Editorial: Liberalism’s Last Ditch. (1909)

Editorial from the September 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Even from the point of view of the orthodox Liberal manufacturer, the present Budget, with its innumerable exemptions and concessions, can hardly be described otherwise than as “Much cry and little wool”; but that the “Labour” members should hail it as a great, democratic, working class Budget would be astounding were it not remembered that they owe their seats in Parliament to compacts with the Liberals, and hope to retain them at the next elections by Liberal aid. “One good turn deserves another” is their motto, and the workers should, realise this also—by turning them out.

The Government, indeed, often allows the real nature of the Finance Bill to peep through. Mr. Asquith, speaking at the City meeting on the Budget, in reference to Tory opposition said:

“Our critics and ourselves start from one common and unavoidable admission. The growing requirements of national defence, with the simultaneous increase in expenditure demanded both by the conscience and by the interests of the community for purposes of social reform, have brought about a gap in the exchequer of almost all the great nations which is beyond precedent. How that gap is to be filled is the question which at this moment is presenting itself with insistency and with urgency to the Finance Ministers of all the richest and most progressive nations of the world.”

The increase in armaments to protect the property and interests of our masters, together with the increasing cost of domestic legislation rendered inevitable by economic development and by the growing intensity of exploitation—these are the excuses for the Budget. The cost of “Dreadnoughts” is palpable and enormous ; it hits the capitalist where he lives. But the cost of social reform is humbug, for the capitalists, as a class, make a profit on it. Moreover the amount of reform is microscopic, demanded though it be by “the interests of the community”—that is, by the interests of the ruling class. Social reform, even when at what “Labour leaders” call an unprecedented rate, utterly and entirely fails to keep up with the increase of human wreckage created by capitalist industry, as the increasing misery of the workers testifies. Under the progressive exploitation of to-day, and with all the reforms passed or likely to be passed by the master class, the wage worker finds, and will continue to find, that instead of becoming happier or better off, his progress is only the more rapidly downward, in the direction of greater toil and poverty. Reforms are, in part, the inevitable counterpart of economic development, and, for the rest, an endeavour to stave off revolution. But however inevitable they may be under capitalism, they cannot, from their very nature, and from the nature of the class that enacts and administers them, retard the increasing exploitation of the working class; their aim and tendency is, indeed, to still further increase the security or profits of the capitalists. Hence it is folly in the workers to fight over reforms, for in revolution—in the capture of political power—lies their only hope. From this standpoint it is seen how great is the crime of the Labour misleaders in endeavouring to round up the workers in support of a capitalist Budget. All that there is in the much lauded taxes on “land-values” is a basis for the future raising of revenue for purely capitalist purposes. It is an alternative scheme of taxation to Tariff Reform—it is Liberalism’s last ditch. Carried out to their logical extreme, the new taxes would merely relieve the industrial capitalist at the expense of the ground landlord, leaving the worker exactly where he was. It is in fact, surprising how little the whole question of taxation affects the wage workers as a class, and the present sham fight between manufacturer and landowner again emphasises this fact. The Budget, indeed, only feebly caricatures the old hereditary conflict between the industrial capitalist and the landed interest. It hurts nobody, but it makes a lot of noise ; and although the new taxes on “values” are little more than names, they are sufficient to serve the Liberals as an effective election cry. The Liberal Party knows that the public dearly love to be humbugged, and it is giving the public a treat.

But apart from this, can there bo any doubt regarding the anti-Socialist (and consequently anti-working-class) nature of the present Finance Bill ? The leaders of Liberalism are falling over each other in their eagerness to reassure vested interests on this score. Mr. Churchill, who, to use an Irishism, often opens his mouth only to put his foot in it, nevertheless made several statements in that speech of his on July 17th, which did not need to be re-interpretated by his chief. He insisted that there was a vital distinction between Liberalism and Socialism in that the latter attacked capital. He also said:

“It was true to say that nearly three out of four persons paying income-tax would be taxed after this budget—this penal budget, this wicked, monstrous, despoilatory budget,—for income at a lower rate than they were by the late Conservative Government. (Cheers.)”

Rejoice ! ye wage slaves.

The Daily Chronicle for July 24th also indicated the anti-Socialist character of the Budget “Land Tax” by saying that

“the principle of it has been accepted by a Tory House of Commons, and by the Conservative party in the German Reichstag ; and it has been put into practice by Continental cities and British Colonies.”

Of course it has ; and wherein have the workers benefited ?

In a speech on July 22nd Mr. Asquith said that Liberalism was opposed to Conservatism, but

“On the other hand, it is equally far removed from and strongly opposed to Socialism, which would do away with the institution of property, which would cripple the individual power of initiative, which would sacrifice to a superficial equality the reality and the essence of freedom. (Cheers.)”

And speaking of the Budget in general the Premier said “prove any injustice, any inconvenience even, to the business world, and we will set it right.” While in respect to the reversion taxes in particular he asserted that “no party and no government had shown greater consideration to vested interests” than had his Government in the matter of this new taxation.

There can, therefore, be no further doubt regarding the anti-Socialist and anti-working-class policy of the so-called Labour Party and pseudo-Socialist reform organisations, when they work with the Liberal Party and actively support a class Budget which would not improve the position of the worker one jot or tittle. Thus when speaking at the Hyde Park Liberal Demonstration in support of the Budget, Mr. Keir Hardie said (we quote from Reynolds’s of July 25th last) :

“The aristocrats called the Budget a Bill of robbery and spoliation, but the proposed taxes were simply measures for compelling owners to make a restitution to the working classes whom they had robbed for ages.”

So does he and his kind deliberately attempt to mislead the workers by pretending that the masters govern for the benefit of their slaves ! Unfortunately it is the ignorance among the workers of the fundamental truths of their position that allows them to become the dupes of these political charlatans. Nevertheless economic development and Socialist propaganda are doing their work, and when the toilers grasp the essentials of the Socialist position the “Labour leader,” like Othello, will wake up to find his occupation gone. For the present it is our duty in our task of working-class enlightenment to expose the political and trade union job-hunters battening, or endeavouring to batten, on working-class ignorance. It is, moreover, no accident that so frequently brings together Labour members, Liberal manufacturers, teetotal fanatics, Suffragettes, cranks, and Bible-bangers of all sorts—they are birds of a feather. A man may be known by the company he keeps, so Asquith, Hardie and Co., associated now in their endeavours to pilot the workers on to the shoals of Liberal humbug, will find themselves associated also in the shipwreck of Liberalism that will occur in the wake of the growing Socialist consciousness of the working class.

America versus the World (2002)

From the March 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

George Bush’s State of the Union address at the end of January was a rhetorical declaration of war on the world; an assertion that US interests are now paramount and woe betide anyone foolish enough to think otherwise.

Bush boldly announced that the “war on terror” was “only beginning” and announced an enormous hike in military spending. This year’s military budget is up $36 bn to $379 bn and next year the US war machine will receive an extra $48 bn, with a further $120 bn promised over the next five years, bringing the total spent on the military by 2007 to $ 2 trillion. To get some estimate of this level of spending it is worth noting that this year’s increase alone is higher than the joint military spending of Europe, and larger than China’s existing military budget. Though just how such an awe-inspiring arsenal of state of the arts weaponry is to stop 11 September type attacks on the USA is yet to be explained.

