Notes By The Way: Not this Churchill (1952)

The Notes by the Way Column from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not this Churchill.

Mr. W. Arnold-Forster in “The Disarmament Conference” (National Peace Council 1931, page 23) wrote:—

  “So lately as 1886 Lord Randolph Churchill resigned the Chancellorship of the Exchequer rather than stand for an armament expenditure of £31 millions. He regarded that as an indefensibly enormous expenditure in peace time.”

Whatever Winston learned from his father it certainly has not been a taste for economv in armaments and Lord Randolph seems to have held views the reverse of those now propounded by his son. In a letter to Lord Salisbury at the time of his resignation Lord Randolph wrote:—

   “The possession of a very sharp sword offers a temptation, which becomes irresistible, to demonstrate the efficiency of the weapon in a practical manner. I remember the vulnerable and scattered character of the Empire, the universality of our commerce, the peaceful tendencies of our democratic electorate, the hard times, the pressure of competition and the higher taxation now imposed and with these factors visibly before me I decline to be a party to encourage the military and militant circle of the War Office and Admiralty to join in the high and desperate stakes which other nations seem to be forced to risk."

* * *

Getting Safer and Safer.

The argument of the armament enthusiasts is that if a country is strongly armed the enemy country will fear to attack and thus peace is preserved.

The flaw in the argument is that as all countries join in the armaments race they all become stronger. If they all double their armaments their relative strengths are as they were before.

In 1886 Lord Randolph Churchill thought that something under £30 millions a year was sufficient to provide safety from attack. By 1913 the annual cost had grown to £77 [millions] and his son Winston thought that was not enough, as also in 1939 when it was £523 millions. It is now £1,377 millions, which even allowing for greatly increased prices is about 15 times as much as in 1886.

So now we all feel safe; or do we?

* * *

Engels on the 1888 War Threat.

Two years after Churchill resigned Frederick Engels was reflecting on Bismarck’s increase in German armaments and on the likelihood of a general European war. Along with some accurate and inaccurate forecasts but including the anticipation that war destruction in Europe would give American industry world supremacy, he wrote:—“I imagine . . . that the plan is not to push things to extremities, to more than a sham war. But once the first shot is fired, control ceases, the horse can take the bit between its teeth.” ((Marx Engels. Selected Correspondence, Martin Lawrence Ltd., p. 456.)

* * *

The World Textile Slump.

In a useful survey of the factors leading up to the present slump in the textile trades the Manchester Guardian (26.3.52) shows that it is world-wide, America, Japan, Belgium and other countries being hit as badly as Britain. The principal cause is stated to be the way in which the countries which formerly imported textiles are now manufacturing their own supplies and looking for external markets.

  “World demand for cotton textiles increases as population increases, but the actual volume of imported textiles is falling as more and more countries make and consume their own. .. . The process goes on; India, once Lancashire’s great market, is now a formidable exporter. Pakistan, since partition the largest potential importer, is now building up her own production, as in Burma. Other countries in Latin America, once importers, are now on the edge of becoming exporters. Hardly less important are the political changes which have shut off the Communist world from the industries of the West and of Japan. It was the great mistake of the Japanese that in rebuilding their textile industries after the war they refused to realise that theft marketing field had vastly shrunk."

In the meantime Russia is now entering the world market not only with textiles but with textile machinery, these being among the Russian products displayed at the recent International Industries Fair at Bombay (Manchester Guardian 28.1.52). It was however remarked by the Guardian's correspondent at the Fair that the Russian textiles were being offered at prices appreciably higher than those at which the Indian Mills can put textiles on the market.

* * *

Are there Too Many Textiles?

The Manchester Guardian can discern no solution for the world textile slump except that bankruptcies will thin out the competitors and, in face of falling prices and fiercer competition, the governments whose policy has been to build up their own textile industries will curtail their plans.

All of which means that British and world output of textiles would be reduced, not merely by temporary suspension of production but for a long time ahead by the reduction of manufacturing capacity.

Which would of course be a very sensible course of action if it were true that the world has too many textiles. But it is not true, as the Guardian writer could easily verify without even going farther afield than his own doorstep. Let him look round the Manchester streets and visit the workers' homes (including the unemployed cotton workers) and see if the workers and their wives really are “glutted” with shirts and sheets, and socks, suits and dresses. He would soon find firsthand evidence of a condition that exists in all countries; that the mass of the population make do with the minimum of textile goods (and those of poor quality) because their demands are limited not by need but by their wages.

As it happens the wording used in the Manchester Guardian editorial (26.3.52) is strictly accurate:—“The world’s textile industries have been over-producing; their outlets are now choked with stocks." The textile workers are not out-of-work because the world’s needs have been satisfied but because the “outlets are now choked," the outlets being determined by what people have the money to pay for.

After the last war we were told by Tory and Labour alike, and heard it often in speeches at United Nations' gatherings that never again was the world to see production being restricted while needs were unsatisfied. Capitalism is determining otherwise. When the Guardian writes:—“There is no easy ‘Socialist' remedy; there is no easy capitalist one” the correct version would read:—“There is no capitalist remedy; there is no remedy except Socialism.”

* * *

Then Let Us Increase Production.

Early in March Lieut.-General Sir Thomas Hutton, general manager of the Anglo-American Council on

Productivity spoke at a productivity conference at Leamington Spa. According to the Sunday Times (2.3.52) he “ said . . . that an overall increase of productivity of five or ten per cent. which was perfectly possible, would solve the whole problem of the crisis caused by our inability to pay our way.”

He was not talking about the textile slump but about the productivity of British industry generally, which he said is often only half to two-thirds as high as productivity in America. Had he been addressing Lancashire textile workers he might have told them that if they would increase their productivity to the American level Lancashire’s competitive position would be improved and things would be better. One wonders however what he would have said if it had been pointed out to him that American textile workers are also suffering unemployment “Of New England’s 140,000 textile workers some 62,000 were out of work.” (Manchester Guardian, 26.3.52).

* * *

The Communists and the Atom Bomb.

The logic behind Communist Party attitudes towards all issues is that whatever Russian capitalism does is right. But as this must never be admitted they are forced to put forward other arguments to justify whatever policy they are pursuing at any time. This leads them into difficulties each time Russian policy changes. The atom bomb is a case in point

When America alone had the Atom bomb they could use the simple argument of denouncing it altogether. But in 1949 the Communist Daily Worker (26.9.49) announced that Russia had then had the Atom bomb herself “for at least two years”—which means that they were working on it for years before. The Daily Worker then had to think up an argument to show that it was a bad thing for America to have the atom bomb but a good thing for Russia to have it. So in its issue of 24th September, 1949, the Daily Worker used the argument that Russia’s atom bomb “will encourage peace-loving people everywhere" because this meant that “the United States no longer possesses a monopoly of this terror weapon,” and this would “ restrain the ‘ atomaniacs.' "

So far so good. But early in 1952 the British Government announced that it too had the bomb, it having been completed under the Labour Government.

The Daily Worker, 18th February, 1952, dealt with this new situation. It pointed out that the British bomb “has been produced without the assistance of the United States of America.” But at this point the logic of the former argument no longer served. Logically on its own argument the Worker could have said that as the Russian Atom bomb made Russia safer so the British Atom bomb made Britain safer, for did it not represent a further breach in the American monopoly? Instead however of saying that peace-loving people welcomed it the Daily Worker now called it, as far as Britain is concerned, “an unmitigated curse.”

