Is Increased Production the Solution? (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under the heading “Britain is Old-fashioned in Industry,” the Evening Standard (October 11th, 1944) reports speeches made at a Conference of the National Council of Women of Great Britain.

“Miss Barbara Ward, assistant editor of The Economist, said Britain must produce more goods and means of production must be more efficient.

Increase in a nation’s wealth depends on the amount of machine power behind each pair of hands.

We have fallen behind in industrial development, she declared. ‘We are old-fashioned.’

Thorough inquiry should be made into each industry—for instance, the steel industry—to discover why our costs were higher than those of other nations.

We should use our utmost enterprise and labour to increase our standards of living, she said.”

Miss Ward has failed to draw the logical conclusion in regard to what would happen if her suggestion were followed. If all nations become more efficient, and competition will force them to do so. then we shall be where we were—before the war.

“Increase in a nation’s wealth depends on the amount of machine power behind each pair of hands.”

Is not this also the cause of a nation’s poverty ? The amount of machine power behind each pair of hands in the United States before the war was greater than in any other country, and so was the amount of relative unemployment and poverty.

The assistant editor of The Economist is apparently unaware of the fact that the aim and object of capitalist production is not the production of wealth, but the production of profit.

Profit is something for nothing.

It is impossible to make something out of nothing, but the capitalist class give nothing and obtain abundant wealth for themselves as a result of playing a flim-flam game.

Labour applied to the natural resources of the earth produces all exchange values. The capitalist class do not labour, therefore they do not produce any wealth. They live by ownership. They own what is essential to the existence of the rest of us.

They allow us to produce exchange values for them in the shape of commodities under certain conditions. Before we are allowed to work we must agree to sell our wealth-producing material, our mental and physical energy, to them at its cost of production—that means, roughly, what we can live and work upon.

When we are working our energy is the property of those who have bought it, and what our energy produces the capitalist claims as his. Wages consist of the food, clothing and shelter the money will buy. The food, clothing and shelter the worker obtains as wages are all produced by those who labour, not by the capitalist class.

Consider the mighty effort of the working class during the war, and what they have lived upon, while doing it.

“Never in the history of human endeavour” has so much been produced on so little.

The working class have brought into being all the airplanes, guns, ships, etc., that were necessary to the carrying on of the war. What is to be their reward? The brutal truth is that capitalism cannot give them anything to compensate them for their efforts. The capitalist class will, however, continue to obtain their surplus values, rent, interest and profit.

The workers, however, expect to be placed in a better position after the war than they ever were before. The interesting point is how are Ihe ruling class going to devise ways and means of continuing the exploiting process. As a result of their experiences on the batlefleld in various parts of the world, many of the wage slaves are beginning to realise that there is something fundamentally wrong in capitalist society.

They will not be easily handled in the piping times of peace and will be harder to deceive.

Bevin says, “There will be unemployment but victory is worth it” (see Star, October 11th). The victory is the victory of the capitalist class, although the fighting, etc., has been done by the working class. If there is nothing for the workers after the war, what have the workers won? The capitalist class still remain in secure possession of the means of life; the land, railways, mines and tools of industry still remain in their possession.

The workers are where they were. Unemployment can be depended upon to keep wages down to that low level that is strictly in accord with capitalist interests, and then the same old grind.

Those who have acquired wealth during the war out of Army contracts, black markets, etc., will return when peace is proclaimed and disport themselves in the charmed circles of society. Many of the workers, however, who have endured the agonies of the struggle and lost their loved ones in the process, will line up at the Labour Exchange or apply for the sweet charity of the Public Assistance Committee. The means test will continue to be applied—to the working class. Homes are to be built—by whom? The landlord class are anticipating pickings when they receive compensation for the property that has been bombed. The financier will come into his own when deflation occurs—some time after the cessation of hostilities. The capitalist will have the wage slaves controlled for him by the Government, assisted by the labour leader. All sections of the ruling class will be compensated—at the expense of the wage slaves.

Everything in the garden will be lovely, as usual, for those who neither toil nor spin.

How long, fellow workers, how long? Can you not see that until the means of life are made common property there is no security for you ? Can you not see that you are doomed to the eternal treadmill of wage slavery and misery so long as the capitalist system shall last? We must do away with production for profit.

We must no longer allow the exploiter to continue to live by obtaining something for nothing. Production for use must be made to take the place of production for sale.

We are the vast majority.

      Let us stand together,

           All we have to do is to will it.

      And the world is ours.

Let us get hold of the State, the public power of coercion, and use it to make the ruling class let go their hold on our bread and life. Those only are Socialists who stand for Socialism; those who stand for less are the allies of our enemies.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands exclusively for Socialism; no other party in this country has the courage to do so—at election times.

We propose to run candidates for Parliament on the issue. Socialism or Capitalism—which?

We want you to help us. If you are with us, let us know of your existence. The fight is on.

The useful portion of human society have one common enemy—the exploiting system under which we live. Miss Barbara Ward suggests that by increasing the productive power of the slave-exploiting mechanism the slave would benefit. She fails to perceive that the worker is not paid for what he produces, but for what it costs to produce him. Her remarks enable us to realise, how weak the defenders of capital have become. Against the united advance of those who live by selling their labour power, the capitalist class are absolutely helpless. The interests of the workers are identical on the class field. The class issue is ownership.

The enemies of our class will discuss anything but the real issue. It is never raised in Parliament. It will never be prominent in the capitalist press. The very thought of a revolutionary Socialist Party fills the exploiter with fear and foreboding.

Although we hold the largest meeting in Hyde Park, we are rarely mentioned in the public press.

Has word gone round that attention must not be drawn to our existence? Capitalist politicians read the Socialist Standard and listen to our speakers, but all are faithful members of the conspiracy of silence.

The Labour Party is now always referred to as The Socialist Party, although not one of its members stands for Socialism or has been elected on the Socialist ticket.

Why the silence and deception?

The reason is that the ruling class know what we are out for, and they do not want the bulk of the workers to become interested in the issue.

Working class emancipation is, however, on the order of the day.

Line up and do your bit—

The freedom of humanity is at stake.

When the wage slaves free themselves from capitalist bondage, they free mankind for ever from economic servitude and the fear of war.

Society can then assume a higher form. There can be no such thing as freedom for the individual so long as some people own that upon which all people depend.

Socialism will give man the opportunity to express the noblest and best that is in him.

In capitalist society the bias is on the wrong side. The worst man has the best chance.

To change capitalist society into a newer and better social order is the job of the common people; it is a working class proposition.

Moving circumstance is slowly but surely removing the web of lies which the henchmen of our masters have been spinning for generations. Take your place, comrade. You should know by now what you are called upon to do. Demand Socialism now. Support only those who do the same.

Charles Lestor

Political Ideas and Class Interests: A Glance at Argentina (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx wrote a century ago that all history, since the rise of class divided society, has been a history of class struggles. Constitutions have been made and unmade, kings dethroned and executed, treaties and alliances have been sworn (and broken), wars and civil wars have been fought, all involving the interests of rival classes; though the class interest at stake has always been half-hidden under the slogans phrased in terms of supposedly universal truths and philosophies.