America has at last declared that the “war on terror” has replaced the threat of the “international communist conspiracy” and found in this the pretext to set the agenda for the coming century. The Bush administration has embedded its flag in what it believes is the moral high ground. From now on it is a war of good against evil – evil being anyone standing directly in the way of the US and its aspirations of global domination, with the “war on terrorism” allowing it to intervene anywhere and whenever and to deem who it likes a terrorist. Clearly this new “war” will involve countless military interventions with no regard whatsoever for international sensibilities.

There are now bogeymen under every rock and the world needs protecting from them. Bush identified an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union Address, pointing to the threat the world faced from North Korea, Iraq and Iran. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later remark that the US is considering military action against 50 countries and that this ongoing conflict could last 50 years, without seeming to question whether this would be sustainable.

Bush’s adviser Richard Perle commented: 

“This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there . . . if we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

All of this has naturally left political analysts wondering just who will be next. Somalia (on a key oil export route and with untapped oil deposits off its coast and with whom the US has a score to settle following the botched “Restore Hope” operation of a decade ago, which left thousands of innocents dead), or Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria or Libya? All harbour bogeymen whose existence sullies the notion of American hegemony. Any could be the next target for a war machine drunk with its recent victory in Afghanistan. And what a victory! – Osama bin Laden still not caught (the entire campaign was about catching him), 5 thousand civilians dead and 7 million facing starvation in refugee camps.

A key element in the US game plan for global hegemony is clearly control of the Caspian’s rich oil reserves – estimated to be able to produce 3.3 million gallons of crude oil per day and 4850 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year. Hence US military manoeuvring in the states surrounding Afghanistan and thus the attaching of the “bogeyman” label to any state perceived as standing in the way of these profits.

Already Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are under US military domination and there are US military tent cities in 13 states surrounding Afghanistan, with the map of US bases mirroring the route of a possible oil pipeline which would take oil through Iran to the Indian ocean.

The pretext for the US invasion of Iraq would be Iraq’s refusal to agree to terms laid down by a US-led weapons inspectorate into the country, hence Bush’s assertion in his State of the Union Address that Iraq “continues to flaunt its hostility towards the US” and that “this is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world.”

The above may sound like so much scare-mongering, but when it is considered the US now accounts for 40 percent of global military spending, that it spends more on its war machine than the next 19 states, that in the past year it has discarded numerous international treaties, including those pertaining to weapons control, that the space taken up by its military hardware covers an area the size of Sweden, that it has served notice on all countries opposing the notion of US hegemony that their days are numbered, we can’t but conclude that warfare will be as much a part of life in this century as the one we have just emerged from.

We have every reason to be fearful for the future of humanity. War is competition for profits (either via trade routes, mineral wealth, resources or areas of influence) writ large, and to safeguard its future profits, its control of world resources the world’s greatest and largest military power is accumulating an unimaginable array of weaponry, rolling up its sleeves and marching forward to stamp underfoot all it perceives as being a threat to its interests.

John Bissett

Facts for Propagandists (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks a number of questions on matters of general interest to propagandists. Questions and answers are given below.

(1) The Working Class.

Question: "What percentage of the total population are really members of the working class?”

Answer: The working class consists of all those people who, not owning sufficient property to be able to live without working are compelled to sell their labour power, their mental and physical energies, to an employer in order to live. These and their dependents form the working class. As the definition covers not only the industrial workers, but also technical, professional, supervisory and managerial workers it will readily be seen that in an advanced capitalist country like Great Britain the working class and their dependents constitute the great majority of the population.

How large is the proportion of working class to the rest of the population can be seen from the estimate made by Dr. Bowley and Sir Josiah Stamp in “The National Income, 1924" (Published by Clarendon Press, 1927).

On page 12 they estimate that in 1924, out of 20,300,000 “occupied persons," 76 per cent. were wage earners, and 14 per cent. salary earners, total 90 per cent.; leaving 10 per cent, for the rest of the occupied persons. This 10 per cent. was made up of 6 per cent. “Independent Workers" and 4 per cent. “Employers, Farmers, and Professional." ("Independent Worker" means one-man businesses, etc.)

Carr-Saunders and Caradog Jones, in the “Social Structure of England and Wales" (Oxford University Press, 1927) reproduce the above figures (p. 63) and add the illustration that, on an average, there are about 24 employees to every employer.

Some qualifications need to be made. The above estimates refer to “occupied persons" only, and do not include children, wives, and other dependents who are not “occupied." If we assume that the average number of dependents of a wage-earner or salary-earner is roughly the same as the average number of dependents of an employer or of an “independent worker," we can say that the total population of all ages is divided in the same proportion as the occupied persons.

In other words, taking every man, woman and child in the country, 90 per cent. can be described as “working class," 6 per cent. “Independent," and 4 per cent. “farmers, employers, or professional/’ (“Professional" means doctors, barristers, free-lance journalists, etc.)

It is not known how many property owners who need not work actually do so and are reckoned among the above 90 per cent.

(2) Who Owns the Means of Production and Distribution?

The position is that the great bulk of the accumulated property of all kinds (including money) is held by a very small part of the population, either direct, or through their ownership of the shares of companies. A small proportion of shares in companies is owned by workers. There are also independent persons (owners of one-man businesses) who own a small part of the total property.

Carr-Saunders and Caradog Jones, in their “Social Structure of England and Wales," reproduce and comment on various estimates of the ownership of accumulated wealth. They use Sir Josiah Stamp’s estimates to show that in 1919—

about two-thirds of the wealth is held by just under 400.000 people (or less than 1 per cent. of the total population) and one-third of the wealth by 36,000 people (or less than 1 in 1,000 of the total population). (P. 114.)

Taking “occupied persons" instead of the total population, Sir Josiah Stamp’s calculations show that—

about 2½ per cent. of occupied persons over 20 hold about two-thirds of the wealth, and about 2½ in 1,000 hold one-third of the wealth, (p. 114.)

They quote Professor Henry Clay that—

64 per cent., or rather less than two-thirds of the wealth is in the hands of 1.7 per cent. of persons holding property.

These people (“1.7 per cent. of the persons holding property") represent only 0.85 of the whole population (p. 116).

According to Clay, at the other end of the scale—

96.2 per cent. of persons have only 17.22 per cent, of the national capital, (p. 116.)

Sir Leo Chiozza Money showed before the War, in his “Riches and Poverty" (Third edition, p. 72), that—

about one-seventieth of the population owns far more than one-half of the entire accumulated wealth, public or private, of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson, of “The Economist," in his “The Small Investor" (Blackie aqd Son, Ltd., 1930), shows that the total accumulated resources of “small investors" amount to only about 10 per cent. to 14 per cent. of the total wealth of the country. Under “small investors" he includes the owners of all kinds of savings, including Post Office savings deposits, Trade Union Thrift Funds, Co-operative Society Funds, etc. These “small investors," he says, represent at least 75 per cent. of the total population (p. 110).

In other words, according to Mr. Parkinson, more than three-quarters of the population own only about one-eighth of the wealth. The other seven-eighths is owned by less than one quarter of the population.

(3) What Percentage of all Wealth is Owned by Banks and Insurance Companies ?

We have no means of ascertaining easily what is the total value of all the property owned by Banks and Insurance Companies.

It must, of course, be remembered that the property of the Banks and Insurance Companies is actually the property of the shareholders, depositors and insured persons, and is, therefore, already reckoned in the estimates given in reply to question (2).

(4) The Workers' Wages.

“ What is the average wage of the workers in Great Britain?"