It went on to describe it as:—

“A coward’s weapon, designed for the unrestrained massacre of the civilian population. . .’’

The Daily Worker editors know as well as anyone else that all war weapons are designed to kill, maim and destroy and that in all wars the civilian population as well as the Armed Forces are the target of all war-making governments,

If the Russian government thinks fit to use its atom bombs civilians will suffer; but then of course the Daily Worker will think up some new justification to exonerate Russian capitalism.

The advance lines of the justification have already been provided by the Russian Professor Kretov who has broadcast to Russian listeners on “just” and “unjust” wars. (Reproduced in the Manchester Guardian 28.3.52.)

He names several sorts of war that are “just." “The most just, legal and holy of all wars is a war whose purpose is the defence of a country in which socialism has triumphed.”

Under this head of “socialist” countries he lists Russia and her satellites.

We can imagine the Daily Worker arguing (like all the capitalist apologists for war) that as the war is “just” so are all the “necessary” weapons for waging it.

* * *

Wages and the Cost of Living since 1939.

For various reasons all calculations of the movements of the average level of wages or of the cost of living are liable to some margin of error and should be regarded as approximations only. Even when a factor which causes error is known it may be impossible to measure it. For example wage rates indexes are based on trade union or other standard rates of pay. It is known however that in recent years of low unemployment workers in some industries have been paid more than these standard rates while in times of heavy unemployment many workers are forced to accept less than the standard rates; but nobody can know to what extent this factor operates in either direction. The index of wage rates therefore represents movements of agreed rates of pay not of the rates actually paid.

Similarly the Ministry of Labour Cost-of-Living Index showed hardly any movement between 1941 and 1947 though the cost of living was rising. This was due to the way the government used subsidies to keep down the prices of articles on which the Index was based. The cost-of-living rose but not the Index.

It also has to be remembered that the figures are “averages” and may look quite unreal to individuals whose conditions happen to be well below or well above the average. For example while on an average wage rates are more than double what they were in 1939 this average includes miners and agricultural workers whose wages are about three times the 1939 level, and also includes dock workers and lorry drivers whose increase has fallen far short of the average.

Subject to these reservations the available figures show some interesting features.

The official cost-of-living index covering the period 1939 to 1947 showed an increase of only 31 per cent. This was absurd and nobody treated it seriously. Workers making wage claims at the time soon ceased to pay any attention to it and wage rates during the same period rose by about 66 per cent.

Since June, 1947, the new official cost-of-living index, which is at least much more reliable than the old one, has shown an increase of 33 per cent.; but during this period wages have been lagging behind and have risen by only 28 per cent.

If comparison is made between August, 1939, and the present time it would seem that the average level of wage rates has about kept pace with the cost-of- living.

The official figure for wage rates (arrived at by combining the old wage rate index which ended in 1947 with the new index which started in 1947) shows an average increase since 1939 of 113 per cent. Professor Bowley’s Index of wage rates also shows 113 per cent, if coal miners are excluded, and about 120 per cent if they are included. (The technical reasons for difficulty about coal miners' wages are explained in the Times “ Review of Industry ” March, 1952).

If we took the official index figures for the cost-of-living the increase since 1939 would be only about 75 per cent. The figure is however of no value. An alternative provided by the London and Cambridge Economic Service shows an increase of about 111 per cent., i.e. a figure almost identical with that for wages. (See Times “Review of Industry” March, 1952.)

Edgar Hardcastle

Workers Beware—or the Withered Labour Party (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

As was to be expected the Labour Party in opposition is looking around for means and ways to regain power. Having put their programme into practise and been thrown out of office after six years they must find something new, or at least something that looks new. When in opposition there is no time to lose, preparations must begin at once for further wool pulling and political scheming in order to get back, and who should be first to see the necessity of this than that worthy journal with “Forward with the People ” as its slogan—the Daily Mirror. A month or so ago this paper drew attention to the fact that the Labour Party’s aims had been put into operation and they now needed a new plan to meet the challenge of the times. On Monday, 25th of February, a series of articles entitled “Whither Labour" began in the Daily Mirror. These were written by ex-ministers of the late Labour Government and Mr. Sam Watson, a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party. We will review these articles here to show how empty they really are and how unworthy of working class support First let us stress that the very need for a new programme shows the futility of the first one. But if nationalisation and all the other past reforms, designed to bring better times and upheld as the cure for all ills by the Labour Party, have proven fruitless, what indication is there that they can dream up something new to solve workers problems?

Mr. Morrison and “Social Justice.”

The first contributor was Mr. Herbert Morrison who made a great deal of play with “social justice” but skilfully avoided telling us what it is. He said social justice is as much part of our defence as "planes, warships and guns” so perhaps he had in mind the prosecution of the dockers last year by Sir Hartley Shawcross under order 1305 or the banishment of Seretse Kahma or may be he thinks the record-breaking profits under Labour rule alongside the wage freeze policy was socially justified. Mr. Morrison goes on to gloat about “publicly owned industries, the great health and social services,” but fails to mention that despite these things the mass of the workers still live in poverty. Unemployment is creeping back and wars are still going on in which Britain is involved. He then says something quite funny which he should know is not true:—“What we were doing was new” as if Britain was the first capitalist country to go in for nationalisation, in fact all of these things had been done years before in Germany or Denmark, Australia or New Zealand, Russia or Italy and in many other countries sometimes by avowedly capitalist governments but in not one instance did they alter the lot of the masses. Just like the Tories he stresses the need to export and “rearm to protect the freedom we have won over the centuries.” One might almost think Mr. Churchill had written this. The freedom such as it is has not been won by re-arming or going to war but by bitter battles between workers and capitalists here at home. The right to strike or even form trade unions, the right of free assembly, even the vote, were not obtained by bloody wars in other countries but in the class war in this one. The big “if” on which Mr. Morrison pins the Labour Party future is whether they can kid the workers to sink their differences with the capitalists and think of the nation “as a whole” a “socially inspired community,” the workers working as usual and the capitalists, state and private, playing their important rolls by hogging 90 per cent. of the accumulated wealth.

Then Mr. Gaitskell

Mr. Gaitskell wrote the second article which appeared the next day. He right away declared himself to be in favour of increased efficiency. Workers must scrap “all restrictive methods and practices” if we are to achieve “a peaceful world, a steady job, a decent house and rising living standards:” these are “the things that really count.” Weird indeed is the fact that six years of Labour government have not removed the need for these things. Who says the Labour Party was once really anti-war? Mr. Gaitskell declares he “supported rearmament in the 30’s” and he maintains that arms are the way to lasting peace.

This Labour leader also urges us “to work together for the common good.” At the end of his article he shows that he knows the Labour Party is sunk “unless we first win over a million doubtful voters:” he might well explain what made them doubtful in the first place.

Bevan the “Rebel"

The third writer was that bloodcurdling rebel Mr. Aneurin Bevan. From him, the “leftest of left,” many workers may have looked for something different, but no it was the same old song being sung, only off-key. Political parties must be ready with the right “kind of action required in the national interests at any time.”

