Press Cuttings (1947)

From the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Son of Matteotti

“The municipal elections due to take place next Sunday have been marked by violence towards those left-wing candidates who are insisting on a Socialist line independent of Communist policy. Signer Matteotti, son of the man who died in anti-Fascist resistance during the Mussolini regime and who still vehemently insists on a policy opposing Communism, has had two meetings this week broken up by violence, his car burned and stones thrown at platform speakers.” (Rome Correspondent of the Times, 10/10/47.)

* * *

The Labour Party and Taxation

“We hold that indirect taxation on commodities, whether by Customs or Excise, should be strictly limited to luxuries; and concentrated principally on those of which it is socially desirable that the consumption should be actually discouraged.”—(“Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.19.)

“Mr. J. W. Belcher, £l,500-a-year Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, said last: night: ‘When the price of cigarettes is doubled it makes far more difference to the £5-a-week man than it does, to me. The tobacco tax falls hardest on those who can least afford to pay it.'”—(Daily Express, 10/10/47.)

* * *

The United Nations Can Agree

“Lest it be thought, however, that the United Nations is incapable of making quick and lasting decisions, it should be reported that the Legal Committee yesterday settled something in five minutes that the League of Nations abandoned after ten years’ fruitless argument. It adopted a flag for the United Nations and left it to the Secretary General, Mr. Lie, to decide its dimensions and its code of courtesy. It is to be a white globe on a field of blue. And there is no truth at all in the report that the Yugoslavs have suggested it should bear the motto ‘Manners Makyth Man.”—(Manchester Guardian, 9/10/47.)

* * *

The Labour Party and the Factory Acts

“The amendment and consolidation of the Factories and Workshops Acts, with their extension to all employed persons and the restriction of the working week to not more than 48 hours, is long overdue . . .” (“Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.6.)

“Night work in the factories for girls of 18 and youths of 16 will be legal after September 22.

“And anyone over 16 may work more than 48 hours a week—but not for two weeks running.

“These amendments to general conditions were announced last night as part of the staggered hours plan which will spread the electricity load.

“After September 22 a district inspector of factories can. permit an earlier start or later finish for day work.

“The starting and finishing hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. can be extended to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., and 6.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. for those under 16.”—(Daily Mail, 2/9/47.)

* * *

“More of Everything for Everybody”

”We have greatly increased our capacity to produce more things during this war. We must use the skill of our people and our great productive resources to make more of everything for everybody in times of peace.”—(From “Your Future—After Victory—What Then?” Published by Labour Party, June, 1944.)

”What the nation needs is undoubtedly a great bound onward in its aggregate production. But this cannot be secured merely by pressing the manual workers to more strenuous toil . . . What the Labour Party looks to is a genuinely scientific reorganisation of the nation’s industry . . . on the basis of the Common Ownership of the Means of Production; the equitable shaving of the proceeds among all who participate in any capacity and only among these . . .”—(”Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.12-13.)

* * *

Sir John Boyd Orr on Food and Capitalism

“Warning the United Nations Economic Committee, at Lake Success yesterday, that more people will die through the food shortage in Europe and Asia in the next 12 months than were killed in any year of the war, Sir John Boyd Orr declared :

” ‘This presents an opportunity to the nations, assembled here to concentrate less on the political problems which engender misunderstanding and conflict, and concentrate more on the concrete problems on which there can be no misunderstanding.’

“He pointed out that the General Assembly agenda contained no reference to food and economic difficulties, and stressed that the food situation in Asia was just as bad as in Europe.

“Food production would need to be increased by 110 per cent, in the next 25 years to provide sufficient for the world’s population.”—(Daily Herald, 7/10/47.)

* * *

“Meanwhile, in the producer countries, the paradox of the years between the wars shows signs of being repeated. While people elsewhere face starvation, farmers tremble at the prospects of ruin—not because they cannot produce the food the hungry peoples need, but because they can produce more than the peoples can buy . . .

“At one and the same time we have these problems : How to get maximum production to salvage the world from present hunger and how to deal with unmarketable surpluses which will again bring ruin and misery to millions of land-workers and endanger the stability of the whole economic system.

“For failure will mean that the existing economic system cannot carry the burden of the material wealth which modern science can produce.”—(Sir John Boyd-Orr, News Chronicle, 1/8/47)

* * *

Labour Party and Conscription

“The Labour Party declares emphatically against any continuance of the Military Service Acts a moment longer than the imperative requirements of the war excuse.”—(“Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.11.)

* * *

Labour Government and Wages

” ‘As a trade union official, if I were, faced with the choice of keeping the Labour Government in office or a reduction in wages, I would advocate a reduction of wages,’ said Mr. Sam Watson, general secretary of the Durham area of the National Union of Mineworkers.

“He was speaking at a week-end school of the National Council of Labour Colleges at Morecambe.

”‘Unless we can lift production, increased wages are simply a means of increasing the dangers of inflation and rising prices,’ he said.”—(Daily Herald, 6/10/47.)

