Housing, Planning and Modern Life (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I was struck with the magnificence of the building . . . ‘One should think,' said I, ‘that the proprietor of all this must be happy.'  ‘Nay, Sir,' said Johnson, ‘all this excludes but one evil — poverty.' "

Boswell's Life of Johnson

People marrying in 1955 have no better prospect of somewhere to live than they had in 1945. That is not an uninformed guess by this writer: it is a statement made on the third of July this year in the Sunday Pictorial. How much attention it gained, among the nymphs and the strip cartoons, is uncertain. It should have had a great deal—most of all from those who believe that capitalism can solve its problems.

Between the wars, four million houses were built in Great Britain, and by 1939 there were twelve millions altogether. With the slum clearance programmes two-thirds completed, about a quarter of a million remained condemned as unfit for habitation, and nearly half a million were “overcrowded." Another half-million were destroyed or severely damaged during the war—most in docklands and crowded industrial areas, and so anticipating further “slum clearance." In 1945, authorities agreed that four million new houses were needed in the next ten years; in fact, at the end of that period two millions have been built

Even allowing that it is only half the estimate, two millions is an impressive number. Indeed, nobody wants figures to know that a great deal of building has been done. Small, semi-rural towns have dilated to populous urban areas; on the outskirts of cities, the council estates (and latterly “private" ones, too) have mushroomed; in the cities themselves, clumps of prefabs and great chest-of-drawers blocks of flats have risen on bomb-sites, waste patches, football fields— every place, in, fact, where there was land to spare for the housing of working people.

The solution of the housing problem has been the great promise of the postwar years; getting a council house, once slightly shameful (“corned beef islands," the estates were called), has become heart's desire to millions. Local authorities, faced with endless lists of applicants, made dire need almost their sole criterion. Most have used the “points" system to ensure that the houses went to the largest families with the worst accommodation: a temporary relief which ensures more overcrowding in a few years on the council estates. Outside of what is provided by the councils, the letting of houses has entirely disappeared. Virtually all that is available to childless or one-child couples is furnished accommodation at extortionate prices, or house-purchase.

For most people, buying a house is out of the question. Usually a tenth of the price must be paid as deposit; add on legal charges and other expenses, and an initial outlay of £300 is needed for a very modest house. Recently, it has become possible to obtain 95 per cent. and even 100 per cent, mortgages: that sends up the weekly repayments to something like £4—again, out of the question for most people. More are buying houses, because it is the only solution to their housing problem; over 90 per cent. of them—according to figures recently published by the Association of Building Societies—houses costing £2,000 or less. In short, some working people can buy houses, but only cheap ones.

What is obvious is that all to-day’s housing schemes rest entirely on the assumption of full employment. Buying a house takes 15 or 20 years, and if you do it for less than £3 a week you’re lucky. Council tenancies cost approximately double those of the older houses with controlled rents. In the last few years there has been a great deal of talk about “improved standards of living” that has been based largely on working people buying their own houses and being fixed up in smart little boxes with all-electric kitchens. The truth is that most people, with jobs and plenty of overtime, struggle for financial survival after having their housing problem solved. The Daily Herald, on the 16th of last month, gave some sobering facts about die lucky ones who are supposed to exemplify the better standard of living:

"In a London court last week an eviction order was granted against a £15-a-week factory worker for non-payment of rent. He has been living in a 32s.-a-week council house, with three young children, a host of debts, and a TV set.

The man who sought and won the eviction order against him on behalf of the local council had no sense of elation about the success, of his mission.

He, too, is living above his means. . .  He can't afford to smoke or drink. He hasn't a suit to his name—and wears sports clothes for economy reasons. He has already borrowed £245 against his life insurance—and he now faces a summons for non-payment of £5 rates."

The housing problem, in fact, is not post-war at all: it is the continuation of one of capitalism’s oldest problems. The working class never has been adequately housed. Before the war it was the slum problem—rehousing people who lived in such squalor that their children were malformed and tuberculous. Plenty still live in those conditions, by the way, and are not rehoused because they can’t afford to be. However, the dominant factor in the housing problem since the war has been that most people are in work and so are asking for houses to themselves. In this writer’s town there is a row of houses, built just before the war, which still bears a signboard announcing in faded letters that £20 down will buy one. Passers-by lament the change without realizing what it was. Now, they haven’t houses; then, they hadn’t the money. As soon as there is legislation which allows rents to be raised (and that seems a near-future inevitability) the post-war housing problem will fall back into its century-old perspective of people needing houses but unable to seek them.

For—and this is the great fact about the housing problem—houses are not produced to satisfy needs. Nor is anything else in this world. Food is not produced to be eaten, clothes to be worn, or anything else for its utilitarian purpose. All things, under capitalism, are produced with one motive only: sale and profit. Thus, at times when millions have needed it, food has been destroyed; thus, at any time (including today) anybody can have what he can pay for and nothing else. Note, please, that rich people have no housing problem. The Observer and the Sunday Times advertize houses to satisfy anyone; at £4,000 and upward.

How is it, though, that two million new houses in ten years leave the demand still unappeased? There are all sorts of contributory immediate answers—people keep on marrying, millions have shared houses for years, and so on. They all boil down to the fact that working-class families are in unsuitable accommodation and want to get out of it: the more important fact is that it always was unsuitable. Houses built for working people are small, cheap houses—soon overcrowded and soon dilapidated. The labourers’ dwellings and tenements and. industrial estates of the last century are the slums of this. Many thousands of people, incidentally, will still live in houses which were flung up over a 100 years ago to cram workers into the industrial towns. Go through the Lancashire mill-towns, and you see rows of grimy little dwellings with dates—1833, 1834, and so on—on their fronts and earth-closets at their backs. Go through London’s suburbs, and you see the unlovely prefabs of 1945; many of them now are having their lives formally extended for several years because their inhabitants cannot be rehoused elsewhere. So there is a perpetual process like that of the Augean stables, where the troublesome matter flows in at exactly the same rate as it it cleared out.

The biggest post-war housing project of all has been the building of “new towns.” Really vast estates attached to smallish country towns, they are the planners’' pride. It is worth examining them to see how much they really contribute to better living standards and human happiness. Essentially, they represent the way of life provided for the modern industrial worker; the north-country towns do the same for older, heavier industries, and the outer suburbs of southern cities the different amenities of the petrol-engine and electric-motor era. In them is incorporated, actually and potentially, the culture of the mid-twentieth century.

A new town has no music-halls, no street traders or little gold-mines. It is laid out in careful uniformity, and all the inhabitants keep their front gardens tidy because they are told they must. The buildings are grouped neatly according to function or income; shops together, civic buildings together, rows of houses with garages for the higher-income groups. Much has been made of this last point; in new towns, they say, the officials and professional people and managers live close to the rest. The fact may be true, but its implication is nonsense. There is as much snobbery in the new towns as anywhere else, and placing people close together makes no difference to it. In every big city in the world, wealth and poverty are contiguous with a world between them. The writer knows plenty of places where one side or one end of a street regards the other as “a different class."

The workers in the new towns are dependent on local industries, which are mostly of the newer sorts—plastics, electronics and so on. With largish families (the chief condition for getting the houses) and high rents, they can hardly lead lavish lives. Consequently, there are not many pubs or cinemas, and the new towns—like the estates— form “community associations” which really are means of recreation for people who have not much money and must look after young children in the evenings. Local transport generally is poor and the distances to former neighbourhoods considerable: the new towns impose fixed ways of living as firmly as the old.