Colin Clark, M.A., in “The National Income (1924-1931)," states that Bowley and Stamp estimated the average earnings of 12 million wage-earners in 1924 at £122, while Clark himself estimated £116 ("The National Income," published by McMillan, 1932, p. 61).

These amounts are equivalent to about 46s. and 45s. a week. They do not allow for deductions for sickness and holidays.

Since 1924 wages have fallen appreciably; according to Dr. Bowley by 3 per cent. up to 1931. This would make the average wage now about 44s.

(5) Unemployment and the Poor Law.

“ What percentage of the population is unemployed and in receipt of public assistance?"

On May 22nd, 1933, the total number of unemployed on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 2,653,852. (See “Labour Gazette," June, p. 207.)

This represented 20.5 per cent. (one in five) of the insured workers.

It represented nearly 6 per cent. of the total population. (There are, of course, an unknown number of unemployed who are not insured and not registered. )

The number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (both outdoor relief and relief in institutions) was 1,340,638 at the end of December, 1932.

This represented about 3.3 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales. (See “Labour Gazette," March, 1933, p. 84.)

It includes, of course, a large number of persons registered at the Employment Exchanges as unemployed. With their dependents these number nearly 400,000.

(6) Who are the Buyers of Shares ?

“ Who are the institutions of people who buy or oversubscribe the usual large issues of shares ?"

Except by having inside knowledge of the subscriptions to particular issues of shares it is not possible to have direct information which would answer this question.

A general indication of the position, however, is given by Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson in “The Small Investor." He estimates' that small investors (who, with their dependents, represent over three-quarters of the population) own shares totalling between £500 millions and £750 millions, and that they buy shares in normal times at the rate of between £20 millions and £40 millions a year.

Divided over the whole number of persons these amounts are trifling.

How small they are can be seen by comparing them with the total holdings of shares, and with the total amount of new shares bought each year by the big investors.

"The Bankers' Magazine" keeps an index of the average price of 365 representative securities. These 365, which represent only part of the total number of securities quoted on the Stock Exchange, had a total market price in June of £6,249 millions, i.e., about ten times as much as the total shareholdings of the “small investors.”

The “Stock Exchange Official Intelligence (1931)" states that at the end of 1929 there were 108,698 companies having share capital totalling £5,200 millions (p. 2023).

Whereas the “small investors," according to Mr. Parkinson, buy shares worth only £20 to £40 millions a year, the total amount of capital of new companies registered in 1928 and 1929 was £237 millions and £240 millions (“Intelligence,” p. 2023).

The bulk of the shares are bought and held by Banks, Insurance Companies, trading and industrial concerns, investment trusts, etc., and by wealthy individuals.

(7) Wages and Wealth Production.

“ What percentage of the wealth produced by the workers is returned to them as wages?"

Colin Clark, M.A., in his "The National Income, 1924-1931," estimated that in 1929 the wage-earners received 39.9 per cent, of the total national income (excluding income from abroad, i.e., from foreign investments, etc.).

Salary earners received 22.5 per cent. Rent of land and buildings accounted for 7.8 per cent., and profit and interest accounted for 29.7 per cent. (p. 72).

In other words, the wage and salary earners, who represent nine-tenths of the population, received just over three-fifths of the total national income.

The wage-earners, who represent three-quarters of the population, received only two-fifths.

These figures relate to the whole number of wage earners, irrespective of whether they are engaged in wealth production or whether they are engaged in financial, trading, and other activities.

Taking Manufacturing and Mining Industries only, the Committee on Finance Industry (MacMillan Committee) in its Report (1931) published tables showing that earnings represent just over one-half of the wealth produced in those industries. (52 per cent. in 1906-7 and 55 per cent. in 1924.) (See p. 313.)

In 1924 the average net product per person employed was £220, while average earnings was £120. This means that each person employed was producing a surplus of £100 a year, over and above his own pay and after meeting all the raw material and other costs.

(8) Wealth and Waste.

“ What percentage of workers are engaged in luxury or useless or redundant occupations?"

An attempt to estimate this percentage is made in our pamphlet, “Socialism," to which our correspondent is referred.

(9) The Churches and Property.

“What percentage of all wealth is owned by religious organisations?"

We have no information on this subject.

(10) The Cost of the Armed Forces, etc.

“What percentage of the total income is devoted to the upkeep of army, navy and police?"

The cost of Police pay in 1931 was about £15,600,000. (See Report of Committee of National Expenditure, 1931, p. 42.)

The Army, Navy and Air Estimates for  1932-33 amounted to about £104 millions.

Taking the two figures together, we have a grand total of £120 millions.

Colin Clark estimated the total national income in 1931 at £3,322 millions. Therefore, the cost of the army, navy, air force and police represents about 4 per cent. of the total national income. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Labour’s Department of War (2025)

From the October 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many people are surprised and disappointed by Keir Starmer’s Labour government. Yet, it is a typical Labour government. Fundamentally, it is a belief in state action to co-ordinate the market economy that characterises them in power. Thankfully, any association between this belief and socialism has long since been dispelled.

Indeed, to their credit, this government is faithfully carrying out the objects set out in the Labour Party’s rulebook, which commits the Party to work for:

‘A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and cooperation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a thriving private sector and high-quality public services where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them’ (Clause IV.2.A).

And:

‘Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people and to cooperating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all’ (Clause IV.3).

No-one can pretend that the present Labourites have not been up-front with this commitment, at least: anyone voting for them without illusions should have known.

We can see this in action in the way that Downing Street announced the UK taking part in the NATO agreement to spend 5 percent of GDP on Defence.

‘Marking a step change with the approach of previous governments, the National Security Strategy directly answers to the concerns of working people, aligning our national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945’.

The reference to ‘working people’ is labour-washing this strategy, which will be about making phenomenal amounts of profit for defence contractors and arms manufacturers. As the NATO press release on the agreement notes:

‘Research and development (R&D) costs are included in defence expenditure. R&D costs also include expenditure for those projects that do not successfully lead to production of equipment’.

This is the NATO agreed definition of defence expenditure. The agreement is for this figure to reach 3.5 percent of member states’ GDP, with an additional 1.5 percent of GDP to be spent:

‘annually to inter alia protect critical infrastructure, defend networks, ensure civil preparedness and resilience, innovate, and strengthen the defence industrial base’.

So, NATO states are preparing to fiddle the figures by defining as much as they can as defence expenditure (see for example rumours Italy is looking at designating a transport bridge as defence expenditure).

Of course, the US has long done this, with a substantial veterans benefit system: spending about $300 billion annually, 90 percent of which is split between income support for veterans (including pensions) and medical costs. This is itself part of the economic conscription of workers to fight in the armed forces for the people who own the country.

Starmer’s government wants to use its military spend as part of its drive to generate planned profits for capitalists through that ‘dynamic economy.’ According to the MOD 463,000 jobs (about 1 in 60) are supported by the defence industry (that includes 272,000 jobs supported by military spending – 151,000 directly and 121,000 indirectly) on top of the 181,890 serving military personnel.

However, as the Institute for Government notes:

‘The single largest cost to the MoD is the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, which is responsible for the procurement, maintenance and disposal of the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet. This was allocated 38% of the 2023-2033 Equipment Plan, or 20% of total defence spending’.