Though modern capitalist writers are constantly having the real nature of the struggles forced on their attention, they usually abhor admitting it. When Liberals and Tories fight elections they are ready enough to accuse each other of having sinister designs against the workers, but neither—for obvious reasons—will admit that it fights to further the interest of its own section of the propertied class. So with wars, each of which has its appropriate collection of abstract aims and justifications—democracy, freedom of the seas, national independence, self-determination, rule of law, the just rights of superior races, etc., etc. On the Allied side in this war pride of place has been given to the idea of overthrowing dictatorship, and to suit this view politicians and the Press have studiously refrained from harping on the fact that a large number of the Allied countries are themselves dictatorships.

This expedient lack of candour has not, of course, been applied so rigorously to neutral countries. So when Russia made its treaty with Germany in August, 1939, it was permissible to refer to Russia as a dictatorship. “If war comes,” said the Daily Express (August 26th, 1939), “the issue will be clearer. The democracies will be ranged against totalitarian States.” Naturally that candour lapsed again when Russia became an Ally and is now customarily described as a democracy.

Later in the war most of the South American Republics, many of them dictatorships, gave support to the Allied side, with, however, the notable exception of Argentina, which has been much criticised for showing no enthusiasm. Criticism has been levelled against the near-Fascist dictatorship in that country, and the unilluminating explanation that has contented the capitalist press has been that the Argentine Government is anti-Ally because its own ideas are against democracy, and it therefore “sympathises” with Nazi Germany. Such an “explanation” is obviously inadequate. If sympathies and abstract ideals were a real guide to international alignments, half the history of all the Powers would be utterly incomprehensible, since they have all of them waged wars in the past in alliances which contained Christian Powers on opposite sides, Christian and non-Christian Powers on the same side, democratic powers and dictatorships, kingdoms and republics, white and yellow peoples all in seemingly inexplicable groupings. Let us, however, look further at Argentina.

The first curious fact to notice is that democratic U.S.A. and democratic Great Britain are at loggerheads over the attitude to be adopted towards Argentina. Roosevelt’s Government—in the name of democracy—wants stronger action against this South American Republic which is out of step, but the British Government holds aloof and wants to continue its existing trading relationships. The Economist (August 5th, 1944), putting the British capitalist point of view, admits that something else enters into the question besides abstract ideals, that something else being “British long-term trading interests.” “For decades,” says the Economist, “Argentina has been one of the main suppliers of cheap food for Britain’s industrial population. In return, it has been a valuable market for British goods, and a fertile ground for British capital—to the great benefit of both Countries.”

The article goes on to remark rather acidly that “In British eyes, American policy in Argentina is suspected of being moved less by the desire to defeat Hitler than by the desire to extend the influence of Washington from the northern half of South America to Cape Horn—in short, by a doubtless beneficent but none the less real imperialism.”

Then the writer quotes the President of the American Import-Export Bank, who admitted that when U.S.A. interests lend money to South American borrowers, the U.S.A. insists “that all machinery and materials not available in the country of the borrower shall be purchased or leased in the United States, and that such machinery and materials shall be transported in American ships.”

This is a usual procedure when capitalism lends abroad, and has its counterpart in a British-Argentine agreement of 1935, which forced Argentina “to discriminate against American goods.”

In short, Britain and U.S.A. are both moved by the capitalist necessity of finding markets and favourable areas for investment of capital.

Further light is thrown on the situation by a candid letter from an American correspondent, Isobel Fisk, in the Economist for September 23rd, 1944.

She largely admits the charge of imperialism against the U.S. Government, but urges that on a long view Britain and U.S.A. should act together because if they don’t it will be worse for both of them. Her case, in brief, is this : Argentina has been almost entirely an agrarian country producing wheat, meat, etc., for export, and importing machinery and other manufactured goods from Britain. This has suited both the British industrialists and investors and the Argentine landowning class, the latter having fought “tooth and nail” against efforts by rival Argentine interests to build up manufacturing industry in that country. (According to the Statesmen’s Year Book, 1940, there were in the whole country only 36 factories employing more than l,000 workers, in a population which totals 13,000,000.)

The rival Argentine interests are those behind the present dictatorship of President Farrell. They want to build up industry and end Argentina’s dependency on the British market. Their argument, in the words of Colonel Labarca, a member of the Argentine Government, is that “in the twentieth century all countries are trying to process their own raw materials; they know, that they can obtain very low prices by direct sale; they know that, on the other hand, when industrialised they will manufacture a wide variety of products and will utilise by-products, which will give work to their labourers. . . . Everybody now knows that a country has either the economy of a colony or of a world power, and that only the countries which are capable of elaborating what nature places within their reach are worthy of preserving their independence. . …”

The issue, then, in Argentina is not just one of democracy and dictatorship, but whether the landowners or the growing industrialists shall dominate, and the latter are prepared to use dictatorship and armed force to impose their will.

Miss Fisk, though the words she uses are that British and American interests should join together to try “to put down this American brand of Fascism which has sprung up in Buenos Aires,” makes no attempt to conceal the real issue. If Colonel Farrell and his fellow-Fascists succeed, “British investments,” she says, are “in mortal danger.” and “the system by which Britain bought Argentine meat and sold manufactures is doomed to go.”

The Economist, however, doubts whether an attempt to coerce Argentina now would be practicable, and is not prepared to support such a policy if the outcome is to be that of enabling American capital to get control there. Rather the Economist would prefer to wait till the end of the war in the evident hope that the changed situation then will put back the state of affairs that existed in 1939, with the landowners in power and British investments and exports safeguarded not only against Farrell’s group but also against U.S.A. interests. So much for the proclaimed concern of the British and American Governments with the establishment of democracy and overthrow of dictatorship.

There is another class interest that neither the Economist nor Miss Fisk takes into account, the world-wide interest of the working class. We are not concerned to prop up one or the other propertied class in Argentina, nor to try to safeguard British investments, or to make an open door for the products and investments of U.S.A. capitalists. The paramount interest of the working class inside and outside Argentina is to destroy the capitalist system and institute Socialism. Then there will be no problems of markets and investments to solve, and no country will have to face the choice between being a colony or a world power — all will be Socialist.

Edgar Hardcastle

Why Some Employers Favour a Forty-Hour Week (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

More and more State and enlightened employers are realising that a shorter working week is needed if they are to hold their own in the world’s markets, and continue to reap profits from the labour of their workpeople.

In an article which appeared in the Daily Herald dated July 31st, 1944, entitled “Forty Hours Shalt Thou Labour,” George Thomas stated : “The standard working week in most industries within five years would be forty hours instead of the present 47 or 48 hours.” He also said: “They (the employers) know that in a highly mechanised industry it is much more important to get full employment for one’s costly machines than to get long hours of work from the individual workers.” Amongst other things a shorter working day will save the employer light and power, which mean more ease and comfort for them and additional profits into the bargain.

