socialism?”.

According to this, production will still be for sale on the market and money, banks and finance will remain. What it all added up to is capitalism’s buying and selling system along with the usual idealist’s illusion that it can be “planned and run for the benefit of everybody”.

If those Canadian students want to know about socialism then Sheridan is the last one to tell them.

SPGB Meetings (2011)

Party News from the September 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Branch Directory. (1907)

Party News from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I don't usually make a habit of posting the branch directory from the Standard on the blog but I thought I would make an exception this time 'cos of the information at the bottom about contacts outside of London. As you'll note the SPGB in 1907 were still largely concentrated in London (and Watford), so it's interesting to note that there were members as far a field as Liverpool, Bradford (a hot spot for the ILP), Birmingham and Burton.

By the end of 1907, the SPGB did have a branch in Manchester.

The Role of the Church in Strikes (1946)

From the May 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

During strikes, as during wars, many significant details are obscured by more dramatic happenings. When considering the situation at a later date certain features are thrown into sharp relief, or a passing reference to some action may awaken interest and reconsideration of that fiction.

A radio programme of Thursday, February 7th, had this effect Speaking in a weekly programme, “What are the Churches Doing," the clergyman speaker related, with evident pride, the intervention of two Liverpool clergymen in the recent dock strike. Whether his claims for them were true or exaggerated, his attitude certainly showed a new aspect of the church's activities.

In the Times of November 2nd, 1945, the following account of the affair was given:—

“The Dock strike may be suspended tomorrow to give negotiating parties a period in which to make satisfactory progress. Mass meetings at affected ports will be asked for their decision tomorrow morning.

At a meeting here today the Rector of Liverpool, Canon R. Ambrose Reeves, who, with Father John Fitszsimons, has been mediating, told the dockers that last week he received a letter from Mr. Ernest Bevin which encouraged him, in spite of many rebuffs in other quarters, to persevere and try to help in the impasse. Since then, with Father Fitzsimons, he had met the Merseyside Strike Committee, the National Strike Committee, and Labour Members of Parliament for the Liverpool divisions. He had put before them as a basis for discussion a document in which he summarised the position as he saw it."

Then followed a summary of what the strike revealed, and an appeal to the workers to suspend the strike for 30 days in order that negotiations might take place. The interesting points to note are that the clergyman did not for one moment imagine that the masters should give way to the dockers’ grievances. To one inured in the tradition "the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate," the exploitation of the worker and the real nature of wages are a closed book. Instead of the usual efforts of the church to "reconcile man to God," the efforts are now to reconcile man to his employer’s interests. Another point worthy of notice is the joining forces of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, normally at daggers drawn, but willing in this dirty work to sink their differences. Lastly the approbation of Mr. Ernest Bevin was sweet to Canon Reeves and an encouragement to persist with the new form of blunting the edge of the workers’ strike weapon.

W. S.

So They Say: 102 Years On (1974)

The So They Say Column from the August 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

102 Years On

What has Helena Hardigan in common with Frederick Engels? The knowledge that the “solutions” to the housing problem are not solutions at all. On 29th June she wrote to The Guardian about a “Report on Merseyside” it had published. Instead of stuff about the “character” of Liverpudlians, she said, some decent living conditions would be welcome. And:

As far as I see it, Liverpool is just going to be one big motorway through to the docks and that will be its importance in the future. You talk about slum clearance—there has been none. The slums have been transferred to Kirkby, Skelmersdale and Runcorn where unemployment, vandalism, depression and desperation are rife.

Engels said exactly the same thing in The Housing Question written in 1872:

. . . owing to the demand for big centrally-situated business premises, or owing to traffic requirements, such as the laying down of railways, streets, etc. No matter how different the reasons may be, the result is everywhere the same: the scandalous alleys and lanes disappear to the accompaniment of lavish self-praise from the bourgeoisie on account of this tremendous success, but they appear again immediately somewhere else and often in the immediate neighbourhood.

Engels saw that from careful study. This Liverpool lady has seen it by just looking round her.

Always a Little Longer

The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970. It is likely that many people therefore assume that most women at work are now getting equal pay with men. On 5th July the Assistant Secretary of the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff said in The Guardian that this is not so, and the position four years later “is one of general lack of progress towards equal pay”.

The extent of the ignorance on the part of some employers has to be witnessed to be believed. Publicity and propaganda on the part of the Department of Employment will not change this general situation—an all pervading ignorance and lack of interest on the part of many employers.

Those who believe “a law should be passed” is the solution to every problem should take note. The Act comes into “full force” in December 1975, after which cases may be brought to the Industrial Arbitration Board. It remains to be seen how employers will then get round it, and what “full force” means.

Pull up the Ladder, Jack

“Indexation” is an idea for dealing with inflation. Its principle was explained by the Tory MP Christopher Tugendhat in an article in The Observer on 7th July:

The principle of indexation is easy to grasp. It is that financial contracts should be set in real terms rather than money terms. So if incomes were index-linked, each 1 per cent increase in the retail price index would automatically increase the sum of money a person received in his pay packet by the same amount. . . . State benefits of every sort, including pensions, could be handled in the same way. So could such outgoings as rents and national insurance contributions.

Thus if you have £30 a week and prices increase 10 per cent., indexation will bring you an extra £3. If you have £300 it will bring you £30. But Tugendhat is not hiding anything. He says it would ensure that “whatever the rate of price increases, the relationship between the various groups in society remains constant”. Which means it is a scheme for ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

Splash and Grab

In fact the rich have much simpler methods for beating rising prices. When money is depreciating they exchange it for goods which are not. A report in The Sun on 12th July, headed Hey, Big Spender ! described how they are “splashing out millions in a wild scramble to beat inflation”:

They are on a huge buying spree of diamonds, pearls, furs, yachts and Rolls-Royces.

