The Labour Government Gets Tough with the Workers(1948)

From the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Capitalist Press has found a new hero in Sir Stafford Cripps. They congratulate him on having taken firm control of Government economic policy and on standing up manfully to the trade unions on the wages issue. In his recent speeches and in the Government declaration, “Statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices,” he announced plans to avoid increases of prices and profits and, if possible, to reduce them and told the trade unions there must be no more wage increases unless accompanied by a substantial increase in production, or for the purpose of attracting workers to undermanned industries, or in the event of a future marked rise in the cost of living. And if we do not obey (Sir Stafford warns us) we face ”a serious and prolonged set-back in our economic reconstruction accompanied by a persistent low standard of living.” He follows it up with the threat of dictatorship.

“We must all subordinate our own interests to those of the nation. Otherwise someone will be called upon to force us to comply as the only alternative to disaster.” (Speech at Edinburgh, Observer, 8/2/48)

A typical Press comment on the Government’s new statement of policy was that in the Daily Mail (6/23/48). Under the heading “The Truth at Last” the Mail wrote : “The Government have taken their courage in both hands. . . Not only have they for the first time made far-reaching economic proposals without the prior permission of the T.U.C., but they are facing up to the hard facts of our economic situation. This is a refreshing change from the weak and hesitant attitude we have come to expect. It is .not difficult to trace in the new departure the hand and purpose of Sir Stafford Cripps.”

Sir Stafford Cripps’ rise to power deserves a little examination. He made his name in politics (and, thus earned the grave disapproval of the Daily Mail) as a critic of the official Labour Party policy. He attacked the monarchy, wanted disarmament and an anti-war policy, urged a United Front of the Labour Party and other so-called “left wing” parties, and constantly urged the Labour Party to be bolder and more aggressive in its programme of “soaking the rich” to aid the workers. Above all, he became known for his belief that when Labour got power ordinary Parliamentary methods of carrying out their programme against capitalist opposition would be slow and ineffective and must be helped out by the use of Orders in Council and other devices for coercing the opposition and speeding up legislation. Sir Stafford, after many years at loggerheads with the Labour Party, found his chance during the war and is now, in all but name, Prime Minister of the Labour Government. What a chance for him to see the realisation of his early hopes and plans, and how zealously this puritanical lawyer-politician tackles the job. One thing only has gone awry, Sir Stafford has turned right round: his belligerency and his demand for emergency measures, speed and urgency, are now directed against the workers in the trade unions. Here then is the reason why the capitalist writers praise the man they used to spurn.

He and his colleagues are also now being praised in the same quarters for being frank to the workers and telling them the grim truth about the crisis. The Labour Government deserves no such praise. If they were really being frank and truthful their message would go something like this:

“In 1945 we got your votes under false pretences. We pretended that a Labour Government would be able to bring about continuous improvements of your standard of living with more pay, shorter hours, plenty of goods at lower prices, plenty of houses, etc. We also promised you peace with all the world, especially Russia. We pretended that our aim was Socialism and that we would lead you towards that goal. Those things were not true. We were muddled about it ourselves and only partly understood what problems capitalism would produce, but beyond that we were just making empty promises to get your votes and hoping, Micawber-like, that something would turn up before the next election. What we were really doing was to take on the job of putting British capitalism on its feet again and some of us knew that this would mean imposing further great hardships on the workers. We promised ‘full employment’ but we quite overlooked the fact that capitalism needs unemployment in order to keep wages down and safeguard profits. As we can’t do without capitalism we are now compelled to urge yon not to press for higher wages though we have been raising prices by withdrawing subsidies. If yon don’t heed our warning we shall have to use wholesale direction of labour or some other compulsion to make you adjust your demands to the requirements of capitalism. We are, now finding ourselves compelled by capitalism to carry out much the same policy as the Tories and Liberals imposed on you after the First World War. After this crisis there will be other crises, and we shan’t be able to do anything about them except tell you to be patient, pull in your belts and work harder. If you want to escape all these evils the only way is to abolish capitalism and introduce socialism. But if you are, content to put up with capitalism we shall stay in office as long as you will let us. Why should we leave the sweets of ministerial office to the Tories or some other party?”

That is what they would say if they were candid. What they will say is quite another story. As they fall into line with traditional Tory and Liberal policies for dealing with capitalist crises they may be expected more and more to defend their failure to “deliver the goods” by putting the blame on those who put them in power – the working class.

Edgar Hardcastle

"The Red Prussian" (1948)

Book Review from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Red Prussian; the life and legend of Karl Marx 

by Leopold Schwarzschild

Much has been written on "What Marx really meant.” This book sets out to tell us what Marx really, was.

There is, however, a startling paradox in the author's presentation. According to Mr. Schwarzschild Marx is a defamer, intriguer and political.thug. A man of many passions but no parts, possessed by an unscrupulous lust for power.

It is with mild astonishment, therefore, that we learn from the preface that "The most important facts of our times all lead back to one man—Karl Marx.” This is followed by the shattering contention, "There is no doubt if Marx had never lived our whole life would have been different ”

One can only say even at the risk of debunking Marx further in the eyes of Mr. Schwarzschild that had Birth Control been fashionable enough at the time to have put Marx among "the missing” "our life” would have been much—very much, the same, a statement Marx would have sworn to by the hairs of his beard. The old "megalomaniac” even constructed a theory debunking for all time the notion that history is a fairy-tale of the "adventures" of great men and "heroes.”

The case for the prosecution rests on excerpts and quotes mostly of Marx's and Engels' views and personal assessment of their associates. The source is the complete Marx-Engels correspondence.

It adds very little in essentials to what is known on the matter. That Marx's personal opinions were often excoriating and unjustified is ancient knowledge. That his personal opinions were often harsh but justified by subsequent events is neither ancient nor modern knowledge to Mr. Schwarzschild. Marx could even be conciliatory to views other than his own as his relations with the various sections of the First International amply testify.

Mr. Schwarzschild, indicting Marx before the bar of history as the arch-evil-maker of all time, cannot admit of any concession, or charity. He is out to get his man.

For the same reason the objective basis of Marx’s disputes with his contemporaries—disputes, over important and often decisive doctrinal differences—are no part of Mr. Schwarzschild’s evidence.