The writer continued : “Long before the war, one of the chiefs of a great Midland engineering firm told me we could introduce a four-hour working day here without difficulty and without any real (money) sacrifice by our men.” A more recent statement by another Midland factory chief, Mr. H. M. Crankshaw, this year’s president of the Birmingham Exchange : “As a practical industrialist I am perfectly satisfied that if every one really worked on an efficient basis for four days a week, we could keep the world going and have three days a week for recreation.” A shorter working week would be a real benefit to the workers if other things remained the same, but they do not. Herbert Tracey, writing in the “Labour Press Service” for June 28th, 1944. shows that the reduction in working hours increased production in a number of factories engaged on war production. On the workers’ side it is true they will have more time off, but this will be counter-balanced by the fact that they will be speeded up and will need more rest to recover from their tiredness.

As a machine minder in the bedding trade, I have realised by experience that I get tired more quickly tending a machine than, say, ripping a remakes by hand or filling mattresses by hand. The introduction of machinery has the effect of continually reducing the number of people needed to produce a given amount of wealth. Every advance of machinery at the same time makes greater the difference between what the worker produces and what he buys back (because his product increases while his wages remain stationary). The result is that production increases more rapidly than demand in the established trades, and consequently the workers find their labour-power unsaleable.

Machinery being introduced in the factory is not an evil in itself : it is because this machinery is privately owned by the employers, whilst the workers own nothing but their labour power. When articles are produced solely for use instead of for profit, when all are workers and there are no idlers, when wealth can be turned out quicker, shorter hours will be a real benefit to society as a whole instead of what we have to-day—two warring groups in the capitalists who want more profit, and the workers who want more wages.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” So when the workers decide to abolish the wages system, they will destroy once and for all time the last stage of human slavery, and introduce for the first time in history human happiness and freedom for all. Speed the day for classless society!

J. E. Roe

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.

“Something Worse Than War” (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

“From 1939 to 1942 the deaths from tuberculosis in Great Britain were greater in number than the total killed in the first four years of the war (United Kingdom Forces).”

“During 1942 the deaths from tuberculosis were three times as many as for factory, mining and road accidents combined.”

This very revealing information we quote from the July 1944 issue of the Monthly Journal of the A.E.U. The accompanying figures were as follows :—

Thus we see the damage to human life that has been wrought by this silent killer in the years that our senses have been deafened by the din of war. But however disturbing these statistics may be, they do not give the complete picture. The evidence that 123.000 and more people succumbed to this disease from 1939 to 1942 makes it quite clear that there are many more living sufferers from the disease. Of this we can be certain, since a large number of people are living and working in similar conditions. The medical men emphatically declare that tuberculosis is an acquired, not an inherited disease. We accept their conclusion, but would add that while it may not be possible to inherit tuberculosis by birth, we note the inheritance of the living and working conditions in which tuberculosis is acquired. From the standpoint of biology, tuberculosis does not “run in families,” but by fact of the economic circumstances of the mass of wage slaves, the disease does run very largely in one big family—that of the working class.

As quoted earlier, the Monthly Journal of the A.E.U. compares the deaths from tuberculosis in 1942 with the figures of fatal accidents from factories, mines and roads for the same year. In spite of the ratio of three to one, we say without hesitation that tuberculosis is no accident! At this point it is interesting to take cognisance of a paragraph dealing with this matter from “The Household Physician” J. M’Gregor-Robertson, revised by David M’Kail, Vol. I., p. 212 (Gresham Pub. Co.) :—

“If all consumptive patients were to expectorate only into special utensils regularly disinfected, and were segregated when helpless and most infectious; if bovine tuberculosis were stamped out or if only sterilised milk were used, and all tuberculous meat and pork were destroyed; if authorities were to insist on a good standard of housing, air space, general hygiene, and to secure the abolition of back lands, ill-lit and ill-ventilated tenements, workshops, and factories, this disease and many others might soon become as extinct as the dodo.”

It is not necessary to point out that the problems of housing, air space, hygiene, back lands and unhealthy tenements, workshops and factories are problems with which the working class are faced. These are our inheritance.

The master class will see to it that not too many wage slaves fall to tuberculosis, otherwise their own profits will be jeopardised. Apparently a mere hundred thousand is not too many. In the political field, therefore, the Socialist Party asks workers to view the state of affairs with determination—determination to abolish a mode of living in which the only consideration for human welfare is that workers shall be able to produce a profit for their masters. And in its place to establish a system of society wherein will obtain equal relationship between every man and woman, and accordingly, the absence of a class whose privileged position demands the exploitation of a working class. For out of such exploitation emanates the poverty, insecurity, squalor and disease of which tuberculosis is but one example.

F. T. Burvill.

What should Women do to be Free? (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Looking through an old copy of the Socialist Standard, the writer came across a series of articles based on lectures on that seemingly eternal subject, “The Women’s Question.” Like unemployment, it is always with us, and will remain so until the inception of Socialism.

Woman cannot expect emancipation, any more than can her fellow-worker, man, under the existing system, capitalism. The amount enjoyed now by the male is merely a question of degree, conditioned mainly by his class position ; if of the working class, he is at liberty to sell his labour power or to starve.

Morgan, in his great work “Ancient Society,” shows clearly that the subjugation of woman did not come about to any great extent until the importance of private property was realised. Woman then became part of it; she was as important as flocks and herds, because she was reproductive, and she had no more freedom. Companionship and affection between the male and female had not yet been realised, and could not enter into the contract. The husband punished infidelity with severity, whilst reserving for himself the right of promiscuity. A section of women became courtesans, thus filling the needs of man for enjoyment outside his own home. These were found in the early civilisations of Rome and Greece, where the married women had no rights or freedom. Man then became the head of the family, over which he exercised power of life or death; property descended through the male line instead of the female, as heretofore, and the female lost all right of expressing herself and putting her point of view as she had been accustomed to so doing in the savage tribes. Her place became the home, whilst the man developed for himself a life outside it and generally had some voice in public affairs. Thus began the possibility of the charge so often still levelled against woman, that her mind can only appreciate trivialities. Small wonder, she was for so long debarred from all else, and the education available for her brothers was denied her.

Time, coupled with the progress of capitalism, has modified her position somewhat. To the capitalist she has appeared in the guise of a worker who will accept less wages than the male. Her centuries of subjugation were exploited to their fullest extent during the Industrial Revolution. Marx, in “Capital” (Vol. I.), gives a telling quotation from Lord Ashley’s speech on the 10-hours Bill. “Mr. E., a manufacturer, informed me that he employed females exclusively at his power looms . . . gives a decided preference to married females, especially those who have families at home dependent on them for support; they are attentive, docile, more so than unmarried females, and are compelled to use their utmost exertions to procure the necessaries of life. Thus are the virtues, the peculiar virtues of the female character, to be perverted to her injury; thus all that is most dutiful and tender in her nature is made a means of her bondage and suffering.” (Page 100, Glaisher edition.)