He engages in the usual mock battles with the Tories and private enterprise, though Mr. Gaitskell had said the day before “smaller businesses will need help in finding capital,” so perhaps they should have got together to see which it is to be.

Mr. Bevan makes an observation made by the S.P.G.B. years ago that we are “faced with the prospects of semi-starvation, if not actual hunger, at a time when the physical sciences dazzle us with their achievements.”

He stated that “the pursuit of profit failed to ensure the provision of essentials first and secondary things afterwards,” but how empty all this vote-catching becomes when we read on—“ If the community is to survive, then investment must be compelled to follow the discipline of long-term planning.”

Capital must be controlled, for capitalists when on the loose compete and in time of crisis this does harm to "national interests,” so they must be collectively looked after.

The Labour Party only left office in October last after six years of power, yet Mr. Bevan tells us “Private enterprise has failed to make sure that our manufacturing capacity is matched by a flow of the necessary raw materials. Thus unemployment and short time working are once more showing themselves in our midst, and this has been aggravated by a rearmament programme of impracticable proportions and unrealisable speed.”

He forgot that he was a member of the Government which brought in the arms programme, but then he only objects to its “proportions” and “speed,” not to its existence. The rest of the article shows his deep concern for the welfare of British capitalism. He challenges the Americans’ right to world leadership on the ground that Britain is looked to to provide those counsels “for which she is fitted by her experiences and her sacrifices.”

Labour Supporters are not Socialists.

The miners’ secretary in Durham, Mr. Sam Watson, came next and although this gentleman is also a member of the Labour Party National Executive, we must bear in mind when reading what he says the fact that trade unions came into existence to fight the capitalist class in the economic field. Like those who wrote the previous articles, Mr. Watson starts with the Nation and ignores class divisions, but what he says further on must come as a shock for all who expected or expect great things of the Labour Party. It drives home full-swing the accuracy of the Socialist Party’s claim that there can be no Socialism without mass-understanding. After forty-five years of the Labour Party in and out of office he says, “It is wishful thinking to believe that there are millions of people in the country, especially in the trade union movement, who are 'raring’ to go forward for the kind of society Labour wants, and are held back like dogs on a leash only by right-wing leaders in the union or in the Labour Party.” And again: “We deceive ourselves if we refuse to face up to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in the Labour movement have either no knowledge, or only limited knowledge, of the causes of the present grave situation.” Surely Mr. Watson can understand their ignorance, for when has the Labour Party ever made any effort to teach them?

He is typical of the people who sneer at the S.P.G.B. because it is small and insists on understanding. Perhaps this is a good lesson in where mass membership without understanding leads to. Socialists have always said that votes cast for something other than Socialism cannot bring it about. Mr. Watson, just coming to, says, “We had the largest vote in the history of the party in 1951, but it was not secured on a basis of fundamentally changing our economy, but in the belief that if the Tories won they would immediately proceed in principle to cut down the standard of living and might even increase the danger of war.” Votes cast out of fear and ignorance will never solve anything, yet throughout the election this is exactly the kind of vote the Labour Party sought. It is now an established fact also that the late Labour Government made preparations for atom bombs here in this country. How they must blush when they call the Tories “warmongers”! Like those who wrote earlier Mr. Watson hopes for the sinking of class differences, greater efficiency and cheaper production to keep or capture “the markets of the world.” “Fair shares for all” is still to be Labour’s call and those words echo down the corridors of time as Labour Governments come and go without effecting any change in the distribution of wealth.

The “Daily Mirror’s” Contribution.

Having heard from the brains of the Labour Party on Friday, 29.2.52, the Daily Mirror made its own contribution for our enlightenment. Their writers notice that the number of skilled workers is “going down,” which they say is a “disastrous trend.” They first claim credit for having “supported the Labour Party in its struggle to achieve certain declared aims— fair play and fair shares for everybody,” and then they have the nerve to ask “why at the last election the people of Britain rejected a Labour Government”! The answer is simple: they didn’t bring home the bacon. The Daily Mirror can talk about a greater say in industry for the workers and advocate a greater sharing of the wealth produced, but while Capitalism remains, profit making is the motive for production, and the more workers get the less there is for the capitalists, and this would never do. If all the old men in responsible positions in the Labour Party were replaced by younger men the capitalist class would still own the means of living and workers would still be subjected to this as wage slaves, for, high wages or low, the people who pay wages still live on profits sweated for by those who receive wages.

By facing storms the Daily Mirror thinks that “Labour can become a really great NATIONAL party.”

We already have one National Party, but if what this newspaper is getting at is the fact that there is nothing to choose from, we agree. The history of Capitalism has been one of crises, yet the Labour Party have not learnt to do otherwise than to try and patch it up.

A little later on (March 11th) an article entitled “Short Time” appeared in the same paper. Remembering all the social reforms and the “benefits” of six years’ Labour rule this article tells us of the 8,000 workers on short time in Oldham where a family of six exists on £5 13s. a week and have only 18s. 9d. to spend on “milk, meat, fish, gas, electricity, fares and clothing.” They are on short time, says the writer, Claud Morris. After being used to working overtime they work for three days a week at £3 10s., and make it up with unemployment money and family allowances if they have children.

The mill went on short time “because of lack of orders.” All the “industrial efficiency” and “economic planning ” in the world cannot abolish the problems of Capitalism. While politicians here are cooking up schemes to extend trade and capture markets, the politicians of Japan, China, Russia, America and the rest of the world are doing the same. In the final throw, trade routes like the Suez Canal, raw materials such as Malayan rubber, and Persian oil, and the markets of the world have to be retained or obtained by force. The wars of Capitalism, past, present and future, are not in the interest of the working class because they own neither the raw materials, the trade routes, nor the markets.

During the same week that saw publication of the articles, Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the late Labour Government, was writing a series of articles in Labour’s own, the Daily Herald. These were on the same lines as the others mentioned, and equally empty.

“The positive remedy is to increase our exports.” We have already seen where this leads. “We must cut down our imports, especially from dollar countries. This means going without some things, but we shall have to put up with this.” We don’t have to re-elect Labour to be told this; the Tories are already doing it. To draw any loose ends together it might be as well to bring to our reader’s attention that the whole lot of articles in both newspapers never once mentioned the phrases “working class,” “capitalist class,” “Socialism,” “fellow workers,” or “workers of the world, unite.” They are concerned with running Capitalism and all their ideas, old and “new,” are in line with that basic fact. One final stunning blow to Labour leaders who brag of their achievements while in office and who are trying hard to trick their way back, is their contribution to the housing problem, the building of the Festival of Britain. As a party which alleges concern over workers' problems and affects to blame shortages of materials for their failings, they stand indicted.

Nobody can say we are being wise after the event, for we state that their future programmes will fail and we know why. There is no way of running Capitalism beneficially to the masses and without war, slumps and crises. To abolish Capitalism is the only way to peace, plenty, happiness and security. Socialism is the solution, common ownership of the means of life and production for use the world over. Socialism is the solution and the urgency for its establishment is now. So don’t be fooled, fellow workers. It's your votes they are after. Socialism requires your understanding. It may be a long road, that depends on you, but until you bring about Socialism you have nothing to look forward to save a fate worse than death and lots and lots of promises.

