Notes by the Way: Keir Hardie and the Liberals. (1932)

The Notes by the Way Column from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Keir Hardie and the Liberals.

For years we pointed out that the late Keir Hardie never had an understanding of Socialism and was merely a Liberal. It is amusing to read that at a Conference of the Union of University Liberal Societies at Cambridge, a Liberal proposed that Keir Hardie should be recognised as one of them. A resolution was passed welcoming the formation of a new Radical Party, and the mover, a Mr. E. G. Sollieu, said :

“The new Party should have a left-centre inclination, and should be founded on the teaching of Keir Hardie.” (“Daily Herald,” March 23rd, 1932.)

The I.L.P. and other “left-centre Liberals” will have to bestir themselves to prevent this body-snatching.

* * *

Mr. Herbert Morrison evades the issue. 

The “Clarion” makes entertaining reading for those who wish to study the Labour Party “intellectuals” at play. A quarrel has been going on as to whether state capitalism as it exists in the Post Office is more or less socialistic than State capitalism as it exists in public utility corporations. One group stands firmly by Nationalisation, while the other group denounces this as being a nineteenth century idea, now replaced by the “new Socialism” of public utility corporations. Belonging to the public utility group is Major Attlee, former P.M.G., and advocate of a public utility for the Post Office. He admits that the Post Office (so long praised by him and his Party as being an instance of Socialism) is “the outstanding example of collective capitalism” (“New Statesman,” November 7th, 1931). Mr. Herbert Morrison is also a public utility advocate. In the “Clarion” (February, 1932) he argues, with his.tongue in his cheek, that his London Passenger Transport Bill (which guaranteed their property rights to the shareholders), is Socialism, because the shareholders would no longer have the legal right of control that they now possess. Mr. Morrison knows quite well that Socialism involves social ownership of the means of life, and that the exchange of one kind of share for another kind does not deprive the capitalist of his ownership, and is not Socialism.

All the same he knows how to sling a pretty brick in controversy. Having been told by a defender of the Post Office that a man is a Socialist or not a Socialist and that nationalisation is Socialism, Mr. Morrison replies (“Clarion” March) by pointing out that the S.P.G.B. would laugh in the face of anyone who made such a statement, and would say that such a man “is not a Socialist at all, but a mere advocate of State capitalism.”

This is true enough. But Mr. Morrison did not add that the Socialist’s objections to public utilities are precisely the same as his objections to nationalisation.

What we would like to have from Mr. Morrison is his defence of public utility capitalism against the case for Socialism.

* * *

Labour Government in action. 

The theory on which the Labour Party and I.L.P. were built up is that the spectacle of a Labour Government at work so impresses and enthuses the workers that they go on to ask for more and more “Labour” reforms of capitalism. On February 27th the Labour Party M.P.’s and candidates held a meeting to inquire into the actions of the late Labour Government. Reynolds’s Illustrated News, the Co-operative-Labour paper, reporting the meeting, says:—

“One or two speakers made a feeble and timid attempt to justify the record of the late Labour Government.” (Reynolds’s, 28th Feb.)

In other words, instead of celebrating the successful application of their theory, nobody could be found to put up a plausible defence of it.

* * *

The shrinking I.L.P.

In the six years since February 1926 the I.L.P. has lost 422 branches, almost 40 per cent. of the total. The Reports to Annual Conferences give the following total number of branches in February of the years mentioned :—

1926 1,075

1929    746

1930    748

1931    712

1932    653

It was in this situation that the I.L.P. at its Easter Conference had to decide for or against continuing affiliation with the Labour Party. Would the happy days of Parliamentary seats and Governmental Office be brought back again by remaining inside, or had the time now come for the I.L.P. to exploit working-class discontent independently? The way of the reformist vote-catcher is sometimes hard.

* * *

What will Maxton do now? 

The I.L.P. Conference delegates had before them three proposals, one for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, one for disaffiliation and a third for “conditional affiliation.” Disaffiliation was rejected by 183 votes to 144, affiliation was rejected by 214 votes to 98, and the third proposal—typical of the I.L.P. in dodging the issue—was adopted by 250 votes to 53. The resolution calls for a revision of the Standing Orders of the Labour Party and it may be assumed that the I.L.P. will remain inside. The position now is that the I.L.P. repudiates the Standing Orders, but several of its members who stood as Labour candidates at the election have accepted them, including David Kirkwood, M.P., and Mr. E. F. Wise. And what now becomes of the recent assertions by Maxton, Buchanan, and others that for reasons other than the Standing Orders it is impossible for Socialists to remain inside the Labour Party ? Doubtless they will not find it difficult to swallow their words—they have had much practice at this.

One piece of information given by the Chairman of the I.L.P., Mr. Fenner Brockway, deserves to be placed on record. The I.L.P. used to be satisfied with the Labour Party reform programme. Then a few years ago it announced that the old programme had been proved inadequate and that a new reform programme, miscalled “Socialism in Our Time,” was the only adequate programme. Now Mr. Brockway in his address from the Chair (see Daily Herald, March 28th) admits that the I.L.P. is a reformist party and that its “Socialism in Our Time” is useless. He said that, in view of the present depression,

“the gradualism of the Labour Party became pathetically inadequate; even the method of Socialism in our time became inadequate. It means that our policy must become revolutionary instead of reformist.”

And then the Conference, as if to show the hollowness of the pretence that the reformist policy is going to be dropped, voted for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, although Brockway, Maxton and others know full well that there is no place for revolutionary Labour Party Socialism inside the Labour Party.

* * *

Mr. James Douglas trips up.

It is one of the pet arguments of the journalists who serve the master class by attacking Socialism, that only capitalism can give the rewards necessary to encourage literary geniuses to do their best work. Mr. James Douglas momentarily forgot himself in an article in the Daily Express (March 5th), in which he admitted that the money incentive has had an opposite effect.

“Another book I long to write is a philosophy of literary avarice. It is a base passion which has not been thoroughly explored, even by Balzac or Bennett. The influence of avarice on literature has never been analysed. 

Avarice has destroyed more men of genius than drink or indolence. Avarice corrupts the mind. Genius without avarice is as rare as beauty without vanity.”

