The Problem of the Small Shopkeeper (1934)

From the March 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lord Beaverbrook, who says that Fascism must be sternly resisted, and Lord Rothermere, who says it is the only solution, have joined hands to deal a stout blow at the Co-operative Movement, and are obligingly writing articles in each other’s papers about the iniquity of co-operative stores ruining the little shopkeepers.

The two lords are noted for their political stunting and for their frequent startling reversals of policy, and the present campaign shows them, as usual, wildly disregardful of consistency. Lord Beaverbrook, for the past three years, has loudly clamoured for higher wages, on the ground, among others, that higher pay means more money to be spent at the counters of the stores which advertise in his columns. He also found it a useful stick with which to beat the Labour Government early in 1931. He now makes a major point in his indictment of the co-operative stores, that they also have reduced the pay of their staffs. Yet Lord Beaverbrook finds no difficulty in associating with Lord Rothermere, whose papers have always been foremost in defending every wage-cut there ever was, and which now oppose the restoration of the 1931"cuts,” which Beaverbrook supports.

Lord Beaverbrook denounces the co-operatives because they dabble in politics. A trading concern, he solemnly says, should not be allowed to go in for politics. Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere themselves are interested in trading concerns, their newspaper companies. Do they keep out of politics? On the contrary, as everybody knows, politics, their own personal ambitions, their wirepulling and political back-biting, are the life-blood of their newspapers.

Then Lord Beaverbrook declares that the cooperative stores are to be condemned on two grounds: (a) That their prices are higher than those of the small traders, and (b) That the co-operatives have an unfair advantage in being able to return to their customers at the end of the year a “ dividend on purchases.” It should be apparent to Lord Beaverbrook that if, in fact, co-operative store prices are higher than those of private traders, then the “dividend on purchases" merely represents the accumulated savings of the customers. They pay more for the goods and in due course get the excess back again. If that were all the difference between the co-operatives and the small traders then the latter could help themselves quite simply by starting similar schemes for saving up their customers' spare cash.

The real trouble between the co-operatives and the small traders is a quite different matter. The gist of it is that the small trader is small, and the co-operatives are becoming mammoth capitalist trading concerns, just like any other.

That is where the shoe pinches, and Beaverbrook and Rothermere have observed it. They have learned from Hitler the political value of exploiting the resentment of the small trader at his extinction by the chain store and department store, and—also like Hitler—they have seen the wisdom of directing that resentment in a quarter least harmful to themselves, i.e. against the cooperatives. Logically, of course, Beaverbrook and Rothermere should march determinedly, not only against the co-operatives, but also, and mainly, against all the big battalions, Boots, Woolworths, Marks & Spencers, Selfridges, Harrods, Imperial Chemicals, Unilever, the London Passenger Transport Board, and so on. They do not do so because that would rouse too much and too powerful opposition, and would directly harm their Lordships by cutting off revenue from the advertising of the products of those concerns in their pages. The moral would appear to be that the co-operatives should pay for immunity by placing big advertisements in the Daily Mail and Daily Express. As they have recently taken a whole page in the Daily Telegraph, perhaps that is what the co-operative directors are going to do.

Before leaving the subject of the small trader and the big store, a candid declaration made by Mr. Gordon Selfridge deserves to be rescued from obscurity. In an address broadcast to a conference on retail distribution, held at Boston on September 18th, 1933, he said that both in U.S.A. and Great Britain there are “too many retail shops." (See report in Daily Herald, September 19th.) What he thought about small shopkeepers was this: —

This surplus of shops is an uneconomic proposition, and most of these inexperienced managers or owners are attempting to do work for which they are unfitted either by temperament or ability.

Small shopkeepers who have faith in Beaverbrook and Rothermere should ask their Lordships if they will publicly denounce Mr. Selfridge, and if not, why not.

A few words about the forerunners of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere may also serve to show the danger of trusting to the promises of politicians that they will turn back the march of large-scale industry. Ten years ago, and twenty years ago, the Labour Party was vigorously defending the “little men” against the “great soulless corporations." “ Down with monopoly” was their battle-cry. As Mr. Clynes put it, a short twelve years ago, better a large number of small capitalists than a small number of large ones.

But capitalism marched on unheeding, and one day the Labour Party found itself in office, saddled with responsibility for tackling the problems of capitalist adjustment to changing economic conditions. At once the defence of the small man became inconvenient, and by the time the Labour Party entered office again, in 1929, the old coat had been turned inside out. It had been discovered by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Bevin, the late W. Graham and others, that monopoly is the salt of the earth. All the Labour leaders, except a few who resented this volte-face, now preached salvation by public utility corporations.

So now the small shopkeeper is looking to new groups of politicians, Hitler and Dollfuss, Rothermere and Mosley, to save him, but in that quarter the old game of broken pledges is proceeding merrily. Rothermere and Beaverbrook have no intention of attacking their own big-business friends, and Hitler, before being in power a year, was already explaining away his unwillingness to demolish the German chain stores and departmental stores.