That is, maintaining the UK’s capacity to launch a nuclear device at any nation in the world. Interestingly, they also note that:

‘Most additional UK defence funding between 2015/16 and 2023/24 was allocated to capital spending, to acquire or maintain fixed assets like equipment and land. This element of spending increased by 95.5% in real terms over this period’.

Depending on how you count it, the UK is the 5th or 6th biggest-spending military country in the world. This expenditure is necessary to give continued diplomatic clout.

This comes at a cost. Those tens of thousands of service personnel are removed from the workforce and from doing any potentially useful work (neither generating profits for capitalists, nor creating use values for the community).

The jobs and industries supported by defence spending do produce profits for the companies involved, but those profits are essentially transfers from elsewhere, as they are paid for by taxes extracted from the profits of other capitalists.

Defence does bring in some profit. ‘UK arms exports: Statistics’, a House of Commons report from July this year notes that ‘the UK won defence orders worth £14.5 billion in 2023. This is a 39 percent increase in real terms on the previous year’. Over 50 percent of this was aerospace. This would represent a poor return on all that defence investment, but in fact it also reflects the UK geostrategic interests, as shown by where the sales went to:

‘Europe was the largest market for UK defence exports, accounting for 34% of total exports over this period, followed by the Middle East (32%), North America (18%), the Asia Pacific (7%), Latin America and Africa (both 1%). The remaining share (8%) was exported to a mixed or unidentified region’.

There are other defence spin-offs in terms of new technologies. The recently published government document, ‘Defence industrial strategy: making defence an engine for growth’ notes: ‘The Spending Review confirmed that MOD’s research and development budget will be over £2 billion in 2026-27 and will rise each year’. This includes a mandate to spend 10 percent of the MOD’s procurement on novel technologies, including AI-driven solutions.

Finding new and inventive ways to kill people seems a very roundabout way of creating wealth, but it is a way which has to exist in a society characterised by a tiny minority controlling the productive resources at the expense of the majority.

Pik Smeet

Editorial: Nuclear Waste (1965)

Editorial from the August 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was 20 years ago this month that the world witnessed the terrifying spectacle of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Twenty years of gradually mounting evidence to help piece together like a jigsaw, a background of cynical and calculated brutality that is almost without parallel. Twenty years in which the soundness of the Socialist Party’s stand on the whole question of war in all its forms has been again and again vindicated.

This will no doubt be a month of commemoration and protest. From statesmen and politicians of every variety we may expect the usual tired platitudes, lies and hypocrisy as they spuriously talk about peace and prepare for another war. CND will be well to the fore, attempting to deal with nuclear weapons in isolation from their root cause – Capitalism. But society cannot put the scientific and technical clock back. From this time forward man’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is here to stay. The only truly reliable way to “Ban the Bomb” is to establish a society where human relationships could not possibly cause war or call nuclear weapons into use. Only world Socialism really guarantees that Hiroshima or Nagasaki could not happen again.

We have felt it important to return to the question again this month because apart from the threat to humanity’s existence in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, it illustrates well a point we have made many times― the shocking wastefulness with which Capitalism not only squanders society’s material resources, but squanders humanity itself.

We live in a world capable of a tremendous productive effort. The work that went into the first atom bombs must have been colossal, yet it pales into insignificance when compared with the picture today. America’s defence expenditure (never “offence” expenditure) last year reached the staggering estimated figure of $54,000 millions. Comparable figures for Great Britain were ￡2,043 million, West Germany 20,929 million Deutschmarks, and France 23,485 million Francs. The U.S. contribution alone to NATO forces included eight hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (nuclear if necessary) and over three hundred Polaris submarines. At the beginning of last year, Soviet defence minister Marshall Malinovsky was boasting of Russia’s hundred megaton bomb and the missiles that were available to carry it to any part of the globe.

And this is the spectacle which has been the curse of the capitalist world, to come into still sharper focus in the post-war years. Millions go ragged and hungry and badly housed, while unsaleable food piles up in the warehouses and backwater barges, and vast resources of human ingenuity and productive effort are squandered in turning out yet bigger and more destructive weapons. Not only that. There are now five runners in the nuclear arms race with at least two more – W. Germany and India – thinking of entering the slips.

Even whilst CND have been campaigning, more nations have entered the nuclear field. The bombs are bigger, and there are more of them. CND have protested against one aspect of capitalism’s wastefulness. They will miss the important point until they realise that the need is to remove Capitalism itself. Gigantic waste which is horrifying in its effects is synonymous with Capitalism in every direction, from nuclear terror, to world hunger. The campaign against these problems outside the context of the demand for Socialism cannot carry the prospect of success.

It is when we realise this that we see the urgent necessity for the removal of capitalism and its replacement with a world of common ownership, for this is the only way to tackle such a problem. Only then could we be sure that society’s resources would be harnessed to serve human needs instead of the requirements of the profit motive. In a Socialist system there would be abundant wealth to meet everyone’s needs, but waste would be anathema – a thing of the past. Such conditions would make possible the development of human abilities on a scale undreamed of today, for the concern of all would be to produce and distribute the very best of which they were capable. Certainly a goal worth striving for; but more than that, one which becomes a matter of greater urgency with the passing of each day

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued) (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the May 1908 issue.

Specially translated for the Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

5.—The Taxes.

While the ground landlord cuts to an ever larger extent into the share of the capitalist in the surplus-value—either indirectly or directly— the State is active in a similar direction. The modern State has grown up with and through the capitalist class, and was the most powerful agent in advancing the interests of that class. Each has assisted the other. The capitalist class cannot dispense with the State. They are in need of its protection both at home and abroad.

The more the capitalist mode of production develops the keener becomes the antagonism of interests and the more conspicuous grow the contradictions produced; but the more complicated also becomes the entire system, and the greater, too, grows the dependency of one individual upon another, and the greater also grows the need of an authority standing above and charged with making each fulfil the duties arising from his economic function

.

Far less than the previous methods of production can a system so sensitive as the present bear the prosecution of antagonisms and disputes by the autonomy of those immediately interested in the fray. In the place of self-aid enters “Justice,” which is watched over by the State.

Capitalist exploitation is by no means the product of certain rights ; it is its needs that have brought forth and given domination to the rights prevailing to-day. That “justice” does not cause exploitation, but sees to it that this process, like others in economic life, proceeds as smoothly as possible. While we have before described competition as the motive power of the present mode of production, we may regard “State justice” as the “machine oil,” which has the effect of minimising the friction in the capitalist system. The more this friction grows, the more intense the antagonism becomes between exploiters and exploited, between property owners and propertyless ; the larger, more especially, is the slum proletariat; the more does each single capitalist become dependent upon the prompt co-operation of numerous other capitalists for the undisturbed conduct of his concern. So the desire for “justice” for this purpose grows stronger, and the greater grows the need to requisition its organs—law-courts and police, and a strong State force capable of supporting “justice,” if need be.

But the capitalists are not only concerned with being able to produce, buy, and sell undisturbed within their own country. From the start the commerce outside plays an important part in capitalist production, and the more this method becomes the predominating one, the greater appears to be the need for securing and extending the outside market in the interest of the whole nation. But in the world market the capitalists of one nation meet competitors belonging to other nations. In order to oust these they call in the aid of the State, which is expected to demand, by means of the armed force, respect for their claims, or—what is better still—to crush the foreign competitors altogether. As States and monarchs become evermore dependent upon the capitalist class, so the armies cease to serve merely the personal ends of the monarchs, and are utilised increasingly for purposes of the capitalist class. Wars are less and less dynastic, and more and more commercial and national, which in the last instance can only be traced back to the economic conflicts between the capitalists of the various nations.