Are those better, more satisfying ways? Consider the man living in Harlow or Stevenage or one of the others. He is fairly young and fairly skilled and has a family. He works in a radio or plastics factory; he works as many hours as he can to make ends meet, and if the factory closes half the town will be unemployed. He has a television set and complains of the programmes. His house has a refrigerator in which his wife keeps a pint of milk overnight during three weeks of the year. His wife uses Omo and Daz so that her family’s clothes are white, and they all use green toothpaste to keep their breath sweet. They haven’t a book in the house, but they take in Reveille, Tit-bits, Woman and the Daily Mirror. They are scared of having more children, getting diseases, and Henry’s firm becoming slack, and they do the football pools in the hope of buying themselves out of it all.

The condition of the working class, in new towns and old towns remains a deplorable one of insecurity and want. If material improvements can be discerned (which is debatable) they are outweighed by frustrations and fears of which our grandfathers knew nothing. Indeed, the degree scarcely matters: if things became much better they would still be bad. Housing is one of the innumerable problems which capitalism has created and cannot solve, simply because capitalism has no care for human needs. Many people refuse to believe that such problems cannot be solved within the capitalist system: the astonishing thing is that they are refusing to believe their own eyes.

Can Socialism house people, as people should be housed? The short and simple answer is that there will be no money barrier to the satisfaction of any need when all the means of production are owned by every person. The cheap and shoddy in houses, as in everything else, will vanish when there is no profit motive. As for the question of space—well, think of all the buildings which nobody will want. Shops, banks, exchanges, offices of every description ... and, in addition, a lot (an awful lot) of buildings which only a perverse society could think suitable for human beings.

Robert Barltrop

NOTE: The figures about rents and house prices apply to southern England. In the north and in Scotland they are rather lower. So are wages.

Notes by the Way: The Contradictions of Nationalism (1955)

The Notes by the Way Column from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Contradictions of Nationalism

While Capitalism lasts so will its class and international economic struggles, many of them taking on a racial, religious or nationalist appearance whenever this suits the needs of some interested group. Socialists do not support these manifestations of prejudice. But the supporters of Nationalist Movements make use of two plausible arguments. One is that it is a good thing to have a National Capitalist Group in power in preference to Capitalist rule by foreigners because the former are more progressive, and the other is that by winning national independence you get rid of preoccupation with Nationalism and thus make it easier to get down to Socialism.

There is nothing in either argument. In comparatively recent times Egypt, India, Burma, the Middle East Arab States, Hungary, Poland and South Africa, have emerged from greater or less degree of foreign rule and their absence of progress in any sense that matters, is matched by their extreme preoccupation with nonsensical Nationalism.

It has been noticed by many newspaper correspondents in India that there has been in recent years, not a decline, but a growth of Nationalism and now Indians are complaining of growing intolerance towards themselves shown in the countries of South East Asia. Mr. S. K. Patil, one of the chiefs of the Indian Congress Party, has returned from a tour of Burma, Siam, Malaya, and Singapore, “where, he said, dangerous and poisonous Nationalism, if allowed to develop, would result in intolerance for Indians and other foreigners.”—(Times, 17/9/55.)

Nationalism inevitably has its ridiculous side because in the world as it is today the dreams and pretensions of the Nationalists (all of them, including the British, Russian and American) so frequently will not fit into the facts of Capitalism.

The Irish Nationalists may dream as much as they like about ancient myths and glories but the Irish Government is now inviting German Capitalism to come into Ireland to develop the textile industry (Financial Times 13/9/55) so that it can sell more in the British market; though at the same time it is “banning the import of cheap shirts from the Far East in order to protect the jobs of Irish textile workers" (Daily Express 20/9/55.) Doubtless some of the Irish Nationalists would like to live in a really Irish Ireland but in the real world they can’t get the Irish to speak their own language and they need foreign markets and foreign capital, and by a curious arrangement the British Post Office publication “Post Offices in the United Kingdom” contains not only the Post Offices in Britain, but also those in the Irish Republic. With so many Irish workers working in this country the Irish Government doubtless finds it convenient to have easy means provided for Irish emigrants in Britain to send correspondence and remittances to their relatives.

#    #    #    #

The Trade Battle across the Iron Curtain

A year or two ago there were two propaganda drives going on, one to expand British exports to U.S.A. and Canada and the other to popularise the idea that Russia could offer an attractive market for British exports.

The first has received a jolt lately since some big contracts in U.S.A. have been awarded, not to the lowest tender, coming from British firms, but to American firms quoting higher. And, according to the Daily Express (1/9/55) British exports to Canada are not looking too good;

Trade men in America say that Western Germany is making an all out drive to rob Britain of her place as the world’s second largest exporter of engineering goods—next to the U.S.

Main “ battleground" is likely to be in Canada—where already British sales of engineering goods are losing ground to the Germans.

And it appears that Russian competition is a factor in certain lines. The Daily Express of the same date reported the following:—

Dumping of matches in Britain by Russia and other Iron Curtain countries has forced the giant Bryant and May match combine to close one of its plants.

The “Brymay” boss, Sir Anthony Elkins, says this morning that the Red competition is “severe."

That is a masterly under-statement. For imports of Russian matches have leaped from 72,000 gross boxes in 1953 to a current rate of 774,000 gross boxes.

For the statistically minded that is 111,456,000 boxes of matches a year.

#    #    #    #

Religion and Morals

A favourite side argument of religionists has always been that if there were no religion moral standards would decline. While they readily admit, and indeed make a point of asserting, that the real basis of religion is “faith” not behaviour they nevertheless find it convenient to buttress the case for religion by maintaining that the two are linked and that one falls with the other.

Now some American churchmen have had to allow that events in U.S.A. do not support the argument. They say that while religion is booming “ morality seems to be on the decline.”

The following appeared in the Observer (London, September 18, 1955):—

A record increase in Church membership in the United States is reported in figures to be released this week by the National Council of Churches of the United States. It shows a total of more than 97 million, an increase of over 2,500,000 during 1954.

There are 57 million Protestants, 32 million Roman Catholics, 5,500,000 Jews and two million Eastern Orthodox Church members. Among Protestant Churches the Baptists, with 18,500,000, have the greatest number of adherents. The Methodists are second with nearly 12 million.

Whether the present “religious boom" in the United States is deeply seated in religious conviction is doubted by Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, this year's president of the National Council of Churches. In a comment on the figures Dr. Blake says: “ Morality seems to be on the decline at the moment when there appears to be a religious boom. Preachers in this industrial age are finding modern man's anxiety for his job is just as acute as primitive man’s for a good harvest"

#    #    #    #

Dividends and Wages; and those who get them

As a propaganda move against wage claims, Sir John Braithwaite, Chairman of the Stock Exchange, recently issued a statement on the relative increase of dividends and wages since 1947. His statement, published in the Manchester Guardian (29 August, 1955) contained the following:—

The total of wages and salaries for the year ending December 31, 1954, was £9,265 millions, as against a total of £1,122 millions for interest and dividends on securities quoted on the Stock Exchange, or over eight times as great.

Wages and salaries have advanced since 1947 by 69.2 per cent. (£3,790 millions) against an increase of 32.1 per cent. (£273 millions) in interest and dividends (of winch ordinary dividends constitute 39.6 per cent). That is to say that the rise in wages and salaries is more than double the rise in interest and dividends by percentage, and nearly 14 times as much by volume.

