Notes by the Way: A Spot of Bother for the Dean of Canterbury (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Spot of Bother for the Dean of Canterbury

In that wrongly named book “The Socialist Sixth of the World” the Dean of Canterbury endeavoured to show that all is for the best in state capitalist Russia. On page 212 of the 1944 issue (Gollancz edition) the Dean had something to say about the leaping production of “Socialist” tobacco and cigarettes.

“Tobacco is in demand in Russia as in other lands. The supply was short so long as tobacco was imported. Today the Soviet Union produces its own tobacco, the collective farms of Abkazia grow leaf equal to the finest Turkish brands, and Soviet cigars, an innovation, rapidly find favour. Variety of brands is large and increases. Professor Hanson remarked, as we stood in a tobacco shop in the Crimea, whereas two years previously he had counted a dozen varieties, today he observed a dozen times as many in that one shop alone. In 1937 the Soviet factories turned out 89,000 million cigarettes. The Soviet Union stands second in the world amongst tobacco-producing lands.”

Now read this from the News-Chronicle (24/6/49):

“The capitalist habit of smoking must be shunned by young Russians, says Dr. A. Kuznetsov in a Soviet youth magazine.

“Russian youths, he complains, tend to ‘use nicotine’ more, though they have the brightest of futures—unlike the children of capitalist countries ‘who are led to smoke by hunger, need and despair.’

” ‘In capitalist countries where the entire pattern of life drives a man to narcotics the urge for smoking can be understood,’ says Dr. Kuznetsov. But Russians do not need it. Youth must be instructed in the harmfulness of tobacco.”

Of course we do not know what is the explanation of the Doctor’s attack on smoking by Russians. Maybe the Russian Government merely wants to cut down smoking at home in order to export the tobacco; or perhaps Kuznetsov is only giving his own view and may shortly “confess” that he is a fascist-capitalist propagandist. Until the matter is straightened out the Dean will be wondering whether he ought to go on singing the praises of Russian tobacco or whether he should just cut the passage out of his next edition.

* * *

How much Unemployment is necessary to Capitalism?

An argument is going on about the amount of unemployment necessary to compel the workers to work harder. The Labour Government’s view was and presumably still is that the present condition with relatively little unemployment gives maximum production. Nevertheless all the Ministers keep on making speeches about the necessity of getting more production.

The Economist representing the tough capitalist viewpoint has long argued that unless there is a considerable amount of unemployment the workers won’t put their backs into it. In the issue for 4th June, 1949, the Economist repeated this: “As the Economist has said more than once in the past, full employment will not work without a million unemployed.”

The Economist returned to the subject in the issue of 9th July, 1949. The Economist urged the Labour Government to recognise and act on the overriding necessity of cheaper production, and said that if the Labour Government was alive to the urgency of the problem “it would insist on payment by results in every industry where a scheme could possibly be introduced. And if there were no other way of persuading the unions and their members to give value for money, it would welcome the therapeutic effect of a moderate degree of unemployment.”

The same article disclosed another interesting aspect of the capitalist attitude to the Labour Government— they think the Labour Party can put the screw on with less trouble than could a Conservative government:

“One must hope that the Labour Party will screw up its courage to undertake something of this order—for if anybody else has to do it, there is risk of serious civil commotion.”

* * *

The Capitalist Cycle : War—Trade War—War.

“Washington, Thursday.—Mr. Willard Thorp, Assistant Secretary of State, said today: ‘ Rivalries and conflicts are again beginning to appear in the world trade picture.

” ‘Some nations and interests are seeking to take over particular markets and exclude competitors.

” ‘The post-war honeymoon in international economic relations is drawing to a close.

” ‘The U.S. has made efforts to put Germany and Japan on their feet again. But those efforts conflict with the hopes of people who wish to prevent the return of those countries into the foreign trade field.’:—Express News Service.” (Daily Express, 26/6/49.)

* * *

The Workers and Nationalisation.

When the advocates of Railway Nationalisation first started their organised propaganda the chief emphasis was laid on the argument that Nationalisation would eliminate waste and overlapping, lead to economies and reduced staffs and thus provide efficient and cheaper transport. As this was not much of an inducement to railway workers propaganda turned more towards the alleged benefits nationalisation would bring to the workers.