That, however, is the affair of the small shopkeeper, not of the Socialist movement. What is our affair is the need to repudiate the charge put forward by Beaverbrook and Rothermere that Socialists support co-operative big business against the small shopkeeper. The co-operative movement (which, incidentally, is so unlike the dreams of its founders as to be almost unrecognisable) and the Socialist movement are as chalk and cheese. We have not the slightest interest in the efforts of the co-operative movement to extend its business organisation. Some workers may find co-operative "divi." a convenient method of saving, but, as a movement, it never will or could bring emancipation any nearer. It can thrive only by accepting and imitating capitalism. It can never bring the workers more than a few crumbs from the capitalist table.

As Socialists we do not gloat over the personal tragedies of the wiping out of the small shopkeeper any more than we do over other tragic effects of ruthless capitalism. What we do say, is that Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook have no intention whatever of setting back the clock of capitalist development in order to retrieve the fortunes of the small man. If they have, let them show it by retiring from the fight in which their newspaper combines crush out the small local newspaper.

 

Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook appear to have devised an astute plan for boosting circulation and delimiting their respective interests. They agree to disagree about Fascism, they agree to co-operate about the co-operatives, they agree to be dumb about the other big stores which advertise in their columns, they agree to disagree about higher wages and restoring the “economy cuts," and, above all and all the time, they are completely silent about capitalism and Socialism, except to gloss over the evils of the one and misrepresent the other.

The appeal of Socialism is primarily to the workers, that is, to all who live by selling their mental and physical energies, their labour-power, to an employer, for it is our class which provides and will provide the driving force towards Socialism.

At the same time we point out to those groups of "small men” trying to maintain a precarious and often illusory independence against large-scale industry and commerce, that there is no salvation for them under capitalism. As individuals their place is within our ranks, when they recognise that the prime need of our age is the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and the establishment of Socialism, and when they are prepared to work with us to that end.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Woe to the Vanquished. (1934)

Editorial from the March 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour parties in different countries that go under the names of Communist or Socialist, in spite of the futile nature of their reform policies, are, as a rule, an expression of the discontent of the more advanced workers. In spite of the trickery and place-hunting of leaders the rank and file is made up of many who are prepared to give up their all in the defence of ideas and parties that they believe will bring an end to working class suffering.

The civil struggles that have become such a common feature of social life on the continent of Europe during post-war years are instances of two important problems that the capitalists as a class are endeavouring to solve. On the other hand, they want to cut down the huge state expenditures, much of which is looked upon as an unprofitable employment of money by large sections of the capitalists who object to some of their brethren living upon them, and, on the other hand, they want to curb the dangerous tendencies of working class discontent.

For both purposes they require a stronger and more centralised state power, free as far as possible of party strife.

During the building up of this more centralised state power different groups of capitalists endeavour to exploit the movement for their own ends. Hence the bewildering welter of warring parties with apparently conflicting aims. Upon one question, however, these capitalist parties are united, and that is on the need to crush out anything that suggests an attempt by the workers to lift from their shoulders the burden of exploitation. It is for- this reason that antipathy to “Marxism” is a prominent feature of all these capitalist movements. The name of Marx is synonymous with the class struggle and Socialism. Hence the ruthless means employed against individuals and organisations that pay court to Marx—even when his name and ideas have been taken in vain—by those who for a while obtain the spoils of power.

The ferocity of the repressive measures is often the offspring of panic on the part of the ruling class, who, fancying their privileged position challenged, let loose the feelings of the jungle and savagery has its way.

There has just been an example of this in Austria during a struggle that has been long anticipated. The struggle was provoked by the Government with a cunning that is familiar, and of which we had an example here during the War, when the bulk of the men of this country were brought into the army and the munition works by the skilful use of Derby Scheme and Conscription Acts. The Austrian Government has recently made no secret of its intention to crush out the Social Democratic Party and the haste with which it brought into use artillery against the workers makes glaringly evident the grimness of its determination. The Government intends that the lesson shall be salutary and that neither women nor children, neither the aged nor the non-combatants, are safe from its ferocity when they let loose the revengeful guns.

While the guns were still booming the gallows were put up and the executions began in haste lest the opportunity might slip by that was provided by the excuse of unbridled passion.

The dispassionate savagery behind the directing of the guns was illustrated by the fact that in the midst of the strife the cessation of the bombardment by artillery was ordered in one of the districts of Vienna because damage was being caused to valuable property—and this was done while the artillery continued to blow to pieces even women and children who were cowering in terror in the blocks of working class flats that were the centre of the chief bombardment! Let the workers remember such incidents.

Whatever we may think of the mistaken policies of the Austrian labour movement we have nothing but admiration for the Austrian workers who put up such a determined if despairing struggle against the attempt to destroy their organisations.

As was obvious from the beginning, the Austrian Government have been successful in their object. Many working class homes mourn the death or the mutilation of participants in the struggle. The destruction of their organisations is being pursued with vigour and mercilessness.

The Austrian ruling class have been successful. They believe they will stamp out all tendency to revolt against exploitation. Their success, however, can only be temporary. The fire they have smothered will smoulder and break out again later on. When it does so, we hope that the Austrian workers will be guided by greater knowledge than they have been in the past, and will base their movement on a policy that has for its single object the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production and the establishment of Socialism.