For that reason again we learn nothing of Marx's real criticism of Bruno Bauer's mystical belief in the creative power of ideas; of: his real dispute with Arnold Ruge over the nature and function of the State, or his withering analysis of the reactionary doctrines of Moses Hess’s "True Socialism”; of Proudhon’s petty bourgeois theories or Bakunin’s eclectic Anarchism.

Mr. Schwarzschild is merely concerned to use on the surface of this cauldron of simmering controversy the ladle of malice and scoop up the froth of personal remarks and chit-chat—used by all sides, incidentally—and present this froth as the essence of Marxism.

That all this is not even a part of Marxism is perhaps the most ironical commentary one can make on this book.

Marx, of course, did not affirm that morality was a bourgeois inhibition. He did deny, however, that there was some superior ethical judgment to which conflicting class-interests could be referred and successfully settled. For Marx the preaching of an abstract ethical ideal in a class dominated society was dangerous utopianism. It was against such "Utopians” that he directed his sharpest criticism.

Hegel is dealt with in a summary and largely flippant fashion. The author apparently knows nothing of the social and economic background which made Hegel such a force and compelled for a period all German philosophy and culture to stand within his shadow.

Marx is made out to be merely a slavish disciple of Hegel. It is, of course, a common-place among Marxist students that the differences between Marx and Hegel were in some aspects more emphatic than that which they had in common. The publisher's blurb informs us that the author took a degree. We might assume that it was not in Philosophy.

Risking the fact that the author's lack of knowledge of Marxism may tend to become monotonous in recounting, we are compelled to say Marx never held the view that man was a mere mechanical by-product of some mysterious ineluctable "economic process.” Consciousness—not the abstract consciousness of Hegel, but the historically class-conditioned consciousness of human beings—is central to Marx's doctrines.

Marx did not say human instincts and emotions must of necessity have an economic origin. He would have utterly repudiated the statement.

Marx did not say (vide the author) History makes men; he said the opposite, Men make History. He even said “ History possesses no riches; it fights no fight.” He added, History is nothing more than the activity of man—real living man—in pursuit of his ends. That this human activity is conditioned by the objective productive relations in which man as social groups find themselves is an interpretation of history which can be empirically established. Even academic sociologists who are not “Marxists” accept this interpretation as the most fruitful one. But as the author infers, Dr. Marx fluked his degree all these academic gentlemen might have done the same.

Finally Marx did not say what Mr. Schwarzschild says, that economics was the exclusive factor in history. The author in his zealous search through the Marx-Engels correspondence could have read Engel’s letter to Bloch on the part ideological factors play in Marx's theory. That, however, was not the sort of thing Mr. Schwarzschild was looking for.

Mr. Schwarzschild indulges in the fashionable practice of biographers by seeming to read Marx’s secret thoughts in imaginary soliloquies and conversations. The absurdities supposedly uttered by Marx in this manner are, of course, the exclusive copyright of Mr. Schwarzschild. His interpretation of Marx's theory is not the Historical Materialism of Marx but the some what hysterical romanticism of Mr. Schwarzchild.

His criticism of Marx’s economic doctrines is even below the conventional stereotyped “refutations.” Unable to refute Marx’s analysis that the objective source of profit is unpaid labour he falls back on such contentions that a source of profit is buying houses and selling them at three times their value. He is utterly unable to grasp the fact that labour is required to produce houses and therefore the basis of profit must be the element of unpaid labour contained in producing them.

He does not pursue the fascinating possibilities of this economic discovery by showing in disproof of Marx that the great increases in the wealth of present society and the vast accumulation of capital can be explained perhaps on the hypothesis of buying houses and selling them at three times their price.

He also assures us that profits are made by trading, i.e. the act of buying and selling. Here he confuses the production of profit with its realization. If labour is to be considered a source of profit then Mr. Schwarzchild’s viewpoint is that it is the dead labour of constant capital—the costs of running machines and worked up material—to which we must look. Apparently it is only living labour—the application of human labour power itself—which is denied this profit-making function.

He even tells us that many of the causes of profit-making are immaterial ones. For such a statement he offers not the slightest evidence—not even “immaterial” evidence. ’

Present-day, monopolistic, control-ridden society is referred to as a liberal capitalist system based upon thee free-play of forces. This is not the statement of John Bright a century ago but the considered opinion of a journalist called Mr. Schwarzschild in this year of grace 1948.

The author says that no economist has accepted the economics of Marx. The reason being, of course, self-evident. We wonder if even the present apologists for capitalism would accept the economics of Mr. Schwarzschild.

Mr. Schwarzschild contends that Marx refused to give a blueprint of future socialist society because it would have revealed a Super Prussian State. That Socialism cannot be a sum of ready-made proscriptions but the historic product of the living concrete conditions developing in Capitalist Society is the one thing which marks off Scientific Socialism from the utopian brands. Such a remark revealingly shows that Mr. Schwarzschild’s knowledge of Scientific Socialism could be amply accommodated with a suitable margin on the back of a postage-stamp. Incidentally, when Marx showed that Socialism must inevitably mean the establishment of a classless society the author simply says that Marx was lying.

It is rather amusing to reflect that the capitalist press, each in their different ways, have largely demolished Mr. Schwarzschild’s contentions. It is equally amusing to note that in their contradictory assessment of Marxism they also contradict each other. Thus the journal Truth comments not unfavourably on the author’s contention that “Bismark was a champion of human liberty against the soul-destroying tyranny of Marx.” The liberal Manchester Guardian review agrees with Mr. Schwarzschild’s personal assessment of Marx but disagrees with the liberal Mr. Schwarzschild’s estimate of Bismark bv stating that like Marx “Bismark had the same repellent qualities even more intensely.” The Economist's reviewer thought that the author’s tendency to exaggerate the triumphs of Liberalism contained some startling inaccuracies. He believed, however, that Marxist science is but a painful attempt to justify Marx’s dogmatic pronouncements before 1848. Mr. Crankshaw in the Observer holds, however, that “Marx’s philosophic contribution is badly under-rated by Mr. Schwarzschild” and says “here in the midst of the 20th century Dr. Marx and his dialectic very much is.” In spite of Mr. Crankshaw’s assertion that a man of lesser talent than Mr. Schwarzschild could have disposed of Marx’s theory of surplus-value Mr. George Malcolm in the most objective of the reviews in the Evening Standard regards Capital as one of the most potent books in the world. The ineffable Frank Owen in the Mail commenting on the Red Prussian asks “was Marx a great genius or monster fraud?” and never really answers it. Mr. Harold Nicholson in the Daily Telegraph “cannot believe that a man who earned the unflagging devotion of his wife and Engels could have been quite the monster Mr. Schwarzschild portrays.” Finally the Manchester Guardian's summing up that the hook “is not the last word on one who is, after all, a great historic figure” expresses the more or less general viewpoint of most of those quoted.

