Notes by the Way: Heroes and Geniuses (1947)

The Notes by the Way Column from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Heroes and Geniuses

Back in 1918 Mr. Lloyd George told the soldiers that he aimed to build a country “fit for heroes to live in.” The disgusted sufferers in Lloyd George’s post-war Britain were soon telling him bitterly that only heroes could stand it. Mr. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, has now been telling the National Institute of Houseworkers that housekeeping to-day (that means under Labour Government), has to be an art, “ and even sometimes a work of genius ” (Sunday Express, 13/4/17). Of course we are all heroes now, or so we were told during the ‘‘blitzes” by "We can take it ” Mr. Morrison, but how do we stand as geniuses? According to Dr. J. R. Rees, formerly chief psychiatrist adviser, to the army., we don’t shape very well—“nearly 30 per cent. of people in Britain are mentally backward, chronically neurotic or emotionally handicapped” (Sunday Express, 13/4/47).

The truth is that this capitalist bedlam is becoming unendurable even to heroes and geniuses and unless we break out of it soon the human race not only won’t live (as distinct from partly living), it won’t even survive.

America Seeks Democracy (and Oil) in the Middle East

”Mr. Chester Morrow (Republican) told the House of Representatives to-day that any failure to approve President Truman’s programme 'will imperil American oil interests in the Middle East.’

"Mr. Morrow, who is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said : ‘In the event of future trouble the almost illimitable supply of oil in Arabia will be of paramount importance to our national defence. To protect our national interests, and help to guarantee our security, we must not allow the Middle East to he overrun by the Power whose actions clearly indicate an unfaltering determination to dominate all the world.’ ” —(Manchester Guardian, 27/3/47.)

Flowers for the Funeral of Full Employment

Under the heading "Luxury Labour Exchange has flowers, settees,” the Evening Standard (January 29th. 1947). published a picture of a new exchange at Westminster. "There are no long counters, no queues, no benches at the new Labour Exchange for women . . . Instead, women wait on soft chairs and cushioned settees, are interviewed individually in small cubicles . . . and there are even flowers on occasional tables.” 

Dalton Promised an Age of Plenty

Speaking at Deptford on December 11th, Mr. Hugh Dalton. Chancellor of the Exchequer, said

“ It is true we had to put up with great shortages, but gradually we shall work our wav through the age of scarcity into the age of plenty and abundance is within our reach provided we organise our economic life in the interests of the collective effort, and in the national interest ” (Daily Mail. December 12th. 1946).

Mr. Dalton follows an ancient tradition. It is an old-English custom for Chancellors to promise "plenty.” In the meantime one industry seems to he doing well under Labour Government, the "Millionaire” industry. Since Labour came into power there have been some ten people who have died worth a million or more. The same issue of the Mail reported that Mr. W. J. Yapp, director of Carreras, the tobacco company, "has left a fortune estimated at about £4,000,000.” of which there will still be upwards of £1,500,000 left after payment of death duties.

Workers' Control?

"Lord Dukes—formerly Mr. Charles Dukes, the trade union pioneer—has been appointed a director of the Bank of England for four years.”

"The Hon. Hugh Kenyon Molesworth Kindersley, who has also been appointed a director for four years, is managing director of Lazard Brothers and Company Limited.”—(Daily Mail, 1/3/47.)

The Labour Government and the Idle Rich

Everybody knows that under Labour Government there are many people living in idleness at the expense of the wealth producers, though Government spokesmen profess not to know how many there are.

Back in 1937 when the Labour Party was in the political wilderness and its present leader had time to write books explaining what they would do when they got power, Mr. Attlee wrote:—"It is true that in the Socialist State people will be deprived of the right of living in idleness at the expense of the community . . .”  "The Labour Party in Perspective,” Mr. Attlee, page 143.)

Only a non-Socialist would refer to Socialism as the "Socialist State,” and all Socialists knew that the Labour Party had no intention of depriving the capitalists of the right to live on the proceeds of the exploitation of the working class. There were, however, Labour supporters who believed that a Labour Government would take that step: Had they not heard Labour speakers declaim against the war-time injustice of workers being conscripted while capitalists were left in possession of their property? Remembering this and remembering too how often the Labour Party pledged itself against conscription in peace-time it must be a bitter experience for many Labour supporters to reflect on the fact that it is their party that legislates for conscription in peace-time, and gets it passed with the votes of Churchill and the Tories..

The Usefulness of Henry Ford

The death of Henry Ford, the American motor magnate, whose fortune has been variously estimated nf from £150 million to £200 million. induced Mr. G. L. Schwartz in the Sunday Times (13/4/47) to discuss the usefulness or otherwise of millionares to the community. This is his case for the millionaires: —

"Here is a simple test. Suppose the price of a 20 per cent, all-round rise in the standard of living in this country over the next decade was the emergence of 50 new millionaires, bloated millionaires. if you like . . . Would you advocate foregoing the improvement for the sake of greater equalitarianism? We can quarrel about this, but let us quarrel intelligently.”

At first glance this may look to be a reasonable presentation of the conflict between Socialism and Capitalism, as Mr. Schwartz intends it to be: but only at first glance. It is actually a statement of the division of opinion between those who advocate unrestricted Capitalism and those, like the Labour Party, who advocate legislation to impose high taxation on large incomes, and high duties on fortunes passing at death. Socialists are not in either camp. Our proposition is that Socialism is quite different from and vastly superior to either wav of trying to run Capitalism, the American way or the British Labour Government’s way. In both countries the mass of the population live in constant poverty, in fear of losing their employment, and in fear of losing their lives in capitalism's wars—for wars and crises are just as much part of Capitalism as are millionaires.

So also is unemployment. In the much-quoted article "The Carrot and the Stick” the “Economist” (29/6/46) showed how necessary unemployment is to Capitalism in order to goad the workers into the degree of effort required by the employers. “Provided that no one is unemployed for more than a short time, an unemployment ratio of 5 per cent, is not only supportable but absolutely necessary to provide mobility and elasticity in the economy. Full employment, in fact, will not work without a million unemployed.” Now look at Mr. Schwartz’s assumption in the light of the facts. Note that he places his assumption in the future, why not in the past? If it is a sound assumption it should be true of the past decades as well as the coming ones.

So it now can be restated as ”Suppose there was an all-round 20 per cent. rise in the standard of living in the past decade . . .” Need we say any more than to challenge our economist to prove that British workers are 20 per cent. better off than in 1937, 40 per cent. better off than in 1927, and 60 per cent. better off than they were 30 years ago! We have had lots of millionaires: we have also had two world wars, two major crises, hundreds of strikes and lock-outs, bad housing, under-feeding and all the miseries of unemployment and insecurity.

