The World of Plenty? (1957)

From the November 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have always said that under this capitalist system the most decisive factor in production is the profit motive, and that production itself is geared to a marketing system that does not take any account of the real social needs of the community. We have said that capitalism channels all men's efforts down the narrow inhibited path of commerce and reduces his vast potentialities in the field of production to within the bounds of profit making. These assertions and the whole tragedy of capitalism and its contradictions are exemplified nowhere with more grim irony than in the problem feeing the American Government, the problem of agricultural surpluses, the ever-increasing accumulation of unsold stocks of food in the U.S.A.

To release these huge surpluses on the world’s markets would inevitably cause a slump in prices of agricultural commodities, bringing in its wake disaster for the farming community, whose repercussions might extend even to an industrial crisis. From there might ensue a repetition of conditions that existed all over the world in the early 1930's.

Since 1940 production on U.S. farms has increased one-third. This is due largely to the modernisation of farming methods, more machinery, better fertilisers, etc. The world's markets could not consume the increased supplies at the existing prices, so to offset a fall in the prices of farm produce, and prevent large numbers of unemployed in agriculture, the U.S. Government employed a method of buying up all the surplus at subsidised prices This was not a great philanthropic gesture on the part of the Government directed towards the farmer. Besides the economic necessity of maintaining stable conditions in agriculture, this policy was also part of a political campaign to woo the vote of the farmer. This is a very important vote, as the agricultural community comprises a very powerful pressure group, and any party that antagonises them can expect at least vastly reduced support, if not electoral death. The policy of subsidising farm products resulted in even greater surpluses, for the subsidy was made flexible and higher prices were paid out in accordance with the success of overseas sales. In view of these price guarantees, even greater over-expansion was caused, with the consequent boosting of production.

These surplus food stocks are not only very costly (five billion dollars a year), but are becoming a great embarrassment to the U.S. Government.

An investigation was made by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation into the advisability of diverting food surpluses to the under-developed countries of the world, but the difficulties arising out of such a project were found to be so wide and varied that very little was done about any proposals put forward by this organisation.

The American Government, with an eye to increasing its political prestige in Poland during the disturbances there in 1956, made generous offers of help in the way of food supplies to the Polish Government. These offers met with stiff opposition from countries like Canada, who hold the markets in Poland, so this offer had to be withdrawn.

However, the most important effort made by the U.S. Government to reduce these agricultural surpluses was the creation of the Soil Bank in 1956. This is a system whereby farmers are paid to take acreage out of production; e.g., for 1957 the U.S. signed up 233,453 farmers to take 12,784,968 acres of wheat alone out of production in return for $230,974,475 in payments. This system was to operate over a period of three years.

Ezra Benson, the Secretary of Agriculture, did not want to put this scheme into operation until 1957, but politicians, with an eagle eye on the General Election of November 1956, brought such pressure to bear that he was forced to start making payments to farmers in 1956. The Soil Bank was hailed by the two major political parties as the solution to the farm problem, but they reckoned without the narrow individualism of men in business under capitalism.

In 1956 260 million dollars were paid out to farmers, and the organisation of the Soil Bank was so ineffective that money was even paid out to farmers who had already tried to grow crops on the acres they had donated and failed. Wheat farmers who received payments for taking wheat out of production grew barley or rye instead. In some cases the top soil was sold and the barren ground that was left was put into the Soil Bank. Pasture land was ploughed up and sown with crops. Fertiliser was piled on, and rows sown closer together. The combined result of all this was that in 1956 agricultural production broke all records.

Now let us turn to the desperate need for food that exists among millions of the world's population. The Agricultural Review (October 1956) had this to say:—

 "Nutritional experts affirm that more than one-half of the world’s inhabitants, including many engaged in agriculture itself, are still not getting enough to eat."

While the minimum subsistence level is assessed at 2,200 calories per day, it is stated that 1,166,000,000 people consume less than 2,200 calories. The poverty-ridden countries of India, Pakistan, China and Japan make up the majority of this number, but there are workers in every country suffering from malnutrition, including large numbers working in agriculture itself.

These conditions exist because of the very nature of capitalism itself. There is no question of organising production so as to meet the needs and requirements of humanity. What is needed is a system of society wherein the means of production shall be held in common ownership by all of humanity instead of a privileged few.

Wherein production can be consciously regulated to meet human needs and requirements. Wherein commodities are not produced for sale to the highest bidder, but are produced for the benefit of all mankind. Only in Socialism can there be found the answer to the problems of the working classes of this world. 

Joan Lawrence

"Think of It—" (1957)

From the November 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are quite a few millions who have never yet made contact with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, although there are millions who scan the popular Press, in the columns of which the words Socialist, Socialism. Communist and Communism are daily used when commenting on world events.