* * *

Why the armed forces exist.

Early in February there were rumours in Eastern Europe of various Governments massing troops for war. One of the rumours said that Poland was mobilising troops on the German frontier in Upper Silesia. This, to the newspapers was a “disturbing” rumour. But re-assurance soon came. The troops were not for the purpose of threatening the German capitalists, but for the purpose of dealing with a strike which was likely to break out. (News-Chronicle, February (5th.)

Needless to say the Polish Government was not sending troops to intimidate the employers, but to keep the workers in subjection.

* * *

Trotsky's view of Russia's future.

In an interview given to the New York Times, and republished in The Militant (New York, March 12th), Trotsky stated his views on the Five-Year Plan and the future of the Socialist movement.

“Question: Do you believe that the development of the Five-Year Plan has strengthened or weakened the possibility of building socialism in Soviet Russia alone without co-operation along similar lines in the rest of Europe ?

Answer : This raises the question about socialism in a single country. The inevitability of socialism flows historically from the fact that the present productive forces of humanity have become incompatible not only with the private property in the means of production but also with present national boundaries, especially in Europe. Just as mediaeval particularism hindered the development of capitalism in its youth, so now at the peak of its development capitalism is strangling in the limits set by the national States. Socialism cannot confine productive forces in the Procrustean bed of national States. The Socialist economy will develop on the basis of an international division of labour, the mighty foundations of which have been laid down by capitalism. The Soviet industrial construction is, in my view, a part of a future European, Asiatic and worldwide Socialistic structure, and not an independent national whole.

Question : Will Soviet Russia be compelled to come to some sort of a compromise with Western capitalism, assuming that she may not be able to pursue a Socialist policy single-handed? What form would such a compromise assume?

Answer : The “compromise” between the Soviet and the capitalist systems is not a question of the future but of the present. It is already a fact to-day, although not a very stable one. How will the interrelations between the isolated Soviet Union and world capitalism develop? Here a concrete prophecy is not easy to make, but in general I should cast the following horoscope: European capitalism is far nearer to a Socialist revolution than the Soviet Union is to a national Socialist society.”

Trotsky’s recognition of the impossibility of Socialism in Russia in the near future is late but interesting. Mr. H. G. Wells has also discovered at last that the talk of Communism in Russia is “absurd,” and that the existing system there is “State Capitalism” (Daily Telegraph, February 24th).

Edgar Hardcastle

Wages, interest and nationalisation (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx was undoubtedly right when he said that the workers would seek every avenue of escape from the effects of capitalism before they turned to the only possible solution, the complete abolition of the capitalist system of society. Throughout the period of their history the workers have paid heed to all kinds of queer political notions, followed all kinds of political quacks and given allegiance to many political parties. They have plumped for Tariff Reform and for Free Trade, they have lent an ear to single taxers and to currency jugglers, they have supported Conservatives, Liberals, Labourites and others.

Towards the end of the last century a great new hope dawned in the minds of many. Industry should be controlled by the state and the state should be administered by the political party of the working class. Nationalisation offered a solution where all others had failed. Nationalisation, labelled “ Socialism,’ became the programme for which thousands of workers have since given their time and effort. With the workers’ own political party at the helm, controlling industry, most of the workers troubles should be swept away. Now, after a few years of nationalisation in some industries, the trick does not seem to have worked.

All the same, many workers cling to the idea that nationalisation does offer a solution to their problems. The failure, they consider, is not due to state control, but to the manner in which the state does the job. Some say that the rate of interest paid to the bondholders is too high. Some object to the large salaries paid to members of the various national boards. Others point accusingly at the lack of working class representation on the national boards. They still search for a way out where there is none. These proposals are mere tinkerings with surface effects and they offer no solution at all. If they were all put into operation the workers would not notice any difference in their living conditions.

A reduction in the rate of interest paid out of state controlled industries to the holders of bonds is not a practical proposition for a capitalist government, even a Labour capitalist government When an industry is nationalised, the act of parliament that converts it from so-called “private enterprise” to control by the state also sets out the terms of compensation. The rate of interest on the government stock issued to the former owners depends on the market conditions of the time. Two main factors will determine the level, the general level of interest rates throughout industry and the fact that the bonds issued are “gilt- edged,” that is, they are guaranteed by the government. The security that this guarantee offers will mean that the rate of interest, in most instances, will be lower than in company owned industry where no such guarantee exists.

The various national boards that manage the state controlled industries must have access to capital. To operate, to develope, to renew their plant, they must be able to raise funds. They can do this, through the government by the issue of stock. But if the rate of interest offered on this stock is very low, even taking into consideration the guarantee, nobody will be found to purchase the bonds. The attraction of higher interest rates in other fields of investment will determine that the investors of capital will turn their backs on nationalised industry. Just as a punter on a racecourse will turn from a dead cert if the gamble offers too small a return for his outlay, and will seek to place his money where he has the opportunity of longer odds.

If interest rates in nationalised industries are reduced no problem will be solved, but many will have been created. The workers have no guarantee that such a reduction would result in an increase in their wages. If they argue that the industry is too poor to afford the present interest rates, they are simply repeating the employers’ line that the industry is too poor to afford higher wages.

The real solution for the workers is not a reduction in interest rates on the capital invested, but in the total abolition of capital altogether.

Neither will a reduction in the salaries paid to members of the national boards offer any easement to the workers. The wages a worker receives are not determined by the amount that his employer pays to a manager. If the members of the national boards were deprived of all their salary, the workers would not necessarily get it. Even if they did, the amount per worker, when it was distributed, would be infinitesimal.

Greater representation on the boards and management committees of the nationalised industries is another will-of-the-wisp. The workers’ troubles arise from the capitalist nature of nationalised industry, not from the class origin of those who manage it. Whilst there is capital on the one hand and wage-labour on the other, there will be an incessant struggle between the two with the wage workers always at a disadvantage. No matter who is represented on the national boards, the general level of wage rates, like the general level of interest rates, will be outside their control. The need to capture export markets, the competition of like industries in other countries and the ever present need to produce cheaper will cause a constant pressure to be exerted on the workers' wages and conditions. This is an effect of capitalism. It matters not who administrates the system, it will not work in the interest of the working class. The workers can wriggle and twist and run after all sorts of hare-brained proposals, but they cannot escape the effects of capitalism whilst they tolerate that system.