. . .  At Garrards of Regent Street, the Queen’s jeweller, the gem business is booming—with emeralds, rubies and £10,000 diamonds selling like hot cakes.

Would this have been what Dr. Coggan, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, meant? He spoke to the General Synod of the Church of England about “the pursuit of personal gain” being promoted by competitiveness in schools:

“Thus from very early years ‘me first’ is instilled as the most desirable of all attitudes in life,” he said.

(Guardian, 6th July)

It sounds like a tasteless crack at those who appointed him, but of course it isn’t. If you enquired of Dr. Coggan, you would find it is the working class whose “pursuit of personal gain” he wants to stop.

Anyone's Guess

What is demanded in an economic crisis, by the public and economists alike, is the application of some theory which will stop it. Socialists have always pointed out that no such theory exists for capitalism. But even if there did there is a simple reason why it could not be fulfilled — the interests of the capitalist class lie in going on doing the things which bring about crises.

Hence, the answer which is sought is one which would allow the cause to continue but prevent the effects, and there is not one theory but many. This was demonstrated in The Guardian's “City Comment” on 26th June. Under the heading United They’re Not, various financiers’ views were given:

Some believe that any reflationary moves could spark a disastrous run on the pound. Others think this unlikely, provided there are also measures which act to reduce inflation. .Some—and they tend to be closest to the share market—believe that almost anything which would cushion the developing recession would be welcome. About the only thing which the City is united on is a desire for “a better Government attitude to the wealth producers —industry that is” in the words of one share dealer.

Clunk-Click to You

Are you worried about death on the roads? A full page in the 18th June’s Guardian showed something better than legislation. It’s a Mercedez-Benz:

Any valuable executives involved in a car crash in the ‘S’ class have a better chance of walking away from the wreckage than in any other luxury saloon in Europe today.

That gives a different view of the safety films in which the distressing results of not wearing seat-belts are shown. What is needed now is a film of a maimed person and the message pointed out. Fred was careless. He wasn’t a valuable executive and didn't drive a Mercedes-Benz. Fred has learned his lesson.

And haven’t we all?

Robert Barltrop

Sting in the Tail: Spot the Difference (1991)

The Sting in the Tail column from the August 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Spot the Difference

A typical piece of left-wing mythology is that it is only the Labour Party leaders who are opportunists and obsessed with "image” while the rank and file are concerned with principles.

This fallacy was exposed once again when The Guardian (July 8) published a selection of letters from readers advising Neil Kinnock on how to win the next election.

One Labour activist suggested:

Learn how to hold your hands when strolling on camera. Look grave on suitable occasions.

Another suggested:

Open the door to electoral reform. Not too wide: that would expose the divisions on the subject within the Labour Party the wrong side of a general election.

A third told him to keep Labour voters happy by being:

. . . less lenient and understanding to criminals.

The thinking of Labour leaders and the rank and file is not nearly as different as the left-wing imagines.

Good Morning Blues

Should any of our readers have the misfortune to be rising for work at 6.30am take our advice — don't switch on the TV.

It's bad enough being a wage slave, who has to rise in the middle of the night to go to work, without being greeted by the mindless pap of breakfast TV. The item that grates with this writer is the Stock Market News.

Some earnest young whiz kid prattles on about the Nikkei Index and the Dow Jones Index, the Balance of Payments Deficit and exciting news — the Weakening Pound.

Who is this stuff aimed at? Do they imagine the working class are interested in the Stock Market? Surely all members of the capitalist class are snugly tucked up at this unearthly hour?

The other morning, after yawning through this drivel, Scorpion phoned in sick; switched off the Bright Young Thing in mid-sentence as he enthused over Invisible Earnings (a reference to Scorpion's wage packet?): and returned to bed to contemplate the intricacies of Supply Side Economics —- it's all good sleep-inducing stuff.

Deep Thinker (1)

The mental bankruptcy of Militant is well demonstrated by Derek Hatton in his book "Inside Left".

Even in a totally socialist society there will always be the need for independent trade unionists.

So here's a "Marxist" who thinks there will still be trade unions when capitalism, the system which spawned them, has been abolished!

And what makes a Liverpudlian? According to Hatton:

It's that philosophy which produced the Beatles, the Cilia Blacks, the Jimmy Tarbucks . . . It's a natural spirit of competition coupled with a belief that you're not simply as good as anyone else. You are better.

Deep Thinker (2)

Speaking of mental bankruptcy, the news that Yorkshire County cricket club are to hire players who are not "pure bred Yorkshiremen" has provoked a Yorkshire Labour MP, Roland Boyes, to table a Commons motion regretting this move.

It is my beloved Yorkshire that I am concerned about. We have a proud tradition and I feel a little part of me has been destroyed.

(BBC Ceefax July 12)

Obviously the "little part" Boyes is referring to is his brain.

Up the Poll

If you are baffled by the ups and downs of recent opinion polls then spare a thought for the Labour Party.

No matter how many problems face the Tories — rising unemployment, big rows over Europe, public distrust over their NHS policies, etc., somehow they are doing well in the polls.