We think these things are a high price to pay for Capitalism, and we are willing to quarrel intelligently with Mr. Schwartz about it.

Why Daddy Goes Down the Mine 

For a while the Labour Government feared that too many workers were listening to the old refrain: “Don’t go down in the mine daddy.” Then a campaign to popularise the miner’s life was launched, and now recruits are coming in: ”2,000 men join the pits every week ” (Daily Express, 21/3/47). But it isn’t all due to propaganda; that never failing Capitalist persuader, unemployment, is playing its part. “In January, fewer than 800 men a week were volunteering. Now all men under 35 who are out of work for four weeks are being advised to go to the pits ” (Daily Express, 21/3/47).

No More Sneers at Capitalism

Captain Raymond Blackburn, Labour M.P. for King’s Norton, Birmingham, has been in hot water with some of his constituents for a speech he made recently Declaring that an entirely new approach is needed he went on :—

“We in the Labour movement must realise that the export trade is in the hands of private enterprise. We must proudly acclaim its achievements instead of sneering at those who are successful. It is an odd paradox that the success of Socialism in Britain depends in large degree upon the efficiency of private enterprise

“I believe that despite the clear statement of our position in the White Paper and by the Prime Minister in his broadcast we are still heading for disaster. This is not pessimism, but realism.

“It seems impossible that we can survive as a great exporting nation in the years of competition that lie ahead, if there is any substantial reduction in the hours of work in our main industries.—(Daily Telegraph, 24/3/47).

What Captain Blackburn calls an odd paradox is more than that, it is utter nonsense. The success of Socialism has nothing to do with the Labour Party’s ability to run Capitalism. The truth is that the Labour Government is in a jam, as everyone who looked squarely at the facts knew it would be. They promised to give the workers the benefits of Socialism without abolishing Capitalism; to make the wage-earners comfortable, prosperous and contented without getting rid of wage-slavery. Two particular promises were higher wages (without higher prices.), and shorter hours. Now they are damping down on claims for higher wages and shorter hours because they have to make it possible for the Capitalists to get their profits. The Labour supporters who are surprised and horrified at Captain Blackburn’s statement have no real ground for complaint. If they had studied Labour Party literature with care they would have known what was bound to be the outcome of keeping the Capitalist leopard alive and in good health while trying to change its spots.

The Royal Trip to South Africa

Some Labour M.P.s criticised the Royal trip to S. Africa on ground of its cost—altering H.M. “Vanguard” cost £170,000 (News Chronicle, 19/3/47), and others on the ground of its obvious object, that of helping to prop up Smut’s government against his Nationalist rivals.

Mr. Hannen Swaffer, Labour Party supporter, admitted the purpose and that Smuts is “anti-native and an enemy of the trade unions,” but defended the trip.

“The King’s visit to a Dominion where there is a very strong anti-British republicanism may do infinite good to our relations.

“General Smuts is admittedly anti-native and an enemy of the trade unions. But he is a Prime Minister whose friendship for Britain was one of the deciding factors in the war. His loyalty to the Commonwealth will be greatly helped by a tour which, extravagant though may be its circumstance, is a normal part of constitutional procedure.—(People, 9/2/47).

Indian Nationalists and the Trade Unions

Indian workers who supported the Nationalist movement in the belief that the Indian propertied class would behave differently from British rulers in India are soon learning their mistake. The following statement, taken from the journal of the All-India Trade Union Congress relates to a Trade Union Bill introduced by the Interim Government:—

“ Mr. Jagjivan Ram, Labour Member of the Interim Government of India introduced in the Legislative Assembly (Central) on November 1st, 1946, a Bill which claims 'to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes ’ but which, in reality attacks the worker’s right to direct action and strike. The Bill not only embodies all the objectionable features of the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, but seeks to incorporate the hated provisions of Rule 81A of the D. I. R banning strikes and thus perpetuate the wartime restrictions on the right of workers to strike so as to practically annul it. He seemed to be in such a great hurry to put this measure on the Statute Book that he moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to report within a week.—(Trade Union Record,” Bombay, November, 1946).

What Is Prosperity?

Future historians who look back and read to-day’s descriptions of our own age will be puzzled by the restricted meaning applied to the word prosperity. It is usual in the Capitalist Press to apply the term to the propertied class only, and to ignore vast masses of the population. We are told that U.S.A. is prosperous, “the only nation to-day in which a glut of goods threatens disaster"—(Sunday Times, 13/4/47). Farmers and business men are jittery lest overproduction should lead to drastic price cuts and loss of profits, hut this doesn't mean that there aren't millions of poverty-stricken workers who need the products but cannot afford them. The "Economist" (5/4/47) thinks that the situation may be relieved by Government grants “to help local groups provide well-balanced midday meals at cost to all children in school, and free to those whose parents cannot afford payment"

Britain, on the other hand, is said to be a very poor country and Sir Stafford Cripps says: "We can't win through by chiselling and scrounging, by black marketeering or evading our fair share, or by trying to live on the industry of others"—(Daily Herald, 20/3/47.)

Yet the propertied class are living on the industry of others as usual, and doing quite well. The News Chronicle (12/3/47) reported a visit to a small grocery shop in South Audley Street where he saw caviare at £10 10s. a lb., and Truffles at 26s. 6d. a pint as well as other expensive delicacies. The owner of the shop told the reporter “that most of his customers are wealthy and spend lavishly to get what they want." This shopkeeper, by the way "considers the price of his caviare very reasonable. Another West End shop charges £12 12s. a lb."

Spain is another prosperous country, according to Sir. Mont Follick, Labour M.P. for Loughborough. He went to Spain and wrote about it in the Sunday Express (6/4/47). Here are some statements taken from Mr. Follick’s article:—

“Franco has introduced a large variety of reforms that benefit the working classes, though he has quashed their liberty to strike.

"There is no doubt that at this present moment there is extraordinary prosperity in Spain.

“But the working classes are very badly off.

"Everybody feels that something should be done for the working classes, but not a single subsidised house has been built for them, because it it not a business proposition to do so."

If we are to take Mr. Follick literally Spain is indeed a remarkable place. It is very prosperous but the workers are very badly off—this in spite of the variety of reforms Franco has kindly introduced for them—and everybody feels that something should be done for them but nobody does anything.

One at least of Mr. Follick's observations has a familiar ring, it is so true of all countries—"A man who has money in Spain has a life of luxury."