Any plan, any scheme, any proposal that falls short of the abolition of the capitalist system is doomed to bring disappointment with a feeling of frustration and its attendant apathy. Ever seeking to improve wages results in continual adjustments to changing conditions of capitalism and little more. The 'sound line for the workers is to struggle for the abolition of the wages system. Without capital and without wages, men and women can work to produce wealth, not for the profit of a few but for the benefit of all.

W. Waters

Editorial: No socialist theories in the Labour Party (1949)

Editorial from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nobody can read carefully the speeches of Labour Ministers about Socialism and Capitalism without soon discovering that their minds are in a muddle about what they mean. And it all traces back to the fact that the Party was “founded by non-Socialists and has perpetuated among succeeding generations of members a tradition of avoiding inquiry into Socialist theory. This is not merely an outside criticism but a statement accepted proudly by the Labour leaders themselves. Mr. Attlee has often referred to it without any realisation that it can be other than a matter for self-congratulation. In 1938 he contributed to John A. Lee’s “Socialism in New Zealand,"  a Preface from which the following passage is extracted:

“ He (John Lee) recognises frankly the work of the Radical Governments which held power from 1891-1912. He acknowledges the Socialistic legislation of the Conservative Governments which held sway after the war. Indeed, he makes the point that these Governments were, despite all their prepossessions, compelled to adopt Socialist expedients in order to meet practical problems. This is an eminently practical book. There is little or no abstract theory. Like the British Labour Party, the New Zealand Socialist Movement is not doctrinaire. It draws its inspiration from the same broad streams of thought and emotion as in the Old Country. Its Socialism is the result of a common-sense endeavour to bring society into conformity with social justice." (P. VI.)

The same disregard for Socialist theory comes out iu an appeal for subscriptions and donations just issued of the Fabian Society over the names of Attlee, Cripps, Dalton, Laski, Morrison and others in the New Statesmen (5.11.49).

"Our full members are, and always have been. Socialists; but beyond insisting that our Socialism is ‘democratic,’ we leave them to define the word for themselves.”

As the individual members of the Fabian and Labour Parties may, and do, define the word how they chose, they can never agree on what they mean.

For most of them nationalisation as in the Post Office is Socialism; but it was Mr. Attlee himself who in the New Statesmen (7.11.1931) called the Post Office “the outstanding example of collective capitalism.” This was one of the few occasions when a Labour Party leader happened to stumble on the truth.

It was said at a time when the Labour Party was switching over (for vote-catching reasons) from the "Government Department” form of State capitalism to the “Public Board” form, now embodied in the nationalised mines and railways. But here again their past admissions rise up to smite them for in 1923 (Daily Herald, 30.7.1923) Mr. Herbert Morrison had admitted that the Public Board (he had in mind the Port of London Authority) is a capitalist device, to enable the capitalists “to do for themselves collectively what they and a number of private companies had been unable to do with success individually.”

Another statement by Attlee on the Labour Party's lack of Socialist theory can be found in his “Labour Party in Perspective” (1937, Page 36): —

“ It is characteristic of the British Labour Movement that the origin of the Labour Party is to be found in fact rather than in theory. The Labour Party was originally the by-product of Trade Union activity. . . . The Movement which resulted in the return of the first Trade Union representatives to the House of Commons in 1874 was far from being revolutionary, and the men themselves were not Socialists. They entered Parliament, not to overthrow the Capitalist system, but to win for the workers certain definite reforms. Apart from their specific demands on Labour questions they formed part of the Liberal Party.”

This brings us to the root of the matter in a manner not perceived by Mr. Attlee. The Labour Party does not work without any theory, nobody does, but with theories that are not Socialist.

And when we look at the result we see the force of the remark attributed to Disraeli, that men who boast of being practical are usually to be found practising the errors of their forefathers.

Editorial: Trade Union Congress re-affirms its Belief in Capitalism (1944)

Editorial from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

While re-iterating trade union demands for a higher standard of living and for changes in the structure and control of industry, the T.U.C. at Blackpool accepted the continuance of capitalist industry and trade and the exploitation of the workers through the wages system. Always the formula is the same, that of condemning particular abuses and coining vague phrases asking for sweeping changes, while at the same time voting for detailed schemes which accept the fundamentals of capitalism.

One resolution called on the Governments of the United Nations to insert in the peace settlement a statement of social principles and objectives as recommended by the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia (Daily Herald, October 20th, 1944). We only need to concern ourselves with two points in the “Declaration of Philadelphia” to see what a fraudulent document it is from the standpoint of working-class emancipation. The first clause is the short affirmation “Labour is not a commodity.” Technically, of course, this is true since the commodity the worker sells is not “labour” itself but “labour-power”; but no doubt those who drafted the clause were only being slipshod in using the wrong word. What they thought they were doing was giving an answer to the Socialist charge that under the wages system the worker is merely the seller of a commodity, his own mental and physical energies. They thought that if in some formal document signed by the capitalist governments it is affirmed that labour-power is not a commodity, then it ceases to be a commodity. Yet every observer who looks at things as they are, including the Labour representatives who endorsed it at the I.L.O. and the T.U.C., knows that labour-power is and remains what it has always been under capitalism a commodity bought in the market, just like the other commodities the capitalist buys. In effect, the I.L.O.’s reply to the question, “Will you abolish the wages system?” is the assurance that there is no wages system. Just as if a fireman, asked if he would or would not put out a fire that is consuming a house, replies “There is no fire.”

A later point in the precious Philadelphia Charter betrays the truth. Having declared that labour-power is not a commodity, the Charter goes on to define the conditions under which this allegedly non-existent commodity is to be sold, by demanding—

“Policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of such protection.”

Another T.U.C. resolution endorsed the General Council’s Report on Post-War Reconstruction. Although the Report attacks the existing organisation and control of industry it has nothing to offer but well-worn phrases about public ownership as a description of its proposed schemes of a slightly changed private ownership. Some industries are to be “publicly owned,” by which the Report means “taken over by a public corporation” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944). The present owners will give up their shareholdings in the existing concerns and receive in return Government bonds. “Basis for buying out the present owners, it is suggested, should be ‘reasonable net maintainable revenue’— that is, on the actual earnings over a period of years and on the probability of their continuance” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944).