Many weird and wonderful reasons are offered for this. The Tories put it down to their "sound policies", some pollsters say that many voters are simply rewarding John Major for not being Mrs Thatcher, while Labour can only gulp and stare at the polls like a rabbit hypnotised by a stoat.

Whatever the reasons for the topsy-turvy polls may be, the voters' fickleness is not caused by any doubts about the ability of politicians to solve capitalism's problems, only about which bunch of tricksters to entrust with the job.

That's Entertainment? (Part 1)

The news that a supremely talented artist like Woody Allen is to produce TV commercials for an Italian supermarket for a reported $2 million fee would depress any of his admirers who have enjoyed such films as 'Take the Money and Run" and 'The Sleeper'; so it is heartening to know that capitalism has not yet completely ruined artistic integrity.

Advertising signs that con you 

Into thinking you're the one 

That can do what's never been done 

That can win what's never been won 

Meanwhile life outside goes on 

All around you

Sang Bob Dylan in the sixties and it would seem that after all the trappings of commercial success he can still take a rational view about the phoniness of capitalism:

You know things go better with Coke because Aretha Franklin told you so and Maxwell House coffee must be OK because Ray Charles is singing about it . . . I'm not gonna live or die behind that — I’m not selling breakfast cereal or razor blades . . . Everything is just too commercial, like a sprouting octopus, too much part of the system. Sometimes you feel you're walking around in that movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers and you wonder if it's got you yet, if you're still one of the few or are you "them" now. You never know do you?

The Guardian (July 2)

Well, how about it? Has the system got to you? Have you become an orthodox unthinking zombie? Or is there still the spark of human individualism and criticism burning out there?

That's Entertainment? (Part 2)

In discussing the suicide of Nick Massey, a Public Relations man in the Pop business, The Independent on Sunday (July 7) revealed some of the deceits that go on in the business that is cynically called Entertainment

Dusty record columns, titled Disc or Parade, became Bizarre or the White Hot Club and sparkled with increasingly malicious rumours. Elton John had connections with rent boys; Andrew Ridgely broke his nose in a nightclub brawl; the Beastie Boys swore at disabled kids — all were untrue.

Elton John sued The Sun for £1 million. Andrew Ridgely had actually had a nose job; the "brawl" story explained the dressing. And the Beastie Boys? Well, that story was just too good not to use. . . "You might bend or curve or shape something, but what is fact?" Rick Sky said to Q magazine. "What is truth? Everbody around you, PRs and stars, is lying".

Yes indeed, there is no business like show business — and there is no system like capitalism for deceit, hype and cheating.

Seeing Red (2022)

Book Review from the February 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

Always Red. By Len McCluskey. OR Books. 2021.

McCluskey has always come across as the ultimate trade union bruiser and then, in later years, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn. Originally a ‘planman’ on the Liverpool docks (drawing up plans of where cargoes from various ports would be held on ships), he rose through the ranks of the Transport and General Workers’ Union before playing a key role in the creation of Britain’s most powerful union, Unite – formed in 2007 from a merger of the T & G and Amicus. From 2010 until recently, he became its General Secretary.

The ‘red’ in the title refers not only to McCluskey’s politics – he was an early supporter of Militant, though says he was never a member – but also to his love of Liverpool FC, with which he appears to have travelled all over Europe. He also appears to have seen red many times in the more metaphorical sense during his union career and the book is full of score-settling. Former Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson – who was McCluskey’s old flat mate – comes out of it particularly badly. And there is clearly no love lost with Keir Starmer either, who he accuses of duplicity.

One of the recurring issues in the book though is McCluskey’s belief that the working class are ready to rally behind a radical left-wing programme of nationalisation and state planning if it wasn’t for the right-wing of the Labour Party selling them out. This, of course, is the old Militant line, parroted today by their successors SPEW (he also still uses some of their terminology, banging on not just about the Labour Right but the ‘ultra-left’ too).

This perspective leads him to often make a highly selective and one-sided analysis of events, the best example being the Labour performance under his friend Corbyn in the 2017 and 2019 General Elections. 2017 is portrayed as a great victory in all but name as Labour increased its vote with a radical programme of reforms by more than in any other election since 1945. However, 2019 is portrayed as the Brexit election and that Labour’s downfall was simply a reflection of this and its pro-Remain stance.

But this won’t do. Not just because Brexit wasn’t the only factor that led to their disastrous showing in 2019 – the public perception of Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s unrealistic long ‘shopping list’ of leftist demands were almost as significant. But it’s also because their relative success in 2017 (even though they didn’t actually win of course) wasn’t principally due to the fact they presented the British working class with the radical stuff they had long been waiting for. After all, they’d actually done the same in 1983 and had come a big cropper then, as they later did in 2019 with an even bigger radical promise.

The main reason for Labour’s relatively good showing in 2017 was because that election was also dominated by Brexit but that time they more successfully pitched themselves as a party that could be supported by Remainers and even some ‘soft’ Brexiters worried by a no-deal outcome. It was why Labour managed to win strongly pro-Remain Kensington and Canterbury for the first time ever, yet against the national swing, could also contrive to lose the likes of hard-Brexit Mansfield and Stoke-on-Trent South for the first time in living memory. The correlation between increases in the Tory vote in strong Brexit areas and the increase in the Labour vote in strong Remain areas was statistically significant and the biggest factor at play, but McCluskey just ignores this. By 2019 the ground had shifted and Labour was by then simply left with an unpopular leader, an incoherent campaign and an unconvincing set of leftist reforms.

But it was ever the way with the left – always wanting to convince themselves the precise cocktail of radical reforms of capitalism purveyed by one or other of their factions would one day triumph, when most of the evidence is to the contrary (and not just in the UK either).