Harry Baldwin

About New Books (1952)

Book Reviews from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Professor V. Gordon Childe is probably the foremost pre-historian of the day. By pre-history we mean the study of the development of human society prior to the time when written records were made. Professor Childe’s newest book is entitled "Social Evolution," and is published by Watts & Co.

Professor Childe is an archaeologist, and, as he says:

  " . . . archaeologists to-day have realised that they are dealing with the concrete remains of societies, and that these societies, albeit illiterate, have left concrete embodiments not only of their material equipment but also of their social institutions, superstitions and behaviour, fragmentary and ambiguous though these undoubtedly be."

So he has taken the theories that Herbert Spencer and Lewis Henry Morgan deduced from their comparative studies of the pre-historic societies that were still in existence during the nineteenth century, and he has examined them in the light of recent archaeological discoveries, or, as he puts it, ... “ in the light of the science which presents societies in a chronological sequence."

The book is not easy reading. In fact Childe himself refers to it as a “ . . . rather tedious examination of archaeological data." All the same, to the student of social evolution, it is a landmark in the study.

Lewis H. Morgan, in his book, “Ancient Society” (1877), divided human history into three main “ethnical periods’’--Savagery, Barbarism and Civilisation. He then made sub-divisions of the former two periods. Morgan made his divisions and sub-divisions on the basis of the technological development of society. The objects of archaeological study are, therefore, useful in an examination of Morgan’s theories, providing proof that Morgan was unable to obtain.

Prof. Childe warns us against a common error. We should not judge the rank of any technical device or process from a general principle. Each device and process must be considered in relation to the conditions in which it was used.

 “Any superiority possessed by an automobile over, say, a bullock-cart cannot be inferred from comparing their respective efficiencies on English roads, but only from the historical fact that automobiles do supersede bullock-carts wherever conditions for their employment can be created.” (P.9.)

Prof. Childe shows that human needs change just as much as the “efficiency" of the instruments for their satisfaction.

  "Did a reindeer hunter in 30,000 B.C., or an Ancient Egyptian in 3000, or an Ancient Briton in 30, really need or want to travel a couple of hundred miles at 60 m.p.h.? . . . . To a Magdalenian society in the last Ice Age a harpoon or antler was just as efficient as a steam trawler is to-day. With the former, tiny groups could get all the fish they needed; the load of a trawler would have been an embarrassing nuisance.” (P. 9.)

You cannot legitimately take some discovered object from one part of the world, give it a label, compare it with something similar from another part of the world, and so deduce its origin and the nature of the society to which it belonged. Professor Childe shows us how, in Ancient Egypt, when the habitable land was seldom as much as two miles away from the River Nile, which was a splendid highway, wheeled vehicles were less useful than they were in Syria which had no natural waterways. Wheeled vehicles were used in Syria fifteen hundred years before they were used in Egypt, but this does not prove that Egypt was more backward than Syria.

So, the professor marshals his evidence in the main part of his work, to show the successive steps through which different societies have actually passed on their way to civilisation in contrasted natural environments.

In his concluding chapter Prof. Childe examines the effects of intercourse between societies at different levels of development, even modern civilised societies, and he takes to task, very successfully, those who would claim an analogy between social evolution and organic evolution.

A very useful book.

Whilst we are dealing with Professor V. Gordon Childe we must mention another of his books that is well worth reading—"History” published by Cobbett Press, 1947. In this excellent little book the professor examines the various theories of history that have held the field at different times. One is astonished at the number of theories of “Historiography.”

Prof. Childe accepts the theory deduced by Karl Marx, the “materialist conception of history,” or, as Mr. Childe himself calls it, “Marxist historiography.” He uses this theory throughout this book. The professor has one misfortune. Like many others his eyes are turned towards Moscow and “the promised land” behind the iron curtain. But his vision does not appear to have become impaired—not yet.

B. Traven is claimed to be a mystery man. He lives somewhere in Mexico, operates through an agent in Mexico City and cannot be interviewed, photographed or “got at” in any way. He is one of the world’s best-selling story writers. His latest book is “The Rebellion of the Hanged,” translated by Charles Duff and published by Robert Hale, Ltd.

Capital must always have wage-labour and it has always been ruthless in the methods by which it has built up its armies of wage workers. B. Traven in this book shows the trickery, the callousness and the vile “legal” practices by which the Mexican Indians were dragged away from their small plots of land and poverty stricken farms in order to be made wage-slaves in the great lumber camps of Mexico.

The story of Candido Castro, Celso, Martin Trinadad and other Mexican Indians is set in the period just before the Mexican revolution which deposed President Porfirio Diaz in favour of Madero. It tells of the brutality and the abominable tortures inflicted upon these poor natives in order to make diem work ever harder and harder. The output of logs demanded from them is continuously stepped up by the lumber camp bosses and failure to satisfy the demand results in floggings, hanging naked by the feet in the tropical sun or being buried up to the nostrils in the sand with the uncovered head exposed to the sun and insects. The hanging is the favourite form of torture with the bosses and foremen and it is that which gives the book its title.

The Indians finally rebel and become more ruthless and cruel than their erstwhile employers. They torture, maim and kill, partly in revenge and partly because they know that they have no hope of clemency if their uprising is suppressed. Their adventures as they march through the tropical forests in the rainy season make stirring reading.

Mr. Traven has no illusions about rebellions. He sees their limitations and knows the difference between a rebel and a revolutionary. When Mexican peóns are killing the landowners their object is to claim the land for themselves, to share it out amongst them. Says Martin Trinadad towards the end of the story:

   ". . . the instinct of possession and property are more anchored than before in this ranch. Only the name of the owner has changed, and I can predict to you, comrade, that to-morrow or the day after the new proprietors will fight like devils amongst themselves with machetes until only one is left, if even one, to enjoy the property. The man who gets possession of the revolver will be the new master, the one who has the shotgun will be overseer. And those who by chance survive will become peóns again.”

And again:

  “Ease and speed are not worth anything to revolutionaries. These here have changed ownership of fields and pigs. What ought to have been changed are the ideas on which the whole system rests. Yesterday the master was called Don Churcho. He'll be called Florencio tomorrow, after now being called Eusebio. There will always be a master; that is to say, nothing will have changed.... A revolution which is explained and needs motivation is no revolution. It's merely a fight to get property and jobs. The true revolution, the one that is capable of changing systems, is deep in the character of all revolutionaries. The real revolutionary doesn't think in terms of the personal benefit he may get from the revolution. He tears down the social system in which he suffers and sees other men suffer. He sacrifices himself and dies in order that he may destroy and bring about other ideas.''

Now that I have read "The Rebellion of the Hanged,” whenever I see the name of B. Traven on the cover of a book I shall be searching through my pockets to find if 1 have enough ready cash to buy it.

W. Waters

Editorial: Nationalisation or Trust Busting? (1952)

Editorial from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

While capitalism in Britain, Continental countries and the British Dominions has gone in for a certain amount of nationalisation and Russia has carried it to the point where all important industry and about half of agriculture is run under the State, capitalism in America has followed a different policy. In Britain Liberal and Tory governments in the 19th century nationalised telegraphs and telephones when the capitalists as a whole felt their interests adversely affected by those two services being in the hands of private monopolies. For the same reason Gladstone in 1844 was responsible for the first Act giving die government power to nationalise the railways, a power that was not used because the government held that the mere threat of it served to keep the railway directors in check.