The capitalist State, therefore, is not only in need of an extensive army of officials for the purposes of law and police (besides, of course, for the administration of its finances), but it requires also a strong military force. Both armies are ever on the increase in capitalist States, but in recent times the military force grows more rapidly than the army of officials.

So long as the application of science had not begun to play a part in the technicalities of industry, the technical aspect of war changed but slowly. As soon, however, as machinery came to dominate industry and subjected the latter to continuous evolution, war machines ceased to be stationary in development. Every day brings new inventions and discoveries, which, scarcely examined and introduced, at great expense, are already superseded by a new revolutionising improvement or addition. And the war machinery constantly increases in extent, complication and costliness. At the same time the progress in the means of transit makes it possible to concentrate an ever larger number of troops on the battlefield ; hence armies are continually increased.

In these circumstances the State expenditure for purposes of war (in which the greater portion of national debts is included) have with all great European powers grown within the last twenty years to an absolutely maddening extent.

The State grows ever more expensive, and its burdens become always more oppressive. The capitalists and large landowners naturally seek (having everywhere the law in their own hands) to transfer the burdens as much as possible from their own shoulders to those of the other sections of the community. But as time goes on there is ever less to be obtained from those sections, and thus in spite of all the trickery of the exploiters their surplus-value has to be encroached upon for the benefit of the State.

[To be continued]

Cooking the Books: Guns before butter (2025)

The Cooking The Books column from the April 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘National security’, admirals, generals and air chief marshals are telling us, is ‘the first duty of any government’. In a sense they are right. The first duty of a government is to ensure security, though not of the population it rules over; it’s the security of its capitalist class, to protect them from being taken over by the armed forces of a rival capitalist state.

To do this, the government has to equip, train and maintain a military force armed with the most up-to-date weapons of individual and mass destruction that it can afford. This has to be paid for out of taxes that ultimately fall on the profits of the capitalist class. As the government’s ’first duty’, such spending takes priority over other government spending, as summed in the saying ‘Guns before butter’.

That was the heading of the editorial in the Times on 19 February. ‘To underpin Europe’s security’, it thundered, ‘Sir Keir Starmer must expand defence spending in a time of economic difficulty. That means taking an axe to the bloated welfare system.’ A week later Starmer announced that the Labour government would increase military spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027 and later to 3 percent. Labour intended to take an axe to the welfare system anyway, so Starmer said that it was ‘overseas aid’ that would be cut to pay for this.

Paul Mason, the former Trotskyist who once wrote a book called PostCapitalism but now works for a thinktank financed by the Ministry of Defence, welcomed this as something he had been calling for. His job requires him to think up reasons why defence spending should be increased and one that he has deployed is that it will stimulate growth. Last July he wrote an article headed Rearm, And The Economy Will Grow (tinyurl.com/mrxezm3j ). His evidence for this was pretty thin:

‘Anecdotally, where defence investment is actually happening it is a major driver of growth. Barrow-in-Furness, according to one senior trade union contact, is starting to boom. The old Debenhams store, which shut down in 2021, is set to reopen as an apprentice training centre; hundreds of apprenticeships a year are being lined up.’

Given the way that GDP is calculated, any increase in government spending will increase GDP but this doesn’t mean that this will lead to growth in the longer term. In another simplistic propaganda piece last July, Defence spending: A waste of money? (tinyurl.com/7p7j7vbe ), Mason attempted to refute the argument that ‘defence spending reduces economic growth’. Since defence spending is paid for from profits and profits are the source of finance for growth in the sense of capital accumulation, it would seem obvious that defence spending tends to reduce growth.

Mason’s counter-argument was that extra defence spending would act as a better ‘fiscal stimulus’ than other forms of government spending but this assumes that the capitalist economy can be stimulated by government spending, as taught by Keynes but refuted in practice. In essence, he is advocating what has been called ‘military Keynesianism’. When he was a Trotskyist he might have called this a ‘permanent arms economy’. Only then he would have opposed it. Now he is advocating it.

Government spending on arms is a drag on capital accumulation but it is a necessary expense, and so not a waste, for capitalism. In that sense capitalism is a permanent arms economy.

Notes by the Way: Bigger Armaments Under Labour Government (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bigger Armaments Under Labour Government

In the course of an explanation why taxation is so much larger than before the war, Mr. Douglas Jay, M.P., Economic Secretary to the Treasury, recently repudiated the view 'that it is solely due to expenditure on social services. He was speaking to the Westminster Savings Committee, and went on to tell them of another reason: —

“Equally important is the growth in defence expenditure (£750 million to-day, compared with £200 million before the war), and also in debt interest due to the war.” (Daily Express, 4.10.49.)

Mr. Jay was seemingly content with his explanation but he should now answer the question “What has happened to the Labour Party’s promises that when they came to power they would know how to settle international problems peacefully and drastically cut down the Armed Forces?"

Instead they have to accept responsibility for peacetime conscription—opposition to which is now left to Tories and Liberals—and for maintaining the Armed Forces at far greater strength than in 1939. The number now is 765,000, just over twice as many as before the war.

One consequence of the Labour Party being responsible for running capitalism and keeping its Armed Forces up to standard is that that Party moved far away from the vague pacifist sentiment of the nineteen twenties. When recently the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union published in the Union journal an article appealing to young members to consider joining the Auxiliary Forces he made the comment below:—

“When 1 first became an officer of this union, an article on the Armed Forces of the Crown (unless it had been the purpose of the writer to condemn them as the tools of outworn imperialism, deplore their existence, and dissuade young men from having anything to do with them) would have been unthinkable in the Record. (Record, September, 1949.)

The Nationalistic German Social Democratic Party 

Just as the Labour Parties of the world pay lip-service to Socialism without in any way giving up their real aim of administering capitalism in the form of State capitalism or nationalisation, so they all pay lip-service to internationalism while remaining strongly nationalistic.

The German Social Democratic Party has just issued the opposition platform on which it will oppose the new German Government. It refers to “socialisation’’ of industries, meaning nationalisation, but makes no reference at all to Socialism and is a document similar to the programme of the British Labour Party. It does, however, include a new phrase, “The S.D.P. rejects all forms of nationalism . . ." But any one who thinks this is to be taken seriously need only look at various nationalistic demands elsewhere in the list of demands. One is, the Party rejects the present German frontiers and wants to re-occupy territory in the East annexed by Poland, and the Saar region in the West.

No doubt the S.P.D. leaders will say that they seek these ends by peaceful means, but those who seek to change or to defend the territorial arrangements of the capitalist world must logically be prepared to go to war, and in practice all the Labour and Communist Parties are prepared to do so.

And if any Labourite supposes that the British Labour Party is different he should take note of the utterances of that one-time opponent of conscription and war, Mr. Shinwell, now Minister of War.

The lion’s tail is flying high and we don’t care who knows it.” (Speech to Territorials,. Manchester Guardian, 26.8.49.)

”. . . Commonwealth unity is a reality. It has survived two great wars and is as vital to the economic and political interests of Britain as European unity. I am not prepared to abandon the British Commonwealth for all the tea in China.” (Daily Telegraph, 5.9.49.)

A Leaky Umbrella for the Unemployed

One of the claims of the Labour Party is that they “led the fight against the mean and shabby treatment’’ meted out to the unemployed by Tory Governments in the years before the war. And when they came to power they promised to fix higher rates of unemployment pay to provide proper social provision “against rainy days.” (“Let us Face the Future,” Labour Party, 1945.)