The best chapter is actually the last one, on ‘fighting back’ trade unionism as he calls it. Here McCluskey outlines how Unite has developed the tactic of ‘leverage’ and discusses how it works. A good example was when ‘passenger transport company Go Ahead sacked a steward working on the buses in Manchester, we discovered its growth plan was to move into the Norwegian rail market by winning a contract worth £3.8 billion. We dispatched a team to speak to Norwegian politicians and the press, armed with a dossier detailing how this company dealt with rail contracts in the UK. The company was forced to weigh the benefit of getting rid of the steward against the threat to a multi-billion pound contract. Soon enough, the steward was back at work’ (p.292).

There are a variety of examples of Unite using leverage in successful ways to defend its members and their pay and conditions. This is what good unions are for (despite their imperfections) and this chapter is arguably worth more than the rest of the book put together. Indeed, McCluskey can take some genuine pride in the role he has played in developing this – and certainly far more than in what appears to be his enduring adherence to the Trotskyist tactics and programmes of the 70s and 80s.

DAP

“We Want Work” (1963)

From the January 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

The sight of a demonstration marching through London demanding work is enough to shake anyone out of his complacency. For some years since the end of the Second World War, workers have regarded relatively full employment as a right, something that was here to stay. How wrong they were! Unemployment in November last topped the half million mark and was the worst figure in that month for over 20 years. And now we witness workless Merseysiders shouting slogans and waving banners. A spectre is haunting us—the spectre of the 1930’s, the lean and hungry depression years.

How pathetic it is that an old problem has evoked only the same old stale and worthless ideas for its solution. If we pause for a moment and listen to the spokesmen for the marchers, we shall hear them demanding government action to stop the flow of industry southwards and to force more factories to the depressed areas. At best this will only remove the sting from the hopelessness of the unemployed Merseysider. Like most convenient cut and dried theories, it conveniently ignores the basic cause of the problem and, as we might expect, it is a stock line of the average Labour Party supporter.

In our capitalist society, industry goes where there is profit to be found. Nearness to raw materials, short lines of communication, plentiful supplies of suitable labour, easy access to markets, availability of cheap fuel and power—these are some of the main factors which decide the location of a factory and cause it perhaps to be moved elsewhere later on.

It is true, of course, that governments have also tried to move industry to fulfil political or strategic requirements, and since the end of the war firms have been encouraged to take their factories to the “development areas.” During a period of boom when markets are buoyant and expanding, many companies are quite willing to operate from the more remote areas such as South Wales, Scotland and the North. They have a sellers’ market and good profit margins. But what happens when the markets are tightening, goods are no longer easy to sell, and profit margins are shrinking? Why, production is curtailed, of course, and redundancy threatens.

Firms which have moved out of London and other big towns then start casting wistful eyes back home. Costs have become even more important and any method of reducing them is looked at carefully. It may be, decided to concentrate production in one area instead of dispersing it over several areas as before. Although unemployment may appear earlier and be more acute in some parts than in others, it is a condition which will affect most areas if a depression deepens.

If a thriving industry is transferred to Merseyside from Surrey, it may provide work for some of Merseyside’s unemployed, but the basic trouble has not been cured. It has merely been spread a bit more evenly, a few more workers looking for work in the South and a few less in the North. Capitalist politicians have been quick to notice that people generally tend to ignore the existence of a social problem if it is not too heavily concentrated, and this has been one factor influencing their post-war employment policies. But it is when a trade slump gets out of hand and unemployment figures soar into the millions that spreading-the-load theories take a back seat, and more varied and bizarre speculations are taken from the lumber room.

The problem of unemployment is rooted in our private property set up. The majority of the population—the workers —own little or no property and can get a living only by selling their energies to those who do own—the capitalists. Workers produce more than they receive in wages and it is this surplus, realised when the goods are sold, that belongs to the capitalist class. But the market is capricious, unpredictable, quite anarchic, despite all the market research by the bright young men of industry, and capitalists often find themselves faced with a falling market at the very time when they have planned for an increase in demand. Capitalism is, in fact, quite unplannable.

What then is to be done? At the risk of being called all sorts of names, we say that marches of the unemployed are of no value. Workers might just as well save their shoe leather and stay at home. That is one lesson at least which we should have learned from the 1930’s. There is only one way to end such evils as unemployment, and that is by the world’s workers understanding, desiring, and taking conscious political action to achieve a new social structure, based upon the common ownership of the means of living. This is Socialism.

There will be no unemployed marchers and no pro-capitalism Labour reformers. The working class have to make the choice. To ignore or oppose only means a continuance of the insanity of our times.

Jack Law

The economics of slavery in the West Indies (1988)

From the July 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Slavery has existed from the earliest records of human history. The ancient Egyptians used slave labour to build the pyramids from 4,750-3,000 BC; the Romans and ancient Greeks owned slaves and the geographical areas from which slaves were obtained had a history of owning slaves themselves. The West Africans had slaves and the Carib Indians of the West Indies raided Puerto Rica. Hispaniola and Jamaica for slaves. Slavery was such a basic feature of ancient societies that Plato, Plutarch and Aristophanes all retained slavery as part of their utopias, and even Thomas More, in his Utopia, as late as 1516, retained slavery as a punishment for crimes and adultery.