The Churches and the Dogs

The Churches are worrying about the spread of gambling and religion appears to be fading out. On March 11th the Manchester Guardian published a report of a Churches Committee on gambling which estimates that out of a working population of 20,000,000 16,000,000 bet regularly on football pools, horses or dog-racing. In the same issue of the Guardian the Lord Mayor was quoted as saying that "as few as 5 per cent. of the population of London attended places of worship."

If the figures are placed side by side it appears somewhat odd that the Churches (5 per cent. of the population) should be telling the Government to curtail the waste of man-power on betting, which interests 80 per cent. Mere weight of numbers suggests that the 80 per cent. should call for inquiry into the waste of man-power on religion, in which relatively few are interested. Point is given to this by the recent inquiry about religious knowledge made by the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth. He examined young recruits in the Navy and found that only one in five could repeat the Lord's Prayer word perfect and only 45 per cent knew what Easter commemorates.—(Daily Mail, 12/4/47.)

Some Labour Party Pronouncements on Wages and Prices

"Maintenance of a high and constant purchasing power through good wages."—(From " Let Us Face the Future," Labour Election Programme, 1945.)

"A Labour Government will co-operate with the Trade Unions to improve wage standards ..." (“Labour's Immediate Programme," 1937.)

Now the unions are being asked to co-operate with the Government in avoiding claims for higher wages.

Edgar Hardcastle

On the Materialist Conception of History (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Russian delegates attended the Grand National Steeplechase at Aintree it is related that they had a special box and the Red Flag was run up in their honour. When ministers of the British Government, past and present, visited Russia, the Union Jack was run up in their honour. These actions are symbolic of the hypocrisy bound up with capitalism. Behind this facade of friendship a bitter struggle is being waged between Russia and the Western Powers to secure a dominant position in industry and trade for their respective nationals; a struggle that is daily becoming more widely accepted as the prelude to another and more terrible war than the last. Evidence of this can be seen in the tremendous expenditure of energy and wealth on perfecting the atom bomb and other mighty means of destruction. But the struggle is represented to be something other than it really is; it is represented to be the clash between dictatorship and democracy, capitalism and workers control, much as the last trade conflict was represented to be a struggle between Fascism and Democracy. It is an old old story this covering of secular ambitions with heavenly halos; and though the real basis of the struggles are so often revealed when the dust of the conflict has subsided it does not prevent the construction of fresh halos every time a new war appears as a blot on the horizon.

Nowadays the halo process begins as a deliberate policy to bemuse the prospective cannon fodder, but long ago it was largely a result of self-delusion; man, in the shape of the ruling class, has learnt much since “dust hath closed Helen's eyes." Nowadays the reputable writers of history seek in the economic framework of societies for explanations of the causes of past wars, ignoring the proclaimed ideals that have embellished them. These writers have accepted as their guide the materialist conception of history in fact, though rarely in name. This not only applies to the causes of war but also to the writing of history in general.

What then is this materialist conception of history which is one of the fundamental tenets of the socialist outlook? According to this theory ideas are the product of conditions, and not the other way round. Men have not started cut with original ideas of absolute liberty. Justice and equality and then striven to make a world that would fit them; what they have done is striven to make alterations in the economic and political framework that would fulfil their needs and then sanctified their proposals with moral maxims. Their ideas have been shaped by the world around and were limited by the social development so far attained and the immediate future which that development foreshadowed.

The human race inherits ideas either through the medium of writing or the passed-on experience of the elders; no child is born with ideas planted in its brain. One example is sufficient to put the latter fact beyond dispute. We all learn, sometimes to our cost, that fire burns the fingers that touch it: humanity has had this burnt into it for hundreds of thousands of years; yet practically every child that is born reaches blithely for the flames, thousands of years of human experience have not raised a suspicion of danger in the mind of the child.

Let us now glance briefly at the way knowledge is acquired and the source of that knowledge.

Thinking is a function of the brain, just as grasping is a function of the hand, and walking a function of the feet; each function acquiring competence by training and experience. In order to think the brain must have something to think about; the material the brain thinks about is drawn from the world around through the medium of the senses—seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling and smelling. The thought material thus acquired, compared and generalised upon determines the outlook of the individual, and the nature of this thought material is itself limited by the individual’s contact with the world, his own experience, which also limits his capacity to appreciate the experience of others. The most important contact a person has with the world is that concerned with the satisfaction of his fundamental needs—food, clothing, shelter and the reproduction of his kind—and therefore these are the contacts that dominate his life, bring him into social relations with his kind and shape his outlook. The grouping of man into societies is rooted in the methods devised for satisfying these needs and therefore the social outlook of a given society is dominated by the ideas that spring from the way in which the members of that society are organised together to obtain the means to sustain life. But societies are not a fixture, they evolve as new methods of production evolve from old ones. Thinking is done in a social world that is evolving and about a social world that is evolving; change is therefore one of the elements of thought, and the more rapidly the surrounding world changes the more thought becomes permeated with this element of change. That change is the nature of things was only accepted by a few outstanding thinkers of antiquity; to-day evolution is commonly accepted as a universal law—even the “unchanging church” and the “changeless” East have had to bow to it.

Social progress is the result of the mental activity of man exerting itself on the material provided by the external environment. The brain has the faculty of working up the material drawn, from the environment just as the digestive apparatus has the faculty of digesting the food that comes to it—and both can suffer from indigestion! Man’s social action is dependant upon the special character of the environment in which he lives. He can act upon and modify this environment, but only in accordance with elements already contained within it, as Marx so pithily put it; man makes his own history, but not out of the whole cloth, only out of that which is ready to his hand. Thus, narrowly speaking, a man’s social outlook is determined by his social position—but this must not be applied too sweepingly. A humorous commentary on this narrow outlook occurred in Poland in 1936. An amnesty had been declared for prisoners who were on the list for execution: the Polish executioner. who was paid £4 for each execution, was immediately up in arms, declaring that as his living depended upon executions he should be consulted before any amnesty was granted!

The way man thinks, what he thinks about, and the conclusions he comes to, depend upon the nature of his environment. This environment is made un of a number of factors—economic, geographic, intellectual political. religious and so forth, but the economic is the final determining influence because it is vital to him and engages most of his attention, though even this is itself somewhat affected by the other factors. However we have not space to go further into this. The economic conditions comprise the manner in which men in a given society produce their means of subsistence, and the ways in which they effect the distribution of these means of subsistence among themselves.