In the United States nationalisation has so far made little headway as the capitalists have preferred to use Anti-Trust laws as a means of curbing too-powerful monopolies.

Because of the pre-eminence of the United States in world production and because private capitalism still holds the field there, more than half of world production, transport, etc., is still in the hands of private concerns. This applies to basic industries such as coal, steel, food, rubber, oil, textiles, motor cars, railways, shipping, road transport, telephones and telegraphs, banking, insurance and manufacturing generally.

In the past few years nationalisation has had a certain set-back in a number of countries and British capitalism, following the American example is now experimenting with the Monopolies Commission as a means of checking monopoly; both the Conservatives and the Labour Party being committed to developing this line of attack.

But this does not mean that the Anti-Trust legislation in America has fulfilled the expectations of those who backed it. Loopholes in the law have enabled the big monopolistic group such as the American Telephone and Telegraph company with its concentration of telephone services and the manufacture of equipment, to go on expanding. When an amending bill to the Gayton (Anti-Trust) Act of 1914 was being debated on 15th August, 1949, Congressman Celler, New York, stated that between 1940 and 1947 more than 2,500 formerly independent concerns had disappeared as a result of mergers and acquisitions, and that “two hundred and fifty concerns now control two-thirds of the industrial facilities of the country that were controlled by 15,000 companies before the war.” He added, “The anti-trust laws are a complete bust unless we pass this bill.” (“Labor and the Nation” New York, September-October, 1949.)

Most of the demand for action against the Trusts and for amendments to strengthen the laws comes of course from the small traders and businessmen.

In addition to the Anti-Trust laws the charges that may be made in America by such services as the telephones and telegraphs are subject to regulations issued by the State Utility Commissions and the Federal Communications Commission. If complaint is made that charges are too high these bodies are empowered to investigate whether the companies are making an unduly high profit. The companies may and, of course, do appeal to the Courts against Commission rulings. In 1934 the American Telephone and Telegraph company reported that through adverse court decisions one of its associated telephone companies had the prospect of refunding 20 million dollars to subscribers.

One of the leading anti-trust politicians, Senator Benton, spoke on the Trusts to the Anglo-American Press Association in Paris in November last He maintained that in Britain the electors have had to choose between nationalisation as advocated by the Labour Party and the Conservative policy of leaving industry to private monopoly, and that if American electors had the same choice they “would line up for Government ownership" and that by an overwhelming majority. (Manchester Guardian, 8.11.51.)

He also made the curious suggestion that if Marx were alive today “he would certainly have approved" of American capitalism though not of the “cartel-ridden capitalism of Europe.”

But later on the same Senator Benton charged that the British Imperial Chemical Industries group “has a deal with the DuPont firm not to go into the United States.” (Daily Mail, 22.11.51). As this must be a violation of the American Anti-Trust laws it suggests that the laws are by no means as effective as the Senator believes.

In the meantime the alternative capitalist method of dealing with monopolies by nationalising them is under fire in Great Britain where the Conservative Government, having disowned responsibility for the rise in railway, etc., fares, now professes to discover that under the Act which nationalised the railways the government has no power in the matter of fares except to refer them to the Consultative Committee which can merely make recommendations. A group of Conservative M.P.'s are now therefore proposing an amendment to the Act to enable the government “to put the Transport Commission under more effective Parliamentary control.”

It need only be added that whether nationalisation is carried very far, as in Russia, or much less far as in Britain, or whether the government relies on Anti-Trust laws as in America the state of the mass of the population continues to be that of poverty existing alongside the great wealth and large incomes of the privileged few.

A Philosophical Digression (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Zeno of Elea was an early Greek philosopher who denied the existence of motion. He said that the change and movement going on everywhere was illusory, had no real existence, and he devised some very subtle arguments to try to prove this. One of those “proofs” was that if an arrow is shot from a bow, the arrow must, at every point in the line of flight, occupy space; therefore it is at rest at those points. If it is at rest it can’t be in motion. The Eleatics, the school of philosophy to which Zeno belonged, were the first to question the senses as a reliable source of knowledge, and their arguments prepared the way for the view that only through reason alone could real knowledge be attained.

Readers who haven’t read the philosophers and don’t know the questions they have asked may think it absurd to mistrust the senses. Those readers may say that the philosophers have had a lot to think about and that if they had some practical work to take up their time they wouldn’t be asking such silly questions. There is some truth in this opinion as such questions could only be asked when a leisured class had arisen and had the time to think about them. Taking no part in the practical work of producing society’s needs, these philosophers would exaggerate the part played by reason in the understanding of the world. But those questions and the answers given to them have been steps in the development of human understanding. And those readers who think such questions absurd should note that to-day many scientists claim that the qualities perceived in things, like colour and taste, have no real existence, the real world being a whirling mass of protons and electrons.

Since the days of the Eleatics, succeeding ruling classes, once they had become firmly entrenched as the State power, found the belief that the senses are false witnesses very useful. The subject class or classes may reject this view when it is stated simply and clearly yet accept it when it is applied in particular instances.

For example, in present-day society, the evidence of the senses indicates that the working class are exploited. They are compelled by economic necessity to produce wealth for the capitalist class and receive back insufficient to allow them to live decently, while the capitalist class don’t have to work and yet live in luxury.

Those who wish to preserve capitalist society say it only appears as if the working class are exploited, and, like Zeno, they provide many arguments to attempt to show that appearances are deceptive. They attempt to explain the “seemingly” privileged position of the capitalist class.

They argue that members of the capitalist class work also. This may be true in certain very small concerns, but not for the giant companies which produce most of the wealth in modern society. The shareholders in these companies take no part in production at all.

And it is argued that the large shareholder with investments in dozens of different companies earns his huge dividends because of his organising ability. It is impossible for one man to have the knowledge of the complicated processes involved in running one company, let alone trying to run several. The capitalist class employ workers to do their organising for them and even employ members of the working class to advise them how to invest their money.

Another argument put forward is that the capitalist class are entitled to their large profits because of the risks they take with their investments. What risk is involved buying State bonds? And in these days of “increased” crime is the person who keeps his money at home not taking a bigger risk of losing it? And what about the meagre compensation the working class receive though they risk their lives and health in such industries as mining, transport, etc.

Another aspect of the “risk” argument is that for saving his money and sacrificing present pleasures the capitalist must have some recompense. To talk of the Rothschilds, the Ellermans or the Nuffields foregoing pleasures because of their investments is absurd. Again to abstain from the pleasures of present spending is to indulge in the pleasure of making more money for future spending.

The capitalist class also claim that by investing their wealth they provide the working class with the means to live. Many a black page has been written describing how the rising capitalist class dispossessed the majority of the population of the means to live. The capitalist class invest their money to procure profit. They buy the workers' physical and mental energies by the week or the month and after the workers have used their energies for the specified period producing wealth for the capitalist class they receive back just sufficient to enable them to live. The difference between what the worker produces and what he receives is the source of the capitalists' wealth and is the object of the whole process.

The senses do provide dependable information, but the arguments based on it by the supporters of Capitalism are deceptive.

