News in Review: Bomb Tests (1961)

The News in Review column from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bomb Tests

Have we grown accustomed to humbug? There was enough of it to be had, when Moscow announced the resumption of nuclear tests. The Russians said that it was all America's fault they had to let off their bombs to show that they were ready to defend themselves against Western imperialism.

Washington and London professed shocked dismay, and anxiety for the future of the human race. To hear them, a simple soul could have been excused for assuming that neither Britain nor America had ever tested a bomb, and that the Americans were not all ready to go on their own tests as soon as they got the excuse.

In fact, there was a lot of military pressure in both Russia and the United States to resume the tests. It was certain that the first power to break the ban would come in for a propaganda lambasting. We could, therefore, expect the Americans to derive maximum political value from Khrushchev’s bangs, and the Russians to do their best to play the thing down. For that is typical of the cynicism with which capitalisms propagandists regard such matters of life and death.

At the end of it all, when the bombs have exploded and the propaganda points made, we are back where we started. Only perhaps a little more radioactive than before.

British Guiana

It is not yet ten years ago that Dr. Cheddi Jagan came out on top in the elections in British Guiana, to set the old ladies in the Colonial Office looking under their desks for Red bogymen.

Now restored to respectability and back in power with an absolute majority. Dr. Jagan is doing his best to show that they had nothing to fear. One of his big worries is to attract capital to British Guiana. His government will accept this from anywhere—Britain, the United States, Russia; even Cuba is lined up as a potential source of investment.

But Dr. Jagan knows that some capital would be scared off if he went ahead with what he once professed as his principles of wholesale nationalisation. So he is soft-pedalling on the issue although, like most newly independent states, British Guiana has its eyes upon the foreign interests in her mineral wealth.

This sets the Doctor a pretty dilemma. A false step one way and he could become a second Castro. A false step the other and he will be dubbed a lackey of Western imperialism. When the moment of decision comes for British Guiana, we may depend that there will be no lack of wordy journalists to spill their particular brand of beans.

But there will be a shortage of people to point out that all the time the Guianese workers are cutting the sugar and mining the bauxite and the rest and still, as ever, getting precious little out of it.

Labour Conference

This month, barring landslide, earthquake and the end of the world, Mr. Gaitskell will climb into the ring at Blackpool to disprove the already disproven theory that they never come back.

Last year, it was the pre-conference decisions from the unions which foretold that the Labour Party would go unilateralist. Now, enough unions have changed their minds to make it seem certain that Mr. Cousins will be left alone to uphold the cause of C.N.D. and that Mr. Gaitskell will be champion once more.

Underlying the Labour Party debate on unilateralism is one of the facts of capitalist life, which will persist however much the bomb-banners try to ignore it. In past debates on the issue the platform has made it quite plain that, whatever decision the delegates might take, a future Labour government would be guided in its actions by the necessities of British capitalism.

This means that the Conference might decide against the bomb—but a Labour government would keep it, perhaps use it. This was the theme of one of Bevan’s last important speeches, to the Conference in 1958. And quite logical too. There has never been a government which acted otherwise, and never will be as long as the working class support capitalism.

So the unilateralists are wasting their time on the Labour Party. Come to think of it they are wasting their time anyway, trying to settle one of capitalism’s grisly problems without trying to get rid of the system itself.

Fair Play for Teachers

How many schoolteachers have spent how much time telling how many classes that an Englishman’s word is his bond, and that the road to happiness is paved with honesty and truthfulness?

Anybody who took this seriously must have been shocked by the recent government decisions to ignore the recommendations of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, to restrict the statutory Wages Councils and virtually to destroy the Burnham Committee. And all this from an upstanding Englishman like Mr. Selwyn Lloyd!

In fact, the teachers are wasting their time if they are pining for fair play, for there is no such thing in the class war. The Ministry of Education, for example, took over the Burnham Committee’s functions because the government decided that the committee was being too generous to the teachers.

This makes no sense if we are looking for fair play. But in terms of the conflict of interest between any employer and his employees, it makes very good sense indeed. Teachers as a whole, like many civil servants and other white collar workers have always denied the existence of the class struggle. But it exists for them just as much as for the miner and the docker.

That is one of the things Mr. Selwyn Lloyd seems to be doing his best to teach them. Let us hope they turn out to be bright, receptive pupils.