The slave trade of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries differed from earlier periods of slavery in that the number of people enslaved was much greater; the contradiction between the alleged Christian beliefs of the white slavers and the evils of the trade led to pseudo-scientific theories that their black captives were not really human, which, in turn, produced entrenched racist ideas which have persisted into the twentieth century.

The trade in African slaves to provide labour in the Southern states of the USA and the West Indies lasted for approximately 250 years and led to the transportation of an estimated forty million slaves. The Portuguese began trading in slaves at Lagos between 1440 and 1450 and by 1540 ten thousand slaves were being shipped to the West Indies from West Africa each year and. in addition, slaves were sold in South America and Mexico. Although slaves may have been brought to England as a result of the Iberian trade, the first group of African slaves to be brought to England by an English trader came from the Guinea Coast in 1555.

Britain's participation in the slave trade dates from 1564, when Sir John Hawkins made his second expedition to Africa in the flagship Jesus, with Queen Elizabeth's blessing, his first trip, two years before, having been highly successful. Manufactured goods such as textiles, iron, guns and spirits were shipped from Britain to the Guinea Coast and exchanged for other goods and slaves. These were exchanged for raw materials such as sugar and cotton in the New World which, in turn, were transported to England, completing the triangular trade. Jack Grates (The Great White Lie) states:

 Profits derived from the system found their way through reinvestment into other industries and agriculture, and it is not an exaggeration to say that they contributed substantially to the development of the Industrial Revolution on which Britain's nineteenth-century prosperity was based.

Liverpool was the main British port from which the slave ships sailed. In 1730, the port had 15 ships; in 1751, 53; 74 in 1760; in 1770, 96. and 132 by 1792 (Karl Marx. Capital).

The slave trade corrupted the African chiefs who bartered with the white slave traders. The insatiable demand for slaves led to an increase in tribal wars for captives who could be sold to the slavers. And by the middle of the eighteenth century the kidnapping of men and women of working age and in their most active reproductive years, the terrible loss of life resulting from the tribal wars and the spread of disease which accompanies foreign invaders, caused some areas of Africa to become underpopulated.

As the slavers pushed further into the interior of Africa the forced marches to the coast became more of an ordeal. Thirty per cent of the slaves died before they reached the coast to board the slave ships. And sometimes slaves who were rejected as unfit were killed by the black traders (Alexander Falconbridge, An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa, 1788). Conditions on the slave ships were barbaric in the extreme: a captain in the Royal Navy made a famous drawing of the slave ship Brookes in Liverpool docks in 1787, which showed how 450 slaves were packed into the ship, allowing six feet by sixteen inches for every man and five feet by sixteen inches for every woman. This "tight-packing", as it was called. led to considerable loss of life during transportation and in 1788 to the British Parliament regulating the conditions under which slaves could be shipped. Although this made the transportation of slaves more humane, by regulating the trade Parliament had officially sanctioned it. Greed had led to the "tight-packing" of slaves but the higher survival rate of transported slaves after regulation may have been commercially just as successful and, by its claim to be humane, may have set back the campaign to abolish the trade.

William Wilberforce campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade from the formation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in London in May 1787 to the passing of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act on 16 March. 1807. A number of myths surround Wilberforce. He was an MP and a wealthy factory owner who exploited child labour in his Hull factories. Contrary to popular belief he was opposed to the emancipation of the slaves, claiming that they were not fit for freedom.

When Earl Percy wanted to bring in a Bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the West Indies in 1807, Wilberforce stated: "I and those who think with me not only abstain from proposing such a Bill, are ready to reject such a proposition when made by others". Wilberforce had a patronising attitude towards the slaves and was intolerant of Mohammedanism and Hinduism, which he wished to replace with Christianity.

The Prime Minister, William Pitt, also claimed to be an abolitionist but trading actually increased during his administration. It is thought that his opposition arose as a result of the sale of slaves by British merchants to foreign colonies, especially France, which although profitable in the short term was damaging to Britain's long-term interests.

After the abolition of the slave trade a million slaves remained in bondage in the West Indies and as slavery continued until 1833 slaves, therefore, had to be replaced. But the illegality of trading pushed up the price of slaves. To prevent illegal trading the British government provided bounty money for the capture of slave ships. As a full ship could command a bounty of £2,500 the naval squadron patrolling the African coast preferred to catch slave vessels at sea because it was more profitable than prevention. To evade the risk of capture the slave captains would put the slaves into specially prepared hiding places, so small that the slaves often died of suffocation or else they would be thrown overboard to drown or be eaten by sharks. The illegal trade was so profitable that if only one in three of the slave ships delivered its human cargo, a profit could be made. The European slave owning countries co-operated with each other to stop the slave trade but the USA refused to take part for a time and it was possible for a ship to avoid capture by running up the American flag.

The abolition of the slave trade provides a classic example of the futility of a reform that leaves the system intact and can sometimes lead to a worsening of conditions rather than an improvement. By the nineteenth century the industrial revolution had superseded chattel-slavery and feudalism in Britain. A new class of labouring poor with nothing to sell except their labour power had emerged in the industrial towns and cities. Slavery was becoming an anachronism. Slave labour was not free: slaves had to be maintained and, unlike the wage-slaves of Britain, they were expensive to buy. In Jamaica, in 1817, male slaves aged 20-40 years were valued at £139 and female slaves at £124 (B.W. Higman, Slave Population and Economy in Jamaica 1807-1834, Cambridge University Press. 1976).