All of which must be most disconcerting to an author who sets out to prove that Marx was a cross between an educated half-wit and an Al Capone.

Anybody with the barest knowledge of Marxism can read it with tolerant amusement. But the book is 16s. and that is a lot to pay for amusement, even these days. If it is merely relaxation the reader wants then “Itma” or “ Dick Barton ” is much more entertaining and wholesome.

Ted Wilmott

Under False Colours (1948)

From the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have recently seen a display of bitter antagonism between Soviet Russia and the Communist Party on one hand, and the Labour Party and the Government on the other.

Following Russia’s crystallization of Eastern European countries into a Soviet-controlled bloc the Communist Party has answered the Labour Party’s opposition with charges of misrepresenting Socialism, supporting American Imperialism, and opposing “the new democracies of Europe.”

The Labour Party claims, however, that it is the C.P. that is misrepresenting Socialism, and, further, attempting by underhand methods to gain a dominant influence in the trade unions. Moreover it charges the Russian Government with endangering world peace by bringing a large portion of Eastern Europe under the orbit of Communism. In this matter Mr. Attlee said the following: "We can and we wish to have the friendliest relations with the people of Russia, and we can have the friendliest relations with a Communist State, but we are not prepared to accept Communism. We are resolutely opposed to the Communist way of life and the Police State.” (Daily Herald, January 24th).

When one looks closely at this conflict one is at once struck by strange contradictions arising within it. We are told by the C.P. that the ultimate aim of Russia is Communism and that this objective is almost reached. The social system in Russia, says the C.P., is Socialism—the prelude to Communism.

Now if Socialism is a prelude to Communism why is a Socialist organisation opposed to a Communist one? How can Mr. Attlee, who claims to be a Socialist, say that he is opposed to "the Communist way of life” ? And why does the Labour Party, which does not hesitate to call itself a Socialist organisation, object to the growth of Communism in Eastern Europe?

Going a little deeper we may ask the question: “How can a Communist organisation explain the fact that, although it claims to be out for the emancipation of the working class, it does nothing toward the necessary preliminary explaining Socialism either from its platforms or through its daily organ The Daily Worker?

Much of this mystery can be cleared by recognising that Communism and Socialism are one and the same thing, and that Russia’s social system is not Socialism but State Capitalism. Moreover, the Labour Party and the Communist Party, by their very actions, show that they are working in the interests of Capitalism.

But, if these parties are both supporting Capitalist interests, why are they opposed to each other? The answer is clear. The feature that reveals Capitalism in Russia is the buying and selling of labour power. It is true that many features of Capitalism, as administered in other countries, are absent in Russia. Commodities are not dumped upon the market by individual firms, but are allocated according to a Government plan. Foreign trade, too, is planned by the Government—not left to private importers and exporters. Agriculture is not the work of independent farmers, but of Government-controlled collective farms.

Irrespective of this, however, one dominant feature remains. The vast majority of Russia’s people, because they do not own the means of production and distribution, are forced to sell their labour power for wages or salaries. In common with the wage slaves, of other countries they, as a class, can live no other way under Capitalism.

We find, then, that wage slavery, the very thing that proves the existence of Capitalism, is a characteristic of the Russian economy.

Now, wherever it operates, Capitalism cannot remain static. Competition between Capitalist groups accelerates the need for each group to produce huge masses of commodities that can be profitably sold at competitive prices. Having secured these commodities there comes to the capitalists of each country the need to sell them. Competition for markets, fields of exploitation, and trade routes is rife and the rival competitors find that friction between themselves becomes ever more serious.

It is in this framework of exploitation and competition that Russia, with her growing industrial and agricultural capacity, finds herself thrown into conflict with America—the country most likely to endanger her future Capitalist development.

America’s vast resources and advancement in war weapons, however, are sufficient, should war break out, to tax or even overcome the strength of Russia—if she were alone.

The motive behind Russia’s annexation of Eastern European countries now begins to show itself. She is gathering strength for a possible war not only against America, but any rival power.

The Labour Party is right, therefore, when it suggests that the C.P. is working against Socialism. This, however, does not show that the Labour Party, in contrast is working for Socialism.

It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of workers still believe that Capitalism can be run in the interests of the workers, and it was in the hope that this would be done that a Labour Government was voted to power.

Despite the efforts of the Government, however, we have in the last two years seen a gradual increase in the cost of living, a greater shortage of goods, attempts to “peg” wages, and an ever-increasing friction between nations. We have seen that, Labour Government or no Labour Government, Capitalism will go its own sweet way.

The nationalisation programme, heralded as "a Socialist measure,” has been carried out, but profits are still derived from the nationalised industries—and you cannot have profits or dividends without the exploitation of the workers. Thus the Labour Government is doing no more than administering Capitalism.

Working, as it is, for British Capitalism, it sees in Russia’s recent expansion the growing strength of a rival Capitalist power. It is this that has incurred the wrath of the Labour Government, and prompted Ernest Bevin’s plea for a union of the Western European nations.

A final note upon the Communist Party. The manner in which this organisation so glibly refers to the Soviet-dictated countries as ”new Democracies” shows the depth of deception to which the C.P. will sink in order to gain support for Russian Imperialism.

Socialist knowledge can fortify the workers against the propaganda of political fakers. Gain that knowledge and you can no longer be misled by supporters of Capitalism posing as Socialists. 

F. W. Hawkins

Editorial: The Concealed Aim of the Communist Party (1948)

Editorial from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

A battle royal is in progress between the Labour party and the Communists for the leadership of the trade unions. The Socialist Party, being concerned with the spreading of socialist understanding and the destruction of the idea that leaders can solve the workers’ problems for them, is not on either side. But we are not lookers-on for we are directly concerned with the task of exposing the non-Socialist aims and activities of both of the combatants. On this occasion we are interested in a charge made against the Communists that it is their intention to set up here a totalitarian state. The charge was made in a Daily Herald editorial on December 23rd, 1947.

