Spotlights on Capitalism (1936)

From the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

China—Scene of the Next War?

Now that the whole of Africa has been parcelled out, there remain very few areas of the world’s surface which are not subject to the political domination of advanced capitalist countries. China, however, is one of them, and so we find the birds of prey gathered around for the final picking. The one secure source of revenue in China is the Customs, and the Daily Telegraph mentions (May 14th, 1936), that they are the one point of economic security for Chinese loans, which are largely held by British capitalists. The Japs, however, have established a demilitarised zone in the north of China, where Chinese troops are not allowed to penetrate, and set up a local Government, known as the “ Independent East Hopei Anti-Communist Autonomous Council.” As a result of this, they are able to obstruct the Chinese Customs in such a way that goods can be brought across the Great Wall of China, or landed on the coast, either duty-free or on payment of only a quarter of the normal duties. This naturally diverts goods from such ports as Shanghai, where full duties have to be paid, and so the amount of both trade and duties at these ports declines, and the actual loss to the revenue has amounted in one week alone to as much as £120,000. As the interest on the loans has hitherto taken “only” one-fifth of the Customs dues, there is still ample cover for the service of the loans. Nevertheless, the bondholders are very much upset, and so the Governments of both Great Britain and the United States have made strong official representations in Tokio.

For nearly a hundred years now, the capitalist powers have been nibbling at China; one of the most notorious occasions was the Opium Wars, fought with the object of forcing the Chinese to buy Indian opium—a harmful drug which they were quite capable of producing themselves. Twice have British troops marched on Pekin, and as long ago as 1860 they burnt the magnificent Imperial Palace, just outside Pekin, to the ground. The French pinched Annam and Tongking—once Chinese provinces, Japan long ago stole Taiwan, and more recently Korea, whilst her present intrigues are setting the teeth of the other capitalist powers on edge. Great Britain holds Hong Kong, whilst land in the vicinity has been obtained for fortification purposes. At every available opportunity the Chinese have been forced to agree to the opening of certain of their ports—called “treaty ports”—to foreign trade, and these even extend to the interior of China up to the limit of navigability of the Yang-tze-Kiang. Modern internal transport is now almost entirely in foreign hands. The majority of the railways are owned by British capitalists, whilst in the latest sphere— that of aviation—a new scramble has commenced. Here the British are behind—due doubtless to the British Government's present embargo on loans to foreign Governments and companies—and so we find the more important towns in this vast country —16 times the size of the British Isles—linked by a network of regular services, the most important being the American (China National Aviation Corporation), whilst the Germans have not been slow and their Eurasia Aviation Corporation flies from Shanghai to Hanchow and from Pekin to Canton. Chinese capitalism is, however, fast developing, and so we find the national South-Western Aviation Corporation operating American machines from Canton to Hangchow and Pakhoi in the southwestern extremity, and even now a dispute has arisen with the French and American lines over the carriage of mails.

Those who watch for the next war may well turn their eyes to China.

#    #    #    #

Beauty in the Stores

F. W. Woolworth & Co., Ltd., who last year made a profit of over £5,000,000, believe in leaving no stone unturned to increase their turnover, and so we find them issuing The New Bond. Unlike Chinese bonds, which produce a revenue for the purchaser, this “Bond" costs twopence and is designed to benefit the seller, rather than the buyer. The buyers are Woolworths' girl slaves, and the purchase of The New Bond is quite optional. We understand, however, that it is a brave girl who would refuse to buy. Like all “house” publications of this nature, the object is to produce a “team spirit” amongst the employees and to make them feel that they are at j one with the firm.

An issue before us contains a beauty chat— . “ Our Beauty Chat ” it is called, and we read— 

“It is the discreet touch of Rouge and Lipstick that makes or mars a face. The lighter shades of Rouge, such as Orange or Cherry, make your skin appear clearer—eyes brighter; but should you have blue-black hair and brown eyes, a slightly darker shade is necessary, such as Rosée.”

Concluding, they say—“ We shall recommend the well-known cosmetics which can be obtained at 'your' Store, so let us vote for a Bigger, Brighter, Beauty Movement!M

And, of course, Bigger and Better dividends. In return the firm will give the employees a paltry Christmas box and a vote of thanks!

  R. M.

Blogger's Note:

Original spelling in the article retained. A year to the day, Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Indignity of the old age pension (1965)

From the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let there be no delusions about the purpose of old age pensions. They are not designed primarily to benefit the pensioners. A case in point is the first national pension scheme ever, in this country. The motive behind that scheme, whatever nonsense the politicians talked about it, was to find a cheaper way of keeping the old geezers going than sending them to the workhouse. Since then, the pension has been increased many times, but it is still inadequate to keep an old person in any sort of comfort. Hence the fact that millions of pensioners have to resort to National Assistance.

The basic pension for a single person is £3.7.6. a week. In London a furnished room costs a minimum of about £2.10.0. a week, which leaves very little for heating, cooking, beer, tobacco, clothes and food. Perhaps economies are possible; very little heat would be needed to cook the paltry amount of food which could be bought on that budget. Yet this is what Sir Alec Douglas Home referred to as “sharing in prosperity.” Truly, someone is prosperous, but it is not the worn out workers who make up the army of old age pensioners.

But, say the defenders of the Welfare State, there is always National Assistance. The N.A.B. considers that a single person needs £3.16.0. a week for needs other than rent. It is of course difficult to find out what allowance the Board makes for a pensioner’s rent, but so far as one can judge from published correspondence, is has been about £2.10.0. for a single person and £4.10.0. for a married couple. This, obviously, is acceptable to a pensioner, but it represents something far from prosperity, or even moderate security.

The scheme is bedevilled by complications and anomalies. For example, if pensioners live in a council house or flat, they are deemed to be paying a reduced rent, and their National Assistance reduced accordingly. They are investigated by the council and by the N.A.B.—the council want their rent, the Board want to keep their payments as low as they can. However delicately the investigations are carried out, the pensioners’ dignity is bruised; many of them, indeed, refuse to apply to the N.A.B. for that reason.

After a lot of cogitation the late Tory government introduced a “graduated” pension scheme. This was supposed to be a wonderful improvement. When the fanfares died away, it was apparent that the new scheme meant that a slightly higher pension would be paid, after higher contributions from workers and employers.

One thing which came to light later on, when the Labour government were proposing to increase pensions, was that, under certain conditions, the pensioners stood to lose under the graduated scheme. When the Labour government’s Bill was being debated, the Conservatives introduced an amendment to increase the weekly payments to those who worked after they were sixty-five. Referring to the existing scales,

“Lt. Cdr. Maydon (C. Wells) former parliamentary secretary, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, said that if a single man deferred his retirement for the full five years, the State would be better off by £1,385. The man would have to live until he was 95 years old before he broke even” (Daily Telegraph, 4.12.64).

It is, we need hardly say, not curious that the Tories did not draw attention to this point when they originally introduced the Graduated scheme.

The amendment which Lt. Cdr. Maydon was supporting was rejected by the Labour government, in their familiar pose of the Pensioners’ Friend, on the grounds that they are engaged in a general review of all social security provisions. They now propose to increase the basic pension to £4.0.0. for a single person and £6.10.0. for a married couple. These new scales will come into force at the end of March. The Assistance payments are also increased, by 12.6d. and £1.1.0. respectively.

