Roundabouts (1948)

From the September 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Roll up! Roll up! All the fun of the fair! Who can resist the call of the jingling mechanical music, the raucous voices, the gaudy colours, the light-hearted throng of people, the crack of the wooden ball at the “coconut shy,” or, – for the unlucky – the dull thud on the dingy sheet behind the serried ranks. Yes—these are the places to cure the misanthrope, delude the unwary, or entertain the pleasure seekers. How much senseless joy there is in the roundabout ride. On we get, pay our tanner, and away we go.

On the move, faster and faster, the sea of onlookers becomes a hazy mist arid we may indulge in dreamy thoughts of riding through glorious fairylands as though in a magic carpet. The barrel organ blaring at the hub, the weird animal shapes, the pagan designs in gaudy paint all foster our illusions. But, alas! Our sixpennorth is done. Grinding to a stop we find ourselves back where we started!

Back where we started. Ah, yes—that reminds us of politics.

As after the 1914-18 war, there is an opinion gaining support in the minds of numbers of workers that if only they could get back to pre-war years they would be much happier and contented. We do not pretend to be psychologists, but we assume that this frame of mind must spring from man’s fear of the unknown,

The future is unknown and insecure; the past is known and the insecurities of the years forming it are forgotten.

Compared with the instability apparent to-day in economic affairs the years immediately preceding 1939 must seem quite stable to those people who have the happy knack of having a very short memory for the unpleasant realities of a worker’s life under capitalism.

Such a one is Mr. Ernest Bevin, at present Foreign Secretary in a Labour Government. According to The Star (28th May, 1948) Mr. Bevin, speaking at a conference of women trade unionists, said that after four years of Marshall Aid Britain would be back to 1938 standards of living.

“When we emerge from those four years,” he added, “we shall have so closed the gap that we shall have brought up the standard of living not only here but in the 16 or 17 European nations involved.”

So far as the ordinary worker is concerned, with little or no knowledge of the economics of his everyday existence, we can understand his thinking how nice it would be to be transported back to an era of 1938 prices with his pocket containing 1948 wages! But no such illusion should mar Mr. Bevin’s judgment.

For the benefit of our fellow workers (not for Mr. Bevin’s, for at the time he was General Secretary of the T. & G.W.U., and surely must remember the facts) let us re-quote the following: —

“Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, who estimates that at present prices, it is impossible for a family of man, wife and three children to live decently under 55s. a week in a provincial town, estimates that ‘more than 40 per cent. of the adult urban male workers earn less than 55s. per week and over 33 per cent. earn less than 50s’.” (News Chronicle, March 16th, 1938).”

Mr. Rowntree dealt, of course, with workers who had a job—let us not forget those without a job of whom there were approximately 1¾ millions in the middle -of 1938. No one will disagree that there was little difference between conditions in 1937 and 1938, so let us also re-quote from the Socialist Standard (July, 1938) which said when dealing with some aspects of the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board for 1937 that “half the male applicants declared normal wages of less than 50s. per week,” and also drew attention to the astounding fact that some applicants for unemployment assistance were better off when out of a job !

In four years’ time, with the aid of dollars from capitalist America, the standard of living in “Socialist” Britain will be raised to that of the halcyon days of 1938. “Let us Face the Future” (Labour Party Election Manifesto, 1945) certainly never promised the workers a prospect so, rosy—it certainly looks as though the workers will have something to face in 1952, after seven years of the “future” have elapsed.

It is rather strange that Mr. Bevin should wish to go back to 1938. If we put the roundabout in reverse for a while we land back in 1938 to find a National Government with a large Tory majority in the House of Commons. Strange that Mr. Bevin should want to return to the standard of living provided by a Tory controlled capitalism !

If he wants to send the roundabout gyrating backwards why doesn’t he go back to the Labour debacle of 1929-31 ‘or the “Labour-in-office-but-not-in-power” days of 1924? Surely these times would be much preferable to Mr. Bevin, or—perish the thought—can he believe that by 1952 the Tories will be in power again to provide the workers with his much boosted 1938 standard?

Following most peculiarly on The Star’s report mentioned above came next morning the Daily Herald’s version of Mr Bevin’s address to the women trade unionists.

According to the Herald he told them that “they should keep before the rising generation the knowledge of what things were like between the two wars.” By this, according to the headline over the report, he meant, “Tell the children of the hard times.”

The Star omits mention of this advice on the education of the children to the horrors of the inter-war years, and the Herald blows no trumpets regarding the return to the promised land of 1938. What are we to make of these contradictory reports?

Let us look at Bevin’s second proposition stated in the Herald. Having said that the rising generation should know what things where like between 1918 and 1939 we think he, or the Herald, might have devoted some time and space to this important matter and given us some information. But no, apparently we must seek this for ourselves, if we are interested.

Here again surely it would have been mentioned that between the two wars there was one Labour Government in 1924, and another in 1929/31, followed by a National Government with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister with a coalition cabinet until 1935. These Labour Governments during their periods of office led the workers through such prosperous and happy times that on each occasion when next they had an opportunity to vote they sacked the Labourites, and reinstated the Tories! This story of the hard times suffered by the workers in between the two wars because of Tory mismanagement of affairs is a line of Labourite propaganda churned out with much repetition and emphasis. It must, however, not be forgotten that for three of these years Labour Governments were in office and for a further four years (1931-1935) the Prime Minister was J. R. MacDonald, the former chosen leader of the Labour Party. He and other ex-Labour Ministers, including Snowden, claimed that they were carrying out Labour Party policy as far as the crisis would allow a plea that the present Government echoes.

Between the two wars the workers have been for many rides on the political roundabout. The man in charge may have been a Labourite at one time and a Tory at another, but the workers have still been taken for the same ride on the same roundabout and every time they have come back to the place from which they started. During the last, war they were still riding on the same roundabout although the hobby horses had given way to tanks and aeroplanes. Now that it has been repainted and the tanks and aeroplanes largely replaced by the old hobby horses again they are still being taken for a ride! What a fascination this roundabout of capitalism has for the workers.

Just as the visitor to the fair is inveigled by the showman to enjoy a ride, so the showmen of capitalism entice the workers to continue supporting them. When the political roundabout stops at election times the music blares forth in the shape of flowery phrases from the lips of demagogues and the gaudy paint bestowed on the capitalist economic machine distracts the eye from its cheap crudity and ramshackle construction likely to result in a breakdown at any moment.

Why, fellow workers, do you find such enjoyment in this deceitful monster? Think, for one moment, that if you walk the other way, away from the dusty and noisy fair ground, along the road to the country there you will find the cool forest glades, the green meadows, or the pleasant river banks. Here is no harshness, no gaudiness, no deceit, no unhappiness; here is happiness and honesty, beauty and serenity.

So, fellow workers, you can turn your back on the rotten, sordid ugliness of capitalism and make your way to the happiness, security and beauty that is Socialism.

Remember next time you cast your vote—will it be for another ride on the roundabout or will it be a sane gesture for a complete change—a real journey under your own initiative, following your own path in the joyful company of fellow Socialists, to a land where things will be produced not for the profit of the few but to satisfy the needs of all, where all shall be free and none be slaves.

N. S.

“The Third Way” by Wilfred Wellock. A Review (1948)

Pamphlet Review from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

This topical pamphlet accepts the common outlook to-day that the people of Britain must choose between “Russian Communism,” the “American way of life,” or “a third way,” and Mr. Wellock gives us directions so that we may go with him along his “third way.”

In the present state of world affairs, Mr. Wellock realises that the policies of the great powers in scrambling for export markets is a hopeless solution to their national problems and that when the markets of the world are again glutted a slump will occur. He also realises that the logical end of such policies is a third world war, complete with atomic atrocities.

He also mentions the point that many countries which previously were good markets for the older established producers are now producing many things within their own frontiers which hitherto they have purchased. The extension of this process makes it much more difficult for the, older nations to export more than they used to.