“Communism wants to establish in Britain a system under which no Party except the Communist Party is allowed to appeal for votes, and under which no man dare open his mouth on political subjects except in praise of the One Permitted Party,”

The Daily Worker could not afford to let such a grave charge pass unanswered and the next day it published a leading article accusing the Herald of deliberate lies. “Communism in Britain,” said the Daily Worker, ”does not advocate a One-Party system as the Daily Herald pretends.”

The Worker concluded its article by quoting from Marx’s and Engel’s ‘‘Communist Manifesto” of 1848 the words: ‘‘Communists, scorn to hide their views and aims,” and fiercely declared that “with these words . . . we fling back the monstrous charges of the Daily Herald. . . ”

It will be noticed on examination that the denial does not squarely meet the charge. The Worker denies that the Communists "advocate” a one-party system; but the Herald's charge was not that they openly advocate it but that they want it, a very different proposition when you are dealing with a Party that habitually conceals its real aims. After all, are they not good disciples of Lenin who in his "Left-Wing Communism” told them that the way to carry on Communist, propaganda in the trade unions was to resort to “strategy and adroitness, illegal proceedings, reticence and subterfuge, to anything in order to penetrate into the trade unions, remain in them, and carry on Communist work inside them, at any cost.” ("Left-Wing Communism" by N. Lenin. Published by the Communist Party of Great Britain. P.39.) Is it not legitimate to suspect that the political jesuits may adopt the subterfuge of being ”reticent” about their real aims?

Next it will be noticed that the Worker only makes the denial on behalf of Communism "in Britain.” If we find a Party defending the suppression of all other political parties by the Communists in Eastern Europe, may we not be more than suspicious when they beg us to believe that they do not intend to do the same thing here?

We can also find enlightenment by observing what the Communists in Russia said on this question before they got power and what they did after they got power.

For years the Russian Communists agitated for the setting up of a democratically elected Constituent Assembly in place of the Czarist Autocracy. They were still agitating for it a few weeks before they actually got power. They took part in the elections along with the other parties (” We participated in the elections to the Russian bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, in September-November, 1917.” Lenin, in Left-Wing Communism,” p.42.) But when the Assembly met the Communists discovered to their consternation that the delegates of the Social Revolutionary Party, representing the peasants, were in a large majority. So the Communist Government dissolved the Assembly by force. Stalin in his “The October Revolution” remarks about it: “At the beginning of 1917, the slogan of the Constituent Assembly was progressive and the Bolsheviks espoused it. At the end of 1917, after the October insurrection, the slogan of the Constituent Assembly became reactionary, for it ceased to correspond to the relationship of the contending political forces in the country.” (Martin Lawrence edition, p,22.)

Another Communist writer, Maxim Litvinoff, defended the suppression on the ground that the views of the peasants had changed between the time they voted and the time the Assembly met—“had the Constituent Assembly been elected a couple of months later it would have shown a large majority for the Bolshevik policy.” (“The Bolshevik Revolution.” Maxim Litvinoff, 1918, p.49.) Mr. Litvinoff’s guess may possibly have been correct but on that assumption why did not the Communists put it to a test by holding another election? No election to the Assembly was ever held again and the Communists, soon carried out the suppression of all political parties except their own; so that today, in Stalin’s words, ”Only one party, the party of the workers, the Communist Party, enjoys legality.” (Stalin, Interviews with Foreign Worker’s Delegations. Published in Moscow, 1934. P.13.)

In the course of defending the act of dispersing the Assembly Litvinoff himself summed up the case against it. We can hardly improve upon his statement.

“It may certainly appear as a monstrous crime against democracy on the part of a regime which regards itself as Socialist to have suppressed an institution which had been the dream of generations, which the Bolsheviks themselves had been championing ever since the first revolution of 1905 with more enthusiasm than any other party . . . . What better proof could have been furnished that the Bolsheviks were trampling on the people’s will in a manner hitherto exhibited by the worst tyrants in history, that they were afraid of the verdict of the nation gathered through its representatives in the highest assembly known to democracy . . . ?” (The Bolshevik Revolution.” P.15.)

The British Communists, who defend every suppressive act of the Russian Party, deny now that they intend to suppress all other parties; but the Russian Communists who did, in fact, suppress all other parties likewise waited until they had got power before they showed their hand. At present in their efforts to gain popularity the British Communists pose as friends of democracy and parliamentary government. They were not always so reticent about their real aim. In a report to the 12th Congress of the Communist Party in 1932 they said: “ Any party which accepts parliamentary democracy, however revolutionary its phrases, is an instrument of the capitalists.” Another passage read: "We must expose the sham of parliamentary democracy, and show the positive results of the workers’ dictatorship based upon the Workers’ Councils.” (Report on the Crisis Policy of the Labour Party. Published by the C.P.G.B.)

We therefore repeat the charge that the Communist Party always intended, if they got the chance, to suppress all other political parties, though at present they choose to conceal their aim.

Letter: Medical Economics (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a reader in criticism of the article in our December issue.

London, N.16. 

1947.

To the Editor,

The Socialist Standard.

Sir,

While visiting friends yesterday evening an ardent member of the S.P.G.B. arrived and within a few minutes polities cropped up. 1 expressed the view that I had Socialist leanings and on learning I was a medical man I was given a December copy of your journal, to read p.123, "Medical Economics,” which I did in the train while returning from my week-end leave (I am at present in the R.A.M.C.).

The article astounded me in its. many misinterpretations, but having had some psychiatric experience I realised that the author of this article was completely unable to give a rational view on his subject, but this nevertheless does not detract from the need to answer his amazing allegations.

I hope I may be permitted to do so in your journal.

A great amount of time is spent in research for prophylactic medicine and every medical journal contains articles on prophylactics. Your correspondent writes hospitals must have millions of sick people or go out of business—yet the nursing shortage is so great that there are long waiting lists which hospitals are trying to reduce as urgently as possible.

"In this country there are more doctors and hospitals per head of population than in most countries, and strange to say, there is also a vast and increasing number of sick or ailing people.” Shall we say more people in this country are able to attend a doctor for illness in the country as. doctors are relatively higher, and therefore the expectancy of life is higher and illnesses cured earlier in this country.