These modest rises amount to the Labour Government’s redemption of their election promises. The postponement of the higher payments until March 19th., while the rise in MP’s pay was backdated, aroused some misgivings among Labour MP’s, but the official answer at the time was that the amount of extra clerical work involved prevented any earlier increases. Then Mr. George Brown, Minister of Economic Affairs, let one of his many cats out of one of his many bags. Speaking at the Labour Conference at Brighton, he admitted that it was the economic ministers, Mr. Callaghan and himself, who had advised against earlier payment. “We simply” he said, “in this situation, could not do more than we have done.”

At this stage, we cannot foresee what will result from the present Review. But one thing is certain. The pensioners have nothing to hope for from the Labour Party, which upheld the Means Test when they were in office in the Thirties and which kept the pensioners worse off, when they were in power after the war, than did the subsequent Conservative governments.

As long as capitalism lasts, old people are going to suffer the indignities and deprivations which are inseparable from them today. Capitalism is interested in its workers only so long as they are a source of profit when they grow old they become just another Social Problem. But somehow they must be kept, so the State levies a contribution, from both the workers and their employers, to finance the payment of pensions later on. The basic concern is to keep capitalism running. Pensions are a side issue, full of the anomalies of what were the Ten Shilling widows, the disabled hanging on to life with their feeble fingertips, the embarrassments of National Assistance.

Yet the pensioners have a hope. They cannot, like their younger fellow workers, strike to improve their conditions. But there are six million of them and that is an awful lot of votes. That is why they are wooed and promised the Earth, by Labour and Tory Parties alike. At the moment, young and old are deceived by the promises. But they could use their vote, in unity, to set up the world of freedom and dignity, for human beings throughout their lives.

RAMO

Umbrella statesmen (1939)

From the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A lot of skits have been published about Chamberlain and his umbrella, but the real significance of it has escaped the commentators. It is that, in negotiating peace or war, it is the capitalists or their representatives who carry the umbrellas, but the workers who, when the war has started, are expected to shoulder—not umbrellas— but guns, and to blow each other to bits about a quarrel which can be made or made up by statesmen, who need to be armed with nothing more than an umbrella, a fountain pen, and the passive support of the workers themselves in order to be able to plunge the world into a holocaust of blood such as the earth has never yet seen.

R. M.

The Drought Peril (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The contradictions of capitalism and its disservice to the community are vividly shown in the method of handling the water shortage. Under a national system of society the available water could easily be stored and directed to the points where it is needed. Under capitalism, however, the god of private property is all-powerful, and so we read in the News-Chronicle of June 12th, 1935: Many local authorities are handicapped by the unwillingness of owners of land with water sources to sell the water rights at a reasonable price. At present there are no powers to acquire such land compulsorily at an arbitration figure.

R. M.

Rationalising the Petrol Industry. (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Miners complain that petrol has helped to deprive them of their jobs. The developments of the petrol industry are at the same time reducing the number of workers required there. Many improvements in the distribution of petrol have been made since the War.

The substitution of the old horse-drawn wagons by motor-lorries has enabled the petrol companies to close down a large number of depots, involving the dismissal of drivers and vanguards in each case, as the motors can cover a larger area. Where depots have not been closed, a thorough revision of the vehicle routes has enabled lorries, drivers, and vanguards, to be dispensed with at nearly all depots.

The replacement of the petrol can by the petrol pump has resulted in the displacement of still more workers. Petrol can be run into a tank-wagon and out again into the retailer’s underground storage much more quickly than when it was necessary to load the cans on to a lorry and then to unload at the retailer’s, and then to load what empty cans had to be returned to the depot for unloading there. Then, of course, there was the filling of the empty cans at the depots, all of which took a considerable time. Vanguards were generally employed to assist in loading cans, but now they have largely been dispensed with, and the larger number of retailers who can be supplied by one tank-wagon has resulted in the elimination of further vehicles and drivers on this score. The large amount of labour involved in the manufacture and the periodical cleaning and painting of cans is no longer necessary. Motorists were induced to change over to pumps by quoting a lower price ex the pump.

Chiefly as a result of these changes in the method of delivery, in one firm alone 2,000 workers have been sacked during the past two years, and for the whole industry in the United Kingdom the number would probably be round about 6,000.

A casual inquirer might ask why, instead of dismissing so many workers, the hours could not have been shortened all round, or more holidays given, or, seeing that there is a like facility of production in the manufacture of cars and motor-cycles, why society could not have provided them with motor-cycles or cars in order to use up the surplus petrol.

The capitalist form of society, however, knows of no such solution. Goods are not produced primarily for use, but in order to make a profit, and when competing capitalists bring down prices in order to undersell a competitor or to force their entry into a price combine, the others are bound to follow suit, in order to retain their profits, cut down the number of their workers to the absolute minimum, and if that is not sufficient, reduce wages.

Hence we see that, all round, increasing facility of production of foods and commodities of all kinds only means an increase in the poverty of the workers.

No modification of capitalism can alter this condition of affairs. The solution is to abolish capitalism. Capitalism is only one of the many forms of society which have evolved, and Socialism is its only logical successor. Only by the establishment of Socialism can the poverty of the workers be abolished. Read our Declaration of Principles and see how this can be brought about.

RAMO.

The Scottish Season (1932)

From the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amongst the publications which help to brighten the butterfly lives of the idle rich is “The Sketch.” This paper records, in bright and witty language, the activities of our noble masters. In the issue of October 5th, 1932, “Marigold” describes the doings of her society friends, who have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to the French Riviera and are now in Scotland for the Scottish season. Apparently all the notabilities are there just now, including the Duchess of Bedford, who keeps herself fit upon the Macrihanish golf course, “one of the most magnificent in Scotland,” and so inaccessible that many people cannot get there. For her ladyship, however, this is no drawback, as she is most “air-minded,” and flits to and fro in her aeroplane, which she also uses to add to her already extensive knowledge of bird life, by flying to other places of bird interest.

We also learn that the Strathconas, who are immensely rich, love the lovely island of Colonsay, where they spend a large part of every summer, and keep open house for their many friends. All the guests must come by Lady Strathcona’s yacht, which is most luxurious, and well fitted out.

The page containing all this tittle-tattle is enlivened by some illustrations of that hoary superstition, so dear to the minds of our masters, that workers, when transferred to the new bug hutches provided for them, inevitably use the bath as a receptacle for coal. This idea about the coal in the bath is a bit out of date just now, however, because the funds so generously provided by the Public Assistance Committees hardly provide for such a luxury as coal; the workers will now be able to use the bath for a cold bath at least—provided that they have sufficient cash to purchase the necessary carbohydrates to replace the warmth lost through their immersion in cold water !

It is perhaps unnecessary to point out the contrast between the comfortable lives of our masters and those of ourselves. We know that when in work we get a wage barely sufficient to house, feed, and clothe ourselves, and when we are out of work, that, our position is well-nigh hopeless. J. L. Hodson, who has been investigating the position in Lancashire for the News-Chronicle, quotes in the issue of October 18th, 1932, the statement of Mr. Luke Bates, Secretary of the Blackburn Weavers, viz. : —

“The Superintendent of the Weavers’ Convalescent Home at Poulton told me that the Medical Officer there has recently said that 90 per cent. of the weavers coming to the Home are suffering from malnutrition. Those you see knocking about may not look much different, but I think they are taking it out of their stomachs ; they must be living on a reduced diet.”

Capitalist apologists have urged that Socialism would break up the home. We workers know from our own experience that in many cases the wife has to go to work to support a husband out of work through no fault of his own. But, as a result of the administration of the Means Test, Capitalism has still further broken up the homes of hundreds of the unemployed, and sons and daughters have had to go into furnished rooms in order to ensure their getting the meagre pittance allowed them by the Government, which they have themselves voted into power.