The "Crisis" — from Cripps to Selwyn Lloyd (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The workers, whose wages and jobs are involved, view the latest “crisis" as a serious matter, as also do the employers who are fearful about their falling profits, but in every other respect it has the appearance of a farce, represented almost every other year since the end of the war. The Opposition, forgetting that crises also happened when they were the government, say that the thing itself and Selwyn Lloyd’s methods of handling it are evidence of Tory ineptitude and viciousness. The Tories, embarrassed by their promises that it would not happen again when the people were “set free” from Labour government planning and controls, now find themselves committed to the idea of planning, though this time it is to be by a national economic council, representing government employers and trade unions instead of planning from Whitehall. Except for variations of detail and emphasis there isn't a single original idea in the new Tory policy and no indication that they are any better at smoothing out capitalism than were the Labour government. Most of Selwyn Lloyd's speeches and actions might have come straight from the late Sir Stafford Cripps.

The elements of the problem are fairly simple. The manufacturer, if he is to sell his goods, has to offer them at competitive prices, "as high as the market will bear,” but not so high as to leave the market to cheaper competitors. But he also has to worry about his wage costs. If wages increase too much his profit suffers so he needs something to act as a brake on wage-claims and at present the unemployment brake is missing. As the purpose of capitalism is making profit, what are the employers and the government to do in a situation like this? Fight the unions over all wage claims? But that means bringing factories and transport to a temporary standstill, at enormous cost in the shape of lost production and profits, and with the risk that the government would lose the next election. Two policies that had looked promising for a time were Cripps' appeal to the workers not to claim higher wages, and the policy of raising the price level by currency inflation. If manufacturers know they can count on steadily rising prices for what they sell they do not have to be adamant about wage increases induced by the rising cost of living. But while this is workable inside the country it cannot help the exporter, selling abroad: he cannot put up his prices. Cripps was eventually persuaded to devalue the pound in order to make it cheaper for the foreigner to "buy British"; but in the nature of things this is a remedy that cannot be safely repeated every few years.

The other part of the Cripps plan that has been copied by all his successors is to ask for more output per worker. The idea behind this is that provided all the additional output is sold, it would permit wages to rise without cutting into profit.

Where Cripps Left Off

The present government has carried on from the wage restraint policy of the late Sir Stafford Cripps when he was Chancellor in the post-war Labour government. It was his White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, 1948, which laid down the policy that “there should be no further general increase in the level of personal incomes without at least a corresponding increase in the volume of production.” There should be no increase of income from profits and rent, and rises of wages should only be asked for either when productivity was increased or to attract workers to industries short of labour. In particular he objected to workers in one industry demanding increases to keep up with workers in another industry, and in 1949 when the devaluation of the pound again put up the cost of living he condemned wage increases aimed at keeping up with the rise of prices.

Cripps was helped to some extent by the fact that the T.U.C. endorsed his wage restraint policy and the result was that wage rates were falling behind the increased cost of living from 1947 to 1951. The present government has no hope of getting T.U.C. support for a wage freeze, but it calculated that the T.U.C. would be unable to resist the bait of "planning,” because that has long been one of their demands.

In one respect—the pay of teachers and civil servants—Selwyn Lloyd has been more drastic than was Cripps. When the latter was in control all wage-fixing bodies, including the civil service arbitration tribunal, were urged to take note of government policy on wage-restraint: this time the government has imposed its own, over-riding, “pause” on civil service pay and has cut by several million pounds the recommendations on teachers' pay. (The police have been luckier, their big pay increase was already in operation).

This isn't the first time a government has exercised its power to withhold agreement and thus delay wage increases proposed by wages councils. It was done in 1957 in respect of National Health Service workers, and back in 1948/9 the same delaying tactics were used by the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government. It took nearly a year for the retail food council and the hairdressing council to reach agreement in 1948 on proposed pay increases but the Minister, Mr. Isaacs, referred back certain of the proposals. The councils sent them back to him again almost unaltered and the Minister rejected them again in August, 1949. The T.U.C. reported (1950 Report, p. 167) that after a meeting with the Minister the difficulties were removed, and the increases were put into operation in October, 1949, after nearly a year's hold-up. According to Press reports at the time, the Shop Assistants Union had threatened to embarrass the Labour Government by putting down an emergency resolution for the Trades Union Congress.