In order to gain the support of the workers for their programme of increased production the Labour Government has produced its version of the old illusion that only by this means can they raise their standard of living. Mr. Wellock, although an ex-Labour M.P., disagrees with this policy, but from a peculiar point of view.

He is much concerned with the spiritual uplift of the people. “The unbalanced economics of to-day are the product of greed and naked power politics, have wrought untold economic and spiritual harm, and must he superseded by an economy that is based on human need, spiritual and economic.” (P. 23.)

He appears to think that an increase in the standard of living will simply result in the workers spending more money on beer, cigarettes, football pools, and other frivolous pleasures and pastimes. The development of mass production has produced the “mass mind and the mass man.” Is the drive to increase the standard of living worth while, then? Mr. Wellock does not think so, unless we change entirely our scale of values, and in doing so revise entirely our concept of the meaning of “standard of living.”

“Our job, in fact, is to find that better way of life for which the whole world is looking, and not- east the people of Britain. That ‘way’ will place in their right order material and spiritual factors so that both may make their maximum contribution to the achievement of that abundant life which the human soul in its silent and better moments knows to be within man’s reach.” (P. 24.)

Following such a “change of heart,” society would demand, according to Mr. Wellock, a reversion to decentralised small-scale economy in which each individual could feel he had a responsible place. Machines would be put to “their right use which is to assist man in making things of the highest quality and beauty.” Consequently, Mr. Wellock visualises a return to an economy of craftsmen and craftsmanship, and his “way” calls for nothing less than the rebuilding of civilisation on new foundations, which are, he believes, the creative and social values of Christianity.

Like the bulk of these petty reformists, Mr. Wellock has a totally false conception of the world in which we live. Whilst he is able to see a lot of the evils which exist, on the surface, they are the results of causes which he has not yet grasped, causes of which he has no knowledge.

All the evils which Mr. Wellock criticises—modern war, dictatorship, “money values,” monotonous labour, etc.—arise from the kind of society in which we live, capitalism. These evils arise from certain material causes, e.g., war from national capitalist rivalries over sources of raw materials, markets, trade routes, etc. ; “money values” from the production of commodities for sale at a profit; monotonous labour from the introduction of machinery for the purpose of cheapening prices. These bad things do not exist because man is bad. These bad things are the normal workings of capitalism. Neither are these bad things bad for everybody. There is no doubt they are had for the workers, the vast majority of the people—not because workers have bad thoughts but because they have no property. Conversely these things are good for the capitalist class, or sections of it, because they serve a purpose in protecting private property and profits.

Mr. Wellock has no knowledge, or studiously avoids disclosing it, of the division of society into two classes, propertyless workers and propertied capitalists, or of the historical development of human society from primitive communism through chattel slavery and feudalism to capitalism, otherwise he would not be wastiug his time advocating a return to the conditions of a mediaeval economy.

His pamphlet bears the hall-mark of the well meaning social reformer who, failing to understand the material causes which underlie the great and grave problems confronting the working class, takes refuge in the worn-out belief that only by retreating to pre-capitalist conditions will these problems be solved.

Far from it—the clock cannot be put back.

The “way” lies forward, along paths not yet trodden by the foot of man, but clearly marked on the map for those willing to read, “To Socialism.”

N.S.

“The Transition From War to Peace” (1944)

Book Review from the April 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Transition From War to Peace by A. G Pigou. (Oxford University Press, 6d.)

We have received the above for review. Professor Pigou deals almost solely with the post-war problem of the difficulty in finding employment for large masses of workers, who will find themselves out of a job when peace arrives. In various parts of the pamphlet he records accurately the facts and figures of the labour market after the last war, and on page 6 says:—

“The transition from war to peace, throwing as it must do, vast numbers of men and women out of direct and indirect forms of war work, is bound to create, as it did create in 1919, an assembly of persons, less vast indeed, but nevertheless large, for the moment deprived of employment and anxiously seeking after it in one or another civilian occupation.”

With regard to the immediate post-war situation, he remarks that “a vast process of re-stocking will be called for.” During this time—six months or so after the war, he estimates—it is probable that the problems will arise in the transfer of workers from one job to another and not in the actual finding of work.

He makes an important point with regard to this “period of transfer and adjustment” on page 9 when he says:-—

“With the large number of persons that must be then suddenly thrown on the labour market, there is a risk that wage earners, at all events in some occupations, will find themselves at a disadvantage in bargaining and so may be forced to accept large reductions in. rates of pay.”

To obviate this after the last war the Government passed Temporary Wage Regulation Acts in 1918 which were extended to 1920. He mentions that it would be sound policy for the Government to do this again after the present war—presumably for the same purpose of preventing unrest amongst the workers who come back from the battle fronts eagerly searching for the “Four Freedoms” or signs of the already moribund “Atlantic Charter.”

Manifesting in no uncertain fashion the character of post-war “reconstruction/’ the pamphlet continues (page 11) :

“The transition is bound to be a long drawn out affair, of which the first year or so of peace constitutes only the initial phase . . . Thus we should expect a second phase following the first—a phase of relatively contracted demand, in which a number of would-be workers may well find themselves without a job—a delayed post-war depression linked with and partly caused by the high activity of immediate post-war days.”

Here again he draws upon the history of the period following 1918 depicting clearly the catastrophic nature of the slump of 1920 and the years following, when prices came tumbling down, and wages following after.

Pigou (who, by the way, is a Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge) states, however, that “it is not inevitable that at the end of the present war these events should repeat themselves.” He says : “The moral of this history is fairly plain. After the war of 1914-18 money got out of hand.” (Page 17.) This is his explanation of the economic phenomena of slump and boom—his solution being that if money is kept in hand by the retention of certain war-time controls these things will not occur.

But the fact that slumps and booms can be controlled or abolished by controlling the movements of money is given the lie by Professor Pigou himself on page 15, where he points out that this boom broke in 1920, not as “a consequence of deflation by the banks, in the sense of a contraction of the quantity of money in existence.”

“It was a consequence of the decisions by business men not to use their money.” (Pigou’s emphasis.)

Why didn’t the capitalists wish to use their money and keep production going? Or, to put the question another way, why from 1918-20 did the capitalists want to use their money to the greatest possible extent, but not afterwards? Obviously we must seek the solution not in the movements of money but in the factors that cause capitalists at one period to wish to use their money in production, and at some other period not to do so. In other words, we must have recourse to the motive of capitalists in engaging in production. Knowing that, under capitalism, goods are produced with the intention of their being sold at a profit, it is easily seen that when the prospects of profit are great the capitalist will jump in on production and when the prospects of profit are very doubtful he will jump out again.

Applying this to the situation in 1918 it is clear that the capitalists fell over themselves to get in first during the “re-stocking” period when demand exceeded supply, prices were high and profits good. As soon as the markets by about 1920 had readjusted themselves (by means of the “healthy competition of private enterprise”) and the normal chaos of capitalist production had its effect, numerous industries were faced with declining demand for their products. Prices slumped, and the prospects of profit disappeared. Then the capitalists were forced to think more than twice about putting their money into further production.

This pamphlet, like others in the series of “Oxford Pamphlets on Home Affairs,” offers a good deal of sound factual information, but fails to offer a correct explanation or adequate solution of the problem with which it deals.

So long as capitalism exists with its private ownership of the means of production and its scramble for markets, so long will exist the economic phenomena of crises and booms, together with all the other problems which face the working-class, such as poverty, mass unemployment and wars.

No! The solution does not lie in the control of movements of money, but in the abolition of a system of society based on private ownership with its consequent need of money and the establishment of a system of society based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production where the need for money will disappear.