The wealth which enables our masters to fly about to magnificent golf courses is the surplus value of which the workers are robbed in the course of their employment. This surplus value flows to the master class through their ownership of the means of production (land, mines, and factories, etc.). Therefore, in order to remedy their position, all that the workers have to do is to appropriate the means of production. They cannot do this by forming processions and getting their heads broken by the police. The road to our emancipation lies through Parliament, which controls the Army, Navy, and Police, and by voting our delegates there, we shall be in a position to control those forces and to establish Socialism. These delegates will enter Parliament as instruments of a working-class political party, whose instructions they will carry out. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the only genuine Socialist party in this country, and we invite all those who agree with our Declaration of Principles to join with us and work for the establishment of a system of society where each shall do his share for the common good.

Ramo.

Will Politics Do Good? (1932)

From the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

In discussing Socialism with one’s fellow workers, whilst agreeing that the present system of society is rotten and that something else will have to take its place, the statement is frequently made that “politics will do no good.” Another objection frequently raised is that the members of the working class are often such traitors to each other that it is impossible to conceive that they should work together in a co-operative spirit for the establishment of Socialism. In support of the latter statement, instances were given to the writer where, in a ‘bus and tram combine, a so-called “red-hot trade union socialist” had given away three of his fellow workers to the bosses, resulting in their dismissal; another case, where after an attempt to form a trade union, the leaders had been bought off and been given better jobs in the office, and also at the time of the shop stewards’ movement, where the shop stewards themselves had been bought off and given jobs as inspectors. Such instances as this are common throughout industry.

They are, however, merely illustrations of the principle, long ago put forward by Marx and Engels, that it is the economic conditions which determine morality or conduct. Under capitalism, whilst the interests of the workers as a class are identical, yet each individual worker is striving against the others to get into a job, to hold it, or to get a better job than his fellow worker, and some workers, in an effort to curry favour with the bosses, will betray their own fellow workers, or allow themselves to be bought off by their masters. It is the dependence of the workers upon the capitalist class for a living which causes the subservience and betrayals complained of. In a society where no man, through his ownership of the means of production, was in a position to control the lives of his fellow men, such betrayals could not occur, because there would be no boss to whom to run and tell the tale, or who could play off one worker against another by bribery.

Be it further noted that all the above instances occur in the industrial field as distinct from the political field. Is it to be inferred that, because the workers may sometimes betray one another on the industrial field, they would not do so upon the political held ? The answer depends to a certain extent upon the type of the political association. In the case of the Liberal and Tory parties, we know that very few workers are actually members of these parties, and are, hence, powerless to control the parliamentary member. The Labour members, at the elections, are financed largely by the trade unions, and they secure support from all sections of the electors by making various promises. Once a member is elected, there is no means of controlling his actions. In general, however, the member elected does act more or less in accordance with the wishes of his electors, who have voted for the continuance of the present system, and if, whilst he is a Member of Parliament, he changes some of his views or his policy, he often feels compelled to undergo another election to test the feeling of his electorate. A confusion of thought often arises because the Labour Party is supposed to represent the workers, and there have been so many instances where members of this party have gone over to the other capitalist parties. The programme of the Labour Party has often been examined in this paper and shown to be not essentially different from that of any other capitalist party. Various reforms are advocated, but none of them are likely to ameliorate in any essential degree the conditions of the workers; in fact, the general effect is to worsen their conditions and to facilitate the smoother running of the capitalist machine. Therefore, when the leaders of the Labour Party go over to some other capitalist party, they are simply carrying on their career without changing their principles.

We, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, claim to be the only political party genuinely representing the interests of workers. We are an association of workers democratically organised with the object of gaining political power from the capitalist class. No member is in a position to control any other and, therefore, none can betray any other. If a member of the Party were elected to Parliament, he would go as a delegate of the socialists who had elected him, and they would see that he carried out their instructions.

It is only through politics, by the capture of political power from the capitalist class, who, at present, are in a position to control the army, navy, and police force, that Socialism can be achieved. It is therefore the duty of all those who agree with us to join with us and work for the overthrow of the capitalist system.

R. M.

Wages in Germany. (1932)

From the October 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is interesting to know how our fellow workers in other lands are faring. From the Daily Telegraph (9/9/32) we learn that in Germany about 2,500,000 insured persons, or 20 per cent. of the total, earn up to 36s. weekly. About 7,000,000, i.e.. over 60 per cent. of the total, earn 24s. a week or less, and of these, 2,500,000 earn less than 12s. weekly, their wages being less than the unemployment benefit. It is now proposed to reduce even these miserably small wages on condition that the employers increase their staff. How to dispose of the extra commodities thereby produced is not explained. One day it will occur to the workers that they might just as well be distributed to themselves. When they realise this, they will be on the road to Socialism.

Ramo.

We need your help. (1931)

Party News from the October 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

This Interesting World (1943)

From the December 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Turkey in the War?

Newspapers these days make interesting reading. An example is an article by the “diplomatic correspondent” of the News Chronicle (5/11 13), who presumably gets his cue from the Foreign Office. Many moons ago it was stated that Turkey is “Britain’s formal military ally,” but despite this the Turkish Government have taken no active part in the war. It is to be presumed that the Turkish Government would prefer to keep clear of either side in the conflict, but small nations, in a world of big capitalist powers, are not the masters of their fate which they would like to be. After the Moscow Conference, Mr. Eden, on his way home, had an interview in Cairo with the Turkish foreign minister, and the News Chronicle purports to show what might have been discussed. The article states that “Russia thinks that Turkey should abandon her neutrality,” while the “diplomatic correspondent” states that in view of the victories now being achieved by the allies “Turkish statesmen must naturally be reviewing present Turkish policy in the light of future probabilities” and “the weight of any influence she could exert in the settlement of problems in which she has an interest will be in direct ratio to the contribution she has made towards bringing peace about.” What this curious diplomatic verbiage really means is : “Join in with us now, and you shall have a slice of the cake.” It also seems to indicate the suggestion of a threat. If Turkey does join in—on the right side—it will be just one more dictatorship fighting for “democracy.” Turkey has a one-party system of government similar to that of Russia.

* * *

The Sergeant Wants His

The same issue of the News Chronicle contains a report of a discussion in the House of Commons regarding a Sergeant, serving in India, who was told by his former employers that they could not guarantee to take him back after the war. Mr. Bevin, Minister of Labour, admitted that the firm had not committed any legal offence, and stated that he had communicated with them, but that they had shown no desire to change their attitude. Mr. Bevin’s comment was—”I must express my astonishment at their stupidity in not realising the effect such a letter must have on its recipient and my condemnation of their apparent disregard of any considerations other than those directly affecting their own interests.” It will be observed that Mr. Bevin was concerned that a letter should have been written which might disturb the man’s “morale.” It is to be presumed that other employers, at any rate, will make a note of this. Even if they are unable to take back workers after the war, at least do not tell them so !

* * *

Food, Work and Home

Mr, Churchill, however, does realise the necessity of keeping up the fighting man’s “morale,” and in his recent speech in the Mansion House, he said (News Chronicle, 10/11/43):—

“I regard it as a definite part of the duty and responsibility of this National Government to have it set about a vast and practical scheme to make sure that in the years immediately following the war there will be food, work and home for all. 

“No airy visions, no party doctrines or party prejudices or vested interests shall stand in the way of the simple duty of providing before the end of the war for food, work and home. Each plan must be prepared now during the war, and must come into action—just like when war breaks out general mobilisation is declared—as soon as victory is won.”