Socialists of course are not believers in the Labour Party notion that Capitalism would be all right provided the Capitalists received rather less and the workers rather more. And one or two of the more objective defenders of Capitalism have pointed out that on the basis of the Tory argument for the free play of economic forces there is no sanctity about the division that existed in 1947 or any other year—each side gets what it can when it can.

There is, however, a useful corrective to apply to the figures. It is simply this: While “wages and salaries” cover something over 20 million workers, not to mention their still larger number of dependents, the number of shareholders is relatively a very small body. Mr. Harold Wincott, writing in the Unilever Journal “Progress” (Spring 1955, page 161) had this to say:—

“In this country, it has been estimated that out of a population of 50,000,000, only some 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 people are shareholders. Even in the more capitalistic United States, a recent inquiry by the Brookings Institution produced an estimate that shareholders numbered only some 6,500,000 out of a population of 160,000,000.

Of course, included in these apparently exclusive bands of investors are a relative handful of institutions—insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts, and so on—investing vast sums of money on behalf of a great multitude of indirect investors. But the policy holder and the contributor to a pension fund do not generally speaking regard themselves as being identified with the course of stock market prices. Theirs is a very remote and indirect link. With only three persons in every 100 in this country and four in each 100 in the United States holding shares in their own right, it is not surprising if the events in the world’s stock exchanges are normally things apart from the man in the street."

#    #    #    #

Muddle about Socialism

The Manchester Guardian (17/9/55) had a leading article deploring the confusion and ill-feeling that arise because not many of us “recognise the kind of society in which we are living.”

“American Conservatives are angry if told that their economy, far from being based on the free play of market forces, is almost as Socialist as the British system. The Russian Communists are infuriated if told that their Stakhonovite arrangements, with high wages for exceptional workers and coercion for the ordinary men, are less Socialist than much of the "British system."

The reader will have read enough of the article to see that the Manchester Guardian is doing nothing to remove the confusion. Its conclusion, a masterpiece of muddle, is that “in short our system is neither Capitalist nor Socialist, but a mixture.”

In another Journal (Tribune, 16 September, 1955), a Labour M.P., Mr. Ian Mikardo, adds his contribution. Writing under the heading “Don’t Tell Me this is Socialism,” he makes the discovery that the French system of having the nationalised gas industry and the nationalised electricity industry using jointly the same non-competitive showroom is Socialism, but the English system of having them in competition and using rival showrooms is not. 

Whoever it was that told Mr. Mikardo that either of them has anything whatever to do with Socialism, it cannot have been a Socialist And one wonders what Mr. Mikardo was telling his readers in the past when he supported the Electricity and Gas Nationalisation Acts.

According to his odd test a nationalised industry is “Socialism” if it has a monopoly. Well the Post Office has a monopoly in most of its services but Mr. Attlee long ago described it as “the outstanding example of collective Capitalism” (New Statesman, 7/11/31).

This is the first piece of light so far, and with its help we can put Mr. Mikardo, the Guardian the Americans and the Russians on the right road—that is if they want to be on the right road.

It all boils down to private Capitalism and State Capitalism and indeed on this basis and this alone America, Britain, Russia and all other countries are a mixture— but without any Socialism.

#    #    #    #

When will the Boom End ?

The economist, Mr. Roy Harrod, set out to answer this question in the Financial Times (10 September, 55). He thinks that “recession” will come in the autumn of 1956 or somewhat earlier. His reasons are that the wave of expansion of factories and equipment that began about October, 1954, will be more or less completed in two years that it was excessive in amount; and that it may be found that it cannot be fully operated. He writes:—

“In 1956, we shall be faced with the problems of recession. This might merely take the form of a welcome decline of orders to engineering industry. But it might also be found—which would be more serious—that during this period of expansion we had created, in some lines at least, excessive capacity in relation to markets or to manpower available to operate it Matters would be still worse if some recession in our export markets began to manifest itself at about the same time."

It will be noticed that though he starts off very firmly about the demonstrable feet that the 1954 spate of new orders for factories, etc., will be running out in 1956, and less firmly anticipates a recession then, he becomes quite non committal about the other factors and indeed is not sure that he knows whether there will be factories without factory workers or factories with workers, but without markets.

He remembers no doubt the many other attempts by economists, including the advisers of the Labour Governments and the present Government, to forecast from one year to another what is going to happen.

The Editorial of the Financial Times, commenting on Mr. Harrod’s article, is rather more definite than he is. The Editorial says:—

“He makes what is no doubt a sound case for the view that the investment boom is the major cause of current balance of payment difficulties, and then goes on to suggest that this may lead in turn to an excess of supply in the autumn of next year. The risk is a real one, but not perhaps a very serious one. In the past it has proved the characteristic of long-term periods of rising prices, such as the 1850's and 1860’s, to have major booms and minor recessions. In fact, the United States has absorbed three minor recessions since the war, and we have already absorbed one."

One other point made by Mr. Harrod is of interest in yiew of the current argument by employers and politicians that economic difficulties are due to wage increases and “buying sprees.” Mr. Harrod maintains that the excessive expansion of factories (encouraged by the Government when they ought, according to him to have been discouraging it) is the predominant disturbing factor.

“Other factors making towards inflation—wage increases of 7½ per cent.; consumption increase of five per cent—are trivial by comparison."

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: 4½ Per Cent. (1955)

Editorial from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

No, this is not an article about the 4½ per cent. Bank Rate but about another item of 4½ per cent. that received almost no attention in the newspapers. It had to do with the Government’s annual Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure, the latest issue, covering the years 1938-1954, being published the first week in September.

For readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter the Blue Book is not easy to understand; and when not understood its tables of figures can be very misleading as is shown from time to time by Press comments on it. But some of the tables tell us in precise terms and on official authority things that otherwise can only be conjectured on the basis of part information.

Our present comment is concerned only with the extent to which the “National Income” has increased and the way in which that increase has shown itself in every-day articles of consumption, the food, clothing, entertainment, etc., that concern us from day to day.

The total National Income (“ Gross National Product”) is shown to have increased from £5,175 millions in 1938 to £15,718 millions in 1954, but these figures do not mean that the national income has really trebled. Almost all of the difference is due merely to higher prices. No estimate is given in the Blue Book which makes allowances for price changes, but if we apply to these figures the same price allowance as is used elsewhere in the Book (Tables 21 and 22) we may assume that perhaps the real increase of the National Income since 1938 is about 25 per cent.

It is small enough for a period of 16 years, averaging about 1½ per cent. a year, but apologists will say that things would have been different if there had not been a war. In 1938 of course they were blaming the small increase of production on the slump and before that, on the previous war.

This increase of the national income has been obtained largely through the increase of the working population, notably through the reduction of the number of unemployed by 1½ million and through more married women being out at work.

The next thing is to find out what has happened to this increase, which as indicated above, may be about 25 per cent. Does it mean that in 1954 there were 25 per cent. more goods for everybody than in 1938? It does not mean this because in the first place much of the 25 per cent. increase does not take the form of everyday articles of consumption. Some of it goes into the increase of the Armed Forces and armaments, and the building of more factories and production of more factory machines. When we come down to articles of everyday expenditure the Blue Book provides us with an answer to the question.

It shows that, after allowing for price increase, the purchase of consumption goods (food, clothing, tobacco, rent, entertainment, travel, etc.), was in 1954 only 11 per cent. higher than in 1938. But as the Financial Times (6 September) pointed out the population had grown by 6½ per cent, so that “real expenditure per head was 4½ per cent up.” This, then, is the measure of what capitalism actually performs. When, therefore, the Tory Government as an election manoeuvre, held out the promise of doubling the standard of living in the next 25 years they are counting on something happening in the future for which there is no support in the past.