* * *

Housing under the Swedish Labour Government

”Many tourists, observed Mr. Osborn, have come back believing that the Swedes have everything to tell us about standards of housing and architecture. They are misled by the cleanliness and furnishing taste everywhere displayed. Housing standards in Stockholm are, as in most other European cities, appallingly low. Of the 670,000 people within the city boundaries, 90 per cent. live in flats, and only 7 per cent, in one-family dwellings. More than half the dwellings (51.6 per cent.) have only one room and kitchen or two rooms without kitchen. Another 26.7 per cent. have two rooms and kitchen.”—(Mr. F. J. Osborn, Chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association Municipal Journal, 26/9/47.)

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

W.T.S. (Crewe).—Irrespective of our opinion in the matter, the General Secretary and Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. are condemned out of their own months. In April last they issued a manifesto to Railwaymen in which they said “The delegates” (at Birmingham in November, 1906) “also decided that all negotiations relative to the men’s conditions shall be conducted through the Head Office, and the General Secretary of the Society. It may at once be definitely accepted that until this is done the men cannot hope for any great or substantial reforms.” The italics are ours. The income of the Union in 1906 was £82,978 6s. 0d. and the expenditure £50,813 1s. 1d., of which £25,214 0s 8d. was paid to members in benefits, £69 17s. 0d. in contributions to other Unions, and £25,529 3s. 5d. went in salaries of officers and other expenses of management.

J.B. (Manchester),—At the 1903 Newcastle Conference of the L.R.C. the constitution was revised, but has not since been altered. Candidates pledge themselves to accept the constitution, and “to abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties.” At that Conference it was moved by Mr. John Hodge (Steel Smelters) and seconded by Mr. C. Freak (Boot & Shoe Operatives) “That this Labour Representation Conference, representing nearly a million organised workers, unanimously endorses the candidature of Wm. Crooks, L.C.C., for the bye-election at Woolwich, rejoices in the chance of the return of another member to Parliament who accepts the Constitution of the Committee, and begs every workman in the division to vote for Crooks.” This resolution was carried with one dissentient. The Constitution was revised after the passing of this resolution. At the fourth Conference (Bradford, 1904) the Executive gave the result of the bye-election, describing Mr. Crooks as the L.R.C. candidate and included him in their list of L.R.C. candidates for the next elections. His name also appeared in the next annual report as a candidate and in the following one as an L.R.C. Member of Parliament. Mr. Crooks received £200 from the Committee for his salary for 1906, and presumably, therefore, he was taking the money of the L.R.C. at the time he sent the letter in support of Mr. Hamar Greenwood at York. No member’s salary is paid until he has signed the Constitution.

M.B. (Manchester).—It was stated by Reynold’s Newspaper of January 14th, 1906 that, among other “Socialists,” E. Belfort Bax, J. F. Green, and A. S. Headingley, all of the S.D.F., were members of the National Liberal Club, and that before being elected, every candidate must take a pledge that he will support the principles of the Liberal Party. Mr. Bax makes no secret of his membership. In the Social Democrat for July, 1902, J. B. Askew wrote : “It certainly seems curious that Bax, who is so severe on Bernstein, finds it consistent with his hatred of Liberalism to remain a member of a club which makes it a condition of membership that a member should recognise the principles of the Liberal Party . . . But then, are not the armchairs comfortable, and the whisky good ?” In the following issue Bax replied as follows: “Those members of the S.D.F. (and they count among them men who have certainly paid their tribute to the Cause in the past) who like myself are members of the N.L.C.,” etc. We believe that Mr. H. M. Hyndman is also a member. At any rate he was one of the speakers on May 25th, 1906, when Mr. W. M. Thompson was the guest at a dinner of the Club. Mr. Hyndman spoke after John Burns ! A. Hayday, S.D.F., is president of the South West Ham Radical Club of which W. Thorne and J. Jones are also members.

S.T. (Glasgow).—The S.D.F. “demand” is for “compulsory military training” and this cannot be had without military discipline. The S.D.F. must recognise this, because in that weird document which they term their programme they declare for the abolition of standing armies (number not stated) and the establishment of national citizen forces (number also omitted) and afterwards the abolition of courts-martial; all offences against discipline to be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts. So that they anticipate there will be offences against discipline even when they have national citizen forces.

Tory Reform—The Old, Old Story (1944)

From the June 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

A group of Conservative Members of Parliament, over forty of them, have drawn up a Statement, and formed themselves into the Tory Reform Committee. As a result, they say, of joint work on a number of separate issues, like the Beveridge Report, Post-War Reconstruction, the Catering Bill, Civil Aviation, War Pensions, Education, and so on, they have found “that there exists among us a common outlook on the principles which should govern the conduct of political affairs.”

We are therefore dealing with a considered written statement by an influential group of prominent Tory M.P.s—(Forward! by the right; a Statement by the Tory Reform Committee)—giving some indication of their estimate of the shape of things to come, and their reaction to them.

They start off with what will probably be the main theme of the Armistice and post-war years : —

“The spirit of National Unity, developed in war and consecrated on the battlefields, must be preserved in the period of reconstruction.