Either Mr. Churchill is or is not aware of how capitalism works, but despite any guarantees, however sincere they may be, of security after the war, capitalism just won’t provide it—not even if Mr. Churchill still heads the British Government. Capitalism is based upon the ownership of the factories, mines, railways, etc., by the capitalist class, and upon the production of goods and services for profit. No profit, no work, is a constant factor in capitalism, and when goods have been produced so that markets are glutted, and no further outlets can be found, the necessary consequence is that the factories, etc., will be closed or put on short time until the markets revive again. Factory owners will not employ workers to produce goods when those goods cannot be sold at a profit.

* * *

£1,250 Millions in Six Minutes

Another paragraph in the News Chronicle of November 5 reports the voting in the House of Commons of another £1,250.000,000 for carrying on the war. This huge sum, it is stated, was voted in six minutes. Most of this money will be raised either by taxation of the British capitalist class or by loans from that class. When the war is over we wonder whether unemployment relief will be voted for with the same alacrity and on the same generous scale.

R. Milborne

Beveridge Deals with the Birth Rate (1943)

From the July 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

And We Deal with Beveridge

Sir William Beveridge, being the noise of the moment, has been taken up by the Sunday Observer, who have been paying him for a weekly article on the editorial page. As Sir William is a public figure, it is to be presumed that he receives no mean payment for these articles. In the issue of April 11th, he deals with “The Problem of the Birth Rate.” The title itself is interesting. Why is it a problem, and to whom? Let us now examine this problem.

In dealing with present-day society, certain basic features have to be borne in mind. These are the fact that society is divided into two classes—those who, by virtue of their non-possession of wealth, are compelled to sell their labour-power to some firm or organisation which is willing to buy it, and those who, by virtue of their ownership of the factories and the general means of production and distribution, are able to buy the energies of the first group for so many hours per week. In relation to the second group, the first group stand as slaves—wage-slaves. Perhaps they might even be termed “free slaves,” because in peace time they have the theoretical right to terminate their employment by a week or a month’s notice. But should they do this, they are not entitled to unemployment pay, and being without wealth, they are compelled immediately to seek another master. This is the extent of their “freedom.”

As is to be expected, Sir William ignores this feature, and for the moment we will ignore Sir William.

At this stage we might well ask whose birth-rate is it that Sir William is concerned with—is it the birth-rate of the wage-slaves or the birth-rate of the owning class? It must be fairly obvious that it is the birth-rate of the wage-slaves which is the problem, because numerically the owning class represent such a tiny fragment of the population that, even if they had sixteen per family, it would still not alter the birth rate. Evidently it is the birthrate of the wage-slaves which is the perplexing problem.

The next question is who is it that is concerned with the workers’ birth-rate, and why? If Mr. Jones told Mr. Brown that he was not satisfied with Mr. Brown’s birth-rate, we should imagine that Mr. Brown might feel a little bit annoyed, especially if Mr. Jones hadn’t done anything about it himself. Now it must here be pointed out that there is a distinct difference between the “birth-rate problem” and the desire to have children. If a worker wishes to have children, it is not out of a desire to increase the birth-rate; but simply and solely because that is a natural human desire. In reproducing himself, therefore, the worker does not make a prior study of the birth-rate statistics. As Sir William points out, most marriages result in one child; if second and third children are not born, it is because they are not wanted, and in most cases the reason they are not wanted is that the workers cannot afford to rear them decently—not because they do not want them. There is a further tendency which may be noted in passing. As wages tend to follow the cost of living, and as the cost of rearing a small family is less than that of rearing a large family, wages adapt themselves accordingly, so that before the war, owing to the low level of “real” wages, it was becoming increasingly the practice for both married partners to be working. Here the change from relative comfort to the poverty of one partner supporting three represented such a big change that there was less disposition than ever in such cases to have children.

Now the question of the birth-rate is this. If the birth-rate is increased, it means that there will be a large increase in the number of workers (and fighters)—for in wartime it is the workers, the wage-slaves, who do the fighting; even if the whole of the owning class did all the fighting, their numbers are so small that they would soon be overwhelmed. Now we are beginning to understand why it is that the problem of the birth-rate is so serious—for the owning class, and we can return to Sir William Beveridge at the point where he quotes Winston Churchill as saying : “If, therefore, this country is to keep its high place in the leadership of the world, and to survive as a Great Power that can hold its own against external pressure, our people must be encouraged by every means to have larger families.” Thus both Churchill and Beveridge desire that there should be a continual good supply of workers (and fighters). It is not possible to deal with this aspect of the question more fully at the moment, but it may be well to ask whether, if Britain lost the war, the British owning class would not lose a very large proportion of their wealth.

Beveridge twice makes the statement that “people will not have children for pay,” yet this is precisely the nature of that one of his suggestions which might, be described as practical. He says : “If children’s allowances are to be effective in remedying this inequality” (as between children in small and large families),” they must be adequate; they must be enough for subsistence in every case, and should be supplemented by special schemes for particular occupations.” He also recommends free comprehensive medical service for maternity, with provision for its special costs. His other idea, which might be described as the impractical or the imponderable one is a “change in public opinion”—i.e., that workers should be induced to have children as a result of pronouncements by members of the owning class that they should do so in order that “Britain’s role of leadership” should be maintained. One would hardly have thought it necessary to point out to an economist like Sir William Beveridge that workers are not going to have children for such imponderable reasons as this. If Bill Brown told Tom Jones that he had had a baby in order to help retain Britain’s role of leadership, would he not be greeted with ribald laughter?

Ramo.

Did you listen to Smuts? (1942)

From the December 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Did you listen in to Smuts?” These were the words on everyone’s lips the morning after the veteran politician’s speech. The answer, due to lack of a radio set, was perforce in the negative. So after working very hard all day for the benefit of a bunch of railway shareholders, we sat up burning the landlady’s electric light till 1 a.m. in order to find out what all the pother was about. To-night, still being worn out after the day’s toil, we will endeavour to convey our impressions to paper. The most striking thing about the speech was the resounding flow of words. One might almost say that he out-Churchilled Churchill in this respect. But words, apart from the meaning they convey, matter very little to the scientist or the Socialist. It is impossible, in the now restricted space of the Socialist Standard to deal with the speech in detail—we can only touch upon one or two points of special interest to the toilers of the world.

Let us quote. Speaking of Britain, he says: “I remember this smiling land, recovered and rebuilt after the last war, where a happy people dwelt securely, busy with the tasks and thoughts of peace.” Is this a true picture? Did any of those who heard these words recall to mind the thrice-weekly queue outside the labour exchange, the miserable dole, the means test? Or, when working, the hard toil under the ever watchful eye of the employer’s deputy, always ready to hand out the order of the sack at the slightest sign of slackness, old age, or insubordination?

He must realise that there must be memories of such things, so he holds out a picture of a new world—but a rather subdued new world—not quite so rosy as the “world fit for heroes” of the 1914-18 Lloyd George epoch.

Quoting with approval the vague “Atlantic Charter,” he adds : “We cannot hope to establish a new heaven and a new earth in the bleak world which, will follow after this most destructive conflict of history. But certain patent social and economic evils could be tackled on modest practical lines on an international scale almost at once.”