Then Mr. Jarvis writes certain complaints increase yearly. Cancer is increasing for two reasons; one, because people are living longer and this is a disease of the more elderly, and second, diagnosis has improved the number of cases diagnosed as such. Diabetes has increased because people are now kept alive and well with this illness when previously they all soon died—the increase is not a real increase year by year but only apparent by the longer life given.

Mr. Jarvis does not understand medical statistics, which is vastly different from normal statistics.

Concerning his remarks re surgeons and fees. Almost every surgeon works voluntary and free in hospitals for the poor.

I agree that many drug manufacturers are sucking the public, and many medical journals have attempted reforms but the advertising revenue to newspapers is so great that they can attain little publicity. Of course many manufacturers are honest and reputable in business.

"Rheumatism” covers many known medical diseases, and the disease Lord Trent suffered from was entirely different from the more common "rheumatic” diseases which can be alleviated by medical treatment. I, however, know nothing about this case other than that which Mr. Jarvis writes.

Concerning advertising and the B.B.C., Penicillin, Streptomycin and Pheno-Barbitone are none of them trade names of any firm; they are all official names of the drugs, the nomenclature being under the control of non-profit associations.

Concerning vaccination and inoculation. Smallpox has almost vanished from civilised countries (this is prophylactic), diphtheria is diminishing year by year. "The enormous amount of injections done during the war on soldiers . . .’’ let Mr. Jarvis compare the figures for medical illness in both wars and especially the Boer War to see the benefit. I heard General Slim say that the medical services in Burma won the battle—early in the Burma war illness ran into over six figures per year, yet later with more troops the figure was .reduced by over 90 per cent.

I have written about the "apparent” increase in cancer. The Cancer Laws were passed to prevent the public being hoaxed and given hope maliciously by quacks. Similar laws apply to diabetes, V.D., and a few other diseases.

I am not old enough to know the cause of death of Valentino*

Does the writer honestly consider doctors enjoy the illness of the workers. He has very poor faith in humanity.

Latin and Greek nomenclature increases the international element in medicine and also has other medical uses. Many of the younger generation write prescriptions in English—we are not hiding behind a cloak of mystery.

Blood transfusions save lives in civilian hospitals daily in maternity cases, pre- and post operative for large operations, in cases of haemorrhage and long debilitating illnesses.

Before Mr. Jarvis writes further articles on the medical profession I suggest he consult a doctor to get his facts correct; I will oblige him at any future date.

One last point. I hope Mr. Jarvis is not so embittered against our profession that he and his family refrain from attending a doctor in illness.

Yours faithfully,

A. Folkson, M.B., B.S.

(Lieut., R.A.M.C.)

Reply:

The Socialist Standard is the Party’s propagandist organ in the columns of which we endeavour to give as full a statement of our socialist principles as possible. As far as we can we avoid controversial  issues upon which the Party is not committed to any particular point of view. We do so because issues of this kind might lead to lengthy correspondence and the using up of valuable space upon matters that are outside the object for which the Party was formed. But in spite of our intentions, statements on controversial issues of the kind to which we refer may on rare occasions creep in. In the December number of the S.S., in an article entitled “Medical Economics," there were some statements of a controversial nature upon which agreement or disagreement was immaterial as far as our socialist attitude is concerned. As these particular statements have been criticised by a reader we are printing his letter in order that the opposite point of view may have equal expression, but, for the reasons stated above, we do not propose publishing a detailed reply to it. As far as we are concerned both attitudes will have been stated and, although we may not agree with some of our reader’s contentions, there we leave the matter.

Editorial Committee.

Power ! Atomic or Political? (1948)

Pamphlet Review from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The charge is made in certain quarters that, since the dropping of atom bombs on Japan, there has been deliberate damping down on discussion, particularly of the danger to life and health of the workers in the atomic plants. One of those who make the charge is Mr. J. C. Thomson, of Edinburgh, who puts in strong terms his own views and those of writers from whom he quotes. If there is an answer to his charges we do not know it.

“Our Expanding Atomic Stupidity” is a sixpenny pamphlet by James C. Thomson of the Kingston Clinic, Edinburgh. It is a strongly-worded exposure, not only of atomic bombs, but also of its extravagant promises for use in industry and therapy. Mr. Thomson collects a mass of evidence to show that the production of atomic energy in nuclear plants is, in itself, a menace to all forms of life, animal and vegetable. As a matter of fact, it would appeal from the statements of those intimately acquainted with the subject, that the rot has already started and is well on the way, that the radio-active material released by bombs or escaping from factories, has got beyond the control of man.

On the bomb tests at Bikini he quotes Vice-Admiral W. H. P. Blandy, U.S.N., who witnessed the tests, as saying: “The atomic bomb is a poison weapon.”

Mr. Thomson says that the ships from Bikini are still contaminated, the Atoll remains uninhabitable, and the radio-active cloud blown into the upper atmosphere still coheres and continues to move around the world. Early in May, 1947, it was claimed that the “death cloud” was circling the world for the sixth time. According to Dr. Rebman of the University of California, “The danger from the cloud was so great, that during its passage over U.S.A. planes were warned to stay below 17,000 feet to avoid it.” Dr. Stafford L. Warren, chief radio safety officer at the bomb tests, and Dean of the Medical School of the University of California, describes it as: “A blast that grows more and more sinister the longer scientists study its results . . . But that second one at Bikini really ties this business up in a knot. . . Literally astronomical quantities of radio-active materials had become intimately mixed with the sea water, mist and spray which accompanied the formation of the giant mushroom of water which rose from the lagoon. Such atomic mist will deposit huge amounts of radium-equivalent; anywhere from a ton to 100 tons. When this mist moves in over a city you have to evacuate the people right away or they will die from gamma radiation. You couldn't clean the area. The fissionable material would get into the water—into everything. It would get into next year’s crop. I'm not so worried about the killing of 50 to 75 million people as I am about the wiping out of resources.”

But bombs are no longer required, says Mr. Thomson: “More slowly, but quite as efficiently, the same result is being achieved through the fumes given off from atomic fission factories. Every wind that blows through such a factory comes out radio-active. The screening devices used in atomic factories slow down the spread of radio-activity, but even these absorbent and reflecting materials present danger. No matter how much, or what particular substance is used, it gradually acquires radio-activity, and a point comes when it must be broken up and dispersed. Not that dispersal solves all difficulties. It merely takes the danger to a new area. At the American factories the isotope garbage is placed in concrete chests and dumped in the sea or into swamps.”