N. S.

Why Bother About the Burma Road ? (1944)

From the March 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

There has been quite a bit in the papers, one way and another, about getting supplies through to the Chinese. At one time it was simply a question of whether the British Government should open or close the Burma Road, but when the Japanese solved this problem by taking over the route themselves, plans were laid for the rapid building of a great new road from North India to “Free” China. We heard a great deal about the urgency and importance of the task of sending China the materials needed for the fight of the sorely beleagured Chinese troops in their effort to restore their country to freedom from the oppressing occupation of the War Lords of the Rising Sun. The Japanese had raped and pillaged, looted and burnt in the Chinese territory they occupied. The cruellest of soldiers, the most sadistic of foes, they had swept right into the very heart of China over a period of twelve years. Never had a people suffered so long and so much in modern times under the iron heel of the conqueror.

In view of what we have been told, therefore, it is surprising to read the following report in the Manchester Guardian Weekly (December 17th, 1943): —

“Trade between Japanese occupied and Free China has recently taken on larger proportions on account of the Chinese Government’s endeavour to attract useful goods from enemy territory and the accelerated fall or the Japanese puppet currencies in terms of Chinese national dollars.

“Value of the known imports from occupied areas to Free China during the last six months, according to a Government spokesman, was £1,250,000 sterling on Government account, and £25,000,000 through commercial channels.”

So why bother about building new roads or reopening old ones? It seems that British supplies might be shipped to Chunking via Tokio so long as the label was correctly addressed. Nobody would be a bit less happy surely—unless it were the Chinese soldiers if it turned out that British raw materials did not furnish such good weapons to kill the Japs with as Japanese produced supplies.

N. S.

The Labour Party and Socialism - Part 2 (1942)

From the July 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

It is by means of these catch phrases, which pay lip-service to Socialism, and its variety of importunate reforms, that the Labour Party was able to draw under its wing all sorts and shades of political opinion. The strength of a Party lies in the rank and file. An eclectic statement of policy gains a very versatile support, and when the Party endeavours to implement its policy it finds there are wide divergences in the rank and file as to how and when it should be done. We might say in the case of the Labour Party that it has gained support for everything but the abolition of capitalism, and as a consequence has achieved nothing except the retention of capitalism.

The means shape the ends : means are ends.

A policy based on the idea that the position of servitude of the working class can be gradually abolished by reforming the relation of wage-labour and capital cannot produce the abolition of wage labour and capital. A policy which allows for co-operation with avowed anti-Socialist parties cannot lead to the establishment of Socialism.

With the above points in mind it is easy to understand the reason for the splits inside, and the secessions from, the Labour Party just prior to, and following, its “betrayal” by MacDonald.

It must be remembered that the Labour Party was in power as a Capitalist Government, not as a Socialist Government. Supporters of the Labour Party may differ from this statement, but it is an undeniable fact. The nature of a government is not determined by the name which it takes or which it may be given. In so far as we are discussing the question of Capitalism and Socialism the nature of the government is determined by the mode of production and distribution in being during its time of administration. The Labour Party attempted to continue to run the country’s affairs on the basis of capitalism.

It is in this fact that the explanation lies of the failure and collapse of the Labour Party in 1931. The economic crisis of the time arose, as usual, from the mode of capitalist production and distribution, not through the mismanagement of political affairs. It was common to the whole world : it was not particular to Britain. Try as they might the Labour Party could not combat the laws of the capitalist system, which over-rode its reformist theories and forced its actions to conform with them.

The causes of the splits in, and secessions from, the Labour Party are not to be found in mere ideological variations but in the differing theories of its supporters, leaders and rank and file, as to what should be done in the face of changing economic conditions.

Although Attlee accuses MacDonald of “betraying” the Labour movement by uniting with the Conservatives and Liberals in the National Government, was this action to be unexpected in view of the resolution of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900, of which MacDonald was the secretary ? Since the retention of capitalism is implicit in Labour Party policy, when things got in a mess to whom was it best to turn for advice ? The avowedly capitalist politicians and economic theorists, of course ! It is the sole purpose of the capitalist class to maintain the present economic system. It has a century and a half of theory and practice behind it. It has the knowledge and the control of the organs of propaganda by means of which it can seduce the working class to come to heel in times of emergency. When MacDonald turned to them for advice it was a case of walking into the spider’s parlour. Homo sapiens works differently from the insect world, however, and instead of being gobbled up he changed his fly’s wings for spider’s legs and his new brothers invited him to assist in the nefarious work of spinning the deceptive web !

Thus it was that during 1929-31 we saw the paradoxical phenomenon of a party arising from a workers’ ideology, built and paid for by the working class, founded on an eclectic policy of reforms and co-operation, achieve considerable power; and when in power we saw that it could take no other course than to continue to run the capitalist system. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that this can be done in the interests of the working class. The nature of the mode of production and distribution absolutely precludes this course of events. We saw, therefore, an alleged working class party controlling the political machine and the economic affairs of the country on behalf of the master class and against the interests of the class it purported to represent.

It is now eleven years since MacDonald and some others “betrayed” the Labour movement and entered the National Government in coalition with the Tories and Liberals. Where do the Labour leaders stand to-day ? We find Attlee, Greenwood, Morrison, Bevin, Cripps, etc., in the present National Government actively assisting the master-class. What is it that has led them to coalesce with the capitalists? Mr. Attlee, addressing the Annual Conference of the T.U.C., reported in the Daily Telegraph, October 9th, 1940, 

“emphasised the reasons why Labour is taking a part in the Government. The reasons were three : "To secure the defeat of the enemy,

"To maintain the unity of the nation,

"To preserve the freedom of the people‘.

"It was a difficult matter, he said, to maintain the principles of freedom at a time when the country had to be organised to keep the right balance between authority and liberty. . . . The Government was composed of different parties with different outlook, but there was enough measure of agreement for them all to work together.” (italics ours.)

This statement may sound very sweet to Labour supporters to-day, but what did Attlee have to say regarding Fascism, coalition with avowedly capitalist parties and national unity in 1937.

Turn to the pages of The Labour Party in Perspective. After discussing the divergent trends of opinions within the Party on foreign policy, he says (p. 219) : —

“The alternative policy is not the support by Labour of a Capitalist Government, but constitutional opposition.” (italics ours.)

He discusses the trend this opposition should take, and then says (p. 220) : —

“There is yet one other tendency among Labour supporters. There are those who, realising the danger of menace of the Fascist Powers, tend to take up an attitude of supporting a Capitalist Government at home as the least of two evils. They tend to under-estimate the reality of the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism and to magnify the differences between democratic Capitalist States and Fascist States. The danger of this attitude is that in fighting foreign Fascism they may encourage the subtle introduction of Fascism at home. The Fascist danger in this country does not come from the crude activities of Sir Oswald Mosley, but from the clever propaganda which has been actively disseminated ever since the formation of the National Government in favour of what is called national unity. There has been a deliberate attempt made to suggest that after all there are no real political differences in this country, and that everybody is in reality in agreement. The increasing danger of the international situation affords an opportunity for pressing this point. The speeches of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald are full of Fascist ideas and even Fascist phraseology. The essentials of the Corporate State without any coloured shirts might be introduced in this country in a period of international tension.”

We have read in Mr. Attlee’s own words that the policy of co-operation with capitalist parties and governments is anti-Socialist and anti-working class. Yet it is explicit in Labour Party policy, and Mr. Attlee and other Labour leaders follow it out when their turn comes round.

After thirty-six years of political life where has this sort of thing led the Labour Party, and with it the Trade Union movement, in its struggle for the improvement of working class conditions ?

All the Labour movement can now offer the workers is “blood and tears, toil and sweat,” and as has been pointed out often in these columns, the statements of post-war prospects point to nothing but the elimination of the first item.

After this sad tale of thirty-six years of misplaced thought and action by a large proportion of the British working class let us finish up on a note of hope for the future.

That hope lies in Socialism. The S.P.G.B. has had two years of life longer than the Labour Party, and although we cannot show the same spectacular electoral success we can claim one thing, at least. That is, that in thirty-eight years, because of its insistence on the fundamental Socialist objective, the S.P.G.B. has done more for progress towards Socialism than any other party or combination of parties.

The only solution to working class troubles is to be found in the establishment of a Socialist system of society.