The nearest he comes to the concrete is when he says : “Health, housing, education, decent social amenities, provision against avoidable insecurities—all these simple goods and much more can be provided for all, and thus a common higher level of life be achieved for all.” A careful reading of the speech seems to indicate that the provision of all these blessings is intended on an international scale. Thus, although we are not going to have so rosy a world as the Lloyd-Georgian one, we are going to have it on a wider scale. But what are these blessings ? We seem to have heard of them all before—in fact, they are as old as capitalism itself. “Health”—who has not heard of “health”—and health insurance. How many experts have pointed out the sapping of health caused by a poverty diet ? “Housing”—the word almost makes one laugh. It is, of course, the housing of the poor they refer to. For the wealthy, there is no housing problem. But, Smuts or no Smuts, there will always be a housing problem under capitalism, because capitalism breeds poverty, and poor people can never afford decent houses. “Decent social amenities”—does he mean the Carlisle public houses, or municipal parks, or what? Or is it just a string of words, that sounds well, but means nothing? “Provision against avoidable insecurities.” Another fine-sounding phrase—but it looks suspiciously like the “dole,” and the word “avoidable” seems to imply that it will not be distributed too lavishly.

Smuts says that “it is no longer a case of Socialism or Communism or any of the other isms of the market place, but of achieving common justice and fair play for all.” Short of Socialism, we would like to know what other means capitalism’s main defect, poverty, and its subsidiary defects—wars, slums, and unemployment—can be remedied. Smuts clearly has in mind the continuance of capitalism, but while there is competition for jobs and competition for markets, talk of justice and fair play is nothing more than a joke. The past history of capitalism should make this clear.

Numerous politicians have called Hitler’s attack on Russia a mistake. Smuts also calls it a mistake. Yet he says : “Baulked in his air attack on London, he saw that it was unsafe to attempt an invasion of Britain before first clearing his rear in Russia.”

Smuts apparently believes in God and the Devil, for, speaking of Hitler’s failure to attack Britain directly the Channel coast was open, he says : “Providence saved us there, and let us admit that the Devil helped him. Such is always the ultimate function of evil in this world.”

The chief evil is that workers continue to support capitalism and thereby do continue to suffer the evils which capitalism produces.

(The quotations are taken from the Daily Telegraph of October 22, 1942.)

Ramo.

Good News for Shareholders (1942)

From the December 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Following the British and American occupation of points in Morocco and Algeria, the Times (November 11, 1942) reports that there was a further accession of strength to the stock markets. “The large bulk of the active trading was in the industrial and kindred markets, but the more spectacular gains were in oil and mining shares, Far Eastern issues, and European bonds. . . . The feature of the foreign bond market was the strong demand for European and Ear Eastern loans; Greek bonds were marked up by a further two or three points, French railway bonds by four or five points, and Chinese bonds by three or four points. . . . Oil shares were strong, particularly the Eastern group.”

The Times does not report any simultaneous spectacular rise in the wages of the workers.

R. M.

The Unemployed are Tough (1942)

From the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing of the commando raid on Dieppe, the News Chronicle reporter says: “… These boys from the prairies—their average age is only about 23—had waited a year and a half for this chance to fight. Fighting is part of their character. They had grown up in hard times—the great depression and the prairie dust storms had meant long unemployment for many of them.”—-(News-Chronicle, 21/8/42.)

This is the first time we had heard that unemployment made workers “tough.” With this important discovery before them, capitalists will now no longer worry about the effect of unemployment on the morale of the workers. That is, of course, if there is going to be any unemployment in the wonderful post-war world, which has already half been built up—in words.

R. M.

Letter: The Plight of the Merchant Seaman (1942)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Following the review of “Red Duster at War” in our June issue we received from the author a letter concerning the review. Mr. Bennett’s statement is given below, with our reviewer’s comments.

“It gave me a great deal of solid satisfaction yesterday to receive, unexpectedly, a copy of “The Socialist Standard” for June, 1942, and to read, pages 56-57, what “Ramo” has to say of my book, “The Red Duster at War.” But I want to qualify a few of his statements and criticisms, and I believe the Committee would be interested in what I have to say.

First, Ramo claims that I discuss “in a vague way” what ought to be done to improve conditions of seamen. I set myself up as a crusader, not as an authority on what lines should be followed after this war to make life at sea —and life ashore for seamen’s dependents—decent in contrast to the damnable conditions which exist even to this very day. But I have plenty of practical and 100 per cent. workable and authentic suggestions—based upon personal experience at sea and upon moves now taking place ashore behind the shipping scene—I could make. Point is, in what journal can I make those suggestions? Every newspaper and journal in Britain is scared to publicise truth, in this particular matter. Are you ?

Second, Ramo claims that I “betray no knowledge of the class divisions in society.” And how wrong he is! My God, if any unknown writer ever experienced the bitterness of class divisions, then, believe me, I have. Maybe neither the Committee nor “Ramo” is aware of what has already taken place—with Government blessing !—to affect seamen the moment the “Cease Fire” sounds? If you are in ignorance of this, and you will kindly advise me, I will tell you facts that I think will not only shock you but will convince you that my “indignation …” WILL “… find a different channel for its expression.”

Finally—although “Ramo” raises many another point I would here like to deal with, but will not—in the final sentence of the review, it is stated : ‘The only international agreement … is an agreement upon the necessity of doing away with the entire world-wide capitalist system.’ Agreed! AND IF YOU REQUIRE A PRACTICAL WRITER TO OUTLINE THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS DAMNABLE SYSTEM, SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS THE MERCHANT SEAMAN, I AM YOUR MAN. Whatever I may be invited to write for the Committee shall be written, sincerely, without any question of payment, for this is a subject very near and very dear to me.

Who am I that I should set myself up as a crusader? I am a descendant of a Dorset yeoman-farmer, who had eleven sons. One of those sons got into the habit of teaching farm-workers what was their right in life. For his pains he was arrested, tried on a charge of treason, and deported for life to Australia. Two years later there was staged the Tolpuddle affair.

I am, like the merchant seaman, neither a nitwit nor a near revolutionary. But I want to fight for Socialism. To the bitter end.

I am, Gentlemen, Sincerely,

WM. E. BENNETT.

Reply.

The author of “The Red Duster at War” disputes the statement that he betrays no knowledge of the class division of society. In making this statement, he uses the words “class divisions” (plural). Without wishing to be too academic, it must be pointed out that if a body is divided into two parts, the operation is called a division. Only when it is divided into more than two parts is it necessary to have more than one division. Hence the use of the term “divisions” seems to imply a belief in the existence of more than two classes in society. But to deal with the matter more fundamentally, a knowledge of the class division of society (we mean, of course, as understood by Socialists) implies certain things. It implies that this class division is not only one which extends throughout the whole of the capitalist world; it implies that this division of society into two classes is fundamental, transcending such temporary and artificial structures as “nations”; it implies a knowledge of the fact that governments, under capitalism, are but the executive committee of the ruling caste (the employing class), and that such governments cannot therefore be expected to act otherwise than in the interest of the employing class; it implies that while capitalism exists, there can be no hope of any permanent improvement in the lot of the workers; it implies that the only solution is to abolish capitalism with its system of wages and profits and to replace it by a classless society.

The following further quotations can be adduced from Mr. Bennett’s book : —

“Cromwell had the right idea.” (Page 180.) (This refers to the maritime laws designed to prevent the transport of goods between Britain and British possessions other than in British ships.)

“As a nation, Britain can no more afford to lose her shipbuilding industry than she can allow her shipping to be driven from the Seven Seas !” (Page 172.)

“Lord Essendon . . . seemed to hit the vital mark when he said: ‘The only way to revive British shipping and to make it profitable … is to pay due attention to the tramp-ship, which is the very foundation of the modern Mercantile Marine.’” (Page 158.)