But it is not only the screens that become radioactive. The scientists and workers in the factories become affected; though this is denied by Professor Mott, President of the Atomic Scientists' Association, who says: “Protection of these workers is so easily and strictly applied that it is inconceivable that workers could be affected.” in reply to this Mr. Thomson says:

“I wonder if Professor Mott has heard of the great hospital built to accommodate the damaged workers from the Manhattan Project? And how soon it was filled to overflowing? And of how a great annexe was hurriedly constructed to be likewise filled to capacity? And of how still another annexe had to he improvised to keep the radio-active workers from filtering back home to contaminate their families and neighbours? (And, incidentally, to prevent them from talking).”

According to Mr. Thomson the bodies of the victims remain radio-active. Cremation does not quench it. And grave yards can be affected. While the Daily Graphic (8/4/47) mentions a notice in a New York paper offering “atomic burial vaults with concrete walls, interlined with lead, ready for delivery in May. That, at the moment is the insoluble problem of the U.S.A. morticians (undertakers to you); how to dispose of their radio-active clients without exposing themselves to danger.”

In some sections of the press there have appeared strongly-worded attacks on scientists as a body. They have been blamed, not only for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but for all the indications of worse to come in the future. The truth is that those who control the political machinery of the state are alone responsible. It was the heads of the capitalist state who saw, in the splitting of the atom, the promise of a new force that would revolutionise war and industry in their class interest. In the early days they could not foresee the dangers, though scientists, with experience of radium, knew that precautions would be more than ever necessary. The press could see nothing but benefits for mankind. The press is still registering that opinion. When the dangers appeared; a mysterious sickness, lassitude, danger of contagion to families and friends, and sterility; the entire industry was sworn to secrecy. What mattered a few thousand wage-slaves with this colossal power within their grasp? But the demand goes on, and must increase because of wastage of manpower in these factories. "There is to be a training school for boys and girls of 15 and over, who have studied chemistry at school, to be opened by the Ministry of Supply at the Government atomic energy factory at Springfields, near Preston ... the first course would begin in August. . . Salaries will start at £140 a year at the age of 15, rising to £276 for men and £257 10s. for women by the age of 26.” (Scotsman, 5/5/47.)

On this Mr. Thomson comments as follows: "Is It possible that nobody at the Ministry of Supply knows of the biological disruption awaiting the majority of these youngsters? Not one word of warning appears. Just an alluring offer of free training to be followed with good wages.”

All this applies to the rank and file workers. As in most industries there are supervisors, and others, known as high-ups. Mr. Thomson's records do not present them in a favourable light. He has been at some pains to collect evidence of their callous indifference to the sufferings of atomic victims. He says:

"As James Cameron reported (Express, 25/9/46) "The most scared man in the world today are the atom-splitters.’ But Cameron also provides an indication that not all workers in the fission field are sensible of their communal responsibilities: ‘Many of the atomic scientists arc honest men already somewhat stricken by the fruits of their energy. But—one of them I met on the island of Bikini—was, I am sorry to say, British, and so far as I am concerned he has no name. But he spoke in terms so crude and heartless, propounded a doctrine so pernicious, held the happiness of his fellow men so low, that he sent away even a bunch of shellback American newspaper men, revolted and appalled'." The same James Cameron also said: “Let us not be too kind to the scientists. They have a tendency to protect themselves as the reluctant tools of a relentless military, forced . . . to debase their knowledge to barbarism. In actual fact, a few weeks before Hiroshima a poll of more than 150 scientists working on the project was taken . . . More than half of them voted for demonstration in an inhibited area.”

No doubt these scientists were the high-ups. Never-the-less it was not their votes that decided the fate of Hiroshima; that decision was made by someone with real power. Mr. Thomson says: "One authority is quoted as stating that the decision to drop the bombs on inhabited cities ‘was made by the Army and Navy.’ That is a direct contradiction of President Truman’s claim that he alone made that ‘least objectionable choice'. "

Whatever attitude the scientists adopt the ultimate power always rests with the political heads of the state. Mr. Thomson presents his case against atomic bombs and fission factories with admirable precision, but on this side of the question he is indefinite. He says:

“With more and more stations and factories coming into action, a steady poisoning of our atmosphere is already taking place. Unless the public become enlightened enough to force our rulers to call a halt, the sum total of radioactive 'dew' in the atmosphere must slowly increase until life as we know it—vegetable, animal and human—can no longer exist on this planet.”

If Mr. Thomson holds that our rulers must be forced to call a halt, he should have indicated the nature of the force that would be equal to the task. He has not done so. So-called public enlightenment today rests on the capitalist press, and is merely enlightenment on matters affecting the capitalist way of life. At the moment capitalist interests determine that atomic factories shall continue, and that all criticism of the work must he discouraged.; hence there is no question of the press being divided on the subject. There is no opportunity for a study of the facts for and against. The factories are State-owned. They may never pay dividends, but they are experimenting in the capitalist interest. They are capitalist property, part of the means of wealth production owned by that class. The only solution is to make them the common property of the people, along with all the other means of life; to be democratically controlled by the people as a whole. Under such a system poison factories would be eliminated; while the people would operate the rest for the satisfaction of their needs. The working-class alone can do this by organising for control of the political machinery that capitalist control may be superseded by the Socialist way of life.