During the present war the calling up of men for the armed forces, and the subsequent conscription of women for industry, has once again given the capitalist a golden opportunity for getting more surplus value from his workers. Army pay has been so low, has borne so little relation to the needs of life, that women with small children have been compelled to go into the factory. That it has been the design of the representatives of the capitalist class, the Government, is evident by their provision of war-time nurseries. They are learning how better to enslave their workers from their co-belligerent Russia, who provides factory creches for war workers’ babies, so getting their cheap labour without damaging the next generation of wage slaves. Britain has hitherto been too crude in her methods to make such provision. Mothers have gone out to work and left their children under little or no supervision, which has been one of the causes of infant mortality and disease.

Woman has awakened sufficiently at this time to strive for “equal pay for equal work,” but not enough to demand the abolition of the wages system. She, like her male fellow worker, does not realise the theft that is being perpetrated upon her when she becomes employed. Such slogans tend to increase any antagonism that may exist between the sexes, instead of uniting them against the common enemy, the master class. The possibility of further antagonism may be manifested after this war, when men return from the Army to find, as after the last world war, that the women ensconced in their seats are unwilling to get down, and it will doubtless be exploited by Governments when unemployment once again becomes rife—as indeed it must, despite all “reconstruction schemes.”

An organisation called “Women for Westminster” has recently been born. It has a self-explanatory name and object. What a waste of time and energy such an organisation causes, and what future disillusionment must there be among its adherents ! Supposing they were to have a measure of success according to their aims, and get a predominance of women in the House of Commons. They would find that women, merely as women, can run capitalism no better than can the Labour or Tory Parties.

The Suffragettes have been appalled by the lack of enthusiasm for the vote, following their desperate efforts to gain it. Their lack of knowledge of the make-up of society is the reason for their indignation. Despite the constant propaganda of the press, screen and radio, woman as well as man is sceptical, often unconsciously so, regarding electioneering programmes, which cater for all tastes. Speaking generally, members of the working class are apathetic and not politically conscious. Many, unfortunately, are led away by reform parties, by idolaters of Russia, or by mushroom growths such as Commonwealth.

Many of the reforms regarding women have been implemented since Mary Woolstonecraft wrote her book “The Rights of Women.” These may, in the main, be attributed to the rise of capitalism, which has made it necessary for woman to take her place as part of the industrial army. In countries such as Turkey, for example, where after years of seclusion woman has removed her veil and gone out to work in the factory, it does not merely indicate that opinion there is becoming more liberal, but that the forces of industrial capital are at work looking out for cheap labour. The benefits woman has received in the field of education have been essential for her to take her place in the professional groups, and whilst giving her some individual freedom, have exchanged her quiet home life for that of a competitive existence.

Many women intent on emancipation have sublimated their natural instincts. This is undoubtedly possible for the possessor of an interesting and absorbing job, but as most work has been reduced to routine by the division of labour, characteristic of capitalist organisations, little permanent satisfaction is obtained thereby. With the present knowledge of birth control, the modern working woman denies herself the pleasure of children rather than bring them into a world, for them, of abject poverty. Frustration is thus found on all sides; denied an interesting and creative job, denied the rightful expression of her normal instincts, woman becomes, like the male worker, another machine for productivity and exploitation by the capitalist.

Whilst capitalism lasts, women will remain, like men, in a subject position, no matter how far progress is made towards equality with men. The interests of women are therefore identical with men in struggling for the overthrow of the present system, as it is only under Socialism that both will find real emancipation.

W. P.

A Change in the Catholic Attitude to Russia? (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Times (September 16th, 1944) prints a report from a special correspondent in Rome on an expected Papal pronouncement dealing with the relationship of the Catholic Church with Russia. Here are two extracts from the correspondent’s article : —

“There is reason to believe that the Pope is preparing to make a fresh pronouncement on the subject of Communism. Such a step seems highly probable in view of the decisive role which Soviet Russia is assuming in world affairs.”

“At the present time the Catholic Church’s two stock guides on the attitude to be adopted towards Communism are Pius XI’s two famous encyclicals, Quadragesimo anno, issued in 1931, which denounces its atheistic basis, and Divini redemptoris (1937), which attacks its propagation of the class war.

“The reconciliation of the Soviet Government with the Orthodox Church deprives the former pronouncement of some of its point, while recent declarations of Communist leaders such as Togliatti, who was for years vice-secretary of the Comintern, that Communism envisages neither the destruction of the middle class nor of private property, are bound to leave some doubt in Catholic minds. The fact that a political group could be formed in Italy under the name of the Catholic Communists shows clearly how much new directives are needed.

“It is possible that the Pope may not go to the length of indicting a new encyclical in answer to these questions, but he may issue instructions in a simpler form, explaining how far collaboration is permissible between Roman Catholics and Communists in practical matters, and where it must cease.”

"Irish Freedom" Declines our Advertisements (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although the journal “Irish Freedom” solicits paid advertisements and had agreed to insert a notice of our July issue, the Editor, Mr. Pat Dooley, later wrote saying that his Editorial Board had decided it was unable to insert it. Could it be that they did not approve the Socialist comment on the Irish General Election?

SPGB Meetings (1944)

Party News from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist Progress Leaves the Worker behind (1944)

From the October 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

When capitalism broke the chains with which feudalism bound it, a society whose stability depended on its power to resist change was overcome. The bourgeoisie, an oppressed class under feudalism, broke down by revolutionary methods the caste system where to be born a serf meant to die a serf.

New markets to sell goods were the incentive for intensively exploring the world. This brought about the change from handicraft to manufacture, and finally to large scale manufacture—i.e., production has been increasingly socialised, until to-day few can claim that any commodity is purely their work.

With the rising importance of these markets, knowledge, formerly the perquisite of the Catholic Church, had to be secularised. It was necessary for others besides the church to know about navigation and astronomy, so as to sail the seven seas. And this knowledge had to be based on material fact, which often conflicted with the “truth” of the Roman Church. This, although secondary to the economic dominance of the church, based on feudalism, sharpened the struggle of the bourgeoise against it.

All dominant nations try by all means in their power to exclude the rest of the world from sharing that which has made it powerful, and to use it to continue its domination. Many examples are known, but the forces capitalism sets free control the capitalist class, and not vice versa. During the war against Napoleon I., England blockaded France and cut off her sugar. This did not result in a quick peace, but in the commencement of the sugar-beet industry. The result was that the British interests in cane sugar suffered through her own blockade.

The production of nitrates from the air did not result from the plea by eminent scientists (due at the time to under-estimations of resources) that without a new source of fertilisers other than Chile saltpetre, mankind would at a close approaching period starve. It needed the prospects of a war (1914-1918), in which Germany had of necessity to try and overthrow Britain’s dominance on the world market, in order to find a place in the sun for her own capitalist class, to make this possible. Again the operating factor was fear of blockade. This alone, of course, did not make the process possible, but capital, and therefore effort was thrown into the task to speed the process. Now, instead of cries about lack of fertilisers, industry is worried by the excess that could be produced after this war in that partiular field.