Mankind differs from animals in that whereas animals draw their subsistence direct from nature with the use of their physical organs unassisted by anything else, man makes contrivances that enlarge the power and scope of his organs and enable him to get more from nature with less effort than animals. In other words man builds an artificial barrier between himself and nature by his inventions and contrivances, and in the course of time this barrier, or artificial environment, has more and more influence on the way he thinks because of its social consequences. Thus it comes about that it is the inventions and not the intentions of man that have been the cause of progress, and that have given rise to ideas of liberty, of justice, and of equality. These concepts that are alleged to be absolute are in fact, like everything else, relative, depending upon changing social systems as well as upon social position. They differ in different historical periods and also in the same period with different people. To the Polish hangman it was unjust to take away his livelihood, to his victim it was unjust to take away his life.

Since the advent of private property, in the dim and distant past, moral, intellectual, political and religious ideas have been bound up with different forms of property ownership. These forms of property have split society into antagonistic classes which have engaged in bitter class struggles, each class striving to dominate society and serve its own interests As we look back through history we see that it is made up of these class conflicts and that it is they that are the vital thread from which progress has been woven— meaning by progress an ever wider adaptation to natural forces and the bringing nearer of the possibility of humanity, as a whole, achieving comfort, security and happiness.

Each new form of production has brought into being new social classes, a change in social relations, and a change in current ideas. The freeman and slave of antiquity looked upon the social world differently from the feudal lord and bondsman of the middle ages, and likewise capitalist and worker have different ideas from those of their mediaeval counterparts. To understand the ideas of a period it is necessary to examine the economic framework of the period from which the ideas are derived, because the economic framework is the dominating influence. Ideas carried over from old outworn systems are carried over into the new, in fact, as Marx puts it so well “the tradition of all past generations weighs like an Alp upon the brain of the living ” ; but these traditions are forced into the mould of the new system, though they may have some influence on the shape of the mould. The confused social outlook of a period, including the present, is the resultant of the mixture of ideas thrown up by the different classes that together make up society, but the prevailing, or the most insistent, ideas are those backed by the dominant class; and they remain so until another class becomes sufficiently conscious of its interests and strong enough to challenge the supremacy of the dominant class.

Looking at the international conferences from the point of view we have very briefly set forth we can see that the ruling powers to-day are each concerned with obtaining economic, privileges for the national groups they represent, and that the Atlantic Charter, liberty, democracy and all the other phrases that so liberally besmirch their utterances are only so many blankets to cover their economic designs. The last war, like the one before it, was waged for purely economic motives; the next one that is now in the making will ho waged for similar ends. While production and distribution is based upon the class ownership of the means of production it cannot be otherwise.

Each era in the history of mankind contains the voice of the past, the present and the future. The voice of the future is small and weak at first hut grows stronger as time passes until it eventually becomes the voice of the present; mankind only takes up problems that it can solve since the problem only arises as a problem because the solution is contained within it. It is the solution that has forced the problem to the front.

Gilmac.

Who will do the dirty work? (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most Socialists will agree that, of all the questions put to them in their attempt to explain Socialism to their fellow-workers, this is among the most common. In fact, sooner or later during the process of convincing a worker, it is almost certain to come up.

We all know what is meant by the question. The enquirer is not alluding to the sharp practices of his masters, the betrayals of his leaders, nor yet to his own exploitation. He refers to some of the jobs that are looked upon as dirty and degrading, and to which many of his fellow workers seem doomed by the very nature of things.

It is not all dirty jobs that worry the questioners—for example they never ask about doctors and coroners—but only the badly paid dirty work, a favourite being the work of dustmen. The following extracts from a Government report show what could be done about that work now if cost were not the deciding factor. Under Socialism health, comfort and safety will be first considerations.

 “At Quarry Hill flats in Leeds . . . we inspected what we believe to be the only installation in this country of a water-borne system of refuse disposal whereby the refuse is conveyed direct from the kitchen sink of each flat by means of large bore pipes. The specially constructed sink is combined with a large circular hopper into which the refuse is placed. The hopper is then filled with water and when the tenant raises a plunger it discharges its contents in much the same way as an ordinary w.c. The refuse, which may include without damage to the system ashes;, tins and bottles, is then conveyed by suction through underground pipes to a central chamber. Here the liquids and solids are mechanically separated, the liquids discharging into the ordinary sewerage system and the solids being burnt in the furnaces which heat the water for the communal laundry. The system appears to work extremely satisfactorily . . . (“Design of Dwellings,” H.M.S.O., 1944, p. 21.)

However, let not any dustmen among our readers imagine that they will soon be out of work. To the best of our knowledge the system of refuse disposal described above was first installed in blocks of flats near Paris in 1932. The Quarry Hill flats in Leeds were built in 1935 and appears to have been, in 1944, the only scheme of flats in this country where such a system was employed. It does not look as if dustmen are on their way out just yet. The next paragraph in the report may suggest why: —

“Owing to the cost of equipping the central chamber, which contains an expensive plant, a  water-borne system of refuse disposal would scarcely be a practical proposition except on a large-scale development. But at Quarry Hill, with its 938 flats, the average cost of maintaining the system does not exceed 1.7 pence per week per flat." 

The all too familiar reason: too expensive. Atomic bomb plants, yes. Refuse disposal plants, no.

However, dustmen should not despair. Since the local authorities who pay their wages are also building the flats, it may occur to them that a mechanical system of refuse disposal might be cheaper. In that case we can anticipate many fine speeches about the progressiveness of public authorities in abolishing an unpleasant task.

Would it be churlish to ask whether the dustmen will be found other work? Or will it be a case of "off the dust cart, on to the dole"?

John Moore

The Slave's Awakening (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The wage-slave is showing signs of bewilderment towards present day events. A beneficient Labour Government promised him full employment and he wonders why he is on the dole. He cannot make head nor tail of the explanations they give him: fuel shortage, famine in man power, have a false ring because he knows that there was apparently no shortage of fuel during the war and the Labour Exchanges prove that there is a superfluity of fellows like himself who cannot find a master. He listens to arguments when in the queue: ‘‘It’s the Capitalist class that’s doing it, they want to force the Labour Government to quit and the Capitalists have the money: they did the same thing last time we had a Labour Government.” He is interested in the reply: ‘‘We own the Bank of England now, don‘t we? All the money is ours, so that can’t be it.” The wage slave feels in his empty pocket and vaguely wonders why he is broke— a shareholder in the National Bank should not be in his precarious position. Another argument starts heatedly: “I know for a fact that when work opens up again everybody will be kept busy for years; I saw it in the paper, many firms will be running night and day; there is a demand for houses, clothing, shoes, everything, this is not going to last long.” This cheers the queue up a little, but a doleful old man butts in with “I've seen this sort of thing before, I believe there are a lot out of work now who will never work again.” The wage slave is shocked when some one yells out: ‘‘Well, that’s one comfort anyway, it’s work that wears you out, the less we work the longer we shall live.”