N. S.

The Labour Party and Socialism (1942)

From the June 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the Trades Union Congress of 1899 a resolution was carried calling for the formation of a Labour Representation Committee. In 1900 a conference was held at which this latter body was formed. According to H. R. S. Phillpott, writing in the Daily Herald, February 27th, 1940, “the concrete thing that came out” of the conference was a declaration in favour of “establishing a distinct Labour Group in Parliament, who shall have their own Whips, and agree upon their policy, which must embrace a readiness to co-operate with any party which for the time being may be engaged in promoting legislation in the direct interest of Labour, and be equally ready to associate themselves with any party in opposing measures having an opposite tendency.” Arising from this the Labour Party was formed in 1906. In regard to this, Mr. C. R. Attlee, in his book, “The Labour Party in Perspective” (Labour Book Club Edition, 1937. p. 40), says : —

“The new Labour Party was formed on a very simple basis—that of the return of Labour members to Parliament. For all the years up to the end of the war this simple object sufficed. In 1917 as in 1906 its object is stated to be : ‘To organise and maintain in Parliament and the country a political Labour Party.’

“The conception of the Labour Party at that date is well expressed by Mr. Wardle in his presidential address in 1911 : —

“‘From the very first, the ties which bound the Party together were of the loosest possible kind. It has steadily and, in my opinion, wisely always refused to be bound by any programme, to subscribe to any dogma, or to lay down any creed. Its strength has been its catholicity, its tolerance, its welcoming of all shades of political and even revolutionary thought, provided that its chief object, the unifying of the workers’ political power, was not damaged or hindered thereby.'”

According to Mr. Attlee (p. 45), in 1918 “the Party now adopted Socialism as its aim. No longer is the mere return of Labour members sufficient. In 1918 the objects of the Party were set out approximately as they stand to-day,”

Object No. 4, which gave expression to this newly adopted aim, was as follows : —

“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.” 

We shall return to the contents of this object later.

Mr. Attlee goes on to describe the “very lengthy and diffuse” manifesto issued by the Labour Party at that time, Labour and the New Social Order in which “all Labour adherents could find their own particular reforms,” as “an uncompromisingly Socialist document” which, amongst other things, “did not consider for a moment the re-establishment of pre-war capitalist industry. The war, it stated, saw the culmination and collapse of a distinctive industrial civilisation, which the workers will not seek to reconstruct.”

In 1928 this manifesto was replaced by “Labour and the Nation”

Once again, even though Mr. Attlee states that it differed considerably from its predecessor it was “a very long document, and, though not so all-embracing as its predecessor, comprised a bewildering number of subjects. A four-page summary set out no less than seventy-two proposals that a Labour Government, if elected, intended to carry out. It was obvious that nothing short of a miracle could have enabled the Party, even with an overwhelming majority, to get all these measures passed into law within the life of one Parliament, yet there was no suggestion as to which of them was to be given priority. It was, indeed, designed to rally to the Party a great variety of supporters.” (Page 53. Italics ours.)

After his description of the earlier pamphlet Mr. Attlee makes the following statement: —

“Allowing, however, for the difference in the country’s position in 1918 and to-day, the programme shows that as far as general principles are concerned Labour stood then where it stands to-day.”

We have quoted at length in order to establish from the best possible sources the basis of Labour Party policy, both at its formation and at the present day. Let us now consider a very brief history of the Party in the political field, and the results obtained as a consequence of attempting to follow such a policy.

At the election following the 1914-18 War the Labour Party became the official Opposition, and in 1923 was elected into power as a minority Government. Regarding its activities whilst in power, Mr. Attlee says (p. 52) : “The greatest success was scored in foreign affairs. . . . On the home front there had been no real decision as to what should be done first. Useful work was done, but nothing very striking.” And this was after the publication of that “uncompromisingly Socialist document” and the adoption of Object referred to above ! We must suppose that “all Labour adherents” were busy sorting out “their own particular reforms.”

In 1929 the Labour Party again formed the Government, this time being the largest party in the House of Commons, 288 members; the Conservatives totalled 267, the Liberals 59.

In Mr. Attlee’s opinion there were “three possible courses open to the Labour Party: to refuse office, to accept office and invite defeat by putting forward a Socialist programme and place the onus of rejecting it on to the Liberal Party, or to come to some agreement with the Liberals on a programme which would secure joint action in the House.” After discussing the pros and cons of these courses of action, he says : “No one of these courses was followed.” (P. 54 et seq.)

Regarding the activities of this Government Attlee records how “MacDonald was right in thinking that in the sphere of foreign affairs a great lead for peace and disarmament could be given, but he had no clear idea as to what course to follow in domestic affairs.” As a consequence those members of the Labour Party who wished for a “vigorous lead in home affairs found themselves side stepped and frustrated at every turn.”

Further on in his book (p. 109) we find Mr. Attlee describing the democratic constitution of the Parliamentary Party. In regard to this he says : “Party action in the House is therefore decided by the whole body of the members. … In practice a considerable degree of latitude is given to members, and the Party shows much toleration of individual vagaries. It insists, however, on majority rule.”

Relating this democratic procedure to the activities of the 1929 Government it would appear that the majority did not desire a “vigorous lead in home affairs” but preferred to peddle League of Nations theories on the Continent. No doubt they spent their week-ends sorting out the “bewildering ” “four-page summary” of “seventy-two proposals” in Labour and the Nation, or studying the Bible to find out how miracles were performed.

It seems, however, that this democratic procedure failed to function in 1931, according to Mr. Attlee. He attributes the lack of success and ultimate collapse of the Labour Party almost entirely to the ineptitude of Ramsay MacDonald, culminating in his betrayal of “those who had given him their trust.” “Mr. MacDonald had led the Party into an acceptance of gradualness …” Earlier Attlee says that MacDonald had “got more and more out of touch with the rank and file.” We may well ask, what was the rank and file doing, through the medium of democratic procedure, to allow MacDonald (and others) to so drift away, and yet remain1 the official spokesman of Labour policy ? It seems as if the Parliamentary Party was somewhat analogous to a sheep farm, with the flocks being driven hither and thither by a few “trustworthy” shepherds.

What was happening, in fact, was that the Labour Party was reaping the harvest from seeds it had sown in its early days and had since carefully tended.

If the quotations at the beginning of this article are studied it is evident that at no time did the Labour Party ask for the support of the working class for the abolition of the capitalist system and the establishment of a socialist system of society. Throughout the whole of its history it has sought to gain the votes of the workers, not for Socialism, but for reforms within the existing system. It has sought to gain political power at well nigh any price. It has stood for a reformed capitalism, a State capitalism, a nationalised capitalism, but never for the establishment of a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution.

Even in the Party Object No. 4 quoted above, which is to some extent similar in wording to the object of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, we would draw attention to the very important point that it does not call for the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership of the means of production, etc. With regard to the phrases, “to secure for the workers,” “the most equitable distribution,” and “the best obtainable system of popular administration,” when these are placed in relation to the rest of Labour Party ideology, which does not visualise the need for social revolution, they imply only one thing. The “most equitable” and the “best obtainable” under capitalism.

Under Socialism there can be no question of the “most equitable” distribution, there will be only one distribution, and that will be in accordance with the needs of the individuals comprising society: and than that nothing can be more or less equitable. Under Socialism there will be no “best obtainable” system of administration; the system of administration will of necessity be fully democratic and consequently the best possible. Also, there can be no question of securing for the workers under Socialism the full fruits of their labour; everybody capable of working will work as a social duty and will receive in return as a social right a proportion of the fruits of the labour of society, in accordance with his or her needs. Lastly, let us point out that the use of the word “exchange” in relation to political economy can have only one meaning : that is the exchange of commodities. If exchange is retained, commodities are retained, buying and selling is retained, capitalism is retained.

N.S.

(To be continued next month)

Labour or Tory? — Tory or Labour? (1964)

From the June 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sometime before next November the people of this country will decide on their next government.