The important point we emphasise once again is that the popular Press never defines these terms, invariably associated as they are with the Labour Party or the Russian Communist Party. The Socialist Party of Great Britain on the contrary has consistently stressed that the use of these terms has no relation whatsover to the Socialism which we advocate. We define what we mean by Socialism, and this definition is displayed on all our publications.

“Think of it—!” Also the Socialist Party has likewise persistently pointed out that the Labour and Communist Parties are purely social reform parties. These parties do not advocate Socialism or Communism. Consequently, therefore, we have always opposed their policies as confusion; as a betrayal of working class interests, because only through the establishment of Socialism can emancipation from the wage slavery of Capitalism be accomplished.

But the popular Press voices the interests of the Capitalist property owning class, and by persistently confusing its readers with the use of the words Socialist, Socialism, etc., in relation to the Labour and Russian party policies, they render a signal service to the ruling class.

There are, however, amongst the working class many who do appreciate the distinction which we have so far outlined, but who nevertheless are still unconvinced of the need of associating themselves actively with the work upon which [we] are engaged. To these, therefore, we repeat our appeal to more closely consider our claim. We recall again, therefore, a few of the more outstanding facts concerning our activities down the years.

For instance, this journal has appeared without a break, despite the difficulties of the war years, since 1904. Further, this publication has been supplemented with numerous pamphlets dealing with the more important events and phases of Socialist criticism. In the two world wars, for example, our opposition was clearly and promptly stated, war being the outcome of international rivalry of world capitalism for the domination of the world’s markets, trade routes, spheres of influence. This is a very brief record of our efforts to win the working class to Socialism but it has, above everything else, revealed the important value of our Socialist principles, distinguishing us from all other political parties. These principles, guiding the Party towards its Socialist objective, are as sound today as when they were first published; they have been the touchstone which has enabled the Party, through the most critical and testing rimes, to declare, without hesitation, its policy in relation to the circumstances and events of those times.

Down the years again, in season and out, our representatives have advocated Socialism as the only alternative to this “thieves' kitchen “—the capitalist system. Times and circumstances have changed, but despite the “Welfare State,'' in which the working class are being deluded into believing “that all is well now,'' they are still faced with a constant struggle, through their various industrial organisations, in the attempt to maintain adequate living standards. Slums galore still exist throughout the land, and the constant threat of another world war hovers over their heads like a nightmare.

Today, therefore, we are attempting to contact the working class in various districts through the medium of organised canvassing, and we plead for your sympathetic consideration to the claims of these canvassers to hold your attention for a few moments. In this respect you can render invaluable help, so that possible meetings may be planned in your locality to enable us to state more fully the case for Socialism “ Think of it! “ This is all we ask, and having thought, we are convinced that you will soon be wanting to help us in our task.

Finally, the establishment of Socialism is not just a utopian dream, but a commonsense practical proposition. This frustrating cut-throat economic capitalist system which daily haunts working class life can be replaced by a more humane social order, Socialism, in which there will be an opportunity for all to give according to their ability, and to receive according to their need. Beyond this there will open out prospects for each and all to cultivate whatever latent talents they possess, which capitalist exploitation for profit, today denies. No longer will the nation’s youth be called upon to engage in senseless fratricidal fighting, but on the contrary inspired to play its part with every member of the community in establishing social relationships whereby the world's populations may live in peaceful harmony.

There are vast and incalculable potential power resources in existence today sufficient to ensure a free, happy and abundant life for the whole human race under the common ownership of such possibilities. “ Think of it!

Billy Iles

Inspiring Conference in U.S.A. (1957)

Party News from the November 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Report of Our Fraternal Delegate 

As a delegate from the Socialist Party of Great Britain I attended the Conference of the World Socialist Party of the United States on August 31st and September 1st and subsequently visited Detroit, Winnipeg and New York.

The Conference was attended by about 30 members and sympathisers, many of whom had made a Long journey to get there. One had come over 3,000 miles from Los Angeles, three about 800 miles from Detroit, and four about 200 miles from New York. This is an example of the difficulty our comrades in America are faced with owing to the scattered nature of the membership in such a large country. Some who wished to attend were unable to do so owing to the distance from Boston and the time they would have had to take off from work.

The proposals, ideas, arguments and general discussion were almost identical with what takes place at our own conferences, and was a striking example of how parties based on the same principles react in a similar way to conditions that are largely the same.

On the evening of the first day a social was held, which was attended by about fifty members and friends. At the social films of activities were shown and the recordings from groups in different parts of the world. This was a very inspiring part of the Conference, and an indication of the genuine international character of our movement. Recordings came from Los Angeles, San Francisco, on the west coast of the U.S.A.; from Canada, Australia and London, the latter included a recording of our Austrian comrade. There was also a recording from Ireland, which came too late for the Conference, but was heard afterwards, and also a cable with greetings from Iceland.