The tough talk from the government about the “pause” on wage increases aroused similar tough talk from trade union officials declaring that they would have none of it; that they were not going to be dictated to and that “legitimate” wage claims would go on as usual. The unions are quite right to continue the wage struggle but they are only deceiving themselves if they think that there would be no restriction on wage increases if Selwyn Lloyd had not put it there. Wages are always restricted; basically by the fact that they represent the value of the mental and physical energies the worker sells, and at any given moment by the demand, and the amount of unemployment The employers have to aim at keeping wages down to a level which leaves a surplus for profit. This is capitalism, and it is idle to pretend that it can be made to operate as if its purpose was to provide constantly rising real wages without regard to profit In practice, trade unions are forced to recognise this fact hence their almost invariable practice of having to settle at some figure far less than they claim; railway unions in 1958 claiming 10 per cent. and accepting 3 per cent., and the same unions under the Labour Government claiming 12s. 6d. in 1948 and eventually being put off with a few shillings for the lowest paid only. And anyone who thinks that a future Labour Government would or could run capitalism differently when they get another chance should take note of the declaration by Mr. Harold Wilson that ‘'for a future Labour Government no less than for the Conservatives success or failure in the battle against inflation would depend on the ability to secure an understanding with the unions which would make wage restraint possible" ("Remedies for Inflation.” by Harold Wilson. M.P., with a foreword by Hugh Gaitskell, 1957).

And what if the Unions do not agree? The present government obviously hopes that the imposed standstill on government employees will stiffen the resistance of employers in private industry. They doubtless share the envious eye the economist, Mr. Paul Bareau, casts on de Gaulle’s “strong man" government which was able to secure that “to a modest degree . . .  real wages in France were for a time reduced" (Sunday Telegraph, 3 Sept, 1961). And how much better still it might be for the capitalists if instead of trade unions there could be, as there are in Russia, Yugoslavia and elsewhere, government controlled so-called unions that are in fact little more than agencies for imposing discipline and stimulating production.

The Prospect

While the unions are anxiously watching what the government does, other indicators may turn out to be more important Some of the economists think that if unemployment rose to about 2 per cent. —2½ per cent., the unions’ ability to press for higher wages would be curbed. It is at present about 1¼ per cent. or 300,000, but has been rising. Mr. Samuel Brittan, economic editor of The Observer, has this to say:—

  The Government’s hand will be enormously strengthened in the coming months by a marked change of tread in the labour market which actually began as early as June. Disregarding merely seasonal changes, unemployment has since been creeping up and unfilled vacancies have been declining. There will not of course be large-scale unemployment or anything remotely resembling it but labour should become a good deal easier to obtain in the coming months.

If the present crisis follows the pattern of the others since the war the pressure will last for a few months. Profits which have recently been falling will start to go up again because wage increases win be harder to get. The Chancellor will then announce that we have “turned the comer" and the workers will be invited to rejoice. And so it will go on until the next time.

One final comment on the farcical aspects of the crisis. The unions of government workers and workers in nationalised industries are incensed because, they say, they are singled out for worse treatment than that given to workers in private industry; these are the unions that go on record in favour of nationalisation!

Edgar Hardcastle

Should Socialists Support CND? (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

I had to screen grab details for this advertised debate from 1961 because Richard Headicar has been a member of the SPGB since the mid-eighties, standing a couple times - at least - as a SPGB candidate in parliamentary elections. I was in the same SPGB branch as Richard for a number of years in the 1990s and 2000s in London. Lovely bloke.

And the advertised debate from 1961? It had to be 'rejigged' - see below -  because Richard was in the jail for civil disobedience! The things some people do to get out of debating with the SPGB.

From the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard:

  The debate organised by Paddington Branch on October 29th almost didn't take place, and then not quite. Mr. Headicar, the CND representative, “sat down” the previous Saturday and got himself two months imprisonment. At the last moment Mr. S. Cash agreed to put the case for CND. He maintained that Socialism was alright as a theory, but mankind was faced with annihilation and all our energies should he devoted to "banning the bomb.” The SPGB were out of contact with the real world, and death would overtake us all, notwithstanding the propagation of Socialist ideas, unless nuclear weapons were abandoned.
  In reply: Melvin Harris for the SPGB showed that CND was similar to many other bodies, which had sprung up in the past, attempting to tackle one or other evil of the capitalist system. These organisations had failed, and CND would fail for the same reason. Nuclear war can not be separated from the problem of war itself. And the constant threat and possibility of war was a direct consequence of the existence of capitalism. The Socialist Party were opposed to all war, and were working for the establishment of Socialism, in which war would be impossible. This was the most important task facing mankind.
 A considerable number of questions were put to both speakers, and many of the audience of 200 took part in the discussion. There was not nearly enough time for everyone. The collection was £13 and literature sales were good. Perhaps one day we shall land a debate with the elusive CND?