Although both Labour and Tory parties have a large nucleus of loyal supporters who would never vote for any other party, there is a vast number of voters who arc not committed beforehand. It is these, commonly lumped together as the “floating vote”, who determine which party victory goes to in present day political conditions. The further away from the solid nucleus of a political party the voter is, the more is his vote likely to “float”, and the governments under which we suffer are in effect determined by the most indeterminate of voters—victory goes to that party which is able to capture the temporary support of a few million voters.

The way in which the tide can ebb and flow is well demonstrated by the fluctuating percentages of support published in the public opinion polls. But even these are often not accurate prophets of the actual results, and elections have been won or lost on the strength of the smell of red herrings drawn across the path by the Tory or Labour fishwives just before the votes are cast.

Most voters think the art of government is some mystical thing which is the prerogative of professional politicians; once their votes are cast they are prepared to leave the job to “those who know best”. No small wonder then that the working class get the government they deserve.

Such results inevitably produce a certain amount of disillusionment. From time to time, there arise movements clamouring for the reform of the electoral system or, even more misguided, for the total rejection of the electoral system itself. But the adoption of various systems of proportional representation in other countries has demonstrated that such reform does not solve the basic problem, as the sway of government still passes between the major parties or major coalitions according to the temper of the day. Although it is possible for more shades of opinion to be represented in the debating chamber, the general effect is usually only to lead to greater instability in the government.

Stability or non-stability is not, however, what we are after. What we are after is the establishment of an administration we want—not a government we deserve! To achieve this object two things are politically necessary:

First, the right to vote—this we already have; second, the ability and knowledge to use the vote in the right way—this statement immediately poses the question —What is the “right” way?

Obviously the right way is to vote for what we want. But this involves the ability and knowledge to judge whether the policies of political parties will in fact achieve the desired results; that what the politicians say will happen, will in fact happen! From lifetimes of experience we know only too well how contrary these results have been.

There are two main lessons for this. First, the short term expedient, the shaping of immediate policy into election pledges to try to capture the floating vote. Second, the long term impossibility, the complete inability, of any political party to control the present economic system. The familiar pattern of governments which are incapable of carrying out all their policies and which are inevitably forced to repudiate their pledges and promises will continue so long as the electorate has insufficient knowledge of the causes of Such political duplicity.

Both the major political parties are prepared to use expediency to gain office and neither has a policy designed to rid us of the present economic system of capitalism. Consequently, whichever party forms the government after the next election, the pattern of events which follow will be similar to what we have experienced before.

Some people think there are fundamental differences between the Labour and Tory parties—others, and this view has gained more credence in recent years —think there is very little difference between them. The latter view is nearer the truth the more we consider fundamental issues; the former view reflects more correctly the views of those who are concerned mainly with surface appearances. It is the fundamental issues which are more important but we should not blind ourselves to the fact that there are considerable differences between Tory and Labour Parties on the ways and means of organising the economics and politics of the country. It is these differences which will decide the result of the next general election.

N.S.

"Daily Worker" Unity Conference (1944)

From the May 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Sunday, April 2nd, at the Stoll Theatre, London, a conference of delegates from various working class organisations was organised by the Daily Worker, It was proclaimed as a tremendous success in the Daily Worker the following day—in the words of Mr. William Rust, the "Conference has spoken the will of the people."

Here we might well question whether the conference was representative of the people as it has been claimed. The Daily Worker (April 8, 1944) giving details of the representation states that there were 1762 delegates present, (we have totalled up the figures as given and make it 1803, but that is by the way!)

The vast majority of these represented trade union branches, district committees, shop stewards' committees, etc. The Communist Party sent 73 delegates, the Co-operative movement 66, Common Wealth 32, and local and divisional Labour Parties 17. The Labour Party had officially boycotted the conference, the Liberal Party was not represented although Mrs. Corbett Ashby, late Vice-President, claiming to speak for an enormous number of the rank and file of that party, was present as an independent, neither was the I.L.P., nor, needless to say, the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

It would seem, therefore, that Mr. William Rust has been tempted to exaggerate a little, like a proud father, perhaps over the achievements of the baby he had helped to bring into the world, especially in view of the fact that his paper claimed that the delegates represented only 2,000,000 of "the people."

Passing over this doubtful claim of speaking the will of that nebulous entity "the people," let us examine the "will" that was expressed. The conference was called to face the "urgency of unity for victory in the war, for overcoming all obstacles to the mobilisation of resources and power in the war effort, and for laying the foundations for victory in the peace, too."

In the morning session the problem of winning the war was dealt with, the chief bone of contention being picked by the Common Wealth (Mr. Tom Wintringham) and the Communist Party (Mr. W. Gallacher) on the question of the Coalition government. Wintringham wanted to see the ending of the coalition whilst Gallacher stated that it was futile to discuss getting national unity by breaking up the National Government yet at the same time we should not have a Tory-dominated coalition.

In the afternoon session dealing with post-war problems, however, more diversity of opinion was expressed. Sir Richard Acland wanted nationalisation of the mines; Krishna Menon wanted Amery sacked and the Indian leaders freed;- somebody else wanted better education; another wanted to build houses after the war; R. G. McKay of Common Wealth said that "it would not worry him which progressive M.P.s got in —so long as we got a Socialist majority in the House of Commons;" and so forth and so on.

Amidst all the welter of diverse opinions there was, however, agreement on the fact that "Unity and progress are possible only by the united action of the great mass organisations of the Labour movement—the Labour Party, the trade unions and the Conservatives."

It was stressed throughout the meeting that nothing could be done without the Labour Party, but we want to know what they want to do. We doubt whether the words "unity" and "progressive" have been used so frequently in one day before, with so little regard for what unity was wanted for or to what it was wanted to progress.

As a generalisation of the speeches made it is our impression that all the delegates were concerned with was getting rid of the Tory domination of Parliament and substituting a United Progressive Left Front Government in its place and this would appear to be the intention behind the resolution which was passed, viz.,

  "This Conference greets the decision of the Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union calling on the Labour Party to convene a conference to formulate a common policy for the working class movement in readiness for the next general election and pledges itself to do all in its power in support."

It will be noted that the conference pledged its support for a "common policy" not yet decided upon at a conference to be called by the Labour Party which officially banned this one!

Thus we see that the result was that nobody got very far although everybody was in a hurry to get somewhere. The trouble was that nobody knew exactly where to go.

How much longer will the S.P.G.B. have to point out to the working class that as long as they make these futile attempts at unity simply on the flimsy basis of getting rid of the Tories or some such specious plea they will still have to travel the same old capitalist road. Unity for Socialism alone is what the working class should bother about—when this is achieved all these other pettifogging problems will disappear like chaff before the wind.

N.S.

Brick Walls at the Foreign Office (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On March 9th, after five and a half years as Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin retired from the Foreign Office. This date was also his seventieth birthday and, therefore, was a traditionally significant date in the life of this man who has spent almost all his life in the Labour Movement. A convenient moment, indeed, to review briefly his commonly accepted success in this field.

From being a worker in the docks and an active trade unionist he eventually became the Dockers’ Leader and General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union—a foremost figure in the struggle of that section of the working-class on the industrial field against the employers, for higher wages and better working conditions. His political allegiance was given to the mouthpiece of the trade unions on the political field—the Labour Party. With the growth of this Party Ernest Bevin grew in political influence eventually reaching in the last World War the position of Minister of Labour and National Service in the National Government. From being in a position of receiving the lash across his shoulders he now held the stock of the whip in his hand.

In the years that had passed there had of course been no fundamental change in the economic basis of the country, or the World, in which he lived. Known to the workers as a strong trade unionist and regarded as one of their best friends in their struggle against the constant pressure of the capitalists to obtain more work for less wages he was chosen as the best person to receive their confidence in the war-time drive for greater production. His work in this sphere involved him in the execution of impositions and restrictions on the working-class so that greater production could be wrung from their sweating hides. He was chosen as the executive officer to give effect to the Churchill doctrine of “blood, tears, toil, and sweat,” particularly the latter half of it. It is of no use to call into question Mr. Bevin’s sincerity; all his life his cherished ideals have been those of a rescuer of the oppressed and downtrodden. Unfortunately the greatest sincerity is not enough—a knowledge of the causes of things is the key to the understanding of them and the solution to any problems arising from them. In particular, knowledge of the cause and development of the capitalist system and of the position of the working-class in this system is essential to any real approach to the solution of the problems that beset the working-class. This Ernest Bevin lacked.