Again, artificial rubber needed in war (cutting off natural rubber and its powerful interests) in which the initial experimental techniques could be transferred to large scale production. During the initial period of heavy capital outlay the artificial rubber industry could not normally have produced commodities capable of competing in the open market with natural rubber. The war, by cutting off the natural source, gave the artificial source the necessary impetus. It is now reported that the artificial source will be able to compete easily in the open market with the natural source, more especially as the latter is likely to be despoiled during the course of the present war. We will thus have at the end of the war two conflicting sources each capable of supplying the world, with its inevitable results.

The British Empire had for many years desired to become industrialised, but the English capitalist class did not desire that their empire, the only certain market for their manufactured products, should supply itself with these goods. So when representatives of the Dominions arrived iu England—e.g., Nash from New Zealand—loans were not forthcoming. Came a war, cutting off these Dominions and forcing them to industrialise themselves. Of course, after the war this means greater competition. The spectacle arises, as recently, when a jute manufacturer operating in England and India closed his English factory because the other source was more profitable.

Admiral Gould, “Brains Trust” visitor, chose as one of the three greatest services to humanity the production of a cheap synthetic nourishing food. Cheap here, of course, means for the working class. Well, we are now well on the way. As reported in the “Chemical Trade Journal and Chemical Engineer” June 4, 1943, a lunch was recently held at Lausanne. The meal consisted of hors d’oeuvres made of chemically treated cellulose, flavoured with coal-tar derivatives. After this came “meat” made of treated wood pulp and synthetic gravy. The sweet was flavoured by artificial vanilla, and the cream came from the same cellulose as was present in the hors d’oeuvres. The only natural products present were vegetables. It was stated to be cheaper than the equivalent nutritional value in natural products. Again self-sufficiency in case of war was its attraction. Of course, for the working class it has obvious possibilities. The recent publicising of grass-eaters in the daily press points in the same direction. If only the capitalist class could put us out to graze on common land during meal-times! How much they would save !

All these great advances seem to have depended to a great extent on a blockade, real or threatened, for their full development. The lack of material thus artificially produced has, as seen, resulted not in, as intended, a deadly threat to those lacking the necessary material, but often ultimately in a deadly threat to the mode of production of that article, often leading to its replacement by a new process or source for that self-same article.

Under capitalism goods are produced for sale, and must therefore compete with the equivalent material on the market. Future possibilities, however bright, must be sacrificed to the market value of the article. The only mode of advancement is to erect a wall around this commodity and nurture it by subsidies from the State or from big combines. Often it is only by the catacylsms capitalism so surely, produces which enable them to gain their feet. Only under Socialism, where there will be no conflicting economic interests, will these substances be able to develop freely without fear of competition by the prevalent materials. There will the final arbitration depend only on its use-value.

It is well known how many inventors die in poverty. and how many fortunes are made by people exploiting these inventions. Edison and Backeland were fortunate in that they had the capital to exploit their own ideas.

The first to register a patent owns it. Others working in the same direction, and having additional valuable information, withhold it until the patent expires. Thus is lost the full fruit of these men’s endeavours. Since these patents give as little information as they can, other firms wishing to engage in the same field, after expiration of the patent, must again cover much available but secret knowledge—a waste of time due to capitalism. Often, too, owing to a previous patent, an invention must utilise an inferior mechanism, as witness the steam engine, where the fly-wheel could not be utilised.

The 1907 Patents and Designs Act provided that a certain difficulty, in direct connection with the piston, troubling the master-class, should be overcome. It definitely allowed a patent to be granted jointly to the inventor and to another person—e.g., a capitalist or capitalist concern—to enable the latter to share the benefits derived. The law thus placed “old man capitalism” very firmly on the back of the inventor. This Act also attempted to rectify an abuse. A firm having profitable patents, which would be adversely affected by a new one, could buy the new one under licence and not use it. No new machinery would be necessary, and since there was no production by the new method, no royalties, due to the inventor, need be paid. In Monk’s “Inventions. Patents and Designs” it is stated significantly that the Act has been altered to protect the interest of the inventor.

Nowadays, in the same way as production has been made social, so has research. No longer can one man very effectively invent a whole process. Co-operation is here, too, becoming more and more necessary, due mainly to increasing specialisation. Hence the increasing tendency for research to come more and more under the aegis of large firms or the State. The inventor becomes definitely a worker, swelling the proletariat.

In the hey-day of capitalism, when markets were large enough to take all that was produced, capitalism continuously revolutionised its means of production and increased man’s power over nature, thus solving a necessity that only capitalism can solve, the problem of production of plenty for the future Socialist society. Competition demanded it by forcing the lowering of the cost of production. But now the increasing monopoly character of capitalism shows itself by the cutting out of competition. Cartels divide the world into regions of influence for its component companies. This is possible only because the cartel adherents can produce many times the world’s needs. Research, while still bent on reducing the cost of production, is increasingly being utilised to enable surplus capital to be profitably utilised in new industries. It is interesting, in this light, to notice that the papers are talking of special investment schemes of an international character, to utilise at a smaller rate ot profit what would otherwise be uninvested capital.

In spite of the restrictions of capitalism, great advances have been made, and when the capitalist class points to these as a justification for their further existences they believe they have a case. But the long-bow won the battle of Crecy, and the phalanx was of great use to Alexander, but the modern general does not accept their past success as a reason for using them to-day against tanks. Compared with feudalism, capitalism represents progress, but only compared with feudalism. Their exalted idea of private enterprise means the enforced lack of enterprise on the part of the working class.

And in any case, in whose advantage has this been? The lot of the working class has not appreciably improved. The advantages and the wealth accrued have gone into the pocket of the ruling class. All this, the work of the only useful class in society, has resulted in a further widening of the gulf between rich and poor. Once again we have the cycle—born a worker means dying a worker.

Holland and Denmark, producers of dairy produce for the world, consumes enormous quantities of margarine. Who eats this margarine ? Workers !

Modern production has caused great increases in mental and nervous disorders and industrial diseases. The village idiot disappears, and the proletarian victim of capitalism takes his place. Hence the increasing study of these disorders and the “kind” donations by our masters, who cannot bear that such sources of riches for them should prove useless. They look for cures, turning their eyes, however, away from the cause, the increasing strain on the worker of his condition of wage-slavery, so aptly caricatured by Charles Chaplin in “Modern Times.”

The working class produces all wealth. Because there is too much food, therefore the worker must starve; because there are too many of the good things in life, therefore the worker may not enjoy one of them—even leisure means unemployment to him. That is the logic of capitalist anarchy. Lord Rutherford hoped that atomic energy would not be harnessed until the ethics and morals of the race were improved. This can only be when there are no more barriers of economic self-interest dividing people, but in their stead a common interest. This is only possible under Socialism. Only Socialism can effectively harness this progress for man’s benefit, not for his destruction.

Within our reach lies a world of peace and plenty. In Socialism we can unfetter progress that it may be used for the advancement of the welfare of mankind. Act then, members of the working class, for once in your own interest!

Samuel Leight

On a holiday (1944)

From the October 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

A visit to a Holiday at Home entertainment in the local park provides the Socialist with much food for thought. Can it be possible that the rather amateurish playing and singing, the rides on the two long-suffering donkeys, and the many swindles to aid one or more parts of the armed forces are compensating the workers for their fifty weeks of long, arduous toil ?