“Or will some bright spark in some future Government suggest a plan that the Government itself makes an appearance on the oceans as shipowner? Already there has, I believe, been rather more than a hint of an official plan for a brand-new fleet of merchantmen, to be leased to shipowners for normal trading to all parts of the world on condition that the firms leasing the new, faster, more economic ships would lay up their own older vessels. Why? Why lay up any ship, so long as it can earn its salt ? I have served in antiques which provided the most pleasant returns—and surprises—for shareholders. And nobody ever runs a ship, a shop or a slop-chest merely for the fun of the thing. Or do they?” (Page 158.)

We can make no other deduction from these quotations than that the author is concerned with the increasing of British capitalistically-owned tonnage and with profits. That he may be concerned with improving the lot of the merchant seaman (which we do not dispute) is incidental. But this is not Socialism. It is typical Labourism.

It is quite possible to feel the hard knocks caused by a class division of society, without appreciating their theoretical significance or the action which should follow that appreciation, i.e., a determination to spread the knowledge which alone, when sufficiently widely diffused, will enable the workers to take the essential step of overthrowing the capitalist system in its entirety and replacing it by its logical and evolutionary successor—Socialism —a society where the whole of the means of production and distribution (including shipping) are the property of the whole of the people and operated democratically for the benefit of the whole of the people.

Nevertheless we sympathise with Mr. Bennett’s endeavours to improve the lot of the merchant seaman, and it is possible that with the greater industrialisation and combination of the shipping industry and more frequent social intercourse forced upon the merchant seamen, there will be a greater realisation of the necessity for organisation and action by the seamen to obtain better conditions. But it is still true that organisation and better conditions cannot do away with the booms and slumps which are inseparable from capitalist society, so that eventually seamen, as well as other workers, will finally reach the point of understanding that it is the system of society itself which is at fault.

Ramo.

National Insurance. The Wonderful World of Pensions for All. (1942)

From the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the turn of the year, the weekly national health and pensions insurance deduction has been increased by one penny. It sounds little enough in itself, but one needs to be only a little bit behind the scenes to realise what a gigantic farce is this one facet of the capitalist structure. At a time when the cities of Britain are holding waste paper “drives,” thousands of leaflets have been printed giving particulars of the new deductions, values of stamps to be affixed, etc., etc.; head offices of giant concerns have sent out thousands more circulars; overworked wages clerks all over the country, at a time when all effort is supposed to be directed towards the practical furtherance of the war, are poring over the circulars and spending many extra hours, often unpaid for, in altering the pay sheets and balancing the deductions. Clerks in post offices and insurance companies are similarly affected. Millions of unused stamps will have to go back to the paper mills. Fresh stamp dies must be cast. From a purely monetary point of view, several thousands more pounds a year will come into the Exchequer ; so far as the worker is concerned, it will be only another penny off his wages, and he won’t notice it—any more than he has noticed the slow rise in the cost of living (a slow rise is so much more imperceptible than a rapid one), the reduction in the meat ration, the jam ration, and the income-tax deduction—after all, his wages have gone up. Keep on piling straws on to the camel’s back is the principle adopted, one day his knees will begin to bend, and then, before it is too late, you can take the last straw off again.

Of course, we know the old age pension has been increased. It now amounts to the large sum of twelve shillings a week. Actuarial accountants love to work out these little sums—so much per week on the weekly contribution, so much extra on the old age pension. But the funny part about it is that these increases take place just at a time when all the old age pensioners have elbowed their way back into industry again and are hard at it, together with the “too old at forty’s,” lathe turning, portering, rivetting, and so on.

It is questionable whether pensions insurance is any more upon an “actuarial” basis than unemployment “insurance.” As anybody who has followed the ups and downs of unemployment insurance is aware, during periods of depression large sums have to be taken from the proceeds of general taxation to augment the unemployment fund, the process being reversed during periods of “good” trade. In the present instance, the decrease in the civilian death rate indicates an improvement in the health of the population, so that the expenditure upon sickness benefit should less; the average total weekly increase in deductions is 2d. (1d. employer, 1d. worker), the increase in pensions is 2s. ; is one worker in twelve in receipt of an old age pension?

Capitalism is much the same everywhere. The New York Nation of November 8th last states that it now appears certain that “the U.S. Treasury will rely on a substantial increase in the pay-roll taxes levied under the Social Security Act for a major part of the additional revenues required for the 1942 tax bill.” “One proposal, which apparently has strong support within the Treasury Department, calls for raising the employee’s contribution to the old age and survivor’s insurance fund from the present one per cent. to five per cent., and increasing the levy which supports unemployment insurance. The possibility of combining old age, survivors’, disability and unemployment insurance in one system, supported by a tax of approximately six per cent., is also being studied.” Commenting upon this, the Nation states, “It would undoubtedly reduce purchasing power, but since it would fall predominantly on low-income families, its chief effect would be to cut down the consumption of food and other everyday necessities,” and, further on, “On the pretext of extending the benefits of social insurance, it would adopt a brazen soak-the-poor tax bill.”

But putting high salaried actuaries on one side for the moment, what is the practical effect of the recent change? Relatively, the position is the same as before—the worker has a bob or so stopped out of his wages, the old age pensioner can still manage to escape the workhouse by sponging on his poor relatives or, if there are none, he can in most cases get a supplementary allowance from the public assistance committee, and the employers think they have done a nice little bit of business by making the worker bees save up for their old age, so saving the expense of keeping them in institutions. We hate to disillusion our capitalist masters, but would it make so much difference if the whole vast governmental apparatus of deductions, accounting and stamping were scrapped and the “pension” paid out of general taxation? Actually, it would make but little difference, for the worker’s wages always tend to equal the cost of living—after all, you must feed the beast to get the work out of him—so that deductions from wages tend to be counter-balanced by increases in wages, and in any case, it is the capitalist class themselves who fork out the bulk of the taxation. The whole business reminds one very much of the “octroi” system in France, where taxes are levied on all sorts of commodities coming through the gates of a city, thus bottling up the traffic on important roads. The principle is the same. The capitalist class have a great dislike of coughing up the necessary cash to run a necessarily expensive administration, so they think out all sorts of ways of passing the buck on to the worker, thus causing themselves more expense in the long run than would otherwise be the case.

But the even funnier part of the whole business is: the thousands of government clerks, many of them poring over and haggling about interpretations of regulations and enactments, deluding themselves with the idea that they are doing highly important work, and the workers taking it all in and saying “what a wonderful world we live in—a pension for all those who are too old to work.”

However, some workers don’t take it all in, and perhaps this short sketch will cause some enquiring new reader to make a more thorough examination of the capitalist society in which we live.

Ramo.

Tit-Bits from the Press (1941)

From the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The American Navy.

“When the day of Hitler’s defeat comes, sea-power will again be dominant, and the centre of it will not be in London but in Washington, D.C. Never again will we permit even the British to excel us in sea-power.”—(From a speech by Mr. Knox, Secretary to the U.S. Navy, quoted in Life, March 10th, 1941.)

* * * *

One Suit since the War.

Lord Dulverton, chairman of the Imperial Tobacco Company, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph, of July 15th, as stating that he had bought only one new suit of clothes since the war broke out. If the non-purchase of suits is a measure of patriotism, the writer of these notes can score one off Lord Dulverton, because he hasn’t bought a single suit since the war started. In his case, however, the reason is different. He couldn’t afford it.

Ramo.