F. Foan

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our 44th Annual Conference is being held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, W.C.1, on Good Friday, Saturday and Sunday the 26th, 27th and 28th March, commencing at 11 o’clock on each morning. All of the proceedings are open to any member of the working-class who wishes to come along. We have no private sessions like nearly all other organisations who ask the working-class to support them. The last paragraph of the ‘‘Communist Manifesto” states that “Communists scorn to hide their views and aims” and we preserve this democratic principle intact. The main work of the conference will be to review the results of 1947 and prepare our programme for the future. The report of the 44th Executive Committee will be in the hands of branches about four weeks before the conference, and delegates will come mandated with their branches’ instructions. Here are some features from the report. Our membership at the end of 1947 was 979, an increase of 58 during the year. The total number of propaganda meetings reported during the year was 835, of which there were 678 outdoor meetings, 135 indoor meetings, 8 debates and 14 addresses to other organisations. The number of outdoor meetings is the highest of which we have records. Even these figures are not comprehensive, as a number of branches have failed to report all of their meetings to Head Office. It has been a difficult year financially. During the war years we built up a fairly substantial balance, but this has been absorbed by widened activity. Now we have to finance our activities as we go, and our expenditure (particularly on party publications) cannot be curtailed without reducing the scope of our work. This is the last thing we wish to do. A number of branches, are supporting an amendment to party rules which will raise member’s weekly subscriptions from 3d. to 6d. If this amendment is carried the branches supporting it think that it will go some way to ease our financial burdens. One effect of financial restrictions has been that the Executive Committee have had to postpone action in filling the vacant positions of full-time organisers. Two new branches at Kingston-on-Thames and Croydon were formed during the year, and the Dagenham and Romford branch was dissolved. The sales of the Socialist Standard fell off towards the end of the year, and the delegates may well consider ways and means of building up the circulation. Pamphlet sales will undoubtedly shoot up now that the ‘‘Racial Problem” is on sale and our own edition of the "Communist Manifesto” is practically ready from the printers. The first session of our Tutorial Class was a great success, and promises to play a big part in providing the party with a competent body of tutors for future educational classes. As well as the conference there will be our usual dance and reunion on the Saturday evening, and the Mass Rally on the Sunday evening—both at the Conway Hall.

The Publicity Committee is planning some attractive advertisements for the pamphlet on “The Racial Problem.” The E.C. allocates regular sums to this committee to be spent on advertising, but advertising is expensive, and the money in any case has to come out of the General Fund. So please step up your donations so that wider and ever wider circles may get to know of the Party and its policy.

Hackney Branch have sent in some interesting correspondence they had had with various “notabilities” they have approached with a view to public debate. Some letters they receive are long, and some short, but they all add up to the same thing. These “friends” of the working-class won’t have it! Their reluctance to face our speakers is matched only by their eagerness to get into the limelight under what they consider to be favourable conditions. Michael Foot, M.P., is “absolutely full u ” for the next few months (according to Hackney they have had this same reply from him for over two years). Donald Soper, M.A., of Kingsway Hall and Tower Hill finds that his ‘‘diary is fully booked right away through into 1949.” P. Piratin, M.P., regrets being unable to accept our invitation (no reasons given, let’s guess). Richard Acland, M.P., says that he has met members of our organisation and he has to state quite objectively that our processes of thought and of reasoning are so utterly other than his own that he has never believed that there is any effective point of contact between him and us. For this reason he believes that a debate would be an entire waste of our time and his. Mr. Acland seems to have forgotten the audience for whose benefit debates are really organised. Why not, Mr. Acland, let them judge the validity of your processes of thought and reasoning? Or are you just finding a roundabout way of saying that you don’t fancy your chances up against an S.P.G.B.’er in debate?

Radio Luxembourg costs £70 for a 15 minutes broadcast. Some members and sympathisers think a lot of this form of propaganda, but we shall need a lot more money before we can even consider it.

The Assistant Treasurer elected as a result of the second ballot is Kathleen Curzon of Paddington branch.

An E.C. by-election is in process and ballot papers have been issued to all branch secretaries. The nominations received are F. C. Adams (Palmers Green). G. Clark (Islington), H. Collins (Croydon), R. Coster (Leyton), J. P. Edmonds and H. Russell (Lewisham), G. Kerr (West Ham), and J. Read and S. Ross (Hackney). There is one vacancy on the Executive Committee.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Notes by the Way: You Have Heard This One Before (1948)

The Notes by the Way column from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

You Have Heard This One Before

Mr. Hector McNeil, Minister of State in the Labour Government, spoke at Brussels about the new European grouping:

   “If we are to have a Western Union then this will not only entail immediate sacrifices for both of us but it will also mean important political decisions by both of us.
    “It almost looks as if Europe has taken a new decision.
    “She not only once more maintains that no dictatorship will be accepted but she announces that she is taking immediate steps now to combine to produce the conditions preventing the emergency and the advance of any dictator or any authoritarian system.
  "That is the thought, I believe, behind the Marshall Plan, the Paris Conference, and certainly activating the recent speech by Mr. Bevin.
   “The price in cash, in effort, and in sacrifice of all kinds will be worth while if we are able to ensure that no kind of authoritarian rule will arise in Europe, from whatever quarter it originates.”

(Daily Mail, 6/2/48.)

#    #    #    #

The Policy of the “Daily Herald”

In evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press Mr. Francis Williams, former editor of the Daily Herald, disclosed how conflict arose between Odhams and the T.U.C. about policy. The following is from the Times (13/2/48):

   “Minutes of evidence taken on October 15, when Mr. Williams avid Mr. Hannen Swaffer appeared before the commission, were issued yesterday as a White Paper (Cmd. 7318, Stationery Office, Is. 3d.).
  ‘‘Mr. Williams, whose editorship of the Daily Herald lasted from 1936 until just after the beginning of the war, spoke of difficulties which arose in borderline cases, where it was not easy to differentiate between commercial policy (for which Odhams Press, the majority shareholders, were responsible) and the political policy (which was decided by the trade unions, who were minority shareholders). Conflicts occurred, particularly before the war and at its beginning, when the general editorial policy was to emphasize the seriousness of international developments and the dangers in Germany, and to criticise much of the Chamberlain Government’s policy.
  “Often the commercial proprietors felt that such a policy, if vigorously conducted, might drive away some public and advertising support. On a number of occasions leading articles, were, without consultation with the editor, sub-edited by deletion of a fair number of passages by the then chairman of the commercial board of directors. It was the culmination of a clash of that kind which led to his (Mr. Williams’s) resignation.”