They certainly, at first glance, seem happy enough, and yet the careful observer could fancy that under this assumed mask of gaiety there was still the realisation that even this poor, short interlude would soon be over, and they would be back again busily amassing wealth for the capitalist class. They are, for the most part, unconscious of this tragic clown’s mask, but these stirrings in the workers’ mind provide material for the propaganda of the Socialist, and small is the step from the subconscious stirrings to the realisation of the idea.

Truly the worker is a source of wonder in that he continues to accept gratefully anything and everything that the capitalist condescends to give him—even in his entertainment.

Does the worker ever think, while partaking of these miserable few hours of enjoyment, either in the local park or at some more distant point (if he has enough energy left for enjoyment after standing for hours in a packed, stifling train) of the members of the master-class having their holidays at some “select” seaside resort, or shooting and fishing on some fellow-capitalist’s estate?

When the workers, on their return to their toil, instead of inevitably grumbling and leaving things at that, begin to ask themselves, and their workmates, why . . why . . .WHY? then things will start moving; then the Socialist will come into his own, and it will be up to him to provide the answer—namely, that this system of exploitation continues only because the majority of society (i.e., the workers) are not fully conscious of the fact that they are exploited by a minority (the capitalist class). When this class-consciousness has been achieved, and the ” Why ?” of the workers has been replaced by “What next?” then the task of the Socialist will have really begun. Whoever understands the set-up of the capitalist system cannot fail to agree with the object and principles of the S.P.G.B.

Len Young

Editorial: Armies of Liberation (1944)

Editorial from the October 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Our men marched singing with a smiling light in their eyes. They had done their job. They thought it was the war to end war. They had won, they thought, the greatest victory in the world.” (Sir Philip Gibbs on the Armistice, 1918. Evening Standard, September 6, 1944.)

“It is against Hitlerism we fight. And we have no quarrel save with those who would help to perpetuate its tyranny in Europe. Because this is the issue, it transcends national frontiers. It transcends nationality itself. . . . Thus the freedom-loving German Socialists make common cause with the British Trades Union Congress, whose president said yesterday that ‘We stand four-square until we have smashed Hitlerism forever and created a world of true brotherhood among the worker'” (Daily Herald Editorial, September 5, 1939.)

If the course of war is rarely predictable, the same is true about war’s aftermath. There are people who, forgetting what happened after 1918, went into the war in 1939 with a simple faith that the military defeat of Nazi Germany would solve all problems and liberate humanity from a prison of oppression into a world of universal peace, and harmony; they must already be wondering. The departure of the German armies from the occupied countries opens up a situation quite unlike the visions of the Daily Herald five years ago. The war, said the Herald, was not to be one for possessions but for spiritual values in keeping with true internationalism. Yet the coming end of hostilities in Europe finds most of the Powers staking out their claims for territories. Russia wants a large slice of Poland and offers in return that Poland shall have a large slice of Germany. This is 1918 again, but on a larger scale, for the Labour Party 25 years ago vigorously condemned the Treaty which gave Poland comparatively small areas in which the population was German or Russian. Russia, according to Negley Farson (who defends the claim), wants to keep the former Baltic Republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, though he makes no pretence that the population’s views will be considered : —

“In 1940, under strictly Soviet commissar-conducted plebiscites, Stalin made the people of all three little countries declare themselves members of constituent republics of the U.S.S.R. Not even the Russians will try to pretend there was any such thing as a choice or freedom about it.” Daily Mail, July 26, 1944.)

American spokesmen are busy laying claims to strategically situated territories in the West Indies and the Pacific. China is demanding territories all round the Pacific, hitherto conquered and held by Japan and the Western Powers. French political parties are contemplating an extension of France to the Rhine and beyond, and most of the smaller Powers that were early on the winning side are hoping to get something in the carve-up.

The Daily Express, in its editorial on September 18th, 1944, candidly admits and encourages the Imperialist aims of U.S. A. and Britain.

“Here is a section of American opinion arguing in favour of United States Imperialism after this war. And here in this country concern and apprehension are sometimes expressed in high places on that account. Such fears are quite out of place. If British Imperialism is good for the British, then American Imperialism is good for the Americans. . . . The American Imperialists want a foothold in Dakar, and in the East and the Far East. They seek control of those islands in the Pacific which have been a source of menace and misery to them when held by the Japanese. Is that a good policy for the Americans ? Of course, it is. … Is it good for Britain too? Of course.”

It will be noticed that the Express here writes as if the world is going to be divided between American and British Imperialisms, saying nothing about the fact that other Powers (among them Russia) will also want a say.

It will be argued that these claims are justified on the ground that the Allied Powers will need to hold territories to bar any further attempt by German capitalism to gain military and economic control of Europe—but is this what the Daily Herald and its supporters envisaged by their talk in 1939 of “a world of true brotherhood among the workers?” Obviously the post-war world is going to be a world of capitalist competition, as it was before. Sir Stafford Cripps is so apprehensive about this that he warns us : “A return to open competition between the nations will inevitably lead to another and even more disastrous war” (Daily Express, September 18, 1944).

What of the promised re-establishment of democratic methods ? In some of the defeated countries this is likely, though experience after the last war shows that such re-establishment is no guarantee of permanence in a world of capitalist poverty and crisis. Moreover, one-party dictatorship is still the rule in Russia, and, according to the News-Chronicle correspondent recently in China, the present trend is towards totalitarianism in that country. He writes : —

“Already in China there is no freedom of the Press or of speech or assembly—no right to express any opinion that does not conform with the Government’s political line.” (News-Chronicle, May 2, 1944).

He pointed out that the Kuomintang Government (which he referred to as “Kuomintang Fascists”) has half a million of its best troops engaged, not in fighting the Japanese armies, but in blockading the Chinese Communist forces. He ended his article with the ominous words, “A Fascist China might in time be as dangerous as an Imperial Japan.”

Coming back to Europe and the populations liberated from Nazi occupation, no one need doubt the enthusiasm with which liberation has in the main been received, even though this is by no means universal. A correspondent with the advancing Allied armies in France records that in Alsace and Lorraine (territories annexed by Germany in 1871 and “liberated” in the first world war) the reception of the Allies was distinctly cold :—

“As you near Germany and touch the fringe of Alsace-Lorraine, you can sense the change in the attitude of a people that has lived so near to Germany as to be almost German in outlook and in blood. No longer, as we enter a village, do we get the vociferous welcome that cheered our progress to Paris. . . . The villagers look on you sourly; they are less ready to be helpful. Cases of sabotage which we never had in Normandy or on the way to Paris are now being reported.” (News-Chronicle, September 7, 1944.)

What sort of world is it into which the populations are liberated? Are they to open one prison door only to find they are faced with others? Since the world is still to be a world of capitalism, that is what is bound to happen. What is going to be the outcome when workers find that liberation and the end of the war merely means a return to the old chaotic conditions of pre-war capitalism, aggravated for at least some time by the problems of the switch-over to peace? Some will turn to Socialism, others will fall for new nostrums or return to old ones.