The queue shuffles forward a few paces and then one fellow obviously suffering from the cold says : ‘‘My feet are frozen stiff; why is it they can’t put more men on, there are a hundred men in the queue who can do the job the clerks are doing just as well as those who are working there now.” Another move forward and some of the grumblers are swept inside; a policeman tries to keep order but finds it extremely difficult.

One by one they receive the form to sign and make their way with it to the queue in front of the pay window. After they receive their miserable pittance they fight their way through the queue outside and wend their way to their respective homes., flats, prefabs or tenements.

Those that are married, and our fellow-slave is one of them, are awaited by an impatient wife, a war bride on the war path. “Where have you been all this time? Is that all you’ve got? What can I buy with it? I’ve got to go now and stand in queue after queue to get what we want. I don’t know what we are going to do; it’s worse than during the war; look after the baby: when she wakes up give her the milk that is in the saucepan: see that it's not too hot. Where’s my ration book? 1 suppose there will be nothing left when I get there."

The wife and mother hurries out and the wage slave sits down and bemoans his fate. “What did 1 get married for?" The baby awakens and he attends to its wants as best he can, hut the mother’s touch is lacking and the child is fretful. It will not take the milk he prepares for it and eventually starts crying loudly. After trying various devices to lull it into a quiet frame of mind he eventually turns on the radio and a melancholy voice tells him to “think on these things." “Oh hell,” he says, and changes the station quickly to something less inclined to remind a proletarian of his sins.

Although he tries his utmost he fails in his attempts to comfort his offspring and when his wife comes home, tired and disappointed, the child is bawling loudly. "What have you been doing to her? You are about the most useless man I know.” He is filled with indignation and retorts in a manner that leads to a row: the neighbours are entertained for an hour or more with vivid descriptions of the immoral acts and shortcoming of both the husband and wife. The affair ends with the man going out and the woman and the child left crying together.

“ Oh what a happy land is England "—if you are poor.

The puzzled wage slave knows that things have gone wrong somewhere but he does not hit upon the cause, and feels inclined to blame himself. His wife also endures agonies of mind but she is helpless: they are both tortured by economic conditions over which they have no control.

Such is the life of the worker.

The present situation has certain peculiar features that need elucidating.

The means of production need renewing as a result of the strain of the war; in most industries new equipment and materials are lacking. Capitalism has nothing ahead; the new mechanism has to be brought into being by the producers putting their backs into it. The ruling class must force the workers to ”forge the gilded chains that enslave them.”

Capitalism is run by the capitalist class for one purpose only, the obtaining of a profit. Profits cannot be realised until goods are sold. The market of the world consists of the purchasing power of the people of the earth. In proportion to what is placed on the market the purchasing power of the producers is becoming relatively less. The trouble is further complicated by constant capital in the shape of machinery having always to be sold to Capitalists; working men and women do not buy machinery. As the Capitalist class have only claims on wealth yet to he produced they are finding things extremely difficult at the present time. .

It is the above facts that are driving the Labour Government to indulge in all kinds of tricks and experiments to induce the worker to produce more per man hour. The wage slaves are re-acting well, they don’t like the idea of speeding up, their class instinct warns them that there is something wrong with what the leaders advocate; they smell treachery but can’t detect exactly where it is. Neither do they like the irksome restrictions that are everywhere in evidence. Identity cards, ration cards, the worker must sign on the dotted line, at every move. The country is fast becoming one huge slave camp and feelings of frustration are everywhere being revealed in the expression on the faces of those of our fellows we meet on the street and on the job.

The emancipation of the working class cannot he brought about by developing the mechanism of Capitalist production ; the present machinery was not designed for the wage slave’s benefit, but to exploit him.

To achieve a state of society in which goods are produced solely for use, a complete transformation of the mechanism of production will he essential. Socialism means as great a change in the mode of production as in the mode of distribution.

The society of the future is one of associated humanity; man is the main consideration. The welfare of mankind is the sole aim of Socialism.

In order to live a life worth living man must be free, there will he no ration cards., and no identity cards either; no speeding up for wealth will be brought into being for the use of the people. The aim and object will be quality, pure food, the best of clothing. homes that are homes—for everybody. “We will eat as much as our tummy will hold, and if we feel that way drink as much as our heads will stand," and this will be ours without money and without price. Labour applied to the natural resources of the earth will give us everything necessary to our existence and well being.

When the workers have the intelligence to abolish the wage system and establish their own social order we emerge into what may he described as a new world. SPEED THE DAY!

Charles Lestor

Poor but respectable (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

For too long the working class have had their strength drained by poverty and economic insecurity. Although harassed and undernourished, they have accepted their condition as being inevitable : content with the reform crumbs that have been grudgingly given after bitter struggles. As yet they know of no alternative.

Their arguments in defence of their position are proverbial, and like schoolchildren chanting the multiplication table, they have repeated the ‘‘catch-phrases” of their masters. “There have always been rich and poor.” “You must have Capital and Labour.” ‘‘Hard work never hurt anyone.” ‘‘The bosses have got the brains.” These phrases have dulled workers' political alertness, because, always hoping to rise in the social sphere by hard work, they eventually discover there is nothing on that road but work and poverty. They do not know the alternative.

Poverty is a social disease which has undermined the health of the working class. The slum dwellers of to-morrow—the suburbanites, think the term poverty refers to the slum dwellers of to-day. They in turn think it refers to beggars and tramps. It is never on their own doorstep. It is always the other person who is poor.

The poverty of sweet suburbia is more respectable than that of the slum areas. They have no bugs. They eat from tablecloths, not newspapers. They have baths, not bowls in which to perform their ablutions. They have a lounge, not a parlour. Their children wear “college” caps and do not “run the streets.” Unmarried expectant mothers have been kicked out of their homes to maintain their family’s respectability. ‘‘ What will the neighbours think?” outweighs consideration for their daughter’s welfare. Respectability knows no bounds.

In sweet suburbia they have a different outlook from the slum dweller. They desire to ‘‘get on” in the world. Being snobs, they try to find out what the other fellow does ‘‘in the city.” It is never called work. They receive a ‘‘salary,” not a wage. They visit the "local” not the "pub.” They wear out their lives trying to keep up appearances, and have been known to go without food in order to do so. Property-conscious, with shoddy clothes and affected speech, they ape their masters in an endeavour to hide their poverty. Their condition is wretched, for they are acting a lie throughout their lives. All have one fear — the fear of losing a job.