Man evolved from some ape-like ancestor between one million and 500,000 years ago and his survival is proof that the senses are reliable. Millions of years before man's arrival on earth other living things not endowed with the faculty of abstract thought existed depending on their senses. Many of these species are still in existence.

Reason, though it can be deceptive, does provide true knowledge when it interprets sense-experience accurately. But reason is often led astray by overlooking certain facts because of prejudice or through not being acquainted with a sufficient number of facts. And reason is also limited by the circumstances of the time. Just as the telescope and the microscope extended the range of the senses so the new facts brought to light enlarged our ideas and increased our understanding, and the only way that reason can be trusted to give accurate information is if it is continually tested by the evidence of the senses.

J. T.

The Problem of Distribution (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The increase of unemployment, particularly in the textile industries, has once again raised the problem of distribution. Workers are unemployed in the textile industries because their employers cannot sell for a profit all the goods which their employees have produced.

This is not a new phenomenon, but since the end of the second world war it has up to quite recently been fairly easy for any capitalist organisation to dispose of the commodities they own. The S.P.G.B. has on many occasions pointed out that the absence of large-scale unemployment in this country since the second world war was not due to the late Labour Government. It has been largely due to the fact that such a large number of goods were required to make up for the low production of civil goods during the war years, and the need for new plant, equipment, factories, etc. When the war ended nearly everything was in short supply, about the only thing which was plentiful were the promises of the politicians.

Now, however, certain industries have produced a surplus of goods, that is, the supply is greater than the demand. This does not mean that more goods are produced than are required or needed, but that more goods have been produced than can be sold for the time being at a profit. It is only the rearmament programme which has prevented this happening in many other industries.

It must be recognised that under Capitalism the worker always faces the threat of war or large-scale unemployment. In a lifetime one usually gets a taste of both.

It has been shown once again that the capitalist method of production is capable of producing a surplus of certain goods. The problem once more arises as to how to dispose of this surplus. We know that in the past production was cut, the surplus of goods gradually disappeared and when the demand became greater than the supply then production went forward once again.

It is a short statement "that production was cut.” But it would take many pages to describe what it meant to the worker and his family to be unemployed. Surely the working class have learnt something since the 1930’s, then large-scale unemployment and war—and now, both are seen once more in the distance getting more threatening all the time.

Yet there is a way out. The socialist knows the answer. It needs, however, a majority of the population to take the necessary action. The socialist spends time and energy propagating the socialist case because he knows that unless the majority of people understand and take the necessary action, he can, by himself, do nothing to end the present state of affairs.

With the wages system there is bound to be sooner or later a surplus of certain goods, the supply becomes greater than the demand. (Always remember that demand depends on the ability to pay.)

Certain supporters of the capitalist system believe that this can be partly overcome by a national minimum wage. They argue that if the workers had higher wages they would be able to buy the goods which the capitalists were unable to sell. The Beaverbrook press, for example, often puts this or similar ideas. They show a lack of knowledge as to how wages are determined and of the nature of crises which occur under capitalism.

When supply is greater than demand the only thing the capitalist can do is to cut production. We, however, are not concerned with the problems of the capitalist class. Their problem is to sell at a profit, our problem is to obtain the things we need.

The solution for the working class is the abolition of production for profit. Production solely for use is the answer.

With production for use a surplus would only arise when mankind’s needs of a particular article was satisfied. When this situation arose production of the articles in which a surplus had accrued would be cut. The matter would be decided by the whole of society. Unemployment would not occur.

Unemployment is only a problem to the wage worker. A capitalist who does no work does not worry over the fact that he does not receive a wage nor does he consider himself as unemployed.

The division of labour in the capitalist system, whereby a worker is often skilled at only one particular job, would change as Socialism progressed. That is after Socialism had been established and a period allowed for a sufficiency of goods to be produced. Men and women would have a greater opportunity to change and vary the nature of their work. At the present time this is seldom possible without considerable hardship and privation.

Social production with private ownership can never provide for the needs of man. The wages system always prevents the distribution of goods, for demand is restricted by the ability to pay. Social production with common ownership is the only way in which distribution can be arranged to satisfy mankind. It is the establishment of common ownership of the means of production and distribution which the S.P.G.B. is striving to obtain.

D. W. Lock

Carry On Up the SPGB. (1952)

Excuse my jokey self-indulgence but this wee notice from the back pages of the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard caught my eye. 

Of course a public political meeting in 1952 entitled "Sin & Sex" would have drawn in a bigger than usual crowd. I bet Fulham Branch didn't have to turn people away from their public meeting at the same venue the following week because of lack of space: that meeting was entitled "Geography and its Effects Upon History".

I also love that they retitled the "Sin & Sex" meeting to the more mundane "Socialism and Human Nature". That was one way of ensuring that the more prurient - but less political - proletarian didn't turn up for the follow up meeting. 

Our May Day Message (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Just over sixty years ago an international labour conference of reformers of various kinds, thrown up by the labour movement and movements for national self-determination, proposed that the workers throughout the world should take a holiday on the 1st May each year for the purpose of holding demonstrations as an expression of their international brotherhood. Each succeeding year until the outbreak of the first world war these demonstrations were held. On the platforms appeared a hotch-potch of political "leaders," Trade Union "leaders" "leaders" of nationalist movements and, of course, the ubiquitous "intellectuals." Fiery speeches were delivered and the emotions of huge audiences were stirred up until, at an agreed upon moment, a resolution expressing the international fraternity of labour, was put from each platform and carried with acclamation.

May Day is here again but, to the Labour movement, only as a faint memory of times long since gone by. The ideals of those times are now nearly dead and forgotten by the movement that sponsored them. Two devastating world wars, the rise of modern dictatorships, the struggles for new national groupings, the emergence of Labour governments and the unscrupulous and defiling hand of Russian "communism" have submerged these ideals in a world tortured and torn into fragments by conflicting sectional interests and breathlessly bent on a gigantic armaments race.

In place of the solidarity of labour workers in their trade unions take action to resist, or hinder, the employment of their fellows, both at home and from abroad; support national groups of capitalists in their struggle against foreign competitors; send deputations to employers to advise them on methods to adopt to help run the industries successfully and to resist foreign competition. Labour “leaders" who once cut a figure as rugged sons of toil, claiming to represent their fellows in antagonism to the interests of the employers, have now become transformed into pontiffs of industry and trade, supporters of “national” ideals and banquet addicts.

The unfolding of this sordid and bitter story, which has ended in hopes gone astray, we foretold at the beginning of this half century of disillusion. Its ending was inevitable because it started off on a false trail. It set out to lop off, bit by bit, the branches that sprouted from the tree of property ownership instead of uprooting the tree itself.

So this May Day finds us still in a system of production for profit, with its anarchy in production, its competition, its insecurity and its gloomy portents of a slump on the horizon. Again we call attention to our oft repeated May Day Message which is the only message of hope in a despairing world.

There is a solution to the troubles of to-day, a simple, complete solution, and one that can be applied without turmoil or war. Its application requires only the understanding and co-operation of the people of the world, which is guaranteed by their common humanity. That solution is the establishment of a new form of society—Socialism; a system in which there will be neither propertied nor propertyless because all that is in and on the earth will be the common heritage of all mankind. Each member of society will co-operate with his fellows to meet their mutual needs and will thereby be enabled to fully express himself by taking a direct part in the production of that which is useful, harmonious and pleasurable. The touchstone of production will be usefulness and not profitableness.