This Year's T.U.C. (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Common criticisms of the T.UC. are that it spends time on political and foreign policy questions that ought not to concern trade unions; that the block vote can result in decisions being taken that represent little more than the balance of opinion on the executive committees of a few large Unions; and that the General Council can secure the acceptance of policies that do not harmonise with the view of rank and file trade unionists.

The Guardian took up the first criticism after the 1960 Congress, which it said, spent its time mainly on issues “almost irrelevant to all the real problems of the Unions," and which would not even discuss a Resolution put down by a small Union urging more time for industrial affairs. Some civil service representatives share that view, and it has been argued that Unions of “white collar workers" in particular are reluctant to join the T.U.C. because their members are not predominantly supporters of the Labour Party. It may well be that it is largely this factor that keeps outside two large Unions, the National Union of Teachers and the Local Government Workers Union (NALGO), as well as some others of the four hundred and seventy Unions that are not affiliated, though for the smaller Unions finance is probably a considerable factor. As half of the 184 Unions affiliated to the T.U.C. are not affiliated to the Labour Party, it might be thought that a majority of T.U.C delegates might be prepared to consider altering Congress procedure to make it less like a second Labour Party conference, but Congress votes are dominated by the big Unions and nearly all of these are affiliated to the Labour Party and are apparently opposed to any change of procedure.

The second criticism, concerning the block vote, was heard often in the years when most of the ten largest Unions habitually voted the same way and between them could outvote the remaining 174 Unions. It has been heard less in recent years because the big Unions have been divided, with the largest Union of all, the Transport and General Workers, voting against the the General Council's recommendations on such issues as armaments. No doubt if votes at Congress were cast by each Union in proportion to majority and minority opinion on Union executives and among their members some decisions would go the other way, though in the main it would show itself only in the form of closer votes and smaller majorities.

The third criticism, that the General Council can disregard the views of rank and file trade unionists, is by far the most fundamental. What does it amount to? Obviously the General Council cannot singly do what it likes. It has to get the endorsement of delegates and at times is defeated, as happened this year on the presence of German troops in Wales and last year on nuclear weapons (a decision which Congress this year reversed). Perhaps the explanation of the advantage possessed by the General Council is that they confront Congress with a formulated policy which they recommend for acceptance, whereas the delegates, like the members who send them there, either have no policy and are willing to follow the lead from the platform or are divided over the several different and contradictory alternative policies: which raises the question what ought to be the broad aim of the trade unions.

Looking at the trade unions in the world today it is astounding to recall that in their infancy they were regarded by the employers and governments with real fear, as revolutionary organizations that threatened property and the social system itself. Now the danger has been largely contained, partly by concessions and legislation, but also through the aims that the Unions set themselves. Instead of thinking of themselves as part of the world working class struggling against the employers and the capitalist system, the aim of the trade union leaders in each country is to be consulted by the employers in the running of the industry, and by the government in the determination of national economic policy. While the rank and file trade unionists cannot be said to be positively opposed to this policy of their leaders they are much more concerned with fighting their own employers over wages and conditions, hence the periodical clashes between what the members feel and what their leaders, including the T.U.C., think ought to be done.

There is, of course, a sort of fatal logic about the direction in which the Unions are going. If it is once accepted that world-wide working class action for Socialism is impossible then it can seem to be “realistic" for the Unions to try to help British capitalism against its foreign competitors, by trying to gain markets for exports, by keeping down costs and avoiding strikes, by giving support to armaments, and in the last resort, to wars. All through Congress debates this readiness to think in terms of "British" interests instead of world working class interests comes out, as it did for example in the decision about wage restraint.

Rank and file trade unionists and many of their delegates may think that Congress unconditionally repudiated the idea of a "wage pause" or a restraint on wage claims, and will have paid little heed to the fact that the spokesmen for the General Council put the matter differently. What they did was to offer—on terms—to collaborate with the government in the planning of economic policy: and planning, whether its supporters all realise it or not, necessarily includes the planning of wages and wage increases.