Industries not ripe for the public corporation form of State capitalism are to be regulated by Industrial Boards set up by the Government. Workers and employers are to have equal representation on the Boards, but the chairman and a small number of other independent members are to be appointed by the Government. The chairman and his “independent” colleagues will be able to decide all issues on which employers and workers are equally divided, but in what way they will be independent the T.U.C. does not explain. They will, of course, be entirely dependent on the capitalist state, committed to trying to keep capitalist industry running smoothly.

This, by the way, is a familiar device by the Fascist countries. In the name of democracy, the workers, who outnumber the capitalists by, say, ten to one, are to have “equal” representation with them.

Congress decided by a 4 to 1 majority that the German people share the guilt of their Nazi rulers. Sir Walter Citrine, saying there has been too much mushy sentimentality about this business, told Congress that when the Allies march into Berlin “we shall find so many anti-Nazis full of assurances that they have always been against the Nazis that it will be difficult to know who has been carrying on the war in Germany” (News-Chronicle, October 19th, 1944).

Millions of German workers (but by no means all) have indeed supported the interests of their capitalist exploiters in the Nazi Party, but Sir W. Citrine and the majority of T.U.C. delegates are surely the least fitted to protest against people who support what they profess to oppose, for has not the T.U.C. for decades re-iterated its denunciations of capitalism while continually supporting capitalism, and on occasion (as at present) giving its backing to avowedly capitalist politicians and governments? Since capitalism is the cause of war, none who support capitalism can disclaim responsibility for war.

According to the Daily Mail (October 20th), one proposal accepted by Congress was that utility goods should be continued after the war. This very humble request just about typifies present relationship of the T.U.C. with the capitalist class “We are only poor workers,” the proposal says in effect “we don’t ask for the good things we make for the rich, but please see we have a regular supply of the second-rate, the substitute the cheap and nasty.”

With equal humility Congress passed about its 15th protest resolution against the 1927 Trades Dispute Act though at present it is only protesting because the Prime Minister has continued, like his predecessor in office the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, to withhold even the token concession asked for. The T.U.C. missed the bus by not getting something done four years ago. As it is they have waited until the capitalists— free from preoccupation with Germany—can give them undivided attention. They will no doubt get what they deserve.

It is sometimes instructive to take notice of what your opponents say about you. The T.U.C. is allegedly anti-capitalist, while Lord Beaverbrook’s Evening Standard is openly in favour of capitalism. What the T.U.C. does ought on this assumption to meet with the disapproval and apprehension of the capitalist press.. Instead, the Evening Standard assures its readers that the T.U.C. (despite its attack on non-union journalists sent as reporters) is quite harmless. Any who think the T.U.C. has moved “to the left,” says the Standard can be comforted. Congress accepted policies that are satisfactory to many people on the right. Congress for example, agreed that labour should continue to be directed— in other words conscripted— after the war. Congress steered steadily towards that Trade Union-Big Business collaboration which is anathema to the left.” (Evening Standard, October 20th, 1944).

The millionaire Press may be comforted, but present T.U.C. policy will bring no comfort to men and women trade unionists in the hard years before them.

Editorial: Lord Wolmer and Socialism (1932)

Editorial from the October 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lord Wolmer’s recent book (“Post Office Reform”), in which he attacks the present organisation of the Post Office and demands that it be handed over to a public utility corporation and be managed by business men, has a certain interest for Socialists, although we are not the least bit concerned with the question whether the Post Office should remain as it is or be handed over to a private company or public utility corporation. What interests us is Lord Wolmer’s belief that in attacking nationalisation he is attacking Marx. (See Chapter IX, “The Problem of Socialised Industry,” particularly p. 281.) To be fair to Lord Wolmer it is hardly his fault that he does not know any better. How should he know what Socialism means when his knowledge of the subject is probably limited to the printed and spoken propaganda of the Labour Party? Misled by this, Lord Wolmer supposes quite naturally that the “problem of socialised industry” is the fight between that wing of the Labour Party which stands by the old demand for Capitalism on State enterprise lines like the Post Office and the other wing—represented by Herbert Morrison, Major Attlee and others—which wants its Capitalism run on public utility lines. That issue is of interest to the capitalists who line up with the two groups, but it has nothing whatever to do with Marx and Socialism.

50 Years Ago: Labour Party Capitalism (1983)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism means the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution. In spite of a superficial similarity of words, the Labour Party is not aiming at common ownership, but at State control with private owners. The Capitalist class are not, according to the Labour Party, to be dispossessed, but are to remain as a property-owning class, but are to be deprived of their immediate control over the management of industry. The country is to remain the same in all essentials. There will still be a working class and a class living on property incomes. Goods will still be produced for sale and profit-making, but the management will be in the hands of a series of so-called public utility corporations, directed by highly-paid business men like Lord Ashfield. This is a grotesque representation of Socialism. It is capitalism in a thin disguise. It solves no working class problem. It is not Socialism and as such docs not bring Socialism one day nearer.

(From an article, “Socialists and Working Class Unity”, Socialist Standard, May 1933.)

Morrison's Child (1936)

From the April 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

We Socialists are out for the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, by, and in the interest of, the whole people. This is to be brought about by the education of the workers in Socialist principles, to the end that the workers will organise with us to capture the political machinery, and so be in a position to control the armed forces, and thus be able to dictate terms to the capitalist class. When we tell people this we are by many called dreamers, or told that such a proposal is too far-fetched, or too far off.

We are told that a more “reasonable” way, and one getting “better” results, is to lay such an object aside and go in for “something now,” and so gradually "build up” Socialism. This is a favourite method of the Labour Party, the I.L.P. and many ex-Liberals. They say that industry is to be gradually taken over and the owners compensated or given a guaranteed dividend, and their previously competing concerns amalgamated and run as a public utility corporation, responsible to nobody but themselves. This, we are told, is achieving “Socialism in our time.” Let us see how this pans out from the people’s point of view.