They are proud of what they have done as was shown recently in the House of Commons by Mr. J. Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance. A Labour M.P., Major Bruce (North Portsmouth), asked how much was spent on unemployment benefit in 1938 and was told it was £52,400,000. (Hansard, 18th October, 1949. Col. 460.)

He also asked how much the Government would have had to spend in 1938 on employment benefit if the benefits at that time had been at the higher rates now paid by the Labour Government.

Mr. Griffiths replied that “If current rates of unemployment benefit and family allowances had then been in force the disbursements would have been rather less than £90,000,000.”

Here, surely, is a cast-iron proof of the benefits of Labour rule? A Tory Government gave the unemployed £52½ million, and a Labour Government would have paid them £90 million. Shall we say "good and faithful servant,” or has Mr. Griffiths overlooked one small detail in his arithmetic? He has; and we can complete the sum for him.

The detail is that the cost of living has gone up by about 80% since 1938. What could be bought with 20s. in 1938 now costs at least 36s. So that the seemingly higher rates of unemployment benefit now in force have to be heavily reduced in order to compare them with the rates in force in 1938 when money bought more.

Mr. Griffiths’s “rather less than £90 million” will actually buy only as much as could be bought with £50 million in 1938, and that is “rather less than” the amount that the Tory Government paid out to the unemployed.

So all that the Labour Government has done is to raise the scale of benefits to a point which will nearly, but not quite, compensate for the rise in the cost of living and now the cost of living is rising again.

Capitalism it is

In the House of Commons on 27th October there was an exchange of views between Churchill and Attlee about the system under which we are living. Both of them talked nonsense but as Churchill managed to be right on one important point the victory goes to him. Attlee was hampered by things he has said in the past.

Churchill led off with his one true statement: “It must he remembered as we sit here to-night that Britain is a capitalist society, and that 80 per cent. of its whole industry is in private hands.” (Hansard, 27.10.49, Col. 1625).

He followed with the amplification, “. . . what we have here now is a capitalist society on which we are dependent for our daily life and survival. . .”

This was, and may have been intended as, a rebuke to woolly-minded Conservatives as well as the woolly-minded Labourites; but he followed it with numerous absurdities. He repeatedly described Attlee’s party as “The Socialist Party” and his Government as a “Socialist Government,” charged it with making a “deliberate attack on the capitalist system,” and then informed the M.P.s that under Communism “society is reduced to a strong hierarchy and army of officials and politicians by whom the proletariat are ruled under a one-party system.” What he meant by the last phrase was Russia; but had he viewed the Russian economic system as clearly as he views the British he would have seen that there is no Communism (or Socialism) in Russia and that all the main features of capitalism are robustly in operation there.

Mr. Attlee had to reply and took the line that “we live in the days of a mixed economy.The Right Hon. gentleman is quite wrong when he suggests that this is a purely capitalist economy. It is neither purely capitalist nor purely Socialist, but a mixed economy in a transition period.” (Col. 1633.)

The only mixture is not the economy, which is capitalist through and through, but Mr. Attlee’s conception of it; and the answer to him is to be found in Labour Party literature and in his own writings. “Socialism and Peace” (Labour Party, 1935) declared that the choice is between a vain attempt to patch up a rotten capitalist society “or a rapid advance to a Socialist reconstruction of the national life. There is no half-way house . . .” (Our italics.)

Now Mr. Attlee is trying to justify “the half-way house,” which he believes to be partly capitalist and partly Socialist but which is nothing but Labour Party administration of capitalism. And in his own “Labour Party in Perspective” (1937, page 123) he admitted that it would not be a Socialist Party that could administer capitalism:—

“The plain fact is that a Socialist Party cannot hope to make a success of administering the Capitalist system because it does not believe in it.”

And here are a few more statements that Mr. Attlee will find difficult to square with his own present declarations.

He thinks now that we are in a mixed economy. Only a few months ago he told an audience at Walthamstow that “The social reforms which we introduced have not been patchy; they have represented a new social order . . . We have had a great experiment in democratic Socialism.” (Manchester Guardian, 12.1.49.)

And Mr. J. Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance still thinks we have got rid of capitalism for he declares “I believe the people of the world have made up their minds not to go back to the old crazy capitalist system of poverty, conflict and insecurity.” (Daily Herald, 7.4.49.)

The Doctor Blames the Patient

Some of the Labour leaders are becoming spiteful—at least in their attitude to the workers. Mr. Alfred Barnes. Minister of Transport, speaking at Chatham said: —

“I don’t think the men of this country have played the game since the end of the war. Wc carried out our mandate against adverse conditions, and we are entitled as a Labour Administration to call upon the great mass of men workers to turn out a greater quantity of goods than are at present pouring from the factories.” (Daily Mail, 24.10.49.)

It is a curious situation and prompts the question whether Mr. Barnes thinks that the workers go into politics for the benefit of Mr. Barnes.

The Labour leaders offered themselves to the working class (at a price—Mr. Barnes draws £5,000 a year as Minister of Transport) with a promise to cure them of the economic ills from which they were suffering; and the doctors certainly didn’t start off by saying that the cure consisted of prolonged austerity, repeated crises, harder work, more armaments, higher prices and no wage increases. Now, after four years, the doctor turns on the patients and blames them for not making things easy for the doctor!

How refreshing it would be to see a Minister resign his job with a frank admission that the Labour doctors were wrong from the outset and that they can’t make capitalism tolerable for the workers.

The 1931 Economy Cuts over again

In 1931, when MacDonald formed a National Government to deal with the crisis and the bulk of the Labour Party went into opposition, economy cuts were imposed, most of which had been agreed to by the Labour Government before its resignation. In some respects the present cuts in Government expenditure are similar to those of 1931, e.g. cuts on armament expenditure, and on education, but the supporters of the Labour Government are insistent that they are not following the example of the MacDonald Government by reducing Civil Service pay, and cutting unemployment benefit by 10%.

The difference is quite illusory. In 1931 when the Government cut unemployment pay and gave a lead to the employers to reduce wages the cost of living was falling, the official index figure falling from 155 at December, 1930, to 148 at December, 1931, and 143 at December, 1932.

This time the cost of living is rising and the Government is trying its utmost to prevent wages from rising in keeping with the cost of living. The effect is just the same as in 1931.

The official cost of living index figure has risen from 100 in June. 1947, to 112 in September, 1949. The effect is that the purchasing power of unemployment pay has been cut by 12% since June, 1947, so that in terms of 1947 prices 26s. a week benefit is now worth about 23s.

One similarity between the two crises is the Government’s action over devaluation. In 1931 the Labour Government declared over a period of months that they would save the £ and not go off the gold standard—then MacDonald went off the gold standard. This time it is Cripps (instead of Snowden) who devalued after saying for months that he wouldn't.

One difference between the two cases is that the MacDonald Ministry did have the grace to reduce the salaries of Ministers and M.P.s; by 20% on salaries of £5,000 and over, 15% on £2,000 to £5,000, and 10% below £2,000. including M.P.s.