It is not surprising, however, to find an article in the Daily Herald (March 10, 1951) headed “Idealist who had to turn Realist.” It is, and always has been, the failing of reformers to consider the real approach to the solution of the main problems facing the workers, namely, their poverty, their insecurity and their participation in wars, to be that of attempting to remedy the hundred and one various small ways in which these problems manifest themselves on the surface. They never attack the cause of these problems, which is the capitalist system itself, and claim that those who do, as does the Socialist Party of Great Britain, are the idealists!

With the Labour Party’s overwhelming victory at the polls in 1945, Ernest Bevin went to the Foreign Office, apparently still an idealist (according to the Daily Herald.)

In the article mentioned it states that “when he took on the job of Foreign Secretary, he had a clear idea of what he hoped to do. The first job, of course, must be the making of the peace treaties, the settling of the new frontiers, the building of an efficient Four-Power system in Germany. Then there were such problems as Palestine and Anglo-Egyptian relations. In his buoyant optimism he hoped that all this would get tidied up in a few months. Afterwards he thought he could get on with the real work of a Foreign Secretary—not have to worry about “power politics” but give all his mind to international, social and economic co-operation.

As the article later states, “these high hopes were never fulfilled. They all depended on Soviet co-operation in the making and keeping of the Peace.” As is common knowledge, disillusionment came quickly. At times the attitude of the Soviet statesman made him angry because he resented being accused of imperialism; because “his old belief in the democratic and peaceful intentions of the Soviet Government was being shattered.” Despite this frustration of all his hopes he went doggedly on, “still hoping that patience would bring a change.” After the conference in Moscow in 1947 Bevin said, “ It looks as if we may get an Austrian treaty. And if we do. that could be the beginning of an understanding.” This did not materialise, instead came the extended developments of the “Cold-War.”

As the article says, “It was then that Bevin realised that there was nothing for it but to accept and face an ugly situation in a spirit of hard realism.”

What does all this really mean?

This giving up of “ideals” was looked upon as an exception in the days of 1931 when MacDonald, Snowden, and other Labour leaders went over to the National Government in order to deal with the “real” problems. But what was thought, by supporters of the Labour Party, to be the exception in 1931 has certainly proved to be the rule during the intervening twenty years. Attlee, Bevin, Morrison, and other Labour leaders time and time again since 1939 have discovered that they have had to go against ideals they previously professed, or, as they would claim, the day when these ideals can be fulfilled must be postponed because some impediment exists which must be dealt with first.

Before 1914 the Labour Party could be called mildly pacifist, but their decision to support the Kaiser’s War put paid to that ideal for a while. From 1918 to 1939 it again became ideally peace loving but the Nazi “threat to democracy” again upset the apple cart. Since 1945 it has become a peace loving Party (whilst making a noisy clangour with its sabre rattling), but finds that the regime it adopted as its blood brother from 1917, “Socialist” Russia, is acting like a cuckoo in the nest. The pacifist ideal the Labour Party always has to discard when it comes to the conclusion that the only “real” solution to the differences between national groups lies in war. Their support of war is an important matter for reflection for it is in wartime that governments are forced to exploit the workers even more than “normal.” This increased exploitation is brought about by means of lengthening the working day and introducing more efficient methods of production enabling the workers to produce more goods in the same time. At the same time there is a shortage of man-power arising from the transfer of men from production to the armed forces and also the need for greater production. To enable the necessary production to be carried out smoothly it is necessary for the government to introduce all kinds of restrictive measures to prevent the working-class taking advantage of the "nation’s distress.” The most damaging of these restrictions prevents the so-called freedom of contract between employee and employer. Workers are prevented from leaving their jobs without permission, and strikes are made illegal unless the government are first informed to enable them to deal with the matter.

Ideals, such as opposition to conscription and to the maintenance of restrictive practices in trades and many minor reforms, have to be sacrificed on the altar of Mars.

The threat of war to-day is once again turning the Labourites from4 "idealists” into "realists.” This continual turning of the coat cannot be avoided. Their ideals may be the betterment of the working-class but they do not understand that the position of the working class cannot be improved within the capitalist system, nor the problems which this system throws up be solved unless the system itself be abolished. So long as they see no need to abolish the capitalist system, so long will the system exist and continue to throw up all sorts of "scapegoat” problems. Even if one problem is dealt with and seems to have disappeared, it will be found to re-appear in another form. Consequently, despite all their high ideals there will always be a multitude of problems, large and small, which will demand a “realist” approach and prevent the ideals being realised.

Morrison has gone to the Foreign Office in place of Bevin, no doubt with the same ideals as Bevin had when he started, but there is also no doubt that he will leave the Foreign Office a disillusioned and disappointed man. The problem of war cannot be solved in the Foreign Offices of the world. Wars in the modern world arise from the conflict and strife always present in the economics of capitalism. To sell goods capitalist nations must have markets, to produce goods they must have readily available supplies of raw materials: to protect the goods that are produced, the goods to be sold, and the property they own, the capitalist class must use armed forces to protect the strategic routes and supplies in the world. Wars are the struggle for the self-preservation of the competing national capitalisms when they are no longer able to achieve their economic aims by peaceful methods.

Any Foreign Secretary who believes that he can solve this problem, who believes that he can achieve permanent world peace, before capitalism itself is abolished all the world over is bound to fail in his task.

The only solution to the problem of war lies in the understanding of the cause of war. Not, of course, by one Foreign Secretary, but by the majority of the world working-class. Only then will the real problem be really dealt with.

N.S.

The Wrong Way (1947)

From the January 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first day on which the daily newspapers were able to increase their size—September 23rd, 1946— the Daily Herald saw fit to commence publication of a series of articles by J. B. Priestley, entitled “The Mood of the People.” It seemed strange to read on the same page, first the Editorial, which said that the advancement of the Labour cause was the task which the Daily Herald wanted to perform and, second, the article by Mr. Priestley, which was a bitter attack on the present behaviour of the workers.

"Too many people are going the wrong way,” he said, by which he meant that there is “a dwindling interest in the job. A cynical indifference as to what value is given for money received. An undisguised contempt for the customer. And too much downright dishonesty.” He was careful to safeguard himself by saying that most people are doing their decent best, and he had noticed in his own special fields of interest that the people to-day are livelier and more intelligent but, says he, the fact still remains that too many people, including a high proportion of the young, are going the ‘‘wrong way.” He claims they are losing their community sense, all pride and interest in the job—they are “rapidly becoming bad mannered, lazy and cheaply cynical.”

He points out that the workers no longer feel the threat of unemployment and poverty—that the world has been improved, otherwise such people would not feel at liberty to behave so badly in it. Whilst giving him credit for not wishing to see conditions which produce unemployment and poverty we cannot but take exception to his effort to get the workers to work harder simply for the reason that we think, and apparently we are not alone, that the world has not been improved, nor the threat of unemployment and poverty removed by the advent of a Labour Government. If workers find themselves in ‘‘an emotional and spiritual vacuum” now it must be because all the hot air exuded by Labour Party candidates to gain votes at the General Election has too rapidly risen to the skies and left a void behind.

According to Mr. Priestley we are now taking part in a gradual slow-motion revolution, and new incentives must be found to get the workers to give the wheel a shove instead of applying the brake.

All of this might be good if it were true; if Socialism were here—but, unfortunately, it is false.

Where is this revolution that is “transforming our whole society’’?