#    #    #    #

The Russian Concentration Camps

The following arc extracts from a Manchester Guardian leader under the heading “Forced Labour” based on “Forced Labour in Soviet Russia” by David J. Dallin and Boris I. Nicolaevsky (published by Hollis & Carter):

   “The existence of ‘corrective labour camps’ in Russia is, of course, well known and even officially admitted. As long ago as 1931 Molotov told the Sixth Congress of Soviets of ‘these mass projects employing those deprived of liberty.’ A good deal of information about them may still be gleaned from the Soviet Press. But the vast scale of the system, which may ‘employ’ over ten million people, and the terrible conditions in those camps can be judged only from the stories of those men and women who have experienced them . . . All of them, naturally, are 'prejudiced’; some of them are clearly untrustworthy. Yet the total impression is so convincing that an impartial reader is forced to conclude that if only half is true it still remains a damning account of an inhuman system.”
  “The prisoners are paid—but so little that it hardly counts. They are fed—but only enough to keep them working and not always enough for that. If they die, as they do in hundreds and thousands, it is not because the State wishes them to die, but because the conditions in the swamps and forests of Siberia are so fearful that only the strongest can survive.”

(Manchester Guardian, 20/1 /48).

#    #    #    #

A Great Game

“Major Frank (Bring ’em back alive) Buckley is what the reference books call 'a football manager out of the top drawer.’ And the Major certainly knows a Soccer player when he sees one. When he puts over a deal it is more reminiscent of Big Business in Lombard Street than the simple relaxation of kicking a piece of leather around.
 “Major Buckley was the manager who sold £100,000 worth of players when he was at Wolverhampton.
  ‘‘Now at Hull he announces that nine young players are for sale on the transfer list.
  “It is a curious sort of auction in humanity, for the football business, which has a turnover of millions, is not noticeably sentimental or generous to the lads who do most of the hard work and provide all the skill.
  “Will these players easily get another job? Are they affected by the Direction of Labour Order? And, if it is policy to train a surplus of players., who looks after the welfare of boys who don’t quite make the grade, or get abruptly put on the transfer list?
  "It’s a great game—while it lasts.”

(Cassandra, Daily Mirror, 2/1/48.)

#    #    #    #

The I.L.P.

The I.L.P., which once had over 200 of its members in Parliament as Labour M.P.s, has now faded out as a Parliamentary party. The loss of the deposit by the I.L.P. candidate at Camlachie set the seal on it and one proposal to be considered at the Annual Conference is that the Party give up fighting elections and devote itself to propaganda.

It was reported (Manchester Guardian, 26/1/48) that at the Conference of the Scottish division a proposal was on the agenda to alter the name to “The Socialist Party (with which is incorporated the I.L.P.)”. But it would take more than a change of name to turn the I.L.P. into a Socialist Party.

#    #    #    #

Too Many Shoes

“NEW YORK, Saturday. — American manufacturers predict that production will exceed sales of shoes by 40,000,000 pairs in 1948.”

(News Chronicle, 21/12/47).

Socialism or Chaos (1948)

From the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The members of the Socialist Party of Australia are fewer in numbers than the members of the S.P.G.B. and they have a whole continent to operate upon. Truly a stupendous task. Our Australian comrades often reside so far away from one another that they are unable to meet and are only known to one another by written communication. To maintain an organisation under difficulties such as these is indeed a great task. To publish a monthly journal and other Socialist literature is a feat worthy of commendation.

Their new pamphlet “Socialism or Chaos” is now to hand and we must compliment them on the production. It is a useful addition to a Socialist's library.

To the worker who is seeking an understanding of Socialism it is full of information. It is a plain and straightforward statement of the Socialist case and even to the fully-fledged Socialist it is interesting to read the explanations in the words and phrases of our Australian comrades.

The opening chapters deal with an explanation and indictment of Capitalism and an exposition of the case for Socialism. The remainder of the pamphlet deals with a number of questions and some objections to Socialism. A studious and successful effort has been made to avoid covering the same ground as is covered in the S.P.G.B. pamphlet “Questions of the Day.”

The chapter titles and sub-titles are intriguing. Such headings as "What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?”, Why are there so many different 'Socialists’?” and “Are we armchair philosophers?” invite the reader to continue from chapter to chapter in search of the answers.

Workers in this country who have been lured to speculate on the prospects of emigration to the colonies should read this small book. Addressed, as it is, to Australian workers by fellow Australians, it shows workers in Great Britain that capitalism differs little no matter on which side of the equator it operates. Those who think to escape the effects of capitalism here by “making a fresh start” in some other part of the capitalist world should stop and think when they read in the preface to this pamphlet (page 4)

  "The future for the workers looks black indeed. A slump is inevitable, and once more we shall see the tragic spectacle of the grey army of unemployed queuing up at the labour exchange.”

Supporters of the Labour Party can read the case for Socialism written by Socialists in a land where a Labour Government is no longer a novelty. Here is the answer to those who claim that the Labour Party in this country will lead us to Socialism if only we have patience and give it time. Australia has known Labour Governments for many years. A Labour government was elected in Queensland as long ago as 1922 and remained in power for 15 years. In all that time all that it had done for the workers of Australia was to treat them just as any other capitalist government would have treated them.

This, also from the preface of the pamphlet (page 3) 

  "Your experience, as a worker under various ‘Labour’ governments ought to show you that the Labour Party does not represent the interests of the working class. When in office, it behaves like any other Capitalist party—it runs Capitalism; when you go on strike, you are branded as 'trouble makers,' you are told that you are 'harming the nation.’ ”
   "Have you forgotten the wage cuts under Scullin? The shooting and imprisonment of strikers under the Hogan State Government? The fines and threats of military impressment used against strikers under Curtin? The conscription of labour? The constant appeals for 'national unity and increased production ’ under Chifley?”

It would appear that our fellow workers in the antipodes have little to thank Labour Governments for.

And that last part of the quotation about appeals for "national unity and increased production” has a familiar ring. It makes us stop and speculate on the position of the workers in all parts of the world when they have "united nationally” and increased production to the point where the goods that they have produced can no longer be sold because there is too many of them. Will Labour Governments then find that we are in another sort of crisis and urge us to "unite as a nation” to get out of the mess or attempt to get us to unite with some other nations to make war on yet other nations in order to dispose of the surplus goods and clear some competitors out of the market? There are many possibilities but they all lead to the same answer as far as the workers, are concerned. War, crises and all the rest of the evils are the products of Capitalism and will remain aa long as Capitalism remains.

In the words of Australian comrades " . . .  it is up to you what the future will be: Socialism or Chaos?” 

Limited supplies of this pamphlet are now available from the Literature Secretary at Head Office and from our branches. More are on the way. It costs 6d (plus postage) and should be in the pocket of every propagandist and on the bookshelf of every worker.

W. Waters