Edgar Hardcastle

Space in British Aerospace (1981)

From the November 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

The view is widely held that workers in the aircraft industry are somehow cosseted from the worst effects of booms and slumps in the economic cycle; the fact that, until very recently, the industry in Britain had apparently been little affected by the current recession gave some support to the idea. The truth, however, is that the fortunes of the industry fluctuate just as much as those of any other in the capitalist economy, as those aircraft workers involved in such recent traumas as the TSR2 cancellation will testify.

One of the reasons for this is the sheer size of the product, the design timescale of which has escalated tremendously in the industry’s comparatively short life. Nowadays the time from drawing board to entry into service can be twelve years or more, which means that a vast expenditure over a long period is required before there can be any hope of a profit. The necessary funding has therefore increasingly been provided by government agencies, so making the industry more and more susceptible to the political climate. Charles Gardner, in his history of the British Aircraft Corporation (Batsford, 1981), maintains that in 1970 Wedgwood Benn, Minister of Technology in the Labour Government, would have approved the loan requested by BAC for the 311 airliner, but the Tory government which was elected that year had other ideas. Similarly, a large defence contract signed with Libya in 1968, centring about Thunderbird and Rapier, was terminated after a military coup the following year. The main factors which influence these government decisions are thus not necessarily economic: the industry has suffered severe setbacks in times of general expansion and, conversely, has until recently expanded its workload in some areas in the face of recession.

Further political influences have been introduced as a result of international co-operation in the building of new aircraft. From such has come, among others, the Anglo-French Concorde, the European Airbus Industry and, in the military field, the Anglo-French Jaguar and Anglo-German-Italian Tornado. Amalgamation within the industry has also proceeded with breakneck speed. In Britain at the end of World War II there were 27 different aerospace companies; by 1960 the development of the industry, with some government pushing, had reduced these to only two — British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddley, each with their aircraft and guided weapons divisions. The subsequent amalgamation into British Aerospace, involving so-called “nationalisation" followed by “denationalisation", will be considered later. The development of joint projects with European concerns is a natural continuation of the amalgamation process. If the separate governments concerned could always agree on all matters affecting the projects, perhaps no additional uncertainties would be injected. Under capitalism however such an idyllic situation cannot be expected. Differences between the partners have appeared in connection with all the projects just mentioned. Currently some French interests are pressing for the abandonment of Concorde, whereas earlier it was the French government, who had committed Air France to the plane, which resisted waverers on the British side. All these political factors increase the feeling of insecurity within the industry.

Running parallel with the amalgamation of the companies, and arising from the same economic causes, has been a change in the nature of the work itself. On the production side automation has proceeded much as in engineering in general. Big changes have taken place on the design side also, with the old type of boffin little in evidence. Computer aided design and the large structural analysis programmes now available have taken most of the glamour out of the process. Each worker can now be assigned routine, boring tasks. One effect has been to increase the militancy among designers as the apparent differences between them and workers on the factory floor are eroded. Another is that it is now possible to stress complicated structures more uniformly than before. Under the constant competitive pressure to reduce weight and cost, aircraft are being produced which have smaller safety margins, and this is reflected in an increasing number of fatigue problems.

The current recession is having its effect on the industry despite appearances to the contrary. Although Keynesian economic theories are still quite widely upheld, particularly in France and in the British Labour Party, governments have generally reacted to a slump by trying to reduce their expenditure, as was done in Britain in the 1930s. On defence, the commitment to Trident reduces the amount available for other projects. Another factor is that contractors whose markets in the civil sector have shrunk are delivering defence goods faster and presenting bills for payment more quickly than anticipated. In fact, there has been no overall reduction in defence spending and the 3 per cent increase promised to NATO may well be kept. But even with an increase in defence spending jobs can be lost, as Herman Rebhan, General Secretary of the International Metalworkers’ Federation, made clear when he addressed the United Nations.

There has been a steady increase in military spending in the United States in the past five years. In 1975 there were 97,300 members of the machinists union employed on military contracts. By 1978 there were 85,000, a drop of 12,300. It is because military production operates at the very fringe of technological development. Military industries are both capital intensive and technologically highly advanced. Both aspects mean a decline in labour. Even with a massive new twist in the arms race the military industry is the worst place in which to invest with a view to creating jobs.

(Tridents into Ploughshares by Bill Niven, New Statesman, 12.6.81)

The British Government, having earlier resisted the efforts of West Germany to cut back on Tornado production, is now having second thoughts, possibly reflecting a toughening attitude following the recent Cabinet reshuffle. At the same time British Aerospace has been forced to ask for aid on interest payments to enable it to continue as a partner in the Airbus project. These cashflow problems are threatening to strangle at birth the latest aircraft to appear on the drawing board, the P106/P110 (information on this project can be obtained from an article in The Times, 22.4.81 by the air correspondent Arthur Reed). The Lancashire Evening Post (15.9.81) reports that the Tory Conference would be lobbied in an attempt to save the enterprise.

How is the workforce in British Aerospace reacting to this escalating uncertainty? Some of the younger workers have gone on contract work, mainly in the United States. This offers high rates of pay in the short term, often enabling them to accumulate some savings. However, it does nothing to banish insecurity or lack of job satisfaction; indeed these are rather intensified — contract workers at Boeing have been on as little as one hour’s notice. It is noteworthy that the AV8B contract with McDonnell Douglas was presented on the British media (BBC1 9 o 'clock News, 24.8.81) in terms of the number of jobs it would “secure”. This would not have happened in the United States, where the effect on company profitability may have been stressed but “job security” is not considered possible. Attempts by British Aerospace workers to “do something about it” are confined to fights for a change in government policy. Despite the lip service now being paid to disarmament, this can lead to open advocacy of increased arms expenditure. The slogan “Jobs not bombs" has a hollow ring to these people because to them, bombs and bombers are jobs. The recent cancellation of Skyflash II and delays to the Sea Eagle programme in the 1981 Defence Estimates caused 600 redundancies at the Hatfield and Lostock (near Boston) missile plants. The New Statesman (12.6.81) reports that immediately shop stewards went to lobby Parliament to openly urge the continuation of these projects. The Chairman of Vickers combined shop stewards committee summed this feeling up when he said on television earlier this year: “We don’t sec anything else that could secure full employment. We would welcome five Tridents on our slipways” (New Statesman, 12.6.81). Behind all this activity is the old illusion that capitalism contrary to its nature, can somehow be run in the workers’ interests.

The forced amalgamation of BAC and Hawker Siddley in 1977, to form the “nationalised” British Aerospace, followed this year by "denationalisation” in the form of a public limited company, has introduced another red herring. Not even the most starry-eyed Leftie among the employees can argue that his position as a wage slave has been in any way altered by these changes. Indeed, management in both cases issued statements making clear that terms of employment would remain unchanged. Yet among those active in the trade unions and reformist politics there is still strong support for the nationalisation concept. These workers do not understand that nationalised industries under capitalism are intended to provide a service to the capitalist class as a whole, and are administered in this way by the state, “the executive committee of the ruling class”.