What have Socialists to say about this situation?

The problem is a purely Capitalist one and does not hit the Socialist case. On the contrary, it gives weighty support to what has always been the essence of that case. Socialists have never followed the reformist will o' the wisp of supposing that redistributing national income within the framework of capitalism is a solution. The Socialist case is that until capitalism is abolished and replaced by Socialism it is impossible to liberate the productive forces so that they can function for the benefit of mankind. With Socialism the immediate prospect opens up of greatly expanding the production of useful articles and services for mankind, above all by ceasing the waste of human effort on .capitalism’s wars, armaments and armed forces, and on the manifold financial and bureaucratic activities essential to capitalism but needless in a Socialist society.

Letter: The Class Struggle and Socialism (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received a further letter from the critic to whose letter we replied in the August issue.—Ed. Comm.)

Golders Green, N.W.11.

22 August, 1955.

The reply to my letter on the subject of Class Struggle and Socialism (August issue) makes no serious attempt to meet my criticisms. The class struggle, in any meaningful sense, is a struggle between class and class. The struggle for Socialism (I would not dhoqse the word struggle here, but accept it for the purpose of the present discussion) is not of one class against another but is against the whole theory and practice of classes in society. It may be deplorable that benevolent old gentlemen say, in ostrich fashion, “Let us ignore classes . . ." but when they add “. . . let us regard each other as human beings" they are stating no less than the essential truth about how people will regard each other in Socialist society. And if the achievement of such a society is our conscious aim, then we cannot start too soon to put into practice the theory we value so highly.

The Ed. Comm frequently uses the phrase “the Socialist working class.” This is not a very helpful classification, because it confuses two quite different functions. In so far as people are members of a class they think and act in class terms. In so far as people are Socialists they work for a Socialist, i.e., a classless society. This is not to say that workers cannot be Socialists. It is a criticism of the statement “I want Socialism because I’m a worker.” This statement is misleading. You want Socialism because you want to change society from a class-divided one in which you are a worker to a classless one in which you are simply and more fully a human being.

“The interests of the human race are bound up with the aspirations of the oppressed working-class in its struggle with Capitalist domination.” There is some truth is this. to the extent that workers are struggling against the Capitalist system and to introduce a system more worthy of human beings. But the separate interests of either of two antagonistic classes cannot be identical with the interests of the whole. The very term “ class ” is by definition descriptive of less than the whole of society, and that is why Socialism is not a class issue but a human one,

An individual Capitalist can be a Socialist and can join in the work of achieving Socialism on the same terms as any other person. Obviously he doesn’t have working-class aspirations—except in the sense that he seeks the welfare of workers. He, in common with the worker, can have no greater aspiration than the welfare of the whole of humanity. Whatever makes one aspire to Socialism, one certainly does not do so from the standpoint of a class that is to disappear with the realisation of Socialism.

It is quite true that I reject the conception of a Socialist working class taking political action to end class society. The Ed. Comm calls this “the Socialist conception.” Let us see to what extent this is true. The statement by the Executive Committee in the August issue on the interpretation of Cause 6 of the Declaration of Principles explains that “when the workers understand the source of their subject position and the action they must take to abolish it, they can do so by sending representatives to Parliament to take control of the State power for this purpose.” Coming into what the Executive Committee calls the region of conjecture, allowance has then to be made for “a theoretically possible attempt in some form of violent sabotage during the revolutionary reorganisation. The control of the armed forces during this period will be an effective deterrent to any such violent attempt without these forces having necessarily to be used. Should a violent minority attempt to destroy Socialism they would have to be forcibly dealt with.”

There are good grounds for the doubts that those both inside and outside the Socialist Party have about the validity of this approach. Note the curious view that Socialists would be justified in threatening or using violence to deter the violence of others. Remember that Socialism is a society in which, to quote from the Party pamphlet on War, “no coercion will be needed because each will gain from co-operating harmoniously with his fellows.” Many Socialists feel that it spoils the whole thing if the rider is added “but we are prepared to bash those who won’t co-operate.” And they have some reason for feeling this. “A violent minority attempting to destroy Socialism” does not present a picture of any kind of possible social situation that I could imagine. If it was an attempt to destroy London or the Red Army, for example, it would be meaningful to me. However, a majority at least of the E.C. must be able to visualise circumstances in which Socialism could be physically battled for. We must then proceed to ask what further social arrangements will accompany the Socialist armed forces. Are we to have Socialist prison camps, judges, and spies? Fortunately, as a “critic” I do not expect to be called upon to take up arms to defend the revolution.

Another objection to the view expressed by the E.C. is more serious, and will be treated accordingly. We are asked to imagine a stage in the future development of society when the mass of people will be Socialists, i.e. will have abandoned support of Capitalist institutions, and will have in general the attitudes to social issues that Socialists have today. What will have happened to institutions while these tremendous changes in attitudes will have taken place ? The E.C. writes of such entities as Parliament, the State, the powers of government, the armed forces, as though they will remain substantially unchanged and function as they do today, but in an environment in which the barometer of social attitudes will be registering Socialism. For such a colossal disparity to exist between prevailing attitudes and institutions in any human society would be as major a denial of all that has been learned in terms of every social science as the denial of the law of gravity would be in physical terms.

I have so far largely only criticised the case put forward by the Socialist Party. For a statement of positive views which are consistent with the above criticisms, readers are referred to the article “The Socialist Movement,” in the April, 1955 issue of Forum (published by the S.P.G.B.) and to the publications of the Movement for Social Integration.

Yours sincerely,

S. R. Parker.

Reply:

This correspondence started with our critic objecting to a statement published in these columns which declared that the interests of the human race are bound up with the triumph of a Socialist working class in the struggle to establish Socialism. (See August issue.) Our critic’s first line of attack was to state that victory in the class struggle could only be a class victory because the class struggle is the struggle between those who buy and those who sell labour power.

In reply we pointed out that this is a complete misconception of the term class struggle. In his second letter no reference is made to this; from which we conclude that that line of attack based on misconception of the class struggle has been abandoned.

The second line of attack is on the idea of a “Socialist working class ” striving for Socialism. Our critic writes:— “In so far as people are members of a class they think and act in class terms. In so far as people are Socialists they work for a Socialist, i.e. a classless society.”

This is a statement that may have the appearance of containing some meaning but which in fact says nothing. As all the people are members of a class it asks us to accept that all people “think and act in class terms.” If this meant anything it could only imply that they therefore cannot act and think in terms of a classless society. But our critic hastens to explain that it does not mean this, for he writes:—“This is not to say that workers cannot be Socialists.” (To which we would add that some individual Capitalists become Socialists, for example Marx’s collaborator F. Engels.)

We are therefore left to wonder what the statement does mean. And whatever it does mean it would have to apply equally to our critic's conception of Socialism coming through the struggle between two “groups”, Socialist and non-Socialist. It would then read:—“In so far as people are members of a group they think and act in group terms.”

Our critic carries this point about class a stage further when he says that “the separate interests of either of the two antagonistic classes cannot be identical with the interests of the whole. The very term 'class ’ is by definition descriptive of less than the whole of society, and that is why Socialism is not a class issue but a human one.”