The T.U.C. never has unconditionally excluded wage restraint. In the years 1948 to 1950, in response to the appeal of the Labour government, the majority of the delegates accepted it. Even in 1950, when it was turned down on an E.T.U. resolution, the door was still left open. The E.T.U. resolution rejected wage restraint but only until such time as profits were "reasonably limited," prices controlled and "a positive planning of our British economy" is introduced. This idea has continued as the speeches at this year’s Congress show.

Mr. H. Douglas, speaking for the General Council, said: —

  If the Chancellor was worried why had he not called in the General Council before and put his facts on the table? It had never failed to respond to an appeal for action. Why had not the Chancellor consulted them instead of slapping them in the face? (D. Telegraph 7.9.61).

The new General Secretary, Mr. Woodcock, spoke similarly: —

  We say it is not right for a government of this country to make a decision on a wages pause without any consultation with the trade union movement. That is exactly what the Chancellor did.

The speakers went on to say that they are still willing, on terms, to have a hand, with the employers and the government in working out economic plans. A Daily Herald editorial (9/9/61) puts its linger on the double-edged nature of planning. Though chiding critics of the T.U.C. “who believe that the function of trade union leaders is to help the government to hold down wages,” the article went on to admit that planning is “a practical exercise in which all sides have to make painful concessions in the long-term interest.”

And Mr. Charles Timaeus, writing in Reynolds News (10/9/61), interpreted the speeches referred to above as implying “that a wages pause might be acceptable in certain circumstances and in certain conditions"

Whether the government will make concessions in order to secure trade union collaboration remains to be seen, but one thing is made very clear by the anxious comments in various Liberal, Tory and financial journals, that is that they attach a great deal of importance to avoiding a head-on clash with the trade unions in the coming months. They know the losses the employers can suffer in widespread strikes and are not at all happy that the present government should have behaved as if it wanted a show-down at all costs.

It only remains to emphasise again the truism that the trade unions will not usefully change their direction until the members themselves think out their class position in capitalism and see that what is needed is world-wide working class action to establish Socialism. The alternative, collaboration in each country with the government, may end by bringing the unions nearer to being what the so-called trade unions are in Russia, part of the governmental machine of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Branch News (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Demonstration for Socialism

Wednesday, October 18th, is the day of the third central London meeting in the Demonstration for Socialism series and is being held in Caxton Hall, Westminster.

The two previous meetings (filling St. Pancras Town Hall in April and Conway Hall in July) were stimulating and successful by all standards. Now, with one speaker drawn from each, a bigger and, it is hoped, an even more fruitful meeting will be held. The normal Party arrangement of the order of the meeting will ensure a substantial part of the time will be devoted to questions and discussion contributions from the audience—this procedure itself aiding the Demonstration for Socialism.

Since it is quite a long time since the SPGB has held meetings at the Caxton Hall, a word or two on the situation of the hall might be timely. Caxton Hall lies just off Victoria Street about mid-way between Victoria Station and Parliament Square. Several bus routes use Victoria Street and St. James’s station (Circle & District Lines) is nearby the hall.

The meeting starts at 7.30 p.m.

Delegate Meeting 

The Autumn Delegate Meeting will be held at Head Office, 52, Clapham High Street, S.W.4 on Saturday and Sunday, October 7th and 8th. Saturday, 2.30 pm to 6 pm, Sunday 11 am to 6 pm. Arrangements are being made by the Standing Orders Committee to re-arrange the seating arrangements in order that the maximum comfort will be possible.

Glasgow

The two Glasgow Branches, having joined up again in their work for Socialism, have reverted to their original name—Glasgow Branch instead of City and Kelvingrove. They have had a most successful outdoor season this summer, both in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

They have arranged a very ambitious programme of weekly lectures extending to the Spring under the title “Problems of the Sixties". Each month's lectures will be devoted to a particular aspect of this, as follows:—

November 1961—In Britain Today.
December 1961—The British Political Scene.
January 1962—Power Politics.
February 1962—The Socialist Searchlight.
March 1962—Marxism Today.
April 1962—History Today.

The subjects for October and November are listed under Meetings.

Ealing

Ealing Branch is now meeting regularly again after the short holiday break in August. The Branch has now been given a new meeting room—bigger, more comfortable, and generally much more pleasant than its previous one. This will certainly provide more incentive for members to venture forth on miserable winter nights.

A very busy winter season is being planned. One of the members now has access to a film projector unit and the Branch intends to take the fullest advantage of this in arranging its lectures and discussions. The new room will also be much more practicable for this purpose. We hope to give further details of the programme next month.