Some little time ago the various transport undertakings within 25 miles of London were absorbed into what is now known as London Passenger Transport Board, and a certain Mr. Morrison, Chairman of the L.C.C., played quite a part in “welding up” this concern, so much so that it is often referred to as "Morrison’s Child.” The scheme was initiated by the last Labour Government. Since it has been in actual operation, time and again the workers! conditions have been tightened up. Frequent stoppages have taken place on Green Line, trams, ’buses and trolley-’buses, so it may be taken for granted that the labour conditions are not all they might be. But for the owners, “the Board,” what a difference: No competition, no fare cuts, no “redundant” services now. Let the public wait and travel when and how we like; all fares now come in to us, and our income is more secure than before. That is how two out of the three parties stand.

Now for how the ”customers,” the public, are served.

There is no need to labour this point to Londoners. They all well know the morning and evening scrambles, and queueing up, and the delays in the centre through volume of traffic, and delays in the suburbs through depletion of services. A writer in Reynolds's (February 6th, 1936) gives details as to where the services have been cut down and "re-organised” since the amalgamations. He went to Broadway House for some explanations. He got them. This is what “the Board’s spokesman” told him: —

  “Our first duty, imposed by Parliament, is to our shareholders.”
  “To achieve the necessary financial results, we want to make sure that every train, tram and ’bus is filled as nearly as possible. Our idea is that there should be no empty seats. We want paying loads only.”

So that accounts for the delays and scrambles. Wait till they get a “paying” (profitable) load. As for your “getting there,” well, when we are ready, and don’t forget “our first duty is to our shareholders,” the capitalists, the owners.

That is a bit of Herbert Morrison’s “Socialism in the making,” and ’twere best left alone. The position is much the same with the Electricity Board and the Grid.

It is quite futile to waste time on such reforms and the parties which sponsor them. Organising for straight revolutionary Socialism alone is worth while for the working class, and to this end we ask you to join us.

C. V. R.

"The House of Industry." (1931)

Book Review from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The House of Industry by S. G. Hobson (Pub. P. S. King & Son, Ltd., price 1/-, 112 pages).

Mr. S. G. Hobson, who has in turn been a member of the I.L.P., a Fabian, and an advocate of Guild "Socialism" has written a book in which he advocates workers’ control. This is to become effective by superseding the House of Lords by a "House of Industry,” which will have full legal authority from the House of Commons to control "all industrial processes, including banking, finance, credit and insurance; and in which labour will have a permanent majority.” The members of the "House of Industry” are to be elected by economic groups and to be representative of all factors. Needless to say Mr. Hobson does not propose dispossessing the capitalist class. He proposes that shares should be changed into "some form of debentures” bearing a fixed rate of interest.

The problems of Capitalism are very simple matters to the "House of Industry.” Unemployment will be solved by "increasing wages, adjusting economic factors, by co-ordinating industry and controlling credit.” How it is going to be done or how the details will work themselves out we are not told. We are left to believe that the magical formulae, "Control of credit ” . . . "finance” . . . "co-ordination of industry,” etc., etc., which are repeated almost on every page, will perform the miracle.

The most interesting part of the book is perhaps the foreword contributed by two prominent Trades Council officials, A. M. Wall and A. A. Purcell. Concerned because the Labour Party has forsaken its policy of Nationalisation (see June S.S.) in favour of Public Utility Companies, they advocate support of Mr. Hobson’s proposals for "workers’ control” through a "House of Industry” as outlined in his book.

"The politicians,” they say, "are actively engaged at this moment in legislating away their control over industry . . .  We need only instance the creation of the Electricity Commission and the proposed new authority for the passenger transport system of London as illustrations of this tendency on the part of Parliament to give away its control of economic affairs.”

They continue:—

   The indications are that a decade of legislation under Labour Governments will give us a whole group of independent corporations of this type, administering railway and road transport, electricity supply, the cotton textile industry, and probably others. These concerns will not be, as the Post Office organisation is, under Parliamentary control, administered by Government departments, and with responsible Ministers at their head. If the proposed new transport authority in London is to be taken as a model, questions of wages and conditions of employment will be handled by these new bodies in exactly the same way as any powerfully organised capitalist-controlled industry handles them now. Trade Unions will negotiate with these boards of Commissioners as they now negotiate with employers' organisations; and the policy of the board in dealing with the Unions cannot be any more effectively challenged in Parliament than the policy of any capitalist organisation of employers can be challenged to-day. Labour members who are returned to the House of Commons at the expense of the Unions by working-class votes as Members of Parliament, will be as powerless to protect the interest's of their organisations whose members are employed under these corporations, as the group of miners' M.P.s are to protect the workers in the coalfields under capitalist ownership. Our Labour members, in fact, who are consenting to the creation of these corporations, are not only voting away their usefulness as Union watchdogs : they are legislating against the workers' control of industry. And if anybody alleges that the principle of workers' control will be safeguarded by the inclusion of one or two prominent trade unionists among the commissioners we can only say we do not agree. We take leave to say further that anybody who thinks the appointment of a Trade Union representative on one of these boards is a step towards workers' control understands neither the meaning of workers' control nor the purpose of Trade Unionism.

It will be seen that Mr. A, M. Wall and Mr. A. A. Purcell both vigorously denounce Mr. Morrison’s and the late Labour Government’s London Passenger Transport Bill. They represent it—quite truly—as the abandonment of the Labour Party’s old policy of Nationalisation. But is there any fundamental difference between these proposals? The difference is merely one of form. In the case of Nationalisation control is vested in a State Department; in the case of the Public Utility Trust in a Committee of business men who are responsible to a State Department. In the case of "workers' control,” on the lines of Mr. Hobson’s proposals, control would nominally be in the hands of elected officials. In each case, however, the capitalists still retain ownership, and perhaps more securely than ever. Instead of their shares being liable to considerable fluctuations in the open market and to possible complete loss, they are to receive a fixed rate of interest on bonds having Government backing.