Certainly on a long-term view Socialism is in the interest of the human race as a whole. A current illustration of this is the fact that war, inseparable from Capitalism, threatens the existence of civilization. The fact remains, however, that it is in the immediate interest of the working class, the exploited class, to abolish Capitalism and establish Socialism; the same cannot be said of the exploiting class.

Again we must point out that the above passage also necessarily applies to our critic’s conception of a group struggle, for, “ by definition ” a group is “descriptive of less than the whole of society.”

A further point made by our critic needs to be dealt with, that is the curious passage in the first paragraph of the present letter in which he tells us, in reference to the struggle for Socialism, “I would not choose the word struggle here, but accept it for the purpose of the present discussion.”

What precisely does our critic mean by this? Anyone coming to the correspondence now for the first time might imagine that, since our critic says he would not choose the word struggle, someone else must have foisted it on him. The fact is that the word was chosen by our critic and by nobody else. In his first letter (see August issue) he wrote of his own conception of Socialism coming by way of struggle between two groups, Socialists in one group and “those who are not Socialists, and who either support or acquiesce in the continuation of Capitalist institutions” in the other group. He repeatedly referred to it as a “ struggle.’

In our reply to our critics first letter we pointed out that he omitted to tell us how this group struggle is to lead to Socialism. This of course is a crucial question. He rejects the conception of a Socialist Working Class taking control of the machinery of government to establish Socialism and offers instead the conception of Socialism coming through the struggle between the two groups. But instead of answering our question as to how this struggle will lead to Socialism he offers the disingenuous plea that he “ would not choose ” the word that he did choose, the word struggle.

We can, of course, understand his difficulty. In our August issue a statement was published setting out the view of the S.P.G.B. on the unlikely but “theoretically possible” attempt by a minority of opponents to Socialism to sabotage the establishment of Socialism after a Socialist majority had gained control of the machinery of government.

Our critic wishes to attack this, but apparently does not wish to explain how that same hypothetical possibility would be dealt with on his own proposition of a struggle between a Socialist group on the one hand and on the other those “ who . . . support... the continuation of Capitalist institutions ” (his description in his first letter).

On the question of institutions of political power changing because of changing “attitudes” it would surely be to the point if our critic had produced evidence from history of a new class not needing to gain full or shared control of the machinery of government because of changing “attitudes or if he produced current evidence of such attitudes having changed and having already brought about essential changes in the Capitalist institutions of political power.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Capitalism and Labour-Saving Machinery (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received the following letter from a critic. Our reply follows—Ed. Comm.)

The Editor Socialist Standard

The article, “The Automatic Factory” in current issue of the Standard is merely demonstrating that the advantage of labour-saving machinery is offset by the fact that considerable labour is required in making and installing the machine and subsequently maintaining it and the overall saving of labour is not so great as at first appears. Yet there must be some saving of labour or the Capitalist class would not introduce it.

Will the writer tell us what is the percentage of working-class labour-power devoted to producing the essentials people really need and will still need under Socialism, contrasted with the percentage of this labour-power devoted to maintaining and defending Capitalism which percentage, from a Socialist viewpoint, is sheer waste. Will he also tell us how the first percentage is falling and the second increasing with the passing years. Perhaps that overall picture, whale not so big as it first appears, is not so small is the article suggests.

However, as Capitalism’s powers of production are in the main Capitalism's powers of destruction, it may be instructive to compare the violence of war now with the violence of war 50 years ago when the Socialist Party began telling us that with an intelligent use of such powers of production which only then existed there would be leisure and abundance for everyone.

A Socialist's best argument against Capitalism is that Capitalism is uneconomic, an argument which seems to be forgotten by Socialists nowadays. When are you going to start fighting Capitalism and cease apologising for it?

Yours fraternally, 

E. Carnell.

Reply:

As our critic says, the article showed that the saving of labour through labour-saving machinery is much smaller than is supposed by those who take a superficial view. The evidence shows that the overall increase of productivity for Britain is of the order of 1 per cent—2 per cent. a year over a period of years. If this surprises our critic it may be that he has not appreciated the point (referred to in the article) that the periodical jump for a particular industry will be much larger but it does not happen every year. The point is that firms do not scrap all their old machinery and instal new machinery each year. To do so would be a waste of labour on an enormous scale and they could not afford to do it. They must, in order to realise capital invested in the machine, wait until at least a considerable part of the machine's working life has been exhausted.

If each firm were to instal improved machinery each 20 years, with a 20 per cent. real increase of productivity, the average increase for each firm and for all firms would be 1 per cent. a year over the 20 years, or longer period.

If our critic thinks he knows of evidence that the rate of increase of productivity is larger than the figures given he should produce it. Two men well qualified to handle this problem are Colin Clark and C. F. Carter. In a recent article in the Financial Times (7/2/55) Colin Clark quoted C. F. Carter's estimate of a rise of productivity per man hour worked of 15 pet cent between 1937 and 1953, which, as Clark said, is "well below 1 per cent. per year as a long period of improvement," but he added that his own estimate “ would be nearer zero.”

We are asked for figures showing how many workers are engaged on producing the essentials people will need under Socialism and how many are working at activities essential only to Capitalism. We know of no official figures published in that form or in a form from which a direct answer can be obtained. A rough estimate made in the pamphlet "Socialism,” published by the S.P.G.B. (to which our critic is referred), reached the conclusion that “the whole of the nation's wealth can be produced by the male population between 16 and 60 years of age working half the time they do now.” This was based on the 1921 census figures and later figures might strengthen the case, but the change is not likely to be considerable. The population, the number of workers actually at work, and total output, have all increased since then and while there are larger numbers in the Armed Forces and armaments industries the numbers in many other industries have also increased. The peace-time expenditure on armaments and armed forces has grown from about 4 per cent. of national income in 1904 to about 10 per cent. now. (See article “Fifty Years Progress, S.S. February 1955).

The Socialist case that the only way to abolish poverty is to abolish Capitalism and establish Socialism is still as true as it was when the S.P.G.B. first put it forward. It is still true that waiting on real or imaginary marvels of technical development of industry will get the workers nowhere. And it is still true that an intelligent use of the powers of production that exist would bring about the very great increase in the production of wealth indicated in the pamphlet “Socialism” referred to above.

Who are the Socialists who are supposed to have forgotten this our critic does not say. Certainly it is not the S.P.G.B., which has been putting this case for over half a century.

Ed. Comm

What the T.U.C. overlooked (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the war, and for that matter for long years before it, the British workers have been told to look forward to an era of "plenty and prosperity."

Prosperity would be ours—but for the “dollar gap,” just increase output by 8 per cent (1948) and prosperity would be ours—but for adverse balance of imports and exports—but for German-Japanese competition—we would all be prosperous if only we would work hard and harder and harder.

So it goes on with ever new threats to be met, ever new targets to be reached, ever new crises and problems while the sought-after “prosperity” somehow always manages to elude the workers.

Working overtime, wives out to work, to make ends meet, but NOW is not the time to ask for more. The “country” could not stand it.

When could the country ever stand it? NOW is NEVER the time to demand more. One of Capitalism’s many paradoxes is that the workers of the various countries line-up and identify themselves with the very people who rob them. Another is that while they talk of “unfair” competition causing unemployment here they are not adverse to seeing what can be done in order to cut someone else's throat and let them be unemployed.

It seems that some British workers are so lacking in international solidarity that they are not opposed to unemployment so long as THEY are not unemployed. Of course, the same holds good for workers in the rest of the word—Capitalism has them all at it

Insecurity of existence dogs every wage-slave's footsteps, insecurity which makes him obedient, and as word goes round of “crises” and “market troubles,” insecurity it is that plays a large part in shaping resolutions and arguments at Trade Union Congresses. The fear of increased want and hardship drives workers to work harder and longer to stave off the evil day instead of finding out why they are insecure to begin with.