Tit-Bits from the Press (1941)

From the August 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fierce Competition after the War

At the annual meeting of Salts (Saltaire), Ltd., Sir Frank B. Sanderson, M.P., stated (Daily Telegraph, July I7th, 1941) : —

“Britain must plan now for post-war export trade. Peace would bring in its train fierce competition in the world’s markets, and it was only by planning in advance that we should be able to hold our own. A definite, carefully calculated, and well-defined trading policy would be essential. Preferential exports, priority of transport facilities, and stabilising of exchanges were but a few of the matters that would require searching thought.”

There is something rather clear-cut about this picture—something rather different from the nebulous images of the Priestleys. the Morrisons, and the Bevins. It pictures the return of capitalism as we know it from the past—not only fierce competition in the markets of the world, but fierce competition for jobs, unemployment, and poverty and insecurity for the producers.

What Dorothy Thompson Thinks

Among the reasons being given as to why the U.S.A. should enter the war now, the following, by the well-known American writer, Dorothy Thompson, is worth placing on record : —

“The alternative to acting now is either the possible defeat of the British Isles before this year is over, and, in that case, the certainty of a terribly disadvantageous war for the United States, or a very long and exhausting war of attrition, with unforeseeable revolutionary consequences arising out of chaos and starvation.”

Who will do the Unpleasant Tasks ?

One of the most frequent objections raised to Socialist ideas is that under Socialism most people will want to do the pleasant tasks. The present war provides an irrefutable answer to this objection. Numerous instances have been recorded in the Press of how not only men, but women and youths, have, without reward, risked their lives in extinguishing incendiary bombs, putting out fires, rescuing people from falling debris, driving ambulances while bombs are falling, and so on. The motive for these acts of heroism is the belief that the war is a just one—for freedom and the stamping out of Fascism and Nazism. Just as willingly will people be ready to take part in all the tasks of the community when they have assured knowledge that all those tasks are indeed directed towards the common weal.

R. M.

Looking Forward. The conflict in Perspective (1941)

From the June 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

What will be the outcome of the present war, is a question often asked, but seldom answered.

If we are to take a long view of the present conflict, several factors have to be borne in mind. These are—the capitalist nature of present-day society, the geographic factor, industrial power, the new factor, air power, and past developments viewed in perspective.

The capitalist nature of present-day society is a fact. No thinking person nowadays denies that we live in a capitalist era, where goods are produced for profit, where the worker is a mere instrument of production, a seller of labour-power, receiving in return for the expenditure of his energies a wage or salary which, with any allowances he may receive in the shape of free milk, allotments, free holidays, etc., is just about enough to keep him in that state of efficiency which will enable him to perform his work satisfactorily. Practically the whole mechanism of production is carried through by large combines, and these in turn are owned and controlled by often anonymous shareholders. The combine is brought into being as a rule in order to eliminate competition, thus London Transport, the monopolist London traffic combine, and United Dairies, which has now bought out most of the smaller dairies and occupies the dominant position in London and the outlying area. In passing, it should be noted, that it is the introduction of petrol and the development of road transport which has enabled the combine owners of huge petrol-driven milk wagons to obtain their monopolistic hold upon the market and to dictate their terms to the farmer-producers. After the last war there was a fierce struggle between the Shell, the B.P., Standard Oil, and others for the British petroleum market, but finally the smaller companies were forced into the combine, while Russian Oil Products was forced into surrendering a large portion of the market. Finally, B.P. and Shell amalgamated, and thus became the principal competitors of Standard Oil. Then the expensive competition between these two was eased by agreements on quotas, advertising, etc. These are given as examples of the evolutionary development inherent in capitalism to greater and still greater combines.

The mainspring of the economic basis of the modern State is, however, the heavy industry. In this country this is centred in Birmingham, where the ownership of many of the factories is vested in one family, and in the iron and steel mills of South Wales, where again the real ownership and control appears to be vested in very few hands. It is the countries of heavy industry which occupy the dominant place in the world struggle for markets and spheres of influence, as witness Germany, Great Britain and the U.S.A. Russia and Japan are latecomers on the scene, hardly developed as yet, while Japan is mainly a country of light industry—the material factors of heavy industry are wanting. France and Belgium are also heavy industry countries, but on a smaller scale.

Some time before the war, to obviate the intense competition between the two principal European competitors, an arrangement was come to between the iron and steel interests—an arrangement which all good capitalists make from time to time, in order to save the expense of competition and the limitation of profits thereby caused. Such arrangements, in general capitalist procedure, are often the prelude to a combine or amalgamation.

Occupying a slightly different field is the international combine known as Sofina, owning coal, gas, electricity and tramway undertakings in Europe (France, Spain, Belgium and Germany) and in North and South America. The chairman of the standing committee is an American, Dannie Heineman, while the other directors are of French, Belgian, British and Italian nationality. Of these, the Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna is also a director of the Canadian Pacific, the Midland Bank, etc.; Count Volpi, of Venice, is a director of the International Sleeping Car Co. and the Lincolnshire and Central Electric Supply Co., Ltd.; General Sir Hugh Elles is a director of the Pressed Steel Co., Ltd., while Sir Bernard Docker brings the story back to Birmingham with directorships of the Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Co., Ltd., and the Birmingham Small Arms Co., Ltd. ; he is also a director of Guardian Assurance Co., Ltd., the Midland Bank, and Thos. Cook & Son, Ltd. The Guardian Assurance Co., Ltd., has a family relationship with the Times Publishing Co., Ltd., by means of the common directorship of the two companies of Mr. John Walter. Another director of Sofina, Lord Wigram, is also a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and of the Midland Bank. Of the Midland Bank’s directors, Lord Stamp is also a director of Imperial Chemical Industries, L.M.S. Railway, Abbey Road Building Society and the Bank of England. To come back to Sofina—the alliance between gas and electricity is worth noting—in many cases, both originate from coal. Also, when Belgium was invaded, the headquarters of the company was transferred, not to Germany, but to Great Britain.

The ownership of combines appears to be vested in thousands of private shareholders, but as anyone knows, who has inspected the share books of capitalist concerns, while large numbers of private investors hold five and ten shares each, the great bulk of the shares is often held by holding companies, insurance companies and bank nominees, so that the real owners and controllers, in the background can remain more or less anonymous. The Inland Revenue returns, however, disclose the real position. With the passing of each year the private incomes of the wealthy become greater, while the number of people of great wealth becomes smaller. One can almost visualise the eventual passing of the entire productive wealth of a country and its dependencies into the hands of one family or even one man.

Now taking a long look backwards, we find that Great Britain was at one time a country of warring tribes (not warring all the time, of course, the production of food, clothing and shelter was necessarily the principal preoccupation), and each tribe had its strong local patriotism. Such a thing as a United England, with a united English patriotism, could not have been conceived by the people of those times. But eventually—as it happened, by foreign invasion—England was united. Eventually Wales and Scotland were added to the unit. The same process had taken place upon the Continent. The feudal states of Italy were welded into the Italian state. The feudal states of Germany eventually recognised Prussian overlordship. Generally speaking, the principal European states which had now evolved were separated from one another by mountain ranges or sea or river barriers. The fact that within the areas thus enclosed, communication—roads and railways—was relatively easy, was one of the factors which brought about their cohesion as states. Is there any reason why this process of development should stop? We see none. And we see a new factor—the development of air transport and air power. The world has become relatively smaller. A country like Belgium can be traversed in about twenty minutes by air. In these circumstances, small land area units become a hindrance to development. Is it not logical that they should pass under the sway of and become merged in an adjoining land area unit of greater power by virtue of its greater heavy industry ?

For several centuries British policy has been based on the balance of power theory—never allow any power to become predominant on the Continent. Air power, however, has brought a new factor into the picture, and air power is still in the process of Development.