In place of the present antagonist elements, and the time-worn “solidarity of labour,” Socialism implies the harmonious co-operation and fraternity of all the inhabitants of the earth. This, and this only, is the real solution to the troubles that afflict the world to-day.

Gilmac.

Is Stalin a Marxist? (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Barbara Ward in “Policy for the West” has examined most of the wishful projects popularised during the last few years by top-level politicians to deal with the “Russian menace.” She is an economist of some note, one among many who, as Marx said, seek to serve the day to day needs of capitalism. In other words, she is concerned to make capitalism work.

Russia, she thinks, will not start a third world war. She doesn't need to, because according to beliefs which the Communists say they derive from Marx, she has only to wait for the breakdown of western capitalism, in the meantime continuing her policy of aggression on the Korean pattern, sowing discord between the western nations wherever possible, and assisting Communist Parties everywhere to achieve power.

But this idea of the breakdown of capitalism in the west—or anywhere else—does not derive from Marx. Such a contingency was never subscribed to by turn. It does not come within the limits of rational thought. Stalin himself, quite obviously, does not think that capitalism will collapse anywhere, or he would not rely on the system to endure while building an industrial empire to rival America. Whatever her ideology may be, Russia's economy is capitalist with the usual set-up of production for profit and a wage-slave class.

Russia's foreign policy is capitalist—grabbing fresh markets, sources of supply of essential materials, and extending her spheres of influence—like the similar policy in the West.

According to Miss Ward containment of Russia is of first importance in the policy of the West. But this must be effected without disrupting the economy of any of the member states, whose armed forces must be sufficiently strong and mobile to deter aggression at any point in the Russian perimeter. They must have a police system that will render each nation proof against spies and saboteurs. And the backward peoples of the Far East must be won for the West by the investment of western capital for their industrialisation.

Lenin once said that imperialism was the highest phase of capitalism. Russia had reached that phase before the outbreak of world war two. During the war she proved herself equal to any of the allies in military strength; and after victory just as rapacious for annexations and reparations.

A nation can only be judged by its policy and its actions, and Russia's policy, including her suspicious peace campaign is based on her needs as a capitalist state. How then, can Miss Ward have been deceived into the belief that Russia is Socialist or, same thing, Communist?

When Charlie Chaplin ((Daily Herald, 25/9/51), was asked if he was a communist he replied, “Communist? I'm a comic! 1 can't understand Karl Marx so how can I be a communist." Nut unlike Miss Ward who accepts the popular notion that Russia is Marxist because Stalin says so, Chaplin sees something of the reality behind the witch-hunt and goes on "Those men down there, they are mad! mad with the lust for blood/ When they talk about communists I don't mind, but I wish they would be honest. They don't hate communists, they simply hate the men who may take their money away from them.''

That is what the Bolsheviks did in 1917. On achieving power they proclaimed themselves the state, nationalised the means of production and distribution without compensation, and acquired almost complete right of exploitation over the Russian workers in industry.

Had Marx lived to-day he would have dissected Soviet capitalism just as ruthlessly as he did its nineteenth century predecessor in Britain. He would have exposed their "democratic ” constitution as a shallow fraud, just as socialists in half-a-dozen countries have been doing ever since its adoption in 1937.

Miss Ward has several chapters on the economic and financial side of the containment policy. The risk of inflation, she says, must be met by increased production and a readiness not to take advantage of the nation's needs by excessive demands for higher wages.

When discussing trade cycles Miss Ward admits that the west has no more guarantee against slumps than it had in the twenties. She does not explain the cause. Apparently the cause is just as much a mystery as it was throughout the 19th century. But she does think that the regularity of the cycles seems to suggest that they are not dependent on "crop failure or technical change.” Nor, to do her credit, does she attempt to revive the theory of sun spots. As for some innate trend in the system that idea she says, came from the communists, who are also responsible for "the innate contradictions of capitalist society” and "the dialectical necessity that produces slump and boom.” Here, of course, was Miss Ward's chance to expose the Communist explanation, expressed by her with a brevity and crudity that divest it of intelligible meaning.

Instead she evades the question of cause by asking “But is there any agreed explanation of the rhythmical nature of the trade cycle?” Replying to her own question, she says there is, and many economists agree with her that it is a question of demand. "The demand for capital goods or for further investment.” But surely investment implies the existence of markets, people with money ready to buy commodities. A few pages previously she had written "Undersupply is not the typical predicament of modern industrial society. It is the insufficiency and the irregularity of demand.”

It would appear that here the lady has inadvertently stumbled on one of those "innate contradictions of capitalist society” i.e., the inability of those who produce all wealth to buy back more than the amount represented by wages and salaries. And the determination of investors not to invest capital unless assured of safe and adequate returns.

Miss Ward aims to kill two birds with one shot. To do so with success they must both be in the line of fire. Hence, to discredit Marxism the Russian set-up is treated by her as either Marxist or derived from Marx. And the failure of Marxism, she alleges, is demonstrated by the concentration camps, bogus trials and mass executions. "It was from the so-called scientific and dialectical socialism of Marx that the idea of complete state ownership as a ‘cure-all’ of economic evils was derived.” Here, she is careful not to impute the statement to Marx. By devious twists anything can be derived: even Russian imperialism as Stalin has shown by his tortuous record on national independence; while his substitution of “work” for “needs” in the Marx and Engels slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” is a complete reversal of the original meaning, and by itself stamps Russia as capitalist and labour-power as a commodity.

In her reckless denunciation of Marx she writes: 

  “Marx himself and Lenin after him did not talk about planning at all, and had no concrete suggestions for controlling the trade cycle or stabilizing world trade. They simply said dogmatically that if the state owned everything, these problems would not arise.”

Marx regarded trade as the capitalist mechanism of appropriation, and division among themselves, of the wealth produced by the workers. He anticipated that knowledge, progressing on rationalist lines would enable them to understand the acquisitive nature of trade, and the repressive function oi the state. Consequently they would organise to abolish both, substituting their own system of common ownership of the means of production and distribution, and establishing democracy on a basis of equality.

By attributing to Marx the statement “that if the state owned everything these problems would not arise,” she displays her ignorance of Marxism and the real function of the state. Irrespective of its origin, the statement itself is absurd. Ownership by the state, i.e. nationalization, either wholly, as in Russia, or in part, is everywhere dependent on trade.

Under the heading “Faith for Freedom,” Miss Ward sets out to vanquish Marxism, using ancient civilizations as a sample of what to expect under communism. She says “It is the tragedy of Marxist communism that it restores the old fetters of fatality and tyranny.” She sees the capitalist epoch since the industrial revolution as a “breath taking experiment in freedom. . . .  A release from the shackles of tyrannical governments.” “We know from man’s long history that the Western experiment of freedom and responsibility is a flash in the pan, a spark in the longest night, an experiment bounded in space and time, and preceded by aeons of collective servitude.” While Communism, she says, “ is to step back into an older environment, to regress,” etc., etc.