When one considers the effects of PROFIT production it is as a prime piece of impudence when Mr. Tiffin said “I sometimes wonder if wage claims with the lid off are in future going to be the answer to the search for a life of comfort and security.” (Daily Mirror 5/9/55).

The Socialist Party of Great Britain's attitude to trade unionism is a clear one. While society is class-divided into Capitalists and wage workers, employers and employees, whose interests are directly opposed to each other the “collective bargaining power” of workers is vital to resist the downward pressure of the employers on wages and conditions also, whenever possible to push up wages and improve hours and conditions of work. .

But even this leaves the workers who are the producers of the wealth, in a position of arguing with the non-producers as to how much they may have of it.

Our aim, while thoroughly realising the workers’ need to struggle, is to get the wealth producers alert to the urgency of looking beyond profit production to a system where the wealth society produces will be freely available to everyone.

When the means of production are no longer., owned by the Capitalist class and workers no longer bargain for bones; when the wages system has been abolished and the whole community will own in common the means of production. When we contrast this with what transpires every year at the Trade Union Congress, we can almost understand what our critics mean when they naively tell us we can’t have Socialism because of “the backward countries”!

The conference this year had been softened up in advance by talk of “automation,” “economic crises,” and so for the “leaders” to pilot through resolutions on “wage restraint” was quite easy.

It is also easy for the big boys and the Press to scream “Communist” in order to discredit delegates from the A.E.U. or the E.T.U., but this implies that workers are really satisfied and quite happy until the “agitators” get at them. Look at this as the “motive” for a so- called Communist According to the Daily Express (8/9/55) Arthur Horner was opposed to wage restraint not because workers need more wages:—“He declared that the miners could not produce the coal the country needs because there are not enough of them.” More wages—more miners—more work—more coal—more profits.

Overtime is to stay—that is as long as the employers have a use for us. The 40 hour week has been defeated and a glimpse of the future shows us “joint production” councils, “pit by pit” output probes by employers and union. And the “big brother” who may be watching you might be a union “leader” acting “in the national interest.”

Ironically enough after years of Capitalist propaganda to the contrary the Daily Mirror (6/9/55) tells us “wages have chased the rising prices,” not the contrary.

Does the addled-headedness end here? No! “Cut the call-up” is on again. Why? Are they opposed to armed Forces? No! Now it is just that “the country” needs the manpower. The employers are finding the scramble for overseas markets hard going, and just for now the cry is for more workers.

What will become of the hired hands when the dreaded crash comes is left to our memories and imaginations but meanwhile the employer has a use for us all so let’s work hard, then, at least, when we are unemployed the Capitalists will have their nest egg of years of increased profit. And we on the dole-queues will be consoled by the fact that we tried. We did not ask for more wages because NOW was not the time; we worked harder and although we have nothing to show for it, we tried.

Of course the Capitalist might go to war (or rather send you to war); no unemployment then., We will all be employed in the glorious pastime of butchering one another in order that the Capitalist class of each country can hang on to or expand the wealth of which they have robbed us, the world’s workers, in the first place.

So let us discuss the “German Army” auction. Let us “increase output” to capture more markets and profits. Let us bury ourselves in Capitalism’s problems so that this wonderful system of war-machines, crises, poverty, hunger, exploitation, and war, can continue. What is the implication of this kind of attitude: Let us not bother our heads about Socialism, its “futuristic.” Why “cure” what we can “endure.” This in effect is what they say.

Under Socialism when we are no longer wage-slaves and everything the world over is produced solely for use, there will be no “incentive’’—and so it goes on, and if the employers’ outlook on life is not that of the workers what does it matter so long as the worker's outlook is that of employers? The curse of leadership is the blindness of those who follow and the inevitable rising of new leaders to repeat the follies of past generations of leaders.

The trust and confidence workers put in leaders is no substitute for class-consciousness and action to bring the end of this vile system.

Leaders, political or industrial, will never do this for the workers, it is their responsibility, their only urgent problem.

Harry Baldwin

The Confusion of a Confusionist (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

W. Faulkner, writer of a letter (3rd September, 1955) in the “Socialist Leader," under the heading of “Static Socialists,” says: “I get the feeling that there is some confusion over the meaning and purpose of Socialism.”

The heading “Static Socialists” is an absurdity to start with. When a non-Socialist becomes a Socialist he cannot be anything else but a live wire doing his utmost to change society from private to common ownership. Says Faulkner:—”It has always been difficult to define Socialism.” If he had taken the trouble to read the Socialist Standard and analysed the Object and Declaration of Principles he would see the difficulty exists in his imagination only. It would puzzle Faulkner to find a better definition Socialism than the following:—

“The establishment of a system of Society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community."

Then we are told:—"This looking backwards and asking what Marx did or some other leader, say, many years ago, is like asking, 'What did Gladstone say in 1868’ ” Faulkner has got the absurd idea that looking backward is wrong. Yet every schoolboy knows by his study of history, by looking backward, many useful lessons are learned. He ought to have learnt by now that the past, present and future are linked together. If he had no grandfather or mother he would not be alive today to write nonsense. The thing that matters is not that Gladstone or Marx lived years ago, but are the statements still true today. If Faulkner will take the trouble to read Marx, he will see the evidence that shows how the workers are robbed of the fruits of their toil.

The changes that have taken place during the past 50 years owing to wireless, television, the motor-car, jet planes, etc., could not have taken place if our forefathers had not prepared the way, but these changes have not altered the fundamental basis of Capitalism. Faulkner shows how confused he is when he says:—“The S.P.G.B. for example boasts that it has not changed in any way since it was formed in 1904.” It needs no argument to realise that the S.P.G.B. has changed over the years, some have died, new members take their places and their activities change from time to time. What Faulkner does not understand is that principles do not change. It is by analysing these principles, which act as a guide or compass to change the basis of Society; then they will no longer be needed. Says Faulkner, “It is science and improved technique that have transformed society and made possible a much higher standard of living for the workers.”

To be sure there is a large measure of truth in this, but the real benefits which science has made possible can only be fully realised when common ownership of wealth takes the place of private ownership.

In his concluding remarks, Faulkner writes:—"Remember that there is nothing constant but change.” Of course this is in flat contradiction with 'Static Socialists.' He cannot understand that there are things that do not change. Under Socialism, water will still be wet, fire will still bum and if he is still alive, he will have to breathe. Again, according to medical science, every living human being in one sense completely changes every seven years. That does not alter the fact, whether Faulkner used a typewriter or a pen for his letters, his fingers are anatomically the same fingers. Then there is the change that takes place after a hen has laid an egg, if left long enough the matter inside the shell changes, that splits up and divides, and for this to happen, the shell , is absolutely necessary. But later the shell becomes a fetter and has to be broken to bring forth the new life in the shape of a chick.

The changes that are taking place in Capitalism today are like the changes that take place in the egg-shell, with this difference, in the one is blind matter, in the other, the Capitalist frame-work, are men and women who are becoming more and more class-conscious and realise the Capitalist shell, so to speak, must be smashed in order to bring about the change for a new basis of society. We all want to live healthy, happy, human lives. This will only be done when we have decided to abolish Capitalism and establish a class-less system of society.