Mr. Alan Moorehead, writing on his impressions of France and Belgium, says that from the standpoint of living conditions, life under German overlordship was not as bad as had been reported—”if you were willing to obey the Germans and keep out of their way, then you did not have a bad life—certainly a more comfortable one than in war-time England (Daily Express, September 10, 1944), The reason why the Germans were “hated passionately and viciously” was “because they took away the one thing the people finally cared about, their liberty.” When the Germans went, the population regained their right to take part in political activities, but as the war in Europe ends they will also suffer in the changeover which will affect workers in all countries, the change from capitalism working at full pressure for war and providing full employment to capitalism resuming its normal peace-time condition with unemployment again mounting in volume. This has already occurred in Italy. The Manchester Guardian writes : —

“The economic situation is admittedly disastrous, and it is claimed, it is to be hoped wrongly, that the Germans allowed the people more food than the Allies…. It is extremely short-sighted to allow the Italian people to fall into a mood of such misery and despair that they will blame us for their misfortunes, rather than the Fascist Government which led them to disaster. (Manchester Guardian, August 15, 1944.)

A Times correspondent in Rome writes in a similar strain : —

“The Allies cannot afford to have the population of a capital city on their lines of communication reduced to desperation. A hungry and idle people becomes an easy prey to any extremist political agitation which promises it a quick way out of its troubles.” (September 8, 1944.)

Part of the present difficulty in Italy may be due to military demands on transport, but even when these have ceased and everything is normal again, Italian workers, like other workers, are going to have to face the usual evil results of capitalism. The war has not removed these evils; they are as insoluble as they were before 1939 or before 1914, though this was not at all foreseen by leaders of the Labour Party when they went into the war. They did not envisage the war ending with a return to the conditions of 1939 but vainly imagined that capitalism would be on its last legs and Socialism almost here—just as they had in the world war of 1914-1918. Here is an extract from a speech by a Labour Party spokesman, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, M.P., at his Party’s Conference at Bournemouth in May, 1940. It makes curious reading now : —

“Because we have the courage of our convictions as a movement now, we shall have greater power when it is over than we have to-day. We shall have a trembling capitalist system which can never recover again. We shall have broken the back of the vested interests, and we can build a Socialist commonwealth which will be a powerful factor in the world.” (Daily Herald, May 14, 1940.)

It would be an insult to Mr. Greenwood’s intelligence to ask if he thinks that his prophecy has been fulfilled. Instead, we would like to ask whether he would risk prophesying what the state of Europe and the world, seething with nationalistic hatreds and torn by the rival claims of capitalist groups, will be like at the end of the next four years. Will it be Socialism triumphant, democracy safe, and “true brotherhood among the workers,” or will it be the same old capitalism? Austrian workers who declared (Manchester Guardian, July 33, 1944) “that they do not intend to work for Anglo-American capitalists but desire to collaborate with progressive elements in the Allied countries,” have the right view of the situation, but, contrary to Mr. Greenwood’s anticipation of a trembling and broken capitalist class, that class is in power and the world is still their world.

Not mere release from foreign rule or home-bred dictatorship, but only Socialism will ultimately unite the world’s workers and achieve their emancipation. The workers’ army of liberation is the international army of class-conscious, politically organised Socialists, bent on achieving the conquest of political power for the purpose of ending capitalism and inaugurating world-wide Socialist society.

By The Way: Concern for Workers (1944)

The By The Way Column from the October 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Concern for Workers

As everyone knows, there is a most terrible housing crisis in London now. The newspapers are full of appeals to the authorities to get something done about it. The Government has brought thousands of building workers from the provinces and arranged for them to work a 65-hour week, Mr. J. J. Mallon, the Warden of Toynbee Hall, has written to the Times pointing out that long hours under modern conditions do not make for greater production.

Let Mr. Mallon speak for himself: —

HOURS OF WORK. 

To the Editor of the Times, 

Sir,—It is disquieting to learn that building operatives are to work 65 hours a week on first-aid repairs to houses in the London area. Even though the arrangement is to apply only for three weeks, it is deplorable and against the teaching of all industrial experience. The Regional Joint Committee for London express the view that the Government is “ill advised to propose such hours,” and suggest “that the maximum hours of work should not exceed 60.” Sixty hours are also too many. If 55 or even fewer hours are worked more will be done.

For nearly 40 years as a member of innumerable trade boards and other industrial bodies I have had to do with hours of employment. When these hours are excessive they tend to lessen rather than increase production, to add to illness, accidents, and absenteeism, and so to fatigue the worker as to do him cumulative injury. The reduction of excessive hours always leads to greater production. Surely the example of America, where miracles of war production have been achieved, should not be disregarded. Early in their associated war efforts the relevant American Government departments decided in favour of an eight-hour day and a 18-hour week “as the best working schedule for sustained efficiency in most industrial operations.” The results of their decision fully justify it. The Government should reconsider the 65 hours proposal.

Yours sincerely, J. J. Mallon, 

Toynbee Hall, 

28, Commercial Street, E.I. July 26.”

—(Times, July 28, 1944.)

Mr. H. C. Harland, the President of the Master Builders’ Association, has written to the Times to confirm Mr. Mallon’s verdict. The point that Socialists are concerned with is that Mr. Mallon and his apparently kindly well-meaning fellow Lib.-Labourals are not really worried about the worker, as such, at all. They reduce hours and give medical treatment, holidays, music while you work, etc., in the same way as one puts expensive oil into a motor engine—to make it run better.

They are not the first or the only ones to realise that the old big stick methods of treating the workers are out of date.

Even King Farouk of Egypt is busily running round telling the tale to the workers—a very good reference for Egyptian workers, incidentally. The Times for July 31st records his “visit to the M.I.S.R. Co.’s spinning and weaving (cotton) works, where he had an enthusiastic reception from 26,000 employees.” “In an address to the board of directors he emphasised the importance of the Egyptian worker, and impressed upon them the necessity of providing better living and working conditions. He invited representatives of the workers to the royal table and made a gift of £1,000 to their benevolent society.” “King Farouk is missing no opportunity of establishing closer and more personal relations with the humbler classes of his subjects.” (Times, July 31st.)

Naturally, British capitalists don’t call representatives of their workers to their table to present them with £1,000. They get Sir William Beveridge to do it. The idea is always the same—to get the workers to work better. “All that glitters is not gold.” Working men who allow this talk about concern for them, by capitalist Lib.-Lab. politicians, to delude them into supporting reforms of capitalism will get improved capitalism, not Socialism—that is, increased exploitation and relative poverty.

* * *

“How U.S. Airmen are Taught New Technique"

Under this heading a London evening paper reports that mobile training units, miniature technical schools on wheels, are now following U.S. airmen as bases move deeply into France. “Though airmen are fully trained before coming to Europe, continual aircraft modifications due to experience in battle make it necessary for mechanics to study constantly.” The training has speeded up aircraft repair so much that the director of the training units has sent mobile units to every war theatre in which U.S. aircraft are fighting.