Now that the railways are nationalised and are running at a loss the demand has gone forth for economies so that the losses can be wiped out and a profit realised. One of the Labour M.P’s, who supports railway nationalisation, Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield), wrote to the Times (8/7/49) agreeing with another correspondent who had said that “the most hopeful source of substantial and lasting economies in the working of British Railways lies in a reduction of the total wage and salaries bill,” and that if the average wage rate is to be maintained, man-power must be reduced.

Where Mr. Davies differs from the other correspondent. Dr. Gilbert Walker, is that he does not think it possible to cut labour costs now, it must wait until the Transport Commission has complete control of the whole of the rail and road transport system of the country.

We can leave those two disputants to argue about the best way of running capitalism but the railwaymen may well ask what they have got or will get out of nationalisation.

As a footnote we may add the following:

“Tokio, Tuesday.—The Japanese State Railways today began distributing dismissal notices to another 63,000 railway workers.” (Daily Mail,13/7/49.)

* * *

Cripps on the Standard of Living.

“The Chancellor declared that for the greatest proportion of the population we had today a better standard of living than ever before. It was fantastic to say that they were worse off.” (Daily Herald, 19/5/49, report of Cripps’ speech in House of Commons.)

* * *

Drastic Strike Powers used by Australian Labour Government.

The Australian Labour Party, administering capitalism in Australia, has got into the same kind of mess as its companion party in Britain. The coal miners having made claims for shorter hours and higher pay to the Arbitration Tribunal decided to go on strike without waiting for the award. This the Government holds to be illegal and amidst a familiar denunciation of Communist agitators it took legal proceedings to freeze the funds of the Miners’ Federation.

The following is from the Times (15/7/49):

“From our correspondent, Sydney, July 14th.— Four hundred police, including more than 200 from Sydney, are tonight spread out over the coalfields as a protective force for tomorrow, when an attempt is likely to be made to move large stocks of coal standing in trucks on the coalfields to help maintain Sydney’s lean electricity and gas ration.

“There are now six union leaders in prison, including William Parkinson, acting general president of the Miners’ Federation, and Morris Michael Fitzgibbon, secretary-treasurer of the southern miners’ district, who were both sentenced today by-Judge Foster to 12 months’ imprisonment with light labour for contempt of court by failing to produce £A4,200 withdrawn from the bank and intended to aid the strikers. Parkinson had been acting president for only a day having been chosen when the president, Idris Williams, was sent to prison.”

One Feature of the Australian Strike Deserves Notice. 

Here the Government and the Press denounce strikes because they are “unofficial.” The Australian strike is officially conducted by the Union—but it is condemned just the same.

* * *

Food Production—What Could be Done.

The following news item from Rome is taken from a Report submitted to member governments by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation:

“World food production could be almost doubled in ‘a relatively short time’ by the use of modern technology.

“This estimate is made in a report of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation issued here today.

“Unexplored stretches of sea await the application of modern fishery methods to unlock new food resources, it said.

“World livestock could be stepped up by at least 25 per cent, in ten years through the general application of modern breeding methods.” (News Chronicle, 13/7/49.)

Edgar Hardcastle 

Some implications of Socialism (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the end of the war the workers have been the target of production campaigns, on the screen, on the platforms and in print, urging them to work harder because the world at large was suffering from a tremendous shortage of goods; a shortage that it was claimed would continue for many years. In the last few weeks, however, the tune has begun to change and there are ominous whispers that we are on the verge of another crisis of “overproduction”; this in spite of rationing and of the genuine shortage suffered by the mass of the population. It is the old old story of capitalism that will continue as long as capitalism lasts; its basis is the class ownership of the means of production under which goods are only produced for the purpose of realising a profit to the class that owns the means of production and distribution.

When the Labour Party took over the government and commenced nationalising some industries many workers were misled into the belief that capitalist private ownership was passing away. It was overlooked that the wage system in all its vileness still remained and that the former shareholders in the industries that had been nationalised had simply changed into holders of government securities, the interest on which had to be provided out of the nationalised industry; that these securities were, on the whole, as lucrative as the former shares had been and, moreover, were much safer because the interest was guaranteed at a fixed rate by the government.

Nationalisation has been a good thing for the capitalists but it has tied the worker more firmly to the wheels of industry, limiting the range of employment for those who cannot keep up the pace and tightening up the system of recording how, where and when each worker employs his energy.

The threatened onset of another crisis in a world where the mass of the people are still going short is irrefutable proof that capitalism cannot solve the problems it throws up, including the terrible problem of war for which all nations are at present preparing by building up gigantic armaments with a despairing fatalism.