The recordings were a considerable advance upon the customary cables of greetings. To me it was very heartening to hear comrades from so many distant places actually speaking to us; particularly when I recognised the voices of two former members of the S.P.G.B. speaking from Australia.

The recordings had such an effect that at the Conference the next day resolutions were passed recommending that recordings should be taken of public and class lectures to be exchanged between parties and branches for their mutual advantage.

On the second day of the Conference there was a dinner in the evening, at which the Conference discussions continued until the room had to be cleared. The next day there was a picnic to a park just outside Boston. After this most of the delegates had to make their way home.

The warmth and comradeship of my reception at the Conference was something I will always remember. Also the work of one of the Boston comrades, who spent most of the first night and the next day transferring the different recordings on to spools so that they could be sent abroad without delay for others to hear.

On Friday morning, September 6th, I went with Comrade Rab to Detroit, taking films and recordings with us. Here again I met the same warm and comradely reception. I spoke at a meeting on Saturday evening, at which there were many questions and a lively discussion. Owing to a misunderstanding, the meeting was not advertised as early as it might have been, and I understood afterwards that some who would have attended learned of it too late to do so. There was another meeting later, in a member’s house, to which about 40 turned up. I said a few words and then Comrade Rab took over. We both answered questions.

While in Detroit a number of members and friends went for a picnic across the Canadian border to Lake Erie and had a very pleasant time. I was also taken for a trip to the factories and learned that there were about 150 thousand out of employment. Some huge factories had completely closed down, partly due to automation, which requires only one storied buildings, and partly, I was informed, because industry was slowly moving out of Detroit

On Friday, 13th September, I left for Winnipeg. There I also met the same warm reception I had become familiar with. I arrived after 1 a.m. to find four members waiting to collect me. They took me to the member’s house where I was to stay, and I was staggered to find a group waiting up to greet me. After a short time they had to disperse, as most of them were due at work the next day.

On Sunday afternoon I spoke at a meeting. The attendance was not what the members had hoped, but there were over fifty present. There were good questions and discussions, and a collection that covered the expenses of the meeting and left some over. There was also a good sale of literature.

On the following Wednesday evening I was given ten minutes to address the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council. I had a good reception, and a considerable number of Western Socialists and Socialist Standards were distributed. It seemed to me, after listening to a political discussion at the council meeting (about 100 delegates were present), that there was good material there for our Canadian comrades to work on.

On Thursday morning, the 19th September, I left for New York, arriving there at 6 p.m. I spoke the same evening at a small meeting that was hurriedly arranged. The next two days I was shown around New York.

On Saturday evening, 21st September, I left for Boston, arriving at midnight. On Sunday night I spoke at a meeting of members and friends at Headquarters, largely giving my impressions of my visit. On Monday night the Boston comrades held a farewell party for me, where I said goodbye to those I had met for such a short and inspiring time. The next morning I left for London.

I would add a few words on my impressions—necessarily scanty.

The standard of living appears to be much higher than in England. Apart from the rush hour in the subways, there is no sign of rush and tear. The cities are cleaner and more open. Even the factory districts I saw are clean and fresh looking compared with European. Boston has a factory, which I only saw by moonlight, that is graceful, set in gardens, and looks like the type we hope to see in the future. In general there is none of the smokiness we see here, and the factories are not crowded together. I was told it is different in Chicago, but I did not see that city. The streets are very wide, and there are special roads for fast moving traffic. The buildings are huge—apart from the skyscrapers—and the shops immense, clean and light,. The houses I have been in are charming and mainly built of wood.

All the time I was in the U.S. and Canada the members everywhere could not do too much for me. The hospitality I received was amazing. It was the best time I have ever had in my life. Everywhere I went I was struck with the enthusiasm of members who are ploughing a much harder furrow than we are. They have told me of their intentions to stir things up in the future, and I am convinced that the next member of the party that goes there next year will witness the result of these intentions. I have made many new friends that I will take care to keep contact with, and whom I will always remember with warmth.

Before concluding, I must pay a tribute to the herculean efforts of Comrade Gloss in securing recordings from distant parts and for organising my trip so successfully. Also to Comrade Rab, with whom I spent many cordial and exciting days. With these two and other members and friends I had numerous pleasant and inspiring discussions.

Finally, I must add how valuable I think these interchanges of visits are, and I hope it will be possible for a much larger interchange in the near future. The better we know each other and the more closely knit our international movement is, the faster we will progress towards the end we all have in common

Gilmac.