Foolish workers! Not only do you produce the wealth which the Capitalist class enjoy, but they control your thinking, and you are content despite your wretchedness, that this should be so. It is true you grumble—that is a safety valve, but animals do not whine and skulk in corners.

One can understand the Capitalist class defending their power, prestige and property. They have got a lot to lose, but you have only your poverty—and how you like it!

You are the toiling millions who produce the wealth of the world, for others to enjoy. As yet, the Capitalist class is not afraid of you, for they have got you where they want you, but when you begin to think in your own interests, they will not be so flagrant. The newspapers will not show a photo of a super ship with its millionaires on board, and on the same page, an offer to the miners of an extra ounce of rationed meat.

Workers, rouse yourselves from your lethargy. Try to understand the world in which you exist. Join with us in working for a society where poverty and degradation will be replaced by comfort and a full life for all.

S. W. C.

Letter: The North Paddington Vote (1947)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Colsterworth Road, N.15.

Dear Sir,

It must be now clear to you that whilst the ballot-box is the way to bring about Socialism it will not be necessary for the workers to understand it. This is made clear in the North Paddington election. You assumed that those who voted for you in the first election were Socialists and yet a short time afterwards in the same constituency only a little more than half the former number supported you. Had your candidate been elected he would have been elected by people who would have supported him in any action he took even though a large number of them didn’t understand Socialism but wanted a change from Capitalism. To say that only those who understand what Socialism is will vote for you is clearly disproved by the two Paddington elections.

I hope that you will answer this in the next issue of the Socialist Standard, as it is a question that millions of workers are now asking.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) John Palmer.

Reply:

Our correspondent’s letter is chiefly remarkable for the way in which it takes a small amount of fact and a large amount of conjecture and draws therefrom unwarranted conclusions. What are the facts? In 1904 the S.P.G.B. took its stand on the propositions that the achievement of Socialism requires the understanding of a majority, and that the working-class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government. These propositions not only hold good to-day but have been conflrmed by the continued failure of the Labourites and Communists, who denied them, to make good their boasts that they knew of other ways of achieving Socialism. The other facts known to our correspondent and ourselves are that in North Paddington the overwhelming majority of the workers are not Socialists; that they gave their votes to the Labour candidate or the Tory candidate; that a small number gave their vote to the Socialist candidate in 1945; and that this number was reduced at the by-election in 1946. Neither our correspondent nor ourselves have means of finding out exactly why that number was reduced; but this does not deter our correspondent from claiming that he does know. He claims to know that those who voted for the Socialist candidate in 1945 and not in 1946 “didn't understand Socialism but wanted a change from Capitalism.” It may be so, we do not know, but even if it were the explanation, it does not support the curious conclusions our correspondent arrives at. Let us assume as our correspondent wishes us to, that some individuals mistakenly voted for the Socialist candidate in 1945 and corrected their error in 1946. This can be explained on the assumption that in between they got to know more about the S.P.G.B. As the Socialist movement grows, there will be more and more workers who learn what the S.P.G.B. stands for, and therefore less and less possibility of individuals voting for the Socialist candidate under a misapprehension. Yet our correspondent, faced with a decline in this “uninformed” vote between 1945 and 1946 assumes quite contradictorily that as the Socialist movement grows the “uninformed” vote will increase, until, so he tells us. Socialist candidates will be elected by-the votes of “a large number” of such individuals.

All we can say is that there is nothing whatever to support this curious view and everything to discount its possibility.

In conclusion our correspondent tells us that “millions of workers” are asking the question he puts to us. Don’t we wish there were! By the time the Socialist case is a matter of breath-taking interest to millions of workers we shall be much further on the road to Socialism. Incidentally our correspondent’s bogey will then have been reduced to its proper perspective by the growth of Socialist knowledge on the one hand and on the other by the frantic endeavours of the parties of “no Socialism but only a change from Capitalism” to save themselves from extinction.

Editorial Committee.

Party News Briefs (1947)

Party News from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Special May Day meetings have been arranged in London, Glasgow and Manchester. London has Islington Central Hall on Thursday, May 1st, and the Metropolitan Theatre, Edgware Road, on Sunday, May 4th. Glasgow has booked the Central Halls, Bath Street, and Manchester has arranged a big open-air rally in Platt Fields, both on May 4th.

Debates are being arranged with Beverley Baxter, M.P., at Wood Green (Palmers Green branch), the S.L.P. (Glasgow branch), and a Conservative (Manchester branch).

The Propagandist/Organiser leaves London on May 1st for five months in Birmingham and Manchester areas.

The Economics Class at Head Office has been suspended for the summer. This has been one of the most successful classes in the history of the party. Look for an announcement of its re-opening in the autumn.

Hackney branch has had a very good series of indoor meetings with big audiences, even during the arctic evenings. Their advertising methods must have been excellent.

Kingston-on-Thames group is getting ready to ask the Executive Committee for permission to form a branch. There are good outdoor propaganda possibilities here.

Manchester branch distributed a specially prepared leaflet at a big meeting there addressed by Wallace, the American politician.

Ealing branch had about 50 at a very happy social evening. This branch is steadily growing and now has 45 members.

(Branches, officials and sub-committee who have items for these notes must give them to the General Secretary by the 8th of the month preceding issue. Publication cannot be guaranteed owing to shortage of space.)

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary

Annual Conference (1947)

Party News from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 43rd Annual Conference was held at the Conway Hall in London on April 4th, 5th and 6th. 60 Delegates from 22 London and provincial branches examined the party's work during 1946 and discussed how to increase and improve organised Socialist activity in the future. It was a conference of Socialists and there were no disputes about our objective or how to arrive at it. We spent three days in sharpening our weapons of attack on Capitalism. The conference wanted more educational work for members, closer contacts with workers abroad and a continuance of the struggle against Capitalism's parties on the electoral field. It critically surveyed the party's publications and pressed for a greater range of pamphlets dealing with all phases of Capitalism to aid us in our fight for Socialism. The discussions were lively and interesting and it was very encouraging to hear a large number of young delegates competently putting their branches' views. Fraternal greetings were received from companion parties, overseas which were reciprocated by the Conference. It was a democratic conference of working men and women who were united on fundamental issues and it showed how the working-class can manage its own affairs without direction or leadership.