What in all this welter can be the interests of the U.S.A.? It is well known that a large amount of capital is invested by the U.S.A. in Great Britain and on the Continent. Read any speech by any American Government spokesman at, the present time, and .you will almost invariably find a reference to South America. Competition iri South America between British, German and U.S.A. interests is a well-known fact, but the, U.S.A. have been increasing their hold. The lease to them of British naval bases off the eastern, coast strengthens their position. Take a look at your map of the world, and it will be obvious that the greatest competitor which the U.S.A. could have to face in the near future would be a United States of Europe. This, and their capital investments in Europe, dictate their policy.

What of Russia, the land of bureaucratic state capitalism? Ideologically, there is very little difference between Russian “Communism” and German “National Socialism”—many of the German Nazis were recruited from the “Communists.” Were Germany to control Europe, it would not be long before she controlled Russia too. The distances which annihilated Napoleon will have small effect upon modern means of transport. Hence, despite the risk and the probable unwillingness of Stalin to go to war, it is likely that she will, before long, enter the arena. To be dangerously prophetic, one might visualise Europe split into two new land area units, with the line of demarcation at the Rhine—north of the Rhine, Russian Europe, south of the Rhine, British Europe.

How do all the local patriotisms fit into this picture? We have seen that tribal patriotism has given way to State patriotism. As the worker tends to confuse his interests with those of his master, we see no reason why there should not develop a new continental patriotism, after a short period of cohesion and propaganda. Such ideological slogans as “Communism,” “Fascism,” or “Democracy” already provide the groundwork of the new Continental patriotism.

To stretch the vision still further, but in line with the factors we have already mentioned, one can visualise the eventual combination of Europe and Asia (including India and Japan) into one vast Continental State—a similar process in the Americas—thus bringing about the final alignment of forces—the new world versus the old. And just as the industry of the national state is vested in very few hands, and as the tendency is for it to become vested in fewer hands, is it so fantastic to visualise the eventual ownership of the whole world by one family ? Even if capitalism were to develop to this point, there would still exist some workers who would say : “Ah well, you’ve got to have somebody in control—to tell us what to do.” It is safe to assume, however, that long before that time, capitalism will have demonstrated its oppressive nature to such an extent, that the great majority of the workers will be ripe and ready for Socialism.

To the worker these speculations are, of course, only a matter of academic interest. However capitalism settles, temporarily, its differences, the slave position of the worker can only be accentuated with the further development of capitalism. Whether in capitalist national State or capitalist Continent, he will still be a slave to the class which exploits him, he will still suffer from the poverty and its consequences which goes with that condition. The worker must concentrate his attention on the cause of his poverty, the capitalist nature of the world in which we live. Cause and cure go hand in hand—capitalism the cause, Socialism—-in the real meaning of the term—the remedy.

Ramo.

[The above article was written prior to the death of Lord Stamp.]

Tit-bits from the Capitalist Stewpot (1941)

From the June 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

What Mr. Ford thinks.

“Making his annual visit to his plantation here (in Georgia), Mr. Henry Ford again gave expression to his peculiar view of the war, saying that the United States should supply both sides until they collapsed.

Voicing the ‘sincere hope’ that neither side would win, he declared that the suggestion that Germany might one day attack the United States was ‘pure nonsense—a hoax with the sole purpose of getting us into the war.’

‘There is no righteousness in either cause,’ said Mr. Ford. ‘Both are motivated by the same evil impulse, which is greed’.”—(Daily Telegraph, February 17th, 1941.)

Mr. Ford should know something about capitalist greed, for in times of depression he has been quite unscrupulous in discharging workers or putting them on half-time. And to supply both sides—at a profit—is that not also greed ?

* * *

Rowton Houses make a Dividend.

People who think of Rowton Houses as philanthropic institutions, providing cheap beds for extra-poor workers, may have had a shock on reading in The Times (April i7th, 1941) that for 1940 a net profit of £5,455 was made, permitting a dividend of 4 per cent. This compares unfavourably with the previous year, when a £14,621 profit enabled a 4 per cent, tax free dividend to be declared. Though Rowton Houses have evidently been hit by the war, it is clear that there are still plenty of people who are too poor to be able to afford more luxurious accommodation.

* * *

Business in the Far East.

Despite an all-embracing censorship, company reports are still worth reading, and that of the Hong-kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (The Times, March 26th, 1941) is of particular interest. We quote the following extracts: —

“In view of their bearing on exchange and trade balances, I should here mention the various credits and loans which China has received during the year from foreign sources. Detailed particulars have not been made public, but you must be aware that such loans were made chiefly for political reasons. The published announcement dealing with the most recent of the United States loans showed that the donors were desirous that ‘arrangements for purposes of monetary protection and management’ [the words actually used] should be completed. That is satisfactory so far as it goes, but that is all the information which is at present available.”

“As regards Japan, recent regulations issued there seem to be designed to restrict or to drive foreign banks out of business altogether in the same way as banks in Manchuria have already been restricted and, in some cases, driven out. The position awaits further clarification, but in the meantime we have notified our diplomatic authorities, as their intervention seems to be the only action now possible. I will, therefore, say no more about this, nor will I deal with trade in Japan, since it is now under very comprehensive Governmental control.”

* * *

The “Classical” Doctrine.

Writing from Berlin six months before the start of the war, the French Ambassador, M. Coulondre, is quoted as stating, in a despatch to M. Bonnet, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs: —

“In other words, will the Führer be tempted to return to the idea expressed by the author of ‘Mein Kampf’ which, be it said, is identical with the classic doctrine held by the German General Staff, according to which Germany cannot accomplish her high destiny in the East until France has been crushed and, as a consequence, Britain reduced to impotence on the Continent?—(French Yellow Book, Hutchinson, page 91.)

* * *

A Baron’s Romance.

The Star (March 7th, 1941) reports the interesting case of a wealthy baron who induced a young woman to live with him on the understanding that if she did so, he would further her stage ambitions. She was about 18 at the time, and at first refused, so then the baron lived with a more complaisant lady. The young woman, however, subsequently changed her mind, and the union was a fruitful one. The really interesting point about his case, however, is that the newspaper report refers to it as a “romance.” If an affair on somewhat similar lines had occurred in a lower strata of society, we can imagine that it may well have been described in less rosy terms.

* * *

Paint white—Paint black.

For some reason known only to themselves, Graham and Gillies, the advertising agents, republished in The Times (March 1st, 1941) and other papers an advertisement issued by J. Hatchard, of Piccadilly, in 1805, when Bonaparte, not Hitler, was the enemy. The advertisement takes the form of a supposed dialogue between John Bull and Boney. Space forbids us to quote the advertisement in full, but after implying that John Bull wished to remain at peace and that Bonaparte was an enemy of the liberty of the Press and of religion, the dialogue continued : —

“John Bull: Why have you suffered your soldiers to burn so many towns, shed so much innocent blood, destroy cottages as well as palaces so indiscriminately, murder in cold blood thousands of poor men, and ravish thousands of poor women in Italy, in Egypt, in Syria, and lately in Hanover?

Bonaparte: Foolish again, John. I did not merely suffer it—I encouraged it. My object has always been to strike terror. I don’t mince matters. Witness the deliberate massacre of four thousand Turks at Jaffa, who were my prisoners; and my poisoning several hundred of my own soldiers, who were of no use to me.”

To say the least of this advertisement, it is surely a rather indelicate compliment to General de Gaulle and the “Free French Forces.”

R. M.