Public ownership in any of these forms is capitalism in a new garb. The defect about these schemes is that they do not so much as touch the fundamental problem of the workers. What is the problem? It is that we live in a world where the means of production and distribution are the private property of the capitalist class. The workers produce everything that is necessary for the sustenance and continuance of society; the capitalist class own it. The workers receive wages based roughly on what it costs them to live and be efficient, and bring up families. The capitalist class keep the remainder. It has been calculated by a Liberal economist, Professor Henry Clay, that one-twentieth of the population own between them five-sixths of the accumulated property, land, buildings, shares, etc., and retain every year nearly half of the total product of industry. That is the workers’ problem. That is why they are poor. There lies the cause of unemployment and wars. The solution is that the means of production and distribution should be made the common property of society as a whole. When that has been done there will no longer be a working class, producing wealth but not owning it, and a propertied class owning-wealth but not producing it. That will be Socialism. Nationalisation, Public Utility Companies, etc., do not solve that problem. They leave the property owners still in possession of their property rights, still able to live at the expense of the producers.

The only difference is that they exchange shares in a private company for shares in a public utility company, or for Government securities. The workers are more or less where they were before, getting just enough to exist on, and faced with all the harrowing problems of how to make ends meet. Changing the form of capitalism from private companies to State-controlled concerns is a problem of interest to the capitalist class, the form of whose property is being changed, but it is not a question that is worth the attention of the workers.

Harry Waite

The "New" Socialism (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. G. D. H. Cole, who explains how to "deal” with unemployment in the I.L.P. paper, The New Leader, also contributes a series to the columns of Everyman Weekly. One article is called "Socialism, Old and New,” but his ”Socialism” is neither old nor new—it may be Coleism, but it isn’t Socialism. He explains that the old Socialist method was to nationalise industries. Not entirely nationalised, but some in State hands and others in private hands. Mr. Cole does not point out that Socialism means social or common ownership, and, therefore, does not mean Government or private ownership. But even Nationalisation is too strong for this I.L.P. contributor, who is now an economic advisor to the Labour Government! He explains the "New Socialism” thus:

   Meanwhile, on their side, the Socialists have not been standing still. There has been an' evolution of opinion among them fully as notable as that which has taken place among economists or employers. Broadly speaking, most Socialists (and nearly all the younger Socialists) have ceased to regard nationalisation in the old sense of the term, as something desirable in itself and inherent in Socialist policy, and have tended to transfer the emphasis of their argument from the need for national ownership of industry to the need for effective public control.

According to this, "Socialists” certainly haven’t been standing still—but standing on their heads. Ownership is the basis of control, and while the workers do not own they will not control. While another class owns, that class will always control the workers’ lives—by control of their means of living. Mr. Cole asks:

   Can we not have, instead of nationalised industries in the old sense, great recognised public utility corporations working under social control, and co-ordinated into an efficient whole by means of a State economic agency? It does not need great changes and it may need no change of ownership at all, to convert the railway service into a public corporation of this sort.

Public Utility Corporations, controlled publicly—owned privately! That is the new Socialism. But America contains plenty of these firms, and they are just as much capitalist as any other concerns with the added monopoly power of vast businesses in control of the entire field. Exploitation of the worker and the large profits of the capitalist continue. Public control, what is that? Where it is not ordinary Government regulation it may be State, employers and workers represented on a board. And as the State is the agent of the capitalist—as Labour Rule as well as Tory Rule shows— the workers’ voice is in a minority—especially when the so-called workers' representative is usually a Labour leader looking out for a "future” for himself.

Later in the article Mr. Cole confesses that his new "Socialism” is simply the old capitalism. For he instances two so-called publicly controlled businesses in this country in which "public” control was established by Tories and Liberals. He says:

   "Socialists are apt to forget that the railways and electricity Acts of late years were passed by anti-Socialist Governments.”

No, we do not forget—Socialists remember and know that Liberals and Tories and Labour tools of capital will establish Government regulation of large utilities in order to harmonise these services with the general interests of the capitalists who use these utilities.

The railways—Mr. Cole’s own illustration —are privately owned. And the real control lies in the owners of the largest shares who decide by the number of shares how the railways shall be run. In the interest of the Traders the Government regulates their charges, but does not stop them making profits out of their employees who do the work.

Labour misleaders, like Mr. Cole, will confuse the workers with false ideas of Socialism. The function of the Socialist is to explain the nature of Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism under private or public control means a working class working for wages (when it pays the capitalist to employ them), it means a parasite class living on profits in the forms of dividends on shares, public loans, etc., which all come out of the results of the workers’ labours.

Government control or ownership does not alter that.

Socialism means common ownership by the workers of the means of producing wealth, and also of the product.

Many who don’t know, think that the object of the Labour Party is common ownership. Others think that it is only Government ownership of industries. The truth emerges that the object of these alleged Labourites is public control, thus leaving ownership as well as control safely in the hands of the owning class. Liberals, Tories and “Labour” can unite on this; and when this capitalist objective is achieved the working class will be where they are now—slaves of capitalism.

Adolph Kohn

The Labour Party Conference (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The new programme of the Labour Party, put into shape at their Annual Conference at Leicester, 3rd to 7th October, makes no sensational departure from the old programme, “Labour and the Nation” The policy embodied in “Labour and the Nation” contained measures for limiting hours; minimum wages; public control of the Bank of England; nationalisation of the coal, transport and power industries; “public ownership” of agricultural land; stabilisation of prices by control of imports; Free Trade; more steeply progressive taxation, etc.; while the new policy contains measures for steeper income tax; Free Trade; control of imports to fix prices; nationalisation of the land public control of the coal, power, and transport industries, and of the banking system; minimum wages; a shorter working day, and so on. The main plank in the old programme was nationalisation; in the new one, public utilities. Like the old, the new programme professes "to lay the foundations of a new social order,” but actually does nothing but propound schemes for renovating the existing one.

The capitalist aims of the Labour Party are well illustrated by the debate on financial policy. Mr. Hugh Dalton’s preamble to the resolution for State control of the Bank of England attributed responsibility for trade depression to wrong banking policy, the aim of which should be, he claimed, to stabilise wholesale prices and foreign exchange, and “safeguard the workers against such exploitation as has been inflicted on them in recent years by speculators.” The resolution stated: ~

   The Bank of England should be brought under public ownership and control. Its governor should be appointed by the Government, and be subject to the general direction of a Cabinet Minister, who should be responsible to the House of Commons for banking and credit policy. The day-to-day business of the Bank should be carried on by the governor and his staff. Daily Herald, 5/10/32.