Is it a revolution to have caused the Bank of England stockholders and the owners of a few other large concerns to exchange their stock for Government securities—their stake in a corporation for a stake (of greater security) in the National Treasury. Is it a revolution to have introduced the payment of family allowances—which will have a depressing influence on wages? Is it a revolution to introduce social ” security ” schemes, which with their niggardly increases merely bring pre-war pensions and doles approximately in line with the present cost of living?

These are the sort of things for which the voters voted. For reforms—not revolution; for patching up the old society—not for transforming it; for capitalism —not for Socialism.

Mr. Priestley, flirting with Russian “stakanovisin.” says that in order to get the best out of men and women a system of ‘‘functional privilege” should be introduced—different baits in different jobs—until there is plenty of everything for everybody and everybody can buy what they like! Here we have the crux of the matter and find that these articles are only another form of apology for present-day capitalism. Simply the old argument dressed up in fine phrases—the workers should work harder to put the country on a sound profit-making basis, rebuild its export trade, then, when a surplus has been produced, sit back and enjoy it to the full.

No wonder Mr. Priestley cries, ” Away with dry and dreary economists—we want a psychological approach” !

"Give us a carrot or two!”, he pleads.

The capitalist class has been dangling carrots of all shapes, sizes and descriptions in front of the workers’ noses for a century or more! Yet Mr. Priestley wants a carrot!

For the past seven years the workers have been exhorted by all means of propaganda to eat carrots instead of oranges—yet Mr. Priestley wants more carrots.

Now we have a Labour Government promising all sorts of goodies in the misty future—yet Mr. Priestley still wants more carrots!

As workers we can’t understand the man. ”A little elementary psychology,” indeed—for whom?

Look around you, Mr. Priestley—there is no need to go to Russia to use your powers as a “trained observer.” Is the economic position of the working class in our society basically different from what it has been since the birth of capitalism? Has the Labour Government expropriated the wealth which the capitalist class call their “private” property, but which is the accumulated labour of millions of workers extracted from them during tens of decades of vicious exploitation? Have they taken it, and are they administering it as the common property of the whole of society? And, in doing so, have they thereby removed the necessity for all workers to find a buyer for their ability to work before they can acquire the wherewithal to eat, drink, clothe, and sleep? Is it no longer necessary to find a market for and to sell at a profit the things which are produced?

The answer to all these questions is- NO!

How, then, can there ever be plenty of everything for everybody under such conditions?

It is common ground for all economists that a "sellers" market exists to-day—almost anything that can be produced will find a willing and eager buyer anywhere in the world. As a consequence, all nations are producing as much as they can in order to sell as much as possible in the markets available before they become saturated with goods. When the markets become saturated, and there are signs of it already, prices and profits will tend to fall as a result of competition which will become keener and keener as supply exceeds demand. As a result of the imminent fall in prices the capitalist class will he driven to cutting costs, and this will be done by decreasing wages and staffs and getting more work out of each worker left employed. Thus when there is plenty of everything will he precisely the time when the majority of the people—the working class—will have less money to spend, and a greater inability to buy the goods they have produced.

It is no good Labour spokesmen prating about full employment and social security—they can provide neither so long as profit-making is the aim of production, whether this latter be State controlled or privately controlled. The whole mentality of the Labour Party clearly shows that there is no intention of producing goods solely for the use of the community, and the fact must therefore he faced that in carrying on production for profit they are acting as the agents of capitalism, and against the interests of the workers.

The Labour Party, with roseate phrases, has taken its stand as an allegedly working-class party, and now that it has obtained power it is faced with the insoluble problem of running capitalism and yet trying to satisfy working-class demands. It cannot do this, and must not be surprised, therefore, if the workers’ instinctive revulsion to increased exploitation becomes apparent.

Although some of the tendencies of the modern working class ay he obnoxious to those whose minds can conceive of no better world than one in which goods are produced for sale, it seems to us very questionable whether they are going the wrong way. Perhaps they are instinctively going the right way, and when instinct gives place to knowledge, we have no doubt they will sweep away every vestige of capitalism, including all its intellectual apologists, and set up a society in their own interests based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production.

Then, there will be plenty of everything we need and no need to buy anything.

N. S.

Libermanism: A New Russian Policy (1965)

From the January 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has always been an effrontery that the Russian “Communists” should have joined the name of Lenin to those of Marx and Engels in the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, and that the opportunist theories of Lenin, claimed to be an extension of Marxist thought, should have been perpetuated by such a connection. For the purpose of emphasizing the drift of the Russian Revolution from alleged Socialism (which the Communist Party once claimed was the preliminary transitional period before the coming of Communism) to avowed Capitalism, we have no hesitation in de-Leninising Lenin and substituting the name of Professor Y. G. Liberman, a Kharkov economist.

Some months ago Mr. Khrushchev announced that arbitrarily planned production should give way to control by means of self regulating economic leaders, by which he meant the forces of supply and demand.

According to The Times, the new Soviet leadership has approved implementation of these “economic reforms” which means “a victory for the supply and demand system advocated by Professor Y. G. Liberman.” The report goes on to say that the Soviet Government is considering a major decree to introduce the “Liberman System” in a large part of the consumer goods sector and that factory directors will have much greater freedom of action to plan output according to orders received and to fix retail prices. They will also have greater autonomy in raising money by way of bank loans for the purpose of improving or reconstructing their factories.

Wages will be determined by the factory managers instead of by remote planning agencies and “factory performance, instead of being measured in terms of fulfilment of gross output in roubles, will be gauged in terms of volume of goods actually sold in the stores, and in terms of profits.”

It is said that this decree is being drafted at the end of a four month experiment in two clothing factories, as a result of which more clothing and shoe factories are to be converted to the “New System.”

If factory performance is to be gauged in terms of profits arising from the volume of goods sold may we ask, without appearing too naive, what is “new” about that?

There is, of course, nothing new about it — what is new is that the Soviet Government is openly recognising that Capitalism exists in Russia and that the motive for production in the Capitalist System of Society is the realisation of profit on the sale of goods.

Also, what is new is the decentralisation of the point at which the profits are garnered.

The greatest antagonism which the Soviet Government has had to face has come from the agricultural interests. After the persecution of the Kulaks (peasant proprietors) in the earlier days of the Soviet administration, and the conversion of their smaller holdings into collective farms, the profit motive was still there, to such an extent that the apologetic booklet Soviet Millionaires had to be written!

Now, apparently, the realisation of profit in manufacture is to be the prime motive force for production in the smaller units of production. Soviet Millionaires dealt with the growth of personal fortunes among the Russian agriculturalists — is the time far distant when we can envisage a pamphlet being published to apologise for the growth of personal fortunes among the industrialists of Russia?

In the 1920s Lenin wrote that “State Capitalism would be a great step forward . . . that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner . . . the small bourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits and position.” He also wrote that “To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means to establish the control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes.” Then after (mistakenly) referring to the existence of State Capitalism in Germany he transforms the words “State Capitalism” to “State Socialism” and says that, “If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy, because State Socialism is centralisation control, Socialisation — in fact, everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the small bourgeoisie, which, owing to the history and economics of Russia, is the best organised class and which prevents us from taking the step on which depends the success of Socialism.”

The fact which this completely ignores is that in 1917 the population of Russia did not understand, or want, Socialism. As this understanding and desire is a pre-requisite to the establishment of Socialism, nothing could proceed in Russia except the consolidation of Capitalism.

The Russian Revolution is the equivalent, allowing for the social and historical differences in the centuries of the English Revolution, the French Revolution, the German Amalgamation of Principalities, and the more recent Chinese Accession of the “Red Star Over China.” In short, it is the breaking away of the nascent capitalist class from the feudal bonds which previously bound it.

The cry for “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” of the French Revolution is today echoed, in a way, by the factory managers of the clothing and shoe industries in Russia. They want liberty to fix the wages of their employees, something akin to the freedom of contract now operative in the Western World: they require equality to compete with their commercial brothers in the same industries, and fraternity which, in the capitalist world, means peace to produce goods for sale on home and export markets at a profit.