Only the Socialist has the answer to these major social problems because only Socialism, the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, can guarantee to the whole of the people of the earth comfort, security, and a world freed for ever from the shadows of war and the perplexities of economic crises.

Let us consider some of the implications of Socialism.

As the means for meeting the needs of all the people will be commonly owned and democratically controlled, everyone being on an equal footing economically and politically, there will be no privileged groups, nor will there be privileged individuals, except of course the old, the infirm and the young.

From this it also follows that there will be no State nor will there be State ownership of anything, A State only exists where there is privilege, and it is the purpose of a State to make and administer laws that are based upon the existence of privilege; to defend the privileged group from attacks upon their privileges, either by the unprivileged or by an external privileged group. The crimes that give occupation to thousands upon thousands of police, lawyers, judges and other legal functionaries are crimes against property, or arising out of private property based society, which would disappear with the disappearance of private property. Thus, when we see that every country in the world, including Russia and its satellites, has either a strongly organised state or one in the process of development, we know, without the need for further evidence, that in every country there are privileged and unprivileged classes, and all the evils that flow from this class division.

Under Socialism there will be no buying, no selling and no money; the latter only exists as a means to buy and sell. As each person will have free access to what is produced, in the same way as he has free access to air, there will be nothing to buy, nothing to sell and, therefore, money will have no function to perform. There was a time, in the primitive communistic groups that flourished before civilisation began, when money was unknown; it only came into existence when property, and with property buying and selling, invaded and finally broke up the old tribal communities. Books of the last century contain the innocent amazement of travellers in backward areas who came across groups of natives who knew nothing whatever of money or its uses.

Another implication of Socialism is that there will be no class distinctions of any political or economic kind. Class distinctions are an attribute of privilege. The class distinction of modern times, that is between capitalist and worker, is reflected in many forms of snobbery that have caused disunion in the working class movement. These forms of snobbery are slowly passing away as the bonds of wage slavery sear the flesh of all with equal fierceness, but they still have some influence on the outlook of sections of the working class. Two forms of snobbery, in particular, still persist both of which are based upon the false distinction between the so-called professional worker and those that are not included in this category; the scientist, the artist, and the rest of the workers. Although commercialism is gradually killing these fictitious distinctions they still have considerable sway. Both derive from the past when the professional groups were hangers-on, or panderers to the whims and luxuries of the ruling aristocracies. The growing body of scientists is greatly afflicted with the idea that they are a class apart from and above the sordid everyday struggle. When it suits the members of the ruling class they foster this idea— when it does not suit them the scientist is brought to heel. There was an example of this in recent cases connected with the disclosure of atom bomb secrets. It may be added that under Socialism there will be no “secrets”; all information and all steps forward in conquering the forces of nature will be spread as widely and as rapidly as possible to assist the people of the world to take full advantage of the inexhaustible fertility of the human brain. All the people of the world being on an equal footing there will be none of the distinctions, false or real, that trouble the world today.

Still another implication of Socialism is that there will be no national frontiers as the people of the world will be one vast family, regardless of colour or alleged race. Each will be free to wander over the earth as the primitive savage was to wander in the primeval forests before the growth of property placed bars across his path, eventually secluding some into reservations and driving others, the unluckier ones, into the bosom of eternity.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Socialism signifies a fundamental social revolution, a complete change in the basis of society from private ownership to its opposite. There can be no half-way house between private ownership and common ownership. Private ownership cannot be abolished little by little and bit by bit. Some supporters of the Labour Party claim that it can, but after four years of Labour Government, jewels, fur coats and fortunes are still the lot of the privileged and there are rich harvests for burglars, both the legal and the illegal. The burglars, like the poor, we always have with us, and for the same reason.

Finally let us mention one more implication of Socialism—that democracy is essential. The Socialist movement is a movement of the working class in the interests of society as a whole and, therefore, freedom of discussion, freedom of expression, freedom of meetings and the like are essential in order that the foundations of the new society may be laid in lasting fashion.

There is no productive bar to the establishment of Socialism tomorrow; the only bar is lack of understanding and desire on the part of the workers of the world. The capacity to meet the needs of every man, woman and child in the world exists today but most of this capacity is wasted. One need only look at the vast amount of energy wasted on war preparations, on materials such as coal and steel that are only connected with war purposes, as well as the energy wasted on the multitudinous matters solely connected with buying and selling, to realize what a vast amount of productive and distributive capacity slumbers in the bosom of capitalism. And, further, what inventive capacities will be released when no longer curbed by the system that demands the production of only those articles which can command sufficient paying customers to provide unearned incomes for the class that lives like leeches on the backs of the workers.