In putting forward an amendment to include the joint stock banks, Mr. E. F. Wise pointed out that “there was nothing very Socialistic about making it a national bank. Other countries, even the capitalist United States, had the Central Bank nationally controlled. Liberals three or four years ago proposed making the Bank of England a public institution. In many respects it was already a public institution.” “If their object was Socialist finance,” added Mr. F. Hughes, ”and not just to control and limit the operations of capitalist finance, then the nationalisation of the joint stock banks was as essential as the nationalisation of the Bank of England.” (Daily Herald, 5/10/32.) Both the resolution and the amendment, which were carried, ignore the fact that it is capitalism, not speculation, which inflicts exploitation on the workers; and that finance is but the machinery of capitalism. To speak of “Socialist finance,” therefore is simply silly. Ironically enough, Mr. E. Bevin opposed the amendment to include joint stock banks on the ground that “I, as a Socialist, am not content to be always advocating the taking over of things that will not be necessary in a Socialist State. Give me the Bank of England,” and “I visualise a Socialist finance that will leave the joint stock banks as at present organised.” (Daily Herald, 5/10/32.)

The resolution on national control of transport services was likewise prefaced by references to “Socialism," although it aims to outdo the existing capitalist owners at the work of intensifying exploitation. The Daily Herald of the 6th October, under the heading, “Labour shows how to make transport pay,” describes it as “a plan to put the transport system of the country on a paying basis." Mr. H. Morrison’s resolution proposed to co-ordinate transport services on a national scale by setting up a “National Transport Board appointed by the Minister, of Transport on appropriate grounds of ability ”—a corporation, that is, like the Port of London Authority or the B.B.C. “As to the form of the purchase transaction,” says the Labour Party Policy Report, No. 2 (p. 17), “it would probably be convenient to give the owners stock of appropriate categories and amount in the new national undertaking,” which would “give the holders the right to receive the interest payable, and to repayment of the stock. . .. ” The proposal is based on the same principle as appeared in the London Passenger Transport Bill brought forward by Mr. H. Morrison when Minister of Transport, and supported by Lord Ashfield, Chairman of the London Traffic Combine. The Daily Herald, 6th October, says: —

   Not alone Labour and Trade Union spokesmen, but many influential public men, entirely opposed to the general run of Socialist measures, have openly supported the transfer of transport to public enterprise. Immediately after the Great War, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill both desired to take this decisive step.

Speaking against the amendment to include transport workers' representatives on the Transport Board, Mr. A. G. Walkden “did not share the tremendous anxiety as to the workers getting a look in.” (Daily Herald, 6/10/32.)

Similar proposals were carried for the unification of the coal industry under a Central Authority; for the “national ownership and control of Electricity Generation and Distribution" through “a National Electricity Board appointed by the Minister of Transport on appropriate grounds of ability”; and for “national ownership of the land” through a National Agricultural Commission responsible to the Minister of Agriculture (Policy Reports 3 and 4, p. 1). The existing shareholders or landowners are to receive appropriate holdings of stock. The swing-over from nationalisation to public utilities (or what Mr. H. Morrison has called the “Capitalist Soviet”) no doubt aims to obviate the charge of bureaucratic inefficiency levelled against nationalised industries, and to make the process of State co-ordination more palatable to those capitalists less enamoured of the fashionable cult of the “Plan,” those whose “opposition to being nationalised,” in the words of the Liberal economist, Professor Clay (The Listener, 20/1/32), “is an instance of the short-sightedness of the capitalists where their own interests are concerned.” “What difference would it have made," he says, “if the railways had been nationalised in 1919? I cannot myself see that it would have made much difference to the railway workers or railway users; it might have made a considerable difference to the owners of railway capital, since the Government stock they would have got in 1919 in exchange for their railway securities would not have depreciated as those have done.”

These capitalist arrangements do not alter any essential feature of the relations between capitalist and worker. They solve no working class problem. Capitalism is not abolished by changing, shares into stock, nor wage-slavery ended by changing masters. The workers still remain without access to the means of wealth, except at the bidding of the capitalist class who individually or collectively own them. “Public ownership” may even retard the development of class-consciousness among the workers. Just as the payment for labour-power in money wages helps to conceal the daily tribute of unpaid toil wrung from the workers by the master class, so employment by the “public corporation" tends to disguise the antagonism between worker and capitalist. Thus is made easier the unresisting exploitation of the workers by the simple device of making them “public servants.”

The new Labour Party agricultural policy lands them in the dilemma of having to advocate tariffs (“control of imports,” the Daily Herald of 7th October calls them) to maintain food prices, while in the same breath they urge Free Trade to keep down the cost of living. Nor are the Labour Party’s proposals to limit indirect taxation, or to wipe out war debts and reparations, of any concern to the workers who, being a propertyless class, do not carry the burden either of war debts or taxes. The question of limiting armaments is again one which concerns the master class, because they have to pay for them and cannot do without them. However, Mr. J. R. Clynes (in moving a resolution on disarmament and peace) may denounce those who pour “scorn on the League of Nations, and thereby endanger the peace of the world” (Daily Herald, 6/10/32), the fact remains that to recommend disarmament in a society whose mainspring is the scramble for profit squeezed from the workers, and in which war and the suppression of working class revolt are constant features, is about as sensible as advising a drowning man to keep dry. The Conference was treated to the same sort of pious humbug by Mr. G. Lansbury, about the “youth of the nation being driven into the pit of despair," how "the world has come to the end of capitalism,” and how he and his colleagues in the House of Commons fought against that "beastly infliction," the Means. Test.

The Conference leaders who attacked the economies and cuts made by the National Government overlooked the part played by Labour leaders, in the formation of that Government, and made no mention of Mr. A. Henderson's willingness to acquiesce in the dole cut when he was a member of the Labour Cabinet. 