On Sunday evening three speakers hammered home our policy at the Annual Rally which concluded the conference. The conference was successful financially, helped by the income from the Saturday evening social. A large number of members and sympathisers danced and generally enjoyed themselves. Some members want these free and easy social get-togethers to take place more often.

Clifford Groves

Blogger's Note:

The three Party speakers at the Annual Conference Rally were Arthur Mertons (Manchester), Tony Mulheron (Glasgow) and Tony Turner (London).

Mirthless May Day: The Workers and their future (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The legacy of World War Number 2 is not relished by its heirs. The dismal consequences of total conflict are ruins, starvation and despair. Nothing has been settled. On the contrary, the fears and uncertainties that haunted the minds of the workers previously are multiplied as they watch their rulers make pathetic attempts to grapple with a world that appears more complex than ever. Pity the poor “statesman”—the hurdles are upon the rider before he has time to get used to the saddle.

The Labour Government has been in power for nearly two years. They have not covered themselves with glory. It is no use pleading that they are trying to heal the wounds of war; these wounds show no signs of healing. A greater lack of food and houses for the workers at home; quarrels and military conflicts abroad. Is this the kind of world the workers expected from the party they helped to build and raise to power?

Added to this is the effrontery of the Labour politicians in aping every propaganda trick used by the capitalists whenever they wanted more work for less pay.

“Work harder and spend less.”

Full employment, but not full stomachs!

Whining about the "poverty” of "debt-ridden Britain” cuts no ice with Socialists. The capitalists of this country are not poor. Despite the hole made in their coffers by the war they are rich enough to allow their providers, the working-class, a higher standard of living and still have plenty left over for themselves. Why should they if Labour leaders are not ashamed to stump the country with the old familiar sob-story on the employers' behalf?

But our Labour politicians should occasionally read the press. They would have been informed that at the beginning of April this year £100 millions of British capital has been invested in the Union of South Africa for the purpose of establishing new industrial enterprises; in a recent issue of the Tribune it is revealed that the total of British capital invested in South America is still in the region of £900 millions. Think how much food this could buy.

The transfer of £100 millions must surely have enhanced the flavour of the Royal visit or is this purely co-incidental?

The swindle behind the "We-Are-Poor-Now” story is known to every company promoter. The capitalist class as a whole form themselves into a limited company known as the State. Thus they can incur debts collectively whilst as individuals they remain the owners of vast wealth. Was there ever a time when employers showed generosity?

The picture is no more inviting when we turn to world affairs.. At the time of writing the representatives of the big powers are in Moscow staking the frontiers from which they can launch the next world war. This is no exaggeration. Professor H. Laski argued at a meeting held in London on March 2nd that the Russian armies would only leave Germany if driven out by force. Every report from this conference of former allies confirms this opinion. This means that Europe will remain an armed camp until the next war starts.

The ruling class of Russia is playing a desperate game. No one can tell for certain what the conditions of the Russian masses are At the present time, for the facilities for independent inquiry normal to Western capitalism are absent. The standards of living must be nearer the Asiatic levels rather than the already lowered European standards. Guarded speculations made recently in the Manchester Guardian concern themselves with the parlous state of the Soviet State capitalist economy, which, despite the "blood transfusion" of plunder from Germany and Austria, must be at its lowest ebb since the civil wars of 1920. The return of Russian soldiers from higher-developed countries, must be giving serious trouble to the Russian authorities, for an intelligent comparison makes nonsense of Russian internal propaganda. The new law forbidding marriage with foreigners shows the straits to which the rulers of Russia are reduced. A further pointer is the brief report in the People dated April 6th that Kharkov will be occupied by troops to deal with “thieves” who have over-run the city.

Let there be no misunderstanding. The rivalry between the United States and Russia, which is nothing less than a dispute over the mastery of the entire globe, poses even more serious problems for the workers of this and other countries than did the conflict between Britain and Germany. Gone is the easy optimism of Labour circles about “friendship with our Soviet comrades.” The hypocritical statements by Mr. Attlee during the recent Parliamentary debates on foreign policy and conscription, asking for British military strength in order to “support U.N.O.,” deceived no one.

This is the situation to which the development and interplay of the forces of capitalist economic rivalries has brought the human race. At a time when all mankind could have been free to enjoy the fruits of its technical progress, the vast majority is condemned to slave more feverishly for the meanest subsistence and cower in fear of more terrible instruments of destruction. For this situation the movements of so-called “Social Democracy” and "Communism" must bear a large share of the blame. They have used the natural desires of working people for a better life to win power for themselves and by their ghastly failure have destroyed the aspirations of millions who might have become the builders of world socialism. Instead, cynicism and frustration dominate the working class political scene.

For this crime the parties responsible must eventually suffer. Already, all the signs point to further and more convulsive crises, political and economic, particularly in Britain, France, and, dare we say, in Russia?

In this country the Labour Government is resting on very shaky foundations. The press abroad freely speculates on the early possibility of its fall and the formation of a “Coalition." This fall might free many workers from the shackles of mistaken loyalties, and help to fit them mentally for the Socialist movement. One thing is certain: Only a rapid development in Socialist understanding can save the world from another, and more devastating, catastrophe. 

Sid Rubin

The Division of the Spoils (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The aim of commodity production is the realisation of surplus value and the first step towards this end is the purchase of the necessary means of production, either by the individual capitalist or by what is increasingly the case, a state body. Thus beginning with money, the Capitalists buy factories, plant and raw materials plus the energies’ of working men and women and the net return on this outlay is an increased sum of money, sufficient not only to repeat the process, but enough for further expansion of production.

From the unpaid labour of the workers there is— notwithstanding the personal “expenses’’ of the owning class in luxury living—a sum of money to be reinvested in the productive process, either as an addition to the existing capital or as capital seeking fresh fields of exploitation, leading to an inevitable accumulation of capital seeking surplus-value, or profit. Herein lies the dilemma of Capitalism and the slave-like history of its working-class victims. Let us look at this.

All money set aside as industrial capital can for our purpose be divided into two parts, that spent on the inert means of production we can call “constant” capital, while that for buying labour-power, which preserves and furnishes additional value is “variable” capital. Now if the function of labour-power is to labour, then the call for labour by the employing-class will depend on the market demand for commodities, while the market will, in turn, be gained by those owners that have succeeded in reducing the labour in their commodities to the lower level.

Labour-time is therefore the Capitalist’s devil which claims as its victims those that are hindmost, driving them to centralise or amalgamate their capital and concentrate it in labour-saving machinery, and the plant lay-out of mass production—to invest in constant capital rather than variable capital.