Gilmac.

Nature study —the Cuckoo (1949)

A Short Story from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The common cuckoo that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds, and lets them have the bother of rearing them is well known. This article deals with the habits of the Wingless Cuckoo or Parasitus Capitalismus.

This magnificent specimen has gone much further than the old type. For instance, the one that flies leaves the nest when fully grown, not so our second species.

The Wingless Cuckoo, so called because it never flies from the nest, has a neat racket.

The species developed very quickly in the 19th century, out of an earlier kindred type known as the Merchantus Parasitus. There were many intervening centuries between the early appearance of this bird and its fully-fledged descendant.

The Parasitus Capitalismus does not throw the young chicks of the parent birds out of the nest. It is astute enough to know that after the death of its hosts it requires other generations to bring it food.

It claimed the ownership of all the worms and grubs that birds eat. The new Cuckoo then said to the other birds, that is, to the male ones, “If I allow you to collect my worms for me, I shall let you have enough worms to feed you and your family.”

Then came the next bright idea: “If I give the male bird too few worms, then his female mate will also have to collect worms for me. If I work it right then I need only give them the same amount of worms between them and yet have two collecting agents working for me.”

The moral was obvious and was soon extended to the little members of the family.

It is said that after a number of years with many birds collecting for them, some of the Cuckoos used to say, “I came into this nest with no feathers on my back and by sheer hard work I now have an enormous pile of worms.”

Of course they never said whose hard work. Some bird-watchers perceived that the greediness of the Cuckoo was having a bad effect on the other birds. They were being allowed so little, that they were dying pretty quickly.

These bird-watchers realised that if the birds all died, then the Parasitus Capitalismus would soon become extinct itself. So they attempted to warn others of the danger.

Some wrote heart-rending stories of birds asking for more in the workhouse, and such-like tales. You see they did not wish the death of their favourite species.

They were fairly safe in writing stories, because at the time only the Cuckoos and the Cuckoo’s favourite servants could read.

The Cuckoos at last realised that something must be done (or more correctly, some realised and did so well out of it that the others followed suit).

A system called mass-catching was devised whereby each bird did only one operation, one bird with sharp eyes spotted the worms, one with a sharp beak picked them up and a pelican carried them back to the cuckoos’ nest. Yes, by now the nest had become the cuckoos’ and not the tenants’ property.

Thus they were able to leave the younger generation and yet still get more worms.

You might ask what do the other birds get out of this? The answer is as little as will keep them at work hunting or catching or carrying worms and slugs for the Cuckoos.

Then you will probably say, as there are more birds than there are Cuckoos why do they not band together and throw them out of the nest?

Again the answer is a simple one; the majority of them do not yet realise why they work all day and yet get precious few worms. They have not tumbled to it. When they do find out, they will know what to do.

A few of them have already done so, and are busy spreading the news abroad. What they need is the help of all you other bird lovers; so come on, lend a claw, and help us abolish Cuckooism.

J.J.S.

You—and the next General Election (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will be contesting two constituencies at the next General Election —North Paddington and East Ham South.

At the last General Election a majority of you voted a Labour Government into power. Are you satisfied with what you did? What have you gained from Labour Government? In their election programmes Labour Candidates promised you “Real Peace, a Good Home, a Good Job, Good Wages, a Chance for the Children, Rising Standards of Living for the Whole Population” and “Public Ownership—the organisation and control of the nation’s wealth and resources for the benefit of the Whole Nation—is needed to give our people a Better Britain.” Do you remember these promises, or is your memory so short that you have forgotten them? Look up the Labour programmes again and then compare the accomplishments with the promises.

Real Peace, a Good Home, Rising Standards of Living; what a cruel disillusionment! The armaments race is in full swing in preparation for another war; this time with one of the erstwhile Allies. The “good homes” have vanished in face of a greater housing problem for the workers than has ever been experienced before. The standards of living are going down as prices go up and the Government is appealing to you to abandon demands for higher wages. It is also throwing its weight against you, just as Tory and Liberal Governments did, when you come out on strike. Many large industries have been nationalised—has this meant a “Better Britain” for you? In all of them there is discontent and the workers are either on strike or threatening to do so. Where an industry has been nationalised you have only one employer; when you get the sack you are done for. Miners have already learnt this to their cost.