The chief task of statesmanship will be to maintain that unity, and carry that spirit on into the years of peace.

There must be give and take between all classes of the community, between employers and workers … if the national objectives are to be obtained.” (p. 2.)

We can certainly agree with Viscount Hinchingbrooke there. As usual, we the workers will give, and they, the Tory employers—will take.

We are very promptly informed in the next point what the spirit of national unity is for : —

“The standard of living of this country can only be restored and improved if maximum production is regarded as the joint responsibility of capital, management and labour, working as partners.” (p. 3.)

The next bit is almost word for word what we read in Mr. Arthur Deakin’s articles in the Transport Workers’ Record : —

“We consider that a man who invests his skill and labour in an industry should feel an interest in and exercise an influence over that industry, equal in degree, if not in kind, to that exercised by the man who invests his savings.” (p. 3.)

So that’s where the Hon. W. W. Astor and Sir Alfred Beit got their wealth—they saved it up.

“To this end we welcome the extension of Production Committees.” (p. 3.)

After saying that Trade Unions will help in the future towards “increased efficiency,” they pronounce against the retention of war-time controls—”management must be given full and unhampered freedom.”

Two further great reforms are income-tax collection on current earnings and “a prosperous agriculture.” Then comes Compulsory Military Service.

“We regard Compulsory Military Service as an essential part of our democratic system.” (p. 4.)

The reason for Compulsory Military Service (Conscription) is given in the next spasm : —

The Principle of Empire Unity.

“Only as a United Commonwealth can we play our proper part with America, Russia and China in any international organisation which may be devised for world security. (p. 5.)

It will no longer be sufficient to say that each part of the Empire is primarily responsible for its own local defence unless at the same time adequate Imperial forces of all arms are so disposed throughout the world that they can be moved in sufficient time to defend any threatened points. (p. 5.)

“We recognise the need to ensure that British industry is at least as well equipped as that of its industrial rivals,” they say.

They require the maintenance of high standards of “industrial efficiency” (p. 8). They hold a substantial increase in our export trade to be essential “if this country is ever to regain the standard of living to which it has been accustomed.” which can only be achieved “if industry is enterprising in the quest for markets” (p. 9). They want the birth-rate to be increased (Family Allowances).

"There must be “state ownership of certain monopolies,” and a revival of “a widespread healthy and vigorous private enterprise.” (p. 10.)

A point for the Labour Party : —

“The nationalisation of the Bank of England would therefore make no practical difference.” (p. 12.)

Finally, they say on Demobilisation and Resettlement : —

“At the end of the last war, carefully prepared plans had to be abandoned because the Services did not understand, and therefore would not accept them. (p. 14.)

Summing up.

No Socialist ever expected the Conservative Party, not oven its Reform Committee, to have any proposals whatever for the solution of to-day’s social problem.

We have cited the actual written words of their own publication on policy, to show that their only possible idea at the conclusion of this war is to start all over again, still more scientifically, with Conscription, the Beveridge Report, increased efficiency, better education, greater export trade, larger share of the market, increased armaments—the same old game of a dog chasing its own tail, which leaves the worker in the same position as before.

Stupid workers who are led away by this sort of rubbish, or the feeble imitation of it called the Labour Party, or the I.L.P., cannot expect anything else than hard work, low wages and insecurity until the next war, when a new Tory Reform Committee will issue “the old, old story that is ever new.”

Horatio.

What is a Realistic Attitude for the Working-Class? (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

A leading article in the Daily Telegraph, July 26th, contained the following:—

“It is the intention of the General Council of the T.U.C. to recommend to the full congress when it meets next September acceptance of a scheme for compulsory national service after the end of hostilities in the far East. . . . Hitherto whenever compulsory national service has been proposed, whether in parliament or elsewhere, trade-union leaders have opposed it. Thai they should now have changed is an encouraging indication of a more realistic attitude of mind. . . . Also it is permissible to hope, trade-union leaders now see that national service is, in the truest sense of the word, democratic, and provides the best possible antidote to class-consciousness, whether it takes the form of class, war theorising or of mere foolish snobbishness.”

Surely the most realistic attitude for the trade unions together with the rest of the working-class is to take into consideration the most important facts of their existence. First their poverty. Secondly their enslavement, due to capitalist ownership of the means of life, and thirdly their incessant straggle to raise wages above the poverty line to which they are condemned by the merchandise character of their labour-power.

These facts are the outcome of the class ownership of the means of wealth-production. Consequently a realistic policy for the working-class is to organise politically with the sole object of establishing a system in which the means of wealth-production shall be the common property of all. Under such a system a real democracy and a settled plan for production and distribution would put an end to poverty. The abolition of classes would end the incessant struggle over wages by removing the cause of class antagonism-, i.e., the class ownership of the means of life and the resulting enslavement of the working-class.

This the leader writer of the Daily Telegraph might say is theorising, but it is the logical result of reasoning from hard facts, and it is on hard facts that sound theory and a realistic attitude are built up.

F. Foan