As the work performed by slaves was usually of poor quality incentives were provided within the slavery system. In the French West Indies slaves had some legal protection against arbitrary punishments being meted out by their owners and. it is claimed, those islands were more profitable. In Jamaica slaves who had learned trades were able to amass fairly large sums of money. The ending of the slave trade led to a higher proportion of unproductive slaves as the owners were forced to breed slaves for themselves.

Further pressure was put on the slave system by a fall in the price of sugar which, by emancipation, was worth only about half of its value at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Reform Bill of 1832 halved the planters' representation in the British Parliament which weakened them politically and the increasing number of slave rebellions culminated in the Jamaican rebellion on 27 December 1831 in which 20,000 slaves took part, killing 14 whites and destroying over £1 million worth of property.

In the face of growing economic and political problems the plantation owners opted for the compensation offered by the British government of 1833 which, in fact recognised the legal right of one person to own another. For the former slaves, emancipation changed their material lives very little; their former owners kept control of the courts and owned the land. As Tolstoy observed fifty years later:

 . . . the essence of all slavery consists in drawing the benefit of another's labour-force by compulsion, and it is quite immaterial whether the drawing of this benefit is founded upon property in the slave or upon property in money which is indispensable to the other man (What Shall We Do Then, 1885).

Chattel-slavery was a particularly vicious form of exploitation, although the condition of the working class under laissez-faire capitalism was also inhumane and squandered workers' lives. For workers all over the world the fight for emancipation against wage-slavery and its replacement with socialism still has to be won.

Carl Pinel

Caught In The Act: Eric Heffer (1991)

The Caught In The Act Column from the July 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Eric Heffer's death came at an awkward time for the Labour Party. It ensured that the party's problems with Militant in Merseyside would get all the concentrated publicity of a by-election swarming with media hacks, when Labour might have hoped that it would be obscured in a general election. And just as Neil Kinnock is congratulating himself on the apparent success of his single minded drive to tune up the the Labour Party into a winning machine, he finds his open cynicism being contrasted to Heffer’s stubborn loyally to principles. For example Heffer's dramatic exit from the platform at Labour's 1985 conference, in protest at Kinnock's assault on Militant, receives kinder treatment now than the speech which provoked it. One obituary put the boot into Kinnock by recalling two episodes from his past as an attention-seeking left winger. On the first occasion he enraged Heffer by calling for a one-day general strike. A few years later, when he had come on a bit, he made a point of lounging on the front bench during the Queen's Speech. Royalists who were upset by this puerile demonstration will have been reassured when Kinnock recently informed the Commons, with a coy simper, that he had spent the previous night as a guest of the Queen at Windsor Castle.

Frustrations

There is, however, a problem about these supposedly unyielding supposed principles of Eric Heffer because there is no certainty about his ideas nor about whether he held them consistently enough for them to deserve to be called principles, let alone unyielding. He began his active political life at the age of 16 or 17 in the Labour Party but he soon became frustrated at the party's lack of commitment so he joined the Communist Party. However the CP were perhaps a bit too committed for him; in 1948 they expelled as a "left wing deviationist" which was their way of describing his stand against their support for a government of national unity and their opposition to strikes during the war.

Heffer then decided that his frustrations could after all be contained in the Labour Party and he rejoined it but by 1954 he had resigned again, propelled by another bout of impatience. The misguided lesson he drew from his political oscillation was that there was a need for a new party which would treat left wing fantasies seriously. With a few others equally deluded, he helped form the Socialist Workers Federation but it did not take long to dawn on him that the SWF was outside the mainstream of the workers' movement — where no self-respecting left winger could ever be comfortable. So Heffer (by now you know what’s coming) joined the Labour Party for the third time. On this occasion his membership survived, perhaps because he took out his frustration by being consistently out of step with the leadership and joining the left wing gadflies in Tribune Group and then the Campaign Group.

Along the way he became famous for what might kindly be called inconsistencies. For example, was it really a loveable eccentricity which caused this righteously left wing MP to like and admire arch reactionaries like Margaret Thatcher and Auberon Waugh? Or was the naive vanity which Heffer's friends said somehow existed in him alongside kindness and sincerity? How could this rigidly principled Marxist also be a devout Christian, dispensing the opiate of the masses from the High Anglican church, where it is more usual to find crusty Tories than Merseyside militants? What happened to the SWF policy of opposition to the Labour Party or any other parliamentary party and to the parliamentary "peaceful" road to socialism, when Heffer became what his admirers called "a great parliamentarian"? How many such contradictions can one person cram into one lifetime?

Militant

Still, they all loved him. Tories like Robert Rhodes James (". . a very special and for me remarkable friendship") and Kenneth Baker ("He has won the respect of the House"); right wing Labourites like Joel Barnett ("He will be much missed by all who knew him") and of course Militant, whose cause he defended on the Labour NEC (". . . he felt it his duty to stand up and speak for me" said Derek Hatton). In fact there may have been rather more than that to Heffer’s relationship with Merseyside Militant. There was every reason for him to respect their organisational talents and their ability to marshal votes; every reason for him to want them on his side rather than to antagonise them with one of his famous outbursts of candour, vanity, kindness, stoical principles and parliamentary greatness. We can only speculate about his reaction if Militant had put up a candidate against him as they have in the by-election caused by his death. Perhaps, among his irritation, there would have been a sneaking admiration for this policy change, worthy of Heffer at his best; for by contesting the election they are challenging the Labour Party openly instead of trying to change it from within.