There are many pages of eulogies of capitalism and prophetic warnings of man’s debasement by communism. She has visions of mankind under Communism reduced to the “mentality of bees and ants,” controlled by their environment and tyrannical governments. “Behind the concept of the withering away of the state lies not only the loss of freedom, but the loss of rationality and humanity itself.”

The totalitarian form of government is the nearest approach to Miss Ward’s vision of communism, but it is still capitalism. The Bolsheviks saw its possibilities as an alternative after their failure to establish Socialism. Italy and Germany followed the same pattern. While Hitler prophesied that “National Socialism” could serve capitalism for a thousand years, Truman said that an ideology cannot be fought by armed force, forgetting that they had put paid to “National Socialism” by that very means; making nonsense of Hitler's boast by further nonsense.

The difference between East and West from the workers' viewpoint, is that in the West they are free to organise industrially or politically for their own purposes as a class, while in the East they are circumscribed by the state ideology which it is a crime to question.

But the quarrel between East and West is not over democracy. Nor is it a struggle for Socialism; but a struggle for supremacy in a capitalist world. And whichever side wins the workers will still be wage- slaves, submitting in apathy to the growth of the servile state pictured by Miss Ward, or by taking up the thread of human progress, and challenging the right of a privileged class to dictate the destiny of mankind, become responsible for the establishment of Socialism.

The task of utilising and extending all the advantages that have been achieved under capitalism can only be accomplished by those who understand its technical and scientific parts, those who have built it up by hand and brain, and are responsible for the working of the system from day to day, the only useful class; the working-class. That class has only to learn that it can produce and distribute for society far better without the incubus of trade, and without the repressive actions of class government, by their own democratic organisation. Without these encumbrances they could soon be free from the present nightmare of poverty and atom bombs.

F. Foan

Our 48th Annual Conference (1952)

Party News from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the morning of Friday, April 11th, of this year, 69 delegates, representing all but one of our branches, assembled at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, for our 48th Annual Conference. The delegates sat down to criticise and discuss a 14-page report from the Executive Committee, together with two pages of amendments to rules, 22 resolutions and 13 items for discussion. This was quite a plateful to digest in the three days at their disposal. On Friday afternoon the delegates reached the all-time record total of 72 delegates.

Much of the discussion on Friday morning centred around proposals for reorganising and improving the procedure at our Conference. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the increased size of our conference delegation during late years has shown some of our procedure to be suitable only for smaller bodies and that, as we grow in numerical strength, we must amend our methods in order to facilitate our work.

Another proposition which was obviously inspired by the increase in our membership was that all branches with a membership of over 50 should be encouraged to divide and set up new branches in nearby localities. Conference decided that to attempt to increase the number of our branches by these methods was undesirable and would not have the effect desired by the proposers of the item. Branches should be allowed to grow naturally without urging from Head Office.

The Executive Committee reported to the Conference on the Party’s finances during 1951. The report showed that losses made in previous years on our Summer Schools were not repeated during 1951. The cost of postage, printing and stationery increased by about 30 per cent, compared with 1950 and over 60 per cent, compared with 1949. The cost of producing the Socialist Standard was up by £150 during the year necessitating the increase of price by 1d. Expenditure on Hall Hire, Advertising, etc., was also greater so that altogether, “The end of 1951 sees us worse off financially (as far as balance is concerned) than a year previously, but with the problem of premises solved permanently.”

The main item of discussion on the Saturday session centred around our methods of propaganda. Heated arguments were advanced in favour or in opposition to our various avenues for expounding our case. All were agreed that it would be inadvisable to discard any one of those avenues but that we might with advantage concentrate on certain ones without neglecting any. The disadvantages attendant upon outdoor meetings in this age of noisy traffic, cinemas, radio, television, etc., were considered, but our inability to make use of the modem mass propaganda machinery, due to lack of finances and Government control, make it necessary for us to continue with older methods despite the fact that they may be less productive of results than of yore.

The training and encouragement of new speakers, the methods and manner of our approach to audiences, the social problems that we investigate and the flaws in our propaganda organisation were all debated, and delegates indulged in a lot of self-searching to find causes for dissatisfaction and remedies for the future.

Sunday afternoon was devoted mainly to a discussion on electoral activity and the Executive Committee was instructed to put forward candidates at the next General Election. Here a problem was encountered. It was recognised that a Parliamentary Election could be held at very short notice and that quick decisions would have to be made. The concern of delegates arose from the need to keep decisions on all major issues in the hands of the Party membership whilst at the same time being able to make such decisions in the limited time available.

Much of the discussion disclosed a dissatisfaction with the slow growth of our organisation, but never at any time did a delegate or other member suggest that we should depart from the rock-firm foundation on which our Party is built—a sound understanding of our object and principles on the part of all applicants for membership. We have seen other political parties which have called themselves socialist but have in reality been little more than rebellions, build up large organisations on the soft sand of a mass, politically-ignorant membership, and then crumble away to oblivion.

The report of the work done during 1951, which was under review, did not show anything sensational. The decline in interest in outdoor meetings was offset by an increase in the number of writers for the Socialist Standard, tending to show that many members consider written propaganda to be more effective than verbal.

Those members who sat through the three days of the Conference, whilst the sun was shining outside the Conference Hall, probably felt that they had experienced three days of dry-as-dust discussion. It has been said that this was not our most brilliant or enthusing Conference. Long hours of serious discussion was relieved by an occasional humorous wisecrack or, interjection. But it was business done. It was a real Conference in that the delegates assembled to confer on the many problems facing the Party and not to listen to long-winded oratory from a bunch of party commissars, as is the case at the Annual Conferences of other political parties. We can embark on the next year of socialist activity reinforced with the ideas and decisions that emanated from the Conference.

A successful social evening was held at our new Head Office on the Friday evening and the social and dance on Saturday evening was likewise a great success. The Conference concluded with the usual Party rally in the Conway Hall on Sunday evening.

W. Waters

Party News Briefs (1952)

Party News from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Annual Conference, a big event for Party Comrades, again took place at Conway Hall, London, during the Easter week-end. A report of the proceedings appears on another page of this issue.

Propaganda was one of the items discussed at length during Conference and it does appear that greater efforts should be made all round to improve this vital aspect of the Party’s work. An opportunity is available for London Comrades in particular to gather round for the May Day Rally in Hyde Park on Sunday afternoon, 4th May, and for the evening indoor meeting at St. Pancras Town Hall, held after the Park meeting. A call has been sent to Branches urging that Members should help to advertise these meetings and to sell literature. Comrades are asked to meet at St. Martins-in-the-Fields (Trafalgar Square) on Saturday and Sunday afternoons (3rd and 4th May) at 2.30 p.m. as there will be an opportunity to sell our literature at meetings that are being held there. This will provide a good opportunity to distribute handbills advertising our Sunday evening meeting. So please make a note of the dates and time and turn up prepared to work for Socialism. Literature sellers are also urgently needed at Bayswater Road (Hyde Park) at 2.30 p.m. on Sunday, 4th May. This is an extra special occasion and worthy of strong support.

Glasgow Branches (City and Kelvingrove) are also holding a May Day Rally at the Cosmo Cinema, Rose Street, Glasgow, on Sunday, 4th May.

Phyllis Howard