It is no surprise that a resolution instructing the leaders of the next Labour Government to “introduce at once great Socialist measures or some general plan to nationalise the key industries," should be opposed by Mr. Henderson on the ground that “the Conference would be tying its bands” (Daily Herald, 6/10/32), and solemnly warning them, “If you pass this, you will regret it" (News Chronicle, 6/10/32).

These misleaders of the workers pay lip service in plenty to the need for “drastic Socialism" for a “complete Socialist policy" for substituting “a new social order for the present system"; but the emptiness of their revolutionary talk is shown by the footling nature of their concrete proposals “Abolition of capitalism," they cry, “and the establishment of a fixed Easter"!

Resolutions to the Conference from various local Branches throughout the country urging closer, control by the Party over M.P.s and Cabinet Ministers, evoked by the disillusionment in MacDonald’s leadership, show that the working class is yet far from realising the futility of leadership, that leaders can exist only while the workers are willing to be led. The problem of control over leaders disappears when the working class learns to do without them: the problem has no existence for a body of class-conscious workers democratically organised for one clearly defined object, the establishment of Socialism.

Frank Evans

The Green Line Strike (1935)

From the September 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Thursday, July 25th, employees of the London Passenger Transport Board's Green Line coaches at Windsor and Slough agreed to strike in protest against speed-up schedules of duty and against too much discrimination in wages between Green Line conductors and the 'bus conductors on the same routes.

The Transport Board replied that they would have to wait to have the matter considered until September, when the directors of the Board returned from their holidays.

On the following Saturday morning many other garages joined the strike, bringing the number of strikers up to nearly three thousand. The strike was still, however, quite unofficial, and the Transport and General Workers' Union took up a definitely hostile attitude, advising the men to resume work and let their grievances be settled by means of the existing machinery. Later that day the Board announced that if the men had not returned to work by Monday they could consider themselves dismissed. By Monday morning the men were back at work.

A controversy arose, in which Mr. Bevin criticised not only the minority movement for interfering with the running of union matters, but also Herbert Morrison, the Labour Party's ardent advocate of Public Utility Boards such as London Transport. At the time when Mr. Morrison was making his stand in the House of Commons we maintained that the rationalisation of transport in London would by no means improve the position of the transport workers. But Mr. Morrison, turning a blind eye on the class struggle, continued to urge legislation which could—and did—result only in the bringing together of the transport owners in one united force opposed to the transport workers.

During the last few weeks a spate of strikes among the 'bus and coach workers against rigid discipline, speeding up and low wages, has amply vindicated our claim that the Public Utility Boards, which the Labour Party holds up to admiration as measures of "Socialism," are no more than tools to intensify and to mask capitalist exploitation.

The attitude of the Union was unheroic; apparently the leaders wish at all costs to avoid trouble; they expressed no sympathy with the workers in their bad conditions, but merely begged them to return to work and "let things be done decently and in order." However necessary discipline may be in a union, and however "illegal" a lightning transport strike may be, an organisation which claims to fight the workers' battles can rightly be expected to manifest sympathy with, and understanding of, such expressions of the class struggle. In the recent strike, however, the Union simply played into the hands of the bosses.

Modern Trade Union leaders show no inclination to emulate the Tolpuddle Martyrs. No doubt Mr. Morrison will offer to the workers at the next election a programme teeming with Public Utility Boards.

D. S.

An Apostle of Public Ownership. (1932)

From the January 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, the late Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, has been invited by the Soviet Government of Russia to go there and reorganise the passenger transport system. The Daily Herald, in reporting the matter, did not mention whether he accepted the offer. It is a curious commentary, however, on the fact that the Moscow International has for years denounced Ramsay MacDonald and his supporters, while the Russian Government seeks the assistance of one of the most notorious worshippers of MacDonald in Labour Party history.

Herbert Morrison has been very useful here in the Labour Party work of repairing capitalism for the capitalists. Transport is one of the most essential things in the life of great cities. The investing class leave no stone unturned to make it efficient as a profit-making business, whether it is owned privately by shareholders in a company or by stockholders in a municipal or public utility corporation. Political action is one of the methods used by the investors to aid their schemes.

The transport strike under the Labour Government of 1924 was "settled" by the Labour Government passing a Bill asked for by the London Traffic Combine. This London Traffic Act of 1924 enabled the Combine to drive competition out of the field. Even Herbert Morrison (not Right Honourable then) described it as one of the worst Acts ever introduced. In the next Labour Government the critic (Mr. Morrison) was silenced. Mr. Morrison had then become the Minister of Transport.

He took charge of the "nefarious" Act of 1924 and worked it so that capitalist organs praised him for his business capacity in smoothing the path of the traffic companies. Before the Labour Government resigned, he brought forward a London Passenger Transport Bill to combine all concerns working London traffic under a so-called public utility Board. Lord Ashfield, of the Combine, told his shareholders that their stock and interest would be more secure under the Labour Bill than their present shares and dividends. The Bill was a part of the usual work of "Labour" in making the present system more efficient and strengthening it—not abolishing it, as Socialists desire.

The Right Honourable ex-Labour Minister gave a lecture at the Workers' Circle, Aldgate, on December 18th, to explain the wonderful scheme of traffic unification. It was a typical company chairman's speech to shareholders. He deplored the number of empty seats in 'buses, and wished to save the waste of perfectly good empty seats and arrange just enough 'buses for the riders. He also explained that the companies could not spend money on improvements while there any possibility of competition. The solution was not Socialism or even Nationalisation. Modern Socialists, he claimed, did not favour State operation of services, but business control through public utility boards. The shareholders of the companies were to be given stock, the directors compensated, and interest would be paid.

The idea was similar to the Port of London Authority, so prominent in opposing dock workers and using machinery to supplant them.

The writer asked Mr. Morrison if he did not describe the "publicly owned" Port of London Authority as a Capitalist Soviet. He was further asked to justify his statement that the workers are to be considered, seeing that out of 34 members of the Advisory Board under his Bill, only three would represent the organised workers.  The capitalist character of the scheme was exposed, but the Right Honourable "Labourer," in reply, "justified" himself by talking about Russia's need for development and capitalist assistance.

The writer never mentioned Russia or the Communists, but this leading light of capitalist reform thought it sufficient to call him a Communist and ignore the subject of his own address.

Adolph Kohn