Never has there been a greater bamboozling of the World Working Class than that perpetrated by the Russian Communist Party. A whole generation of workers have been distracted by the chimera of Socialism in Russia from their true task of seeking their emancipation from the slavery of Capitalism.

Communists in all countries have completely mistaken the nature and social significance of the Russian Revolution and their propaganda, supporting every twist and turn of Russian politics, has deluded the working class for over 40 years. Labourites once generally accepted that the economic system in Russia was an advance over “private” or laissez-faire capitalism, although in more recent years they have deplored the dictatorial administration. Conservatives have easily been deluded into accepting that Communism was established in Russia, although their delusion is manifested in opposition, because they are automatically opposed to any organisation paying lip service to Marxism, Socialism or Communism.

Socialism did not exist and could not be established by the Bolsheviks in Russia. Perhaps the theories of Professor Liberman will help to finally bring about acceptance of the fact that Capitalism exists there.

Such acceptance will probably make easier our task of explaining the true nature of World capitalist society, it will clarify working class understanding of Marxist theory and convince the workers of the necessity to establish Socialism in five-fifths of the World.

N.S.

The Black Hole of Calcutta (1943)

From the December 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

What might be termed the sequel to the historical incident we know by the above term has been, and is being written in the blood of thousands of starving, pestilence-stricken Indian workers and peasants of Bengal. Daily references in the newspapers to the famine in India have provided grim evidence of the ghastly scenes enacted on the streets of Calcutta by actors unable to choose the part they wish to play. Stories have been related of children being sold for a handful of rice, and of skeletons of men and women feeding on jungle roots and leaves. Figures of the death rate show it to have increased to nearly four times the normal average. The whole tragedy is graphically epitomised by the Calcutta Statesman which said:-

  “Thousands of emaciated destitutes still roam the streets in the ceaseless quest for food, scouring dustbins and devouring rotten remains of castaway food and fruit. Rickety children clutching imploringly the tattered garments barely covering the bones of their mothers are seen in all quarters of the city.” (Quoted in Manchester Guardian Weekly, October 15, 1943.)

Famine has always been a factor to reckon with in the economy of India, and has usually meant suffering for large sections of the population. It is commonly understood that a famine means a shortage of food owing to the natural failure of crops, but what is not generally recognised is that the character of the famine, and the way in which it affects the people, varies with the type of society in which it occurs. To the middle of the nineteenth century famines in India were localized in the area in which there was a shortage of crop, and meant an appalling lack of food in that area and of employment. Even if one had money there was no food to be brought, and the general solution was to migrate to areas where food was available. From about 1850, however, capitalism, under the tutelage of the British, became superimposed on the old Indian feudal economy at an ever quickening rate, with an ever greater intensity. With the spreading of capitalism the growth of industrialisation, the development of the plantation and factory system, the production of goods for sale came more and more into evidence. Concurrently with this development the means of transport and communication were vastly increased and extended. Hence, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, it became relatively easy to shift quantities of foodstuffs into famine-stricken areas, and a change in the general character of Indian famines took place. They now meant, not so much an appalling lack of food as high scarcity prices and lack of employment, and whilst the growth of the means of communication lessened the danger of local famines, it tended to widen the area where high prices would prevail.

Thus the famine, from being a calamity of the natural order, turned into a calamity of the social order, aggravating the sufferings inflicted on the poorer sections of the population, notably the peasants, the landless day-labourer, and the growing urban working class.

It is true that in the area most affected by the recent famine, Bengal, Bombay, and Madras, there has been some destruction of crops due to natural causes, but at the same time there have been good crops in other provinces. In the reports that have arrived in this country there is a general insistence that the catastrophe has not come about because of any basic natural shortage, but because such deficits in supply as did exist have been taken advantage of by hoarders and speculators. The loss of the Burma rice crop, excessive inflation, and general economic dislocation (all factors arising out of the war), and natural shortages in certain districts, all tended to encourage the farmers and merchants to hold on to their stocks in order to get still higher prices and greater profits when they did at last decide to sell.

This was the position as early as January 15, 1943, when in the Manchester Guardian Weekly it was reported that “price control has never been rigorously enforced, except against small retailers. The impression is widespread that there are considerable stocks which would be brought out if price control was removed and this would relieve the shortage until next harvest.” The same issue of the paper also stated that black markets flourished everywhere.

After seven months had elapsed the same paper wrote as follows (August 13, 1943):-

  “The Government of India’s Food Member did not deny last week the allegation that men in authority have obstructed the Government’s measures to bring relief to the masses. The Food Secretary on Sunday admitted that Sind had made enormous profits through the sale of surplus wheat and rice. Lack of foresight, the toleration of profiteers, and the fear of alienating certain favoured sections like the landlords, have created the food crisis.”

Whilst we learn on the one hand of the fear of alienating certain favoured sections of the property owning class, we learn that there was no such fear during the period of alienating those sections of the population with little or no property. Side by side with the blackest of black markets, dealing in the very life-blood of the poverty-stricken masses, there were “long queues of hungry workers waiting all night outside Government controlled grain shops in places like Bombay.” (Manchester Guardian Weekly, January 15, 1943)

Investigations conducted by Calcutta University have revealed that 50 per cent of the families of destitutes have been broken up, and that 47 per cent are landless labourers, 25 per cent small cultivators, 6 per cent town beggars, and the remainder unclassified.

Such evidence as this throws into bold relief the fact that it is the propertyless who suffer and die, whilst the propertied reap excess profits and get all they want in the black markets.

The Indian scene, in normal times, is a picture of a vast mass of humanity living in the grip of abysmal poverty. Utter destitution resulting in a prolonged death through starvation, or a quicker death through mal-nutritional diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera and typhoid, is the lot of Indian workers and peasants. What then must be their lot when the price of the food they require for a bare existence soars far and away above their means? What can they do but wait for death to claim them, their bony hands held out imploringly for food, on the pavements of the second largest and one of the “most prosperous” cities in the British Empire! In other parts of the same empire the granaries of Australia and Canada are full to overflowing with the wheat that would bring succour to those in need. The problem, however, according to Mr. Amery (Secretary for India), speaking in the House of Commons, October 12, 1943, was “entirely one of shipping, and has to be judged in the light of all the other urgent needs of the Allied Nations.” Yet the Allied Nations are producing ships faster than they have ever been produced before in the history of mankind, and the USA is able to boast of a production of 15,000 naval ships of all dimensions in the past three years.

Well might the reader at this point exclaim, “This is madness!”

No, reader, this is not madness—simply another example of the ever present anarchy in CAPITALISM, the economic system of society that holds the world enslaved.

An economic system that is based on the ownership of the means of life by the few, and the exclusion of the means of life from the many. Only under capitalism is it possible for conditions to arise where hoarders, speculators, and black marketeers of every nationality can flourish on the one hand, and be the social complement of starvation, unemployment, squalor, disease and poverty on the other.

Only with the abolition of this private property basis of society and its replacement by the ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution by the whole of humanity, can humanity solve the evils with which it is confronted.

This is the job, the only worth-while job, of the working class. Not only the working class of this country, but of the working class of the world acting in unison. No longer must they acquiesce in the retention of a system which condemns great numbers of men and women to exist like a seething mass of gentils beneath a rotten, stinking piece of meat. Just as the meat is a condition of existence of the gentils, so is capitalism a condition of existence of the working class. It must be removed, and with it will go all class divisions.

This can only be done by a working class conscious of the cause of its troubles, desirous of solving them, and with knowledge of the solution. Even in the case of the Indian working class the solution to their problems is the same as ours. It does not lie in the substitution of one kind of capitalism for another. It does not lie in the substitution of a native Indian master class in place of the British Raj; their fellow countrymen are among their most ruthless exploiters. In common with the rest of the workers of the world, their solution lies in the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life – the establishment of SOCIALISM. Along this road alone, however tiresome may be the journey and however many pitfalls may be on the way, lies the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.

N. S.