Paddington

Having the Overseas Secretary as their own Branch Secretary is not the only reason for its increasingly international flavour. The proximity of Hyde Park and their virtually West-End location are also important factors. A Wednesday in August is a case in point. Following upon the greetings received from the two branch members visiting Newfoundland, on the chairman's table was a letter from Pierre, a good friend of the Party now back in France. Its main purpose was to express, with appreciation, the extent to which his own socialistic leanings had been clarified and given direction by his participation in Branch and Party meetings. In attendance was Comrade Bryant. It was the eve of his trip round Europe prior to his return to Australia. He was deluged with the addresses of people all over the Continent whom we know to be in sympathy with us. Also in attendance and very welcome was our Austrian comrade, Ernst. Some members met him in Italy last year but for some time he has been working in Scandinavia and he reported briefly but with humour and insight on the scene as he finds it there. A sad note was struck on recollecting that it was he who had first introduced our late Lisa Bryan to the Party. He was able to pass over to the Branch some of her old lecture notes which are certain to be of further educational value.

As they meet in a room above a pub their timetable is governed by the licencing laws which means they have to adjourn before closing time at eleven. However, those who are prepared for a “morning after the night before" usually fit in another three quarters of an hour of discussion at a coffee shop down the road. On the night in question a dozen members descended on the place and to their delight they were joined there by several others including our good comrade M. L. [Michael La Touche] on the eve of his return to the West Indies where the climate is a lot healthier than ours, he finds. A friend, just back from Turkey called just in time to give Peter Byrant a few interesting addresses in Germany and an Indian sympathiser of long standing spent the evening with us.

Their wide perspective has not lessened their enthusiasm for Branch propaganda outings to places nearer home. This summer Paddington has made successful and highly enjoyable trips to Coventry, Nottingham and Stevenage and on our very doorstep, Hyde Park has proved to be well worth the running on Thursday nights.

Wembley

Wembley Branch are pleased to announce that their first indoor public meeting will take place on October 30th when Comrade C. May will be “Introducing the SPGB” to the workers of Wembley. Quite a lot of time and money have been spent on preparing and publicising the event, and Branch members are hoping for a good attendance. Full details of time and place will be found in the advert elsewhere in this issue.

The second of the Branch canvassing efforts in Portsmouth was successful although hampered somewhat by a late start. On this occasion we had the welcome help of a member from Woolwich Branch. During the afternoon and evening, the usual meeting was held on the seafront to an attentive audience, and lit. sales were most encouraging. This is an excellent speaking station. It deserves regular visits throughout the summer season.

Preparations are being made for a series of lectures by Branch members through the winter months. The last series dealt with various religious movements and was very successful. Any comrade having a special knowledge of a particular subject is encouraged to hold forth and other members find this a great help in broadening their general background.

Branch S.S. Sales are now running at over 20 dozen a month. The excellent summer outdoor season has, of course, helped a lot but the persistent canvassing efforts must not be forgotten either. It is the intention to continue these throughout the winter. At the same time we shall encourage our present contacts to attend the branch—and in particular the public meeting already mentioned.

Not forgetting, the lighter side, a social will be held at Christmas and we hope it will be at least as successful as last year's. Full details and tickets will be available later, of course, but preliminary work has already begun.

Donations

For a long time now we have been receiving regular 5/- donations from some one signing themselves “Anon”. Regular donations are a considerable help to a working class party like ours which suffers from restrictive finances. Thank you Comrade.

Literature

The small committee which had such great success in selling literature at the Russian Exhibition at Earls Court, have had further success. A member of the Committee, Comrade Hyams of Hackney Branch, went to the Trade Union Congress at Portsmouth and during the period of the conference sold 60 Socialist Standards and 50 various pamphlets. This is excellent work and Comrades throughout the country could follow this up by attending local political meetings and selling the Party literature.

American Tour

Comrade Gilmac is working hard on his American tour and it is hoped to have details of the meetings he has addressed and his television and radio talks in our next issue.

Canada

The Toronto group is making encouraging progress. Our Comrades Catt, report good discussions and attendances at all of their meetings—even during the hot summer months. Over 20 meetings have been held so far, a grand achievement, especially when it is remembered that the group has been in existence for only a few months.