J. E. Roe

Atoms and food (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the Atomic Energy Conference at Geneva, a lecture was delivered by Sir Ernest Rock Carling, Medical Research Council Advisor to the Home Office. In this lecture, he said, that “all atomic radiation had been found to be potentially injurious to living organisms, and that the vast majority of permanent genetic changes caused by such rays were harmful ” (Daily Telegraph, 15/8/55). He suggested, however, that “the diminished fertility and shortening of the life span may not be altogether to be deplored, because world population may outrun food supplies."

There was an immediate protest by the Swedish geneticist, Prof. A. Gustavsson, who pointed out that the radiation damage did not lead simply to a diminution of the birth-rate or simple sterility; children might still be conceived, but what kind of children would they be. “. . . they might die in miscarriage, or soon after birth, or develop serious abnormalities such as big-headed dwarfism, digestive derangements, diabetes type diseases, or mental deficiency.”

This is something to look forward to in the future. It is, to say the least, a most unappetising prospect.

The destructive power of one bomb, such as was exploded at Bikini, is such that it could make an area the size of Wales uninhabitable.

It was pointed out by Dr. Richard Doll at an earlier meeting in London in June, of the Medical Association for die Prevention of War, that of 11 pregnant mothers in Hiroshima, seven bore mentally defective children. At Nagasaki, of 98 pregnant mothers, 30 received major radiation effects. Of these 30, there were three abortions and four still-births, a loss of 23%. He is, be it noted, a research worker in the Statistical branch of the Medical Research Council in London. “Peace News,” 10/7/55).

There; is, of course, no evidence at all for the suggestion of Sir E. R. Carling, that the mutations or genetic changes would, in fact; produce men such as Aristotle, Leonardo, Newton, Pasteur or Einstein. The power of these radiation bombs is destructive and not constructive.

Here is a case of a man who knows his own subject but is ignorant of what is going on in other spheres of study. For example, an authority on land use. Dr. D. L. Dudley Stamp, in his book “Our Undeveloped World,” points out that large parts of Canada, the United States, Argentine and Australia, do not yield nearly as much per acre as they are capable of doing. He sees the best farming in North Western Europe, whose soil is being improved, not wasted by erosion. Leaving aside the “great problem lands of the tropics” and the vast irrigation projects, he concerns himself with food production in the temperate zones. If the best methods were applied here, he considers that, without any extension of the present cultivated area, the world could feed 3,000 million mouths. If one includes the farming lands at present unused or only partly used he estimates that the food could be produced for 10,000 million people, that is four times the present world population of 2,400 millions. (Review Daily Telegraph, 2/4/53).

Why is it, then, that half the population of the world is undernourished? The answer is pretty obvious. Most people live from hand to mouth and have not the means to buy what they need. We live in a Capitalist world, Where the cream of production goes to the class that owns, whilst the vast bulk of the population have to struggle as best they can; and above all. Capitalism is not concerned with producing as much as is required for human needs but only that smaller amount that can be sold profitably.

I. F.

Two quotations: 1856 and 1955 (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the paradoxes of this century is that while a range of pleasures and diversions, unimagined by the wealthiest aristocrat a few generations ago, is now available to the ordinary man,, it gets more and more difficult to use them in the way pleasures should be used—impulsively. More and more of us possess beautiful new motor cats whose every line expresses the modern poetry of godlike, singing motion, of the marvellous escape from here, of the joyful ability to pierce the horizon-barrier and know the great earth. On some dreamlike Sunday afternoon, suddenly the whispering garden leaves and the bright innocent clouds invite us to rush, with the effortlessness of angels, out into the vast green landscape. And soon we are stuck behind an enormous thing with 84 wheels carrying a section of the Forth Bridge; we are hedged about by motor-cycle combinations containing identical families of one black-leather-coated man, one woman and one pale child; our dream dies among diesel fumes and brick suburbs.”—(Paul Jennings, Observer, 28/8/55).

“In our day, everything seems pregnant with its contrary; machinery, gifted with the wonderful-power of shortening and fructifying human labour, we behold starving and overworking it. The new-fangled sources of wealth, by some strange weird spell, are turned into sources of want. The victories of art seem bought by the loss of character. At the same pace that mankind masters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on the dark background of ignorance. All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life and stultifying life into a material force. The antagonism between the productive powers and the social relations of our epoch is a fact, palpable, overwhelming, and not to be controverted.”— (“ Karl Marx, April 1856.)

Your help is urgently needed (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

We need your help at once. For some time the cost of carrying on the Party’s propaganda and other activities has been running ahead of income. One reason for this is the heavy loss we incur each month through selling the Socialist Standard below cost We are reluctant to increase the price and we hope in time that with your help we may increase the sales which will reduce the loss. In the meantime we want your donations to enable us to meet necessary expenditure on the Party’s general activities. Send what you can afford.

Answers to correspondents: Taxation and the Workers (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The reason why Socialists hold that taxation is not a burden on the workers were explained in the Socialist Standard, November 1950, to which C. J. Byrne and others are referred.—Ed. Comm.

SPGB Meetings (1955)

Party News from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1955)

Party News from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Autumn Delegate Meeting is being held at Denison House, Vauxhall Bridge Road (near Victoria Station) on Saturday and Sunday, October 8th and 9th, commencing each day at 11 a.m. A Social will be held at Head Office on the Saturday evening from 7.30 p.m. when members will be assured of a happy evening.

#    #    #    #

Films at Head Office. As mentioned in the September Standard a programme of documentary films has been arranged and will be shown every Sunday from October 2nd at 52, Clapham High Street, at 7.30 each Sunday. These films will each be followed by a short talk by a Party lecturer and time will be given for questions and discussions.

#    #    #    #

Bloomsbury Branch has again arranged to hold Sunday evening meetings this winter at the Forum Club, 32, Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road. The first meeting commences on October 2nd, at 7.30 p.m. Owing to the fact that the Delegate meeting will be held on October 9th, it has been decided to exclude this date from the syllabus. Details of titles of lectures will be given elsewhere in this issue.

#    #    #    #

Dundee. Comrades Coster and Wilmot spent two weeks in Dundee during August and held some very good propaganda meetings in the City Square. In all ten meetings were held, despite the fact that our members were advised that meetings would be impossible without the aid of loudspeakers (on Sundays) as other organisations used them. With the support of local comrades, one of whom acted as chairman, very successful meetings were held, with audiences averaging 300 people at the Sunday meetings. The mid-week evening meetings were also successful. There was opposition from the Communist Party, Scots Nationalists and Labour Party supporters. Our speakers presentation of facts soon quelled their opposition. Our speakers gathered that local tradition at these meetings had it that no questions were permitted until a speaker had completed his talk—many speakers used most of the time available by talking, leaving very little time available for questions. However, our Comrades followed the procedure usual at our meetings, and asked for, and obtained questions during the meetings which were lively and interesting. Good literature sales resulted. It is hoped that before long the Group will become another branch of the Party.

#    #    #    #

Ealing Branch report that branch meetings have now been resumed after the summer break, and we have a fairly heavy programme of activity before us. The first series of lectures have been arranged, and all members should by now be in possession of full details.

A visit to the Victoria and Albert Museum has been fixed for Sunday, 16th October, under the guidance of Comrade Coster. The usual social will be held in the evening afterwards. All branch members wishing to join the party are asked to notify the organising committee as soon as possible, for there is a limit to the numbers who can be taken on such a visit, and the committee must be given an idea of the numbers attending the social in order to arrange for the catering.