Labour Government is fundamentally no different from Tory or Liberal Government; each of them governs on behalf of the capitalist class and for the benefit of that class.

Before you voted last time we urged you to think very seriously about what you were doing. But you did not do so; you swallowed the hoary old promises that were so often broken. Your present bewilderment and apprehension in face of a world moving steadily towards another catastrophe is the logical result of the vote you cast at the last General Election. Once again we urge you to spend a few months in serious thought before the time comes to cast your vote. Give up trusting in promises and look behind promises to the facts of the life you are compelled to live. Here are some of the facts.

Within the last fifty years the means to produce and distribute wealth have been vastly improved and expanded. So prolific have been the social productive powers that, repeatedly, steps have had to be taken to limit production, and even to destroy large quantities of essential products that have been produced in excess of the market requirements. During the same period a relatively small section of the world’s population has been enjoying unprecedented wealth and luxury, whilst the vast mass of the people have been living on or near the poverty line, harassed by the dread born out of insecurity, and suffering most when the shops are glutted with the things they need but cannot buy.

During these fifty years the world has been torn by two devastating wars, bringing death, disablement and misery to millions of people, as well as diverting the energies of a large part of the world’s population to production for war purposes—that is production that makes and feeds implements of destruction. Neither Labour, Tory nor Liberal Government can find a solution to the problem of war. You who are workers produce the munitions of war, and give up your lives on the battlefields as well as behind the official front lines. What have you gained by your sacrifice? Nothing! After the first Great War unemployment and insecurity reached dimensions never experienced before. After the second Great War the housing problem has reached a pitch that is staggering and, allied with the scanty housing ration is the scantiness and soaring prices of needful things. Just imagine what it was like when oranges, bananas and the like were cheap and plentiful. No, you have gained nothing from war except misery.

All the arts of “leaders,” diplomats and governments are incapable of abolishing war because war is an integral part of the present social order whose basis is the production of goods for sale at a profit. Wars are waged for plunder, and the source of this plunder is the wealth you produce above what it costs to keep you and your families.

You are told that we are living in difficult times and that you must curb your demands for better wages because the war has left the world short of necessary goods. Yet, since the war, fortunes have been left by those who live on your work; banquets are given by the wealthy and Continental resorts still thrive out of their visits. If you had the money you could buy anything anywhere as the wealthy do. There is no shortage for them. Have you asked yourselves why your class must pull in its belt while the wealthy class can thrive in luxury in spite of a devastated world?

These are some facts over which you should ponder before going to the polling booths next time; but they are only a beginning.

Gilmac.

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Slums, like Poverty, are still with us.

Mr. Gibson (Labour, Kennington): ". . . There is no excuse whatever for the slightest complacency, for much remains to be done; in addition, there are slums which need to be pulled down; some of us have already made a start on slum clearance. I always thought that I knew something about slum conditions, but last week, when I went into one of the worst slum areas in London, I was appalled at the conditions existing in one part of Islington. The houses themselves are so sound structurally that medical officers of health are dubious about condemning them, but inside they have been allowed to become festering dens of unhealthy life, with walls falling down, floors cracking, no proper convenience, and no water. There are thousands of houses like these, not only in London but in many other large cities, which must be dealt with. There is, therefore, no call for anyone to imagine that there is not still a great deal to be done in the building of new houses.”

(Housing Debate, 4/7/49.)

* * *

Day to Day Struggle—Matches Front.

Mr. W. Gallagher (Communist, East Fife): “ . . . In this particular matter of matches, as a pipe smoker and as one who uses a very considerable amount of matches, I ask the Economic Secretary to discuss the matter again with the Chancellor and see whether they cannot find some other way of assisting the manufacturers to meet the costs of production rather than by way of making an increase of this kind. I ask him very sincerely to withdraw this proposal.”

(Finance Bill, Proposal to raise price of matches by halfpenny a box. 22/6/49.)

* * *

Members of Nationalised Boards.

Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): “… All those who have any responsibility for airline operation are in favour of this Bill; not only that, they ask for it to be given legislative effect at the earliest possible moment. The boards of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are in favour of the Bill, and those boards are composed of business men—men who prior to coming into association with civil air transport were and in some cases still are associated with successful private enterprise …”

(Airways Corporation Bill, Second Reading, 29/6/49.)

* * *

A Man in an Absolute Muddle

Mr. J. Scollan (Labour, West Renfrew): ". . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us about the dollar crisis. What was the panacea that he had to offer for the