Persistent attempts are made to keep in the public eye, and with the growth of the group, other socialist comrades in the area are giving their support, so that there is a possibility of forming a local of the S.P.C. in the near future. A heartening report indeed of courage and determination in the face of gigantic odds. Best wishes to our Toronto comrades.

Film Meetings

The H.O. Film Meetings commence on 9th October with an interesting film “The German Story”, which has just been made by the German Democratic Republic. This remarkable film took two years to make and tells the story of two world wars. It takes 85 minutes to run. A large audience is expected. Remember that the film meetings have been changed to MONDAY evenings.

Phyllis Howard

Editorial: The Case for Sanity (1961)

Editorial from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

We live in an insane world, one that becomes more and more insane with every day that passes.

To pick up a newspaper is to find a daily catalogue of wars and threats of wars, hatreds and atrocities, murder and violence. Over all lies the shadow of nuclear destruction.

In Berlin, the two big power groups face up to each other like squabbling children, each trying to shout “Yah” louder than its rival, each daring the other to strike the first blow. In the Congo, still rent with violence, that monument of ineptitude, the United Nations, decides to intervene and chooses to do so in a sordid scramble of colonialism mixed with petty economic rivalry, the whole sorry business made worse by the usual intrigues of the big capitalist powers.

Russia, after a short period of quiet, proceeds to explode nuclear devices at a frenzied rate, sending clouds of poison into the atmosphere to threaten the health of all the earth's inhabitants, and of even the unborn. The United States hardly waits to do the same, its rulers weeping crocodile tears the while. Between times they have both been spending astronomical sums in perfecting the ways of delivering their bombs. Huge crowds have been cheering the astronauts of both sides for their heroism, apparently oblivious that behind it all lies the terrible threat that missiles can now be directed with pin-point accuracy to annihilate places thousands of miles away.

There is uneasy peace in Tunisia, but in Algeria the dreadful carnage goes on. Laos has dropped out of the news as quickly as it came into it, but could just as easily erupt again. In South America, Brazil looked as though it might develop into another Cuba, but has not done so, at least for the moment. In East Africa, the Rhodesias, and South Africa, things remain only outwardly quiet. The fact is that we are hardly surprised any more at anything anywhere. Such is the terrible pass to which capitalism has brought humanity.

And yet, against this background of tragedy and folly, which might be expected to reduce us only to abandonment and despair, we record with pride that, far from being discouraged, the Socialist Party has not for many years been so active in its propaganda, nor its members so enthusiastic.

We have just come to the end of an excellent outdoor season, opening up several new areas and developing old ones. Audiences have been good and generally interested and receptive. Literature sales have been high. Even more encouraging are the preparations for the winter season, the indoor programmes of branches being more ambitious than ever as the meetings advertised in this issue will show.

Most encouraging of all in these days of alleged political apathy, when even the big guns of capitalist politics find it hard to hold a good meeting, is the fad that we have run two really successful indoor rallies.

The third of these is being held this month and we are confident that it will prove more successful than those previously, a fitting conclusion to the fine summer season and an auspicious opening to an even finer winter one.

In an insane world, the issue is more than ever—Capitalism or Socialism. Let us hold fast to sanity and demonstrate for Socialism!

Notes on Economic History (12) (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Malthus on Poverty

From his law of population, Malthus infers that Governments should, on the one hand, remove all obstacles to the cultivation of the soil and, on the other, favour preventative checks, especially the postponement of marriage. The following passage from the 1803 edition is interesting: "A man born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and in fact has no right to be where he is. At nature's mighty feast, there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to begone and will quickly execute her own orders if he does not work upon the compassion of her guests."

Malthus therefore recommends the reduction of paupers' relief to a minimum. Money used to support the poor or destitute, he argues, us taken from the other classes in society, and especially from that section of the working class that is only just outside of destitution. For this poor relief, says Malthus, increases demand, and thus raises the price of food, clothing and shelter.

Malthus' main demand is for "moral restraint." He writes: "It is clearly the duty of each individual not to marry till he has the prospect of supporting his children: but it is at the same time to be wished that he should retain undiminished his desire of marriage, in order that he may exert himself to realise this prospect, and be stimulated to make provision for the support of greater numbers."

Arising from this, it was proposed to put legal difficulties in the way of marriage. The poor who had no prospects of being able to support a family were to be forbidden to marry.