Has Bevan Sold the Pass? (1957)

From the November 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

A lot of people who have for years worshipped Aneurin Bevan have now turned against their hero because of his support for the H-Bomb at the Labour Party Conference. Bevan says that he is as strongly against the bomb as ever he was and that his speech and vote at Brighton (decided on "after a lot of agonising thinking"), were only designed to find "the most effective way of getting the damned thing destroyed": but this a bit too subtle for those who have passionately believed that Bevan was hundred per cent against the bomb and now find that he isn't.

But actually the disgruntled Bevanites have little ground for complaint for, as it happens, Bevan has changed his politics hardly at all. If any deception has been carried out it is their own self-deception; an obstinate refusal to take note of that Bevan has for years been saying and doing.

If a few of them are genuine pacifists who resolutely refuse to support armaments or war, they are fully entitled to be opposed to Bevan who supported World War II and the Korean War, and conscription and re-armament, but they cannot pretend that Bevan has deceived them about his record of war-supporting.

With others the revulsion of feeling may appear to be more soundly based, but again it will not stand examination. They take the view (like Bevan) that armaments are necessary and that war is sometimes unavoidable and must be supported no matter what the cost in death and destruction. They reject the Socialist view that war arises from capitalism and can only be got rid of by establishing Socialism. They can stomach it all, the millions of dead and maimed, the trench warfare, machine guns and artillery, the bombing raids, the napalm and even the A-Bomb—but the H-Bomb. No! The H-Bomb, they say is horrible, unthinkable, and on account of it they will destroy their beloved reader, Bevan. But they have no serious ground for indignation with Bevan on this count, for he long ago made it clear that in his view he and others supported the second World War and the Labour Government of 1945-51 have no moral or logical case against the H-Bomb.

Writing in the News Chronicle (9/3/1955) he said :-

"Those of us who concurred in the making of the atom bomb and tolerated the saturation bombing of the last war have no moral or logical case against the hydrogen bomb. All three are methods and weapons of imprecision, that is, it is known they will destroy the civilian population and all the civil installations of the enemy."

He went on to admit that the addition of the H-Bomb to the weapons of war would only be "carrying the logic of our past behaviour to its furthermost extremities" but put his own view that on practical grounds every effort should be made to get international agreement against the bomb. It is hard to see how those of his followers who swallowed all the other horrors of war making can justifiably wax indignant now because of a minute shift in Bevan's policy. Yet an irate reader of Tribune can write that Bevan's action has left "a gaping hole" in all the principles of the Socialist rank and file: "The tender, compassionate heart of our Socialism has been torn out and replaced with a dessicated calculating machine." (Tribune, 11/10/57).

Socialists, of course, never had any confidence in Bevan, or believed for one moment that he adhered to or ever had any understanding of Socialist principles; and, nobody with Socialist principles would have supported him or the Labour Government or the wars of capitalism that that government had a hand in.

But then Socialists do not believe in leadership, the danger and uselessness of which are well shown by the Bevanite movement. If the Bevanites had been Socialists they would have had their own clean clear conviction that Socialists do not take on the administration of capitalism, and they would, therefore, never have supported the Labour Government. They would have known that the government that runs capitalism has all to do all the obnoxious things that capitalism requires of them, including the waging of war. They would have seen the absurdity of putting a Labour Government in charge of British capitalism and of its war-machine with a mandate to keep it going and of then demanding of them that they behave as Socialists.

But the Bevanites were not and are not Socialists, they were everything and nothing, a motley collection of individuals united only by the leader's spell-bending oratory:-

"The Communist, the pacifist, the believer in the innate virtue of the Soviet State, the hater of American 'capitalism,' the general do-gooder," all see something of themselves reflected in the glowing rhetoric of Mr. Bevan." - (Manchester Guardian, 17/3/55.)    

Well, they have got what they asked for; they laboured to feed his vanity and build his reputation, and now he doesn't much mind what they do. Will it cure them? That remains to be seen, but there is no evidence yet that they have learned the uselessness of  leadership for the establishment of Socialism.

It might help them on their way to getting a better understanding if they noted that Bevan, whom they think has played them false, had his own ideas on leadership. The leader of the Labour Party ought to be, he said, not someone from "the top drawer of society" (meaning, presumably, Attlee and Gaitskell), but should be drawn "from those who had spent their lives in the Labour and Trade Union movement, and who not only understood Socialism with their heads, but knew it with their hearts." (Manchester Guardian, 18/6/51). And it all ends with the heart of Bevan and the head of Gaitskell and Attlee, uniting as one on the Labour Party's H-bomb policy. So little difference does the kind of leader make, and so necessary is it that the workers should learn to think for themselves and not leave their thinking to leaders. 

Edgar Hardcastle