Heffer spent a lot of his time clinging to the wreckage of the theory that the Labour Party lost elections because it was "not socialist enough". It is difficult to reconcile this with what has actually happened to Labour in recent elections. Even someone as divorced from reality as Heffer was would be hard put to find any convincing evidence that Labour would have stayed in power from 1945 until the present if only they had behaved as if capitalism is not a social system in which everything has to be paid for, the books must be balanced and a nice profit made for the class who are in ownership over us. In any case Heffer was not excessively eager to do the donkey work in applying his theory about the electoral harvest to be reaped from "more socialist" policies. In 1967 he was offered a junior ministerial post but he turned it down; when he agreed to be Minister of State under Tony Benn at the Department of Industry in 1974 he lasted only a year. Far from trying to change Labour policies from within the government he took one of his "principled stands" and left Harold Wilson with no choice but to sack him.

Futility

Heffer is not the first left wing politician to be kindly assessed after their death and he will not be the last. So far no one has mentioned the confusion people like that are responsible for and the effect it must have on workers who are aware of what capitalism does to them and are genuinely looking for a better way of organising society. In his Liverpool constituency, plagued by desperate poverty and scarred by the memory of the Toxteth riot, Heffer persuaded thousands of workers to vote for him on the assurance that his intellectual muddle of irreconcilables could tame the worst features of capitalism. Well he failed: the Militant by election candidate. Lesley Mahmood, promised to fight on the same issues like council redundancies, unemployment and hospital closures which Heffer had been supposedly dealing with since his election nearly thirty years ago.

Did Heffer ever wonder, from the depths of his futility, if there was another way? In April 1981 he wrote a pompous letter to The Socialist Standard ("It has been drawn to my attention . . I expect an apology and retraction in your next issue".) when we mistakenly attributed to him a piece in the SWF journal Socialist Revolt. He was right and we said so unreservedly. We also pointed out some important inconsistencies in an article which he definitely had written in the same issue of Socialist Revolt. The point is that Heffer must have read — or at least had his attention drawn to — The Socialist Standard and so to the ideas of Marxism, of socialism and the democratic revolution necessary for its establishment. It meant that all of his confusion and wobbling from one daft idea to another was unnecessary. He should have known better.

Ivan

By The Way. (1920)

The By The Way Column from the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The master class and their satellites never weary in their campaign of extolling the "virtues" of practising thrift, increasing production, and diminishing consumption on the part of the workers.

That these things are the inevitable lot of working-class existence, and consequently the majority could not partake of the schemes for saving, even if they would, never seems to dawn upon those engaged in boosting appeals, so far are they removed from the actual facts of life.

On the other hand, while we are engaged in these slavish practices from economic compulsion, our bosses are enjoying themselves at "Victory Balls" or ski-ing at some Swiss resort.

Only a few days ago the National Savings Assembly held a meeting in London, and on this occasion a message from the King was read, from which I cull the following:

  It will be your endeavour to explain and to encourage the reduction of unnecessary consumption, and the increase of production, in order that the whole national standard of living may be improved. . . I am to express the King's hope that both employers and employed will lend their support to increase the number of Savings Associations in the works and factories throughout the realm. —"Daily News," January 17th, 1920.

One of the promoters of the movement, Sir Robert Kindersley, speaking at this meeting admitted the poverty position of the workers, though, of course, quite accidentally, when he said "there were still literally tens of thousands of factories and works throughout the country without a War Savings Association."

How the "national standard of living is to be improved" we are never told, though the phrase is an oft-recurring one. Of course, during the early days of the war, when various bodies of workers were discussing with Lloyd George the questions of dilution, speeding-up of munitions, and so forth, he then suggested that this matter of a "higher standard" should be deferred until the war with Germany was concluded, and it was about this period that we were treated to the Lloyd Georgian slogan—"Audacity Wins." However, it is demonstrably clear it was merely words, words, words.

That such a state of things is seriously contemplated is untrue, and can be easily proven, for even in the Government's wages agreement with the railwaymen provision is made for a reduction of one shilling for every 5 points fall in the cost of living. This, then, is the way not to improve the standard of living.

To those who are continually shouting about the wave of working-class prosperity brought about as the result of the war a study of the conditions under which the workers live, move, and have their being would, indeed, be an eye-opener. In spite of the "fabulous" sums which we receive as wages at the end of the week, we, unlike the members of the idle, parasitic class, are unable to take ourselves to Monte Carlo and other fashionable resorts. No, these "high wages" merely suffice to keep us going just about another week, so with clockwork regularity we present ourselves at the bosses' warehouses and factory gates in order to obtain the wherewithal to exist.

While our masters may gamble at Monte Carlo and elsewhere, we, the working class, are told by some who should know a little about these matters that we are too poor to have a flutter on premium bonds.

In this connection I would quote the following comment on premium bonds which recently appeared in the Monthly Review of the London Joint City and Midland Bank :

  It must not be forgotten that, great as have been the wage-increases of the community, they have, taken as a whole, barely kept pace with the still rising cost of living, and certainly do not yield a large margin for investment such as the advocates of Premium Bonds believe to be possible. 

So once again is our diagnosis of the working-class position confirmed even by the "enemy" himself.

#    #    #    #

In the far-off days before the war, Mr. Lloyd George (speaking of the "boon" he was confering upon those veterans of industry who had been so busily engaged in creating wealth for others to enjoy that at the age of three score years and ten they found the only haven of refuge was the workhouse), delivered himself of the following concerning old-age pensions :

  By this act of justice we have sweetened the bitterest thoughts of the poor and lightened the darkest hours of their existence. That which they most dreaded—old age—is now an anticipation of honourable ease. The workhouse has become the chimney-corner. The spectre has become an angel.