What is happening to-day on the battlefields happens yesterday and to-morrow in industry. The complex nature of the productive methods developed by capitalism force mechanics to “study constantly.”

When mechanics are studying constantly nothing on earth can prevent them eventually contacting and completely grasping the Socialist idea—which is the application of study to problems of society. The reply to those who claim that “the workers will never learn,” is “look around you”—the workers are learning at aeronautical speed, every day, at their work.

* * *

Last Days of the Barricades

A great deal has been written and said about the insurrection in Warsaw. That the plight of the insurgents is rather pitiable can hardly be disputed.

Most ironical of all, the high-priests of insurrection, at all times, in any places, during the past twenty-five years, the Moscow politicians, are supporting their own special Committee of Liberation as against the British sponsored Council of National Unity of the Polish Government in London. Incidentally, the London Council of National Unity is more “radical” than the Committee of Liberation, making play with the phrase “socialisation of industry.”

For this reason, Pravda says that “the Red Army has always warned people against such risings. Handfuls of men armed only with fiery sentiments and cold steel have no chance against modern weapons in battles for large cities.” (Our emphasis.) (The Observer, August 20th.)

To this the Poles reply that the Soviet radio had, in fact, on several occasions shortly before the rising, called on the Polish people, and especially the people of Warsaw, to rise against the Germans.

Apart from this, such statements from the Bolshevik leaders of to-day are the clearest confirmation of the Socialist Party’s repeatedly expressed view on insurrection. Years were spent proving how the Russian Communists were distorting the writings of Engels—for example, in his well-known preface to “The Class Struggles in France”—to try and justify their unprincipled attempts to embarrass foreign governments by riots and street fights.

As if the Soviet’s statement on the futility of insurrection in Warsaw were not enough, further confirmation is to hand from Paris : —

“The Patriots had a very had time, but they recovered and managed to form a defence line in the streets near the building with the aid of barricades built of anything they could lay their hands on.

The barricades were not strong enough, backed by our small arms, to hold the tanks. The German armour smashed them down, then went through the Patriots, firing right and left and affecting shocking slaughter. We had not the weapons to prevent them. . . . All Paris is waiting for the Allies to enter the city and clear out the German tyrants.” (Star, August 25th, 1944; our italics.)

It may be added that in Paris, as in Warsaw, practically the entire population was in support of the revolt; arms had been freely distributed by parachute by the Allied Air Forces. Yet both failed completely, though the circumstances could not have been more favourable.

The Editors of Pravda are quite right. “Handfuls of men with fiery sentiments and cold steel have no chance against modern weapons in battles for large cities.”

In other words, without the all-powerful State machine, with its complex armed forces, revolts are doomed to disaster. And yet there are still “direct action” maniacs in public places urging the workers to commit suicide in barricade revolts.

The statement of Pravda will be chalked up for those post-war C.P. and “Unemployed” fire-brands who will once again urge workers to bash their heads against the State machine.

The Socialist Party urges the workers to think before they act, and then vote intelligently for Socialism, thus giving incidentally an infallible indication of the progress of the Socialist idea and the intellectual development of the working class.

With a Parliamentary majority it is the capitalists who will be faced with the prospect of illegal barricades, which the Socialist controlled army and air force will go through like cardboard, if they ever get put up.

To those who claim that the capitalists will close down Parliament before the Socialists can attain the majority, the reply is that’s their funeral—if they are ever stupid enough to do so.

* * *

Easier for Lord Latham

The evening papers (The Star, September 7th, 1944) inform us that one man whose task has been easier by the relaxation of the black-out is Lord Latham, who since 1940 has been mainly responsible for Civil Defence in the L.C.C. area. He is Chairman of the L.C.C.

By the queerest coincidence, in addition to being Chairman of the L.C.C. and in charge of Civil Defence in London, Lord Latham happens to be Chairman of the London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves, Ltd. Lord Latham, as Chairman of the L.C.C., is very concerned in the re-planning of London. According to the Evening Standard (August 29th), Lord Latham is also very interested in the port of Havre. The Company of which he is Chairman owns about (about) £1,000,000 of property there. “It is the largest shareholder in an oil installation, a hotel, and wharves. Now the shares, like those of other concerns with interests in Occupied Europe, are on the rise.”

Following is the City Editor’s report on the Company (Evening Standard, August 28, 1944) : —

London and Thames Haven 

Feature in the market recently has been the further rise in the shares of London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves. These 4s. shares are now up to 15s. 6d., which compares with a low of 1s. 1d. in 1941. This price gives the Ordinary shares a market valuation of around £3,100,000, which compares with a market valuation of around £5,700,000 in the years when the company was paying tax-free dividend of 10 per cent, plus a less tax bonus of four. Since then the capital has been written down to provide for losses.

The company has paid no dividends for six years, but secured earnings last year of 3.8 per cent. tax free. The prospect is that the company will shortly recover the property which it owns at Le Havre. It has been improving its position steadily and has reduced its bank overdraft to £331,000. The directors are considering issuing more capital to pay off the bank overdraft, and no doubt, once the French position is more clearly seen, some action may be taken along these lines.

Mr. Churchill has a word for this. He said the war “as it progresses becomes less ideological.” In this case about £1,000,000 less.

* * *

Lend to the End (of What?)

Peace Savings Soon.—Sir Harold Mackintosh, Chairman of the National Savings Committee, said last night at the jubilee dinner of Birmingham Municipal Bank that the time would soon come when the war-savings campaign would become a peace-savings campaign.”— (Manchester Guardian, September 2nd, 1944.)

* * *

“Out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings”

The New York Times Magazine, April 30th, carried an article by a young British evacuee, Anselm Acker, describing his impressions of American life, in the course of which this schoolboy says of New York: “The sight in the subways, when the people are returning from work, sitting and standing like sodden bales of hay with their mentality apparently all drained from them,” displeased him. Good for you, young Anselm, you are a perspicacious youth, whose keen eye will assist him much in penetrating the surface to see the real nature of the things beneath.

No wonder American magazines carry ads. for “No-Dozies,” guaranteed to keep you awake. And the comic strip of the Philadelphia Tribune shows a small child asking its mother : “Mom, what do these candies do to me ? Nothing, Son. What, don’t make me regular? No, Son. Don’t make my complexion clear? No, Son. Don’t make my breath sweet? No, Son. What! you mean I can eat ’em because I like ’em? ”

All the most simple elementary things of life are utterly commercialised and distorted. Everything is “packed,” “processed.” American troops are issued “Energy” crackers. Ham becomes Spam. Life is in a packet or carton.

If you would like to turn up the writings of a man who never went to New York, Anselm, by the name of Karl Marx, who wrote over sixty years ago, you will find that he said :—.

"Within the capitalist system all methods of raising the social productiveness of labour are bought at the cost of the individual labourer . . . they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work, and turn it into hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process, in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power : they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital: as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his pay high or low, must grow worse."—(“Capital,” Vol. I., chapter 23.)

Nowhere is this clearer in the world to-day than New York.

Horatio.