This results in large capital devouring its smaller rivals, while the social outcome is such that the means of production call for a progressively smaller number of workers to operate it, making it impossible for Capitalism to find work for the total employable population, hence an industrial reserve army is in constant being, ever threatening the wage level of those in jobs.

Spurred on by the needs of the market and the greed for surplus-value, capital accumulation in the past was built up by driving labour-power below its value by excessive hours, piecework and low wages, but wiser methods hold sway to-day in production-drives advocated by the workers’ own “leaders” coupled with subtle plea that the workers have a "share” in nationalised industries and state planning —an idea writ large in Russia where the old methods of accumulation are joined with the new. Lastly, though the needs of the accumulation of capital may increase the total wage-bill in connection with the total number employed—the wage-bill—decreases in proportion to the national income. So much for the workers’ "share” in Capitalism’s productivity.

Yet not all capital invested in the Capitalist economy is productive of value or surplus-value. To begin with, the industrialists—whose workers directly produce value and thereby surplus-value—must part with some of the surplus to others whose capital forms an integral part in Capitalist production. The merchants. bankers and others, though not in productive industry, nevertheless share in the surplus according to the size of their capital and receive, over a period, an average rate of increment, enforced by competition : for capital flows out of those spheres where the rate is low to where it is higher. At this point it might be asked: “How do those capitals whose workers produce no surplus-value, exploit their workers?”

The finance-capitalists whose service to capital is to centralise all the available loanable money for the use of the whole Capitalist class, reap the difference between the depositors’ rate and the interest charge for borrowers. The work entailed being done by their employees, who merely receive the cost of subsistence or salary consistent with this type of work. The outlay in wages and equipment compared with the charge for the bank services give these Capitalists their share in surplus-value. Again, the merchants who market the products, effect this much more economically than could the many independent industrialists, thus saving them labour-time and capital. The wage costs' for their workers’ abilities and commercial knowledge, set against that part of surplus-value which the industrialists leave them to realise in the selling price, give the merchants their profits.

The landowners, hereditary possessors of the earth’s surface, lend no like "service” to Capitalist production, hence the historic enmity of the Capitalists against this monopoly. National Capitalism, fresh in the saddle of political power has adopted policies, varying from state control to even the "liquidation” of landowners as in Russia and earlier in France. An eventual compromise is always concluded with this "charge on industry,” even though land as land has no value and will only yield rent out of the surplus values of farmers and industrialists. Landowners in this way take their share of the spoils through the undertakings on their land whether these activities be mining, building or agriculture. They accumulate wealth, brought about, by others activities. Their land offered as a commodity is bought and sold for a sum that is equal to an investment whose interest would equal the rent.

To sum up, surplus value is the totality of unpaid labour wrung from the workers' in the productive process. while its distribution to the Capitalists as rent, interest, and profit takes place in the circulatory process.

Frank Dawe

Workers of All Lands Unite—But not with foreigners (1947)

Editorial from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Biblical legend tells us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter paradise. It never occurred to the writer to stress the extreme difficulty of getting out again, it being assumed quite naturally that it is only prisons and suchlike purgatories that have to make escape impossible. Only in our own day do we witness the spectacle of Russia being held up as a Paradise, while the inhabitants are strictly forbidden to leave; they, it seems, must serve their life sentences to the very end.

This has been brought to prominence by the plight of the few Russian women who married British and other foreigners during the war and vainly tried to get out of Russia to rejoin their husbands; and by the new decree against such marriages. "Marriage between Soviet citizens and aliens was prohibited by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., published yesterday."—(Daily Worker, 22/3/47).

In the mid-nineteenth century it was taken for granted by those who thought themselves progressive that the ending of slavery and serfdom would be followed by the eventual removal of all restrictions on movement. Instead, the comparative ease of movement that then existed and which permitted Marx and Johan Most, the anarchist, for example to leave the continent and settle in England, has been followed by our own era in which registrations, passports and other obstacles to migration have reached a new perfection, more pernicious because the machinery of coercion is go much more efficient. Russia, the so-called land of internationalism, is now about the worst of the lot; its present attitude to marriage with aliens being different in motive but just as reactionary as the laws which prohibit marriages between whites and negroes in various parts of the world.

Russia was one of the countries that subscribed to the principles of the Atlantic Charter. One of these principles proclaimed the intention to establish such a peace as “should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance." How they are to reach the high seas and how to enter port again is not explained.

It is amusing to recall that the First Soviet Constitution (1918) contained a clause favouring “the widest possible fraternising between the workers and peasants in the ranks of the opposing armies." Now the unfortunate Soviet citizen must not even fraternise with members of an “allied" army!

When in 1860 Jacob Burckhardt wrote his “Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy," and wanted to show the depths of tyranny and intolerance of some of the 13th century despotisms he selected as an example Frederick II's "disciplined multitude of subjects; who were forbidden, for example, to marry out of the country without special permission." (Phaidon Press edition 1944, P. 3). Another instance was Bologna where it was the rule "that every passing traveller who entered at one gate must obtain a ticket in order to go out at another" (p. 33). If Burckhardt were writing to-day all he need do would he to say how little things had changed between the 13th and the 20th centuries, except that the coercion of the individual has been renamed "Communism," or Labour Planning, or National Service.

Obituary: Death of L. Jones (1947)

Obituary from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to have to report the death on April 5th of comrade Lew Jones of Leyton Branch, at the early age of 33. Comrade Jones joined the Party in 1933, and soon showed his all-round capacity and single-minded devotion to the Socialist cause. He studied hard to gain knowledge, and steadily applied himself to becoming a speaker and writer. His quiet and persuasive manner and his care for accuracy of statement made him a very effective propagandist in speech and in writing. He was secretary of the Branch for many years and treasurer until his death. He gave great help in editorial work and for a few weeks this year he was working as part-time assistant to the editorial committee, but owing to a worsening of his health during the recent spell of bitterly cold weather, he regretfully had to give it up. During the war, while working on the land to which he had been directed by a Conscientious Objector Tribunal, he contracted pleurisy.

He was refused a medical certificate and had to continue digging ditches in spite of his condition. As a result tuberculosis developed and he was very ill for the two years before his death. It was only towards the end of 1946 that he was reported to be sufficiently recovered to resume light work. In spite of the further relapse he was looking forward eagerly to resuming activities in a few weeks and his great concern was that his illness should have interfered with his work. In the last few days before he died he was working on an article. The Socialist movement has lost a fine and valuable comrade.

We express our sympathy with his family.