The Malthusian doctrine attracted widespread attention, and was accepted almost without qualification by many scientists. It also made a strong impression on governments, and its effects were seen in the increased stringency of the marriage laws. Down to 1918 vestiges of this persisted in Bavaria and the Austrian Tyrol, where marriage could not be entered into without the permission of the commune.

The astonishing fact about the Malthusian theory is its persistence in face of evidence that confutes it. To go to the core of the question, we can say there is no evidence to warrant the assumption that there is any tendency in population to increase faster than subsistence. The facts stated by Malthus to show this tendency, simply show that where, owing to a small population in a new country. or where, owing to the unequal distribution of wealth, as among the working class in the old country, human life is occupied with physical necessity of existence, the tendency to reproduce is at a rate which, if unchecked, would at some time exceed subsistence. But it is not correct to infer from this that the tendency to reproduce would show itself to the same extent where population was sufficiently dense, and where wealth was distributed in such a way as to lift the whole community above the necessity of devoting their energies to a struggle for mere existence. Nor can it be assumed that the tendency to reproduce, by causing poverty, must prevent the existence of such a community: for this obviously would be assuming the very point at issue and be reasoning in a circle. And even if it be admitted that the tendency to multiply must ultimately cause poverty, it cannot be stated of existing that it is due to this cause until it is shown that there are no other causes which can account for it.

The Malthus theory has persisted, and will persist, because it does not in any way oppose or antagonise any powerful interest. It is soothing and reassuring to the class who, wielding the power of wealth, largely dominate thought. Indeed, at a time when men were beginning to question an examine society, it came to the aid of the ruling class. The Essay on Population was written as an answer to William Godwin's Inquiry concerning Political Justice, a book which dealt with the principle of human equality, and the effect of Malthus' book was to justify the existing inequality by shifting responsibility for it from the laws of society to some kind of God-given laws.

The Socialist of today still has to contend with Malthusian ideas, in a modern form. They become more prevalent in times of large-scale unemployment, and are also use as an excuse to justify poverty in such places as India, Africa, the Latin countries of America. The answer to Malthus, and the modern exponents of his teachings, is to be found in the method of ownership of the means of producing wealth.

Poverty, as dealt with by Malthus, is not in fact the result  of excessive breeding. It is the chaotic nature of the capitalist system which must be blamed. Its solution is obvious—remove the cause which the Socialist claims is the private property relation in the means of production. Make this property common property, and the common access to wealth which follows such a change will provide the answer to poverty, present or future.

Bob Ambridge

The Stagnant Society (1961)

Book Review from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Stagnant Society, by Michael Shanks, by Michael Shanks. Penguin Books, 3s. 6d.

In case you should think from the title that this is a radical attack on the very basis of modern society, let us disillusion you right away. This is a sort of "Wake up Britain" book.

Mr. Shanks is very much concerned that Britain in the 1960s' is losing the productivity race with other countries and is failing to compete successfully in world markets. A large chunk of the book is taken up with criticising the trade unions and urging them to mend their ways. Why don't they co-operate with employers and government? Why don't they put an end to wildcat strikes? Why don't they tighten up on organisation, etc? Look at the following extract from page 102, for example:—

. . . I want to see it [the T.U. Movement] play a much more forceful and positive role in helping to make Britain more dynamic and more efficient . . . They [the Trade Unions] have got to find a new dynamic to replace the old fading appeal to working-class solidarity and negative opposition to the 'bosses'.

In 236 pages, the author sweeps across the post-war industrial field and skims blithely over one problem after another. Labour relations, financial policy, government planning, export drives, labour mobility—they are all here, and many more besides. And having waded through to the bitter end, what does it all amount to but a plan for the smoother operation of British Capitalism? "If we are in competition with manufacturers overseas," he says, "the solution is not to move out of their way but to make ourselves more efficient and competitive than they are . . . Planning should be aimed at promoting expansion and not avoiding competition."

Do not be misled either by the short publisher's note on the back cover, with its vague references to "class divisions." This book is not an attack on a class-divided society. It is really only an appeal for co-operation between the classes "in the national interest" which Mr. Shanks fondly labels as a "breaking down of class barriers." Capitalist ownership of the means of life — the barrier — he does not question. We have, of course, heard it all many times before.

Perhaps you should read The Stagnant Society. It will possibly give you an insight into current misconceptions about the Capitalist World—that's if you don't die of boredom halfway through it. We understand this is Michael Shanks' first book. We regret we cannot recommend it for an honoured place on a Socialist bookshelf. 

E. T. C.