#    #    #    #

Swansea Branch. In the last week of August the branch held three outdoor propaganda meetings. On Sunday evening, August 28, Comrade Ambridge addressed a large crowd in the “Forum” near Swansea Guildhall. A religious group attempting to heckle the speaker were ably dealt with and the Labour Party supporters were easily defeated—a lucid definition of “ nationalisation ” and its part in the machinations of Capitalism holding the interest of the crowd. Some Socialist Standards were sold and back numbers were given away. Altogether a successful visit, auguring well for the future of Socialist activities in the Swansea Area.

Phyllis Howard

50 Years Ago: T.U.C. Resolutions (1955)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The resolutions passed by the Congress consisted in the main of the usual appeals to the Capitalists to make a few concessions to their ever humble and obedient servants, the “organised workers” of the Kingdom, and their petitioners will ever pray. Of course they will, just as the petitioned will refuse to answer the prayer until they have become convinced that their class interests demand, that concessions, for what little they are worth, shall be, and can safely be, made.

There was the resolution concerning fiscal policy, in which it was declared that “any departure from the principles of Free Trade would be detrimental to the interests of the working-classes . . . and injurious to the prosperity of the national as a whole.”

This was ultimately carried by 1,253,000 votes to 26,000 and alleged Socialists, prominent members of organisations claiming to be Socialist, spoke and voted for it, despite the manifestoes issued by their organisations in which it has been rightly pointed out that under Capitalism the working-class must be plundered by either Free Trade Crows or Protectionist Kites. For those claiming intimate and first-hand acquaintanceship with the condition of the people, to talk of the “prosperity of the people" is bad enough, but what can be thought of those claiming to be out for independent and anti-Capitalist political action deliberately playing into the hands of the Liberals as they did. If the maintenance of Free Trade is of such vital importance to the working-class, then it is of vital importance that those who are in favour of altering our Fiscal System should be kept out of the House of Commons, and that those who are against “any departure from the principles of Free Trade” should be put in. The Trade Unionists are therefore bound, in honour, to support Free Traders, i.e.—the Liberals—as against Tariff Reformers— the Conservatives. No wonder the Liberal Press was-so jubilant at the voting.

From the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Peace, Perfect Peace! (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Story of the Nobel Peace Prize

Most people are aware of the existence of the Nobel Peace prize. They read, or hear, a news bulletin every year, giving the names of the fortunate recipients. 

Rather fewer know that the founder of this bequest was Alfred Nobel, the millionaire explosives manufacturer. In 1896,  £1,750,000 was left by him to. endow a trust fund divided to produce five prizes of about £8,000 each annually to a chosen physicist, chemist, medical man, writer and/or Pacifist who, in the opinion of the selectors, had best served the cause of peace. 

Same may find it rather surprising that Alfred Nobel, who made a fortune from war, should donate a large sum to what might be considered the pursuit of Peace. 

The facts show that, whatever his intentions, the Nobel Peace Prize has not had the slightest effect in preventing or lessening the incidence of War. Indeed, Alfred Nobel is but one of a number of paradoxical figures of this modem topsy-turvey world. 

No less so is Albert Einstein, a Nobel Prize winner, who wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939 drawing attention to the power of the Atom Bomb, and urging him to set science working on it in case the Nazi's got in first; only to say afterwards that "if World War III is fought with atom-armed missiles then World War IV will be fought with clubs," and sign the famous scientists declaration with Bertrand Russell, in July 1955, predicting that radio-active dust could end the human race. 

Alfred was the second son of Immanuel Nobel, who had a small chemical works in Stockholm in the sixties of the last century.

The family managed to land a contract for the Russian Navy in the Crimean War and for mines to be sown in the Baltic. These in fact did no harm, as they never went off. 

In 1870 Alfred took over and moved to Hamburg. During this period the firm invented a powerful new explosive, which he christened "Dynamite." This material was the atomic bomb of that day, compared to kid's stuff like gunpowder. He later founded the British Dynamite Co., which made 1,000 per cent. profit in six years. 

The first dynamite weapons were shells poured into densely populated Montmartre, by the German Army during the siege of Paris, in the time of the Commune. 

"Surely," said those who witnessed the devastating power of the high-explosive shells, "this must make war impossible, for who would dare to use such a means of wholesale extermination. Fear of reprisals would prevent it." 

But fear of reprisals did not prevent it being used, among others, by the Russian Anarchists who seized the new weapon with enthusiasm, and assassinated the Czar with it. This, and a number of disastrous accidents in factories and mines, placed its manufacture and sale under control. 

Same years later, Alfred Nobel, now, like so many millionaires, lonely and thoroughly miserable, established in an office in that same city of Paris he had helped to  batter down, advertised for a personal secretary for a few days work, The advertisement was answered 'by an Austrian countess, who needed money because she had been cut off for marrying a journalist called Arthur von Suttner. Subsequently she went into exile with her husband, to the Caucasus during the Russian annexation. Her experiences there made her an ardent Pacifist. With her husband's help she published a book, in the form or a personal diary; an impassioned protest against the injustice, corruption, and bestiality of war. 

The hero of the story is a conscientious objector, who is shot by the Germans as a French spy during the 1870  war. It was called "Die Waffen Nieder", or "Lay down the Arms." The Baroness became world famous. The book rocketed through Europe. The Third World Peace Congress in Rome elected her World President. 

Previously, Nobel had told the Countess that he liked "novels with a message," "propaganda novels," so she sent him one—her own. Nobel replied that he liked the book, and sent a donation to the Peace League's funds, and a suggested "peace plan." 

By this time his Head Office was in Zurich. Baroness Bertha hurried there to try to gain his full support for the Peace League. According to Egon Larsen, from whose interesting book "Men Who Shaped the Future" (Phoenix House, London), these details are culled, the following discussion took place: 

Dr. Alfred Nobel: "Perhaps my explosive factories will end war sooner than your Congresses. On the day when two army corps will be able to annihilate each other in a flash all civilised nations will recoil in horror - and disband their armies."
"No! they will not, cried Bertha, for each of them will rely on its bigger and better bombs, each of them will try to annihilate the enemy first. We, the peoples of 'the world, must force our governments to lay down arms."
"I wish I could prove my theory to you here and now, Baroness," smiled Nobel. "I wish I could produce some material . . . some machine of terrible power of annihilation and devastation that would make wars altogether impossible."
"It would not make them impossible Mr. Nobel, that is the horrible truth we must face. People will go on slaughtering one another, and you armament kings will increase the efficiency of their arms, because that's your profitable business."
Alfred Nobel: "I don't think a mere increase in the deadliest of weapons would bring world peace, Baroness. A few more soldiers on the battlefields will die - that's all. No, I am thinking of something more efficient; weapons that will make war as deadly for the civilians at home as for the troops in the front line.
Let the sword of Damocles hang over every head and you will witness a miracle; they will all clamour for peace.
But perhaps dynamite is not sufficient to achieve that result, even if one day it will be dropped from the air on the capitals of the world. I think we need something more powerful. Perhaps war would stop instantly if that weapon were Bacteria.
And there, for the time being, the matter was left.
Subsequently, after considerable illness, Nobel wrote the following to the Baroness in November, 1895.
"I should like to allot part of my fortune to the formation of a Prize Fund. This prize would be awarded to the man or woman who had done most to advance the idea of general peace in Europe. If we have failed, at the end of 30 years, to reform the present system of international relations, we shall inevitably revert to barbarism." 

He died in San Remo in 1896. In 1953 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Sir Winston Churchill.

Horatio