Beautiful swank ! We said at the time that it was mere humbug—a capitalist rate-saving device.

Having given the picture as portrayed by the author, let me give the facts as recited (one account of many) in that organ of Liberalism and Lloyd George, "Reynolds's Newspaper," (December 31st, 1919).

  The pathetic details of the death of two aged sisters who starved in a city of wealth and plenty were related at the inquest at Liverpool on Mary Gray aged 81, widow, and Ann Coyne, aged 74, spinster.
  The women were found lying dead on the floor of their kitchen, and it was stated that they existed on their old age pensions and 7s. subscribed fortnightly by friends. There was no bed. Mary, who was blind, slept on an old armchair. A piece of dried crust was the only food in the house.
  A doctor gave evidence that their clothing was simply rags. Ann evidently had fallen over a tattered rug and lain helpless through weakness, dying of concussion of the brain. Mary died more recently, and had sat in a chair for a day or two without anything to eat. Both were very emaciated.
  The Coroner said it was a horrible thing that in a city like Liverpool these poor old women had died in this manner. " —"Reynolds's," Dec. 21st, 1919.

I can just imagine how these old ladies' "darkest hours were lightened" by the possession of such unbounded Christian generosity in the shape of 15 whole shillings per week. In similar circumstances I would far rather have the "workhouse" than the "chimney corner."

Fellow worker, have you ever thought what your support of capitalist society means to you and your class? It means a life of toil and poverty, and at the end of the journey, when you are no longer useful as a profit-producing machine, the workhouse stares you in the face, or if you should reach the prescribed term of years a grateful country may allow you 10s. a week to commit suicide with. Is it worth fighting for? Think it over. If you desire something better, then come and join us and help to win the World for the Workers.

#    #    #    #

At the time when the results of the Borough Council Elections were made known in November last there was much joy and jubilation because it had come to pass that Labour had captured many seats on the various councils throughout the country. After all, there is little cause for rejoicing, for Capitalism has won again. There is, indeed, much hard spade work yet to be done. It is Tweedledum and Tweedledee. True, according to the various "programmes" of the Labour Party which I have seen, they are going to try and make capitalism more bearable. The feeding of school children and the supply of milk to necessitous mothers, free libraries and mixed bathing for the unemployed advocated by them, have for long years formed part of the "progressive" ticket.

The fact that in society to-day there exists underfed school children and necessitous mothers is part of the indictment against capitalism and a strong reason for revolutionary action and not reform. Tinkering with the effects of the system is of no avail. The cause of poverty in the midst of plenty is to be found in the private ownership of the means of life. Social ownership can alone effect the change. And this the Labour Party does not stand for.

During the war period case after case could be cited to show that the Labour men were nothing but capitalist hacks. To all students of politics a whole host of names will readily suggest itself. Coming to a more recent date we have the notorious case of Manchester's Lord Mayor, which is worth recording :

  Manchester's Labour Lord Mayor, Alderman Tom Fox, uttered a stern warning to a deputation of unemployed on Saturday. 

Vague threats of violence in the event of work not being forthcoming have been made. Such procedure was roundly condemned by Alderman Fox. "Thirty years ago," he frankly said, "I was one of you, using the same sort of talk, but it leads nowhere! 

It is time all this nonsense was knocked on the head. 

Suppose anything of this happened, then you would come up against authority, and that authority in this city is vested in myself for the time being, as well as in the police force. 

Then you are up against the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force—all in their full strength. There are a few of you. I know what would happen, and it is as well that you knew too. 

There would be an appeal to the Lord Mayor for order, and I am prepared to take action with all the energy I am capable of, and don't you forget it, my friends. I am the Lord Mayor, and I am bound to keep order, and as the Lord Mayor I would do it. Don't make any mistake about it. " —"Daily News," Dec. 1st, 1919.

So there you have it ''naked and unashamed." I, the representative of King Capital, will use all the forces of capitalism against you, the workers, if and when necessary. What think ye now, ye workers who voted Labour not understanding that Labourism is but another name for Capitalism ?

#    #    #    #

A meeting was held in December last at the Mansion House for the purpose of laying the foundation of a movement for linking together in active co-operation all bodies and organisations—religious, social, or industrial—which are striving to break down the barriers between class and class and to establish relations of mutual confidence between employers and employed. Notwithstanding the efforts of these enterprising people, I feel bound to add that they have a big job on hand.

Judging from the weighty words of wisdom which fell from the lips of the Bishop of Peterborough, we have great cause for thankfulness, my brethren, that our erring Christian friend has at last grasped a sublime truth. He said : "Industry was made for man and not man for industry. We have had too much of the soul-destroying competition of the past." Verily, we move.

Another gentleman of the cloth, the Rev. Father Plater, who evidently knew his fellow religionists well, stated that; "Religion was not praying into a top hat on Sunday morning with liberty to prey upon our neighbours the rest of the week." ("Daily News," December 10th. 1919.)

Why, oh why, my masters, is it now necessary, seeing that the world has been made safe for democracy, to form associations to "break down the barriers between class and class"? With wearying monotony throughout the last four years you have time and again told us that the war had accomplished this thing for you, and that the unity formed in the trenches would stand you in good stead in the days ahead.

No, sirs, you have been cherishing a delusion. It cannot be done. Look around you on every hand and you will see signs that there is an antagonism of interest between the two sections in the community— a class war—which can only be terminated by the abolition of classes in and through the institution of the Socialist Commonwealth.

The Scout