The present discussion on arms conversion and alternative products must not be confused with the position of future socialist society deciding how best to make use of available resources. In the latter case, arms production of all kinds will have ceased and things will be produced solely for use and not for sale with a view to profit. With production geared to satisfying human needs and free access to all goods and services, a decision to cut back on articles no longer required could not menace anybody’s livelihood; a complete contrast to the situation under capitalism. Most of those now discussing “alternatives” believe that disarmament is perfectly feasible under capitalism. While this is manifest nonsense, it does not follow that these ideas can be totally dismissed. We have already seen that increased arms production cannot always prevent contraction in the workforce employed. Also, both the United States and Russia have more than enough arms stockpiled to knock each other out. They could severely limit arms production and still retain this capability, although there is admittedly no sign of such a reduction right now. It is possible however to envisage the capitalists faced with the very difficult problem of unused resources formerly employed on arms production, and needing to convert these to other uses with the minimum of social unrest. The position of the Labour Party, as declared in their latest manifesto, is that

A Labour government will plan to ensure that savings in military expenditure do not lead to unemployment for those working in the defence industries. We shall give material support and encouragement to plans for industrial conversion so that the valuable resources of the defence industries can be used for the production of socially needed goods.

In the United States these ideas have been carried a stage further. A Defence Economic Adjustment Act has actually been introduced into the Senate (Congressional Record, volume 125, No. 50, 26.4.79), the principal sponsors being George McGovern and Charles Mathias. (The first Bill on these lines was put to Congress as early as 1963.) It legislates for the social problems resulting from the arms race. Professor Seymour Mellman, co-chairman of the peace organisation Sane, is quoted: “Economic conversion is the only way of reconciling fear of job loss with opposition to the arms race” (New Statesman, 12.6. 81).

Despite the optimistic phraseology in the wording of the Bill and by some of its supporters, suggesting belief that capitalism can disarm itself, such an Act never be more than a capitalist answer to one of capitalism’s problems. As for “socially needed goods”, even in the deepest recession a little cash could doubtless be found for a pilot scheme to produce a few of these. The problem, as shown by such absurdities as the butter mountain, is how to sell these goods once they are produced. It is this vital point that the Left and other well-meaning reformers seem unable to grasp.

E. C. Edge

Lloyd George as Old Moore. (1914)

From the September 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. David Lloyd George is one of the mainstays and props of the Liberal Government. It is claimed for him by his paymasters, not only that he is a very Solomon of statesmanly wisdom, but also that he is the type, if not the spirit incarnate, of democracy. According to these, the masters whom he serves, the far-seeing acumen of this “little Welsh lawyer” is equalled only by his democratic candour, his persistent and irrepressible veracity in all his dealings with “the people.”

Of course, it is not for the opponent of the master class and their hirelings to quarrel with the statement that the intellectual capacity of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his veracity are on a par. It is more to the point to present the reader with material which might enable him to form an opinion for himself regarding the relative capacity of the Lloyd Georgian mental powers and his capacity for controlling one of them—his imagination.

The following extracts are taken from “Parliamentary Debates” (Vol. 65, No. 105), and occur in the process of the official report of the debates which took place in the House of Commons on July 23, 1914.

[Mr. Lloyd George.] “My hon. Friend has referred also to the question of armaments. The right hon. Gentleman the member for West Birmingham said, in future what are you going to tax when you want more money ? He also not merely assumed but stated that you could not depend upon any economy in armament? I think that is not so. I think he will find that next year there will be a substantial economy without interfering in the slightest degree with the efficiency of the Navy. The expenditure of the last few years has been very largely for the purpose of meeting what is recognised to be a temporary emergency. I think there are symptoms, not merely here but in other lands, not merely that the industrial classes, but that the financial interests of the world are getting alarmed. I have always thought you could not arrest them by mere political moves against them and by mere political criticism. I have always thought you could not arrest them by motives of humanity, and I regret that that is so. I am firmly of opinion that they will only be arrested when the great financial interests of the world begin to realise what a menace they are to capital, to property, to industry, to the prosperity of the world, and I think they are beginning to realise it. …

“It is very difficult for one nation to arrest this very terrible development. You cannot do it. You cannot when other nations are spending huge sums of money which are not merely weapons of defence, but are equally weapons of attack. I realise that, but the encouraging symptom which I observe is that the movement against it is a cosmopolitan one and an international one. Whether it will bear fruit this year or next year, that I am not sure of, but I am certain that it will come. I can see signs, distinct signs, of reaction throughout the world. Take a neighbour of ours. Our relations are very much better than they were a few years ago. There is none of that snarling which we used to see, more especially in the Press of those two great, I will not say rival nations, but two great Empires. The feeling is better between them. They begin to realise they can co-operate for common ends, and that the points of co-operation are greater and more numerous and more important than the points of possible controversy. All this is to the good.”

Now, then. Mr. Lloyd George, the particularly brilliant star of the Liberal constellation, as late as July 23rd saw “signs, distinct signs” of a reaction against armaments that led him to prophesy “substantial economy” in armaments next year. This, mark, was three weeks after the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife—the historic event which provided for Austria the opportunity to present her ultimatum to Servia—it was, in fact, the very day on which the ultimatum was launched.

Mr. Lloyd George, as a member of the British Cabinet, can be held to have very early and complete information concerning international political events. On the 23rd of July, and for some days before, the signs and portents were, to the man in the street, indicative of anything but that “reaction throughout the world” against armaments which the Liberal lawyer professed to be impressed with. Was the Chancellor’s intellect, then, despite the advantage of his inside knowledge of things from Marconies downward, not equal to the task of reading correctly the omens so obvious to other people, or was his florid imagination playing him tricks ? In other words, was he, when he declared that he could see “distinct signs” of a reaction throughout the world against armaments, and that he thought that in respect of these “next year there will be substantial economy “—was he when he expressed himself thus, merely a fool or simply a liar ?

Whichever the answer may be, the diary of the next few days following Mr. Lloyd George’s windy speech in the House of Commons, is hardly such as to bring to the prophet “honour in his own country.” For instance :

July 23. —”I think there are symptoms, not merely here but in other lands . . .”—Mr.Lloyd George in the Commons.

July 23.  — Austrian ultimatum to Servia.

„ 28.        —Austria declares war. 

Aug. 1.   — Germany declares war on Russia.

„ 4.          —Gt. Britain declares war on Germany.

„ 6.          —Austria declares war on Russia.

„ 12.        —Britain declares war on Austria.

„ 16.        —Japs present ultimatum to Germany.

One other point may be usefully noticed here. The hired spokesman of the ruling class—the class who establish and control the armaments of the world—says that in his opinion armaments cannot be arrested by “motives of “humanity,” but only by the fear that they are a “menace to capital, to property, to industry, to the prosperity of the world ” (meaning, of course, by “the world,” the capitalists, for whom alone he speaks).

That motives of humanity will never lead the master class to disarm is quite true. It is the blood of the workers which, in the main, pays the red levy of war. As long as working-class life and suffering are the coin in which war is paid for, our masters will be ready enough for butchery on the grand scale. It is significant how light-heartedly they launch a hundred thousand working men into the field of death, and call for further hundreds of thousands. Such material costs them nothing. How different, however, was their tone when they were called upon to “build against Germany” ! Then our masters went crawling and whining to their German rivals, like whipped curs, begging and praying for cessation of “the mad race for armaments.” It is the cost of war they do not like —the “blood” they do not mind (it is not theirs), but the treasure—ah! that is a very different matter.

Motives of humanity ! No, they have never counted for much in any ruling class—and never will. Plimsoll proved that true of a previous generation—Lloyd George with his new load line for ships proved it true of this generation. The safety and continuous growth of their property are all that our masters are concerned with, and that is the real meaning of Mr. Lloyd George’s words.

NED.

Blogger's Note:

Prior to 1914, Serbia was referred to as 'Servia', which was the medieval Latin spelling of Serbia, and only switched to 'Serbia' during the course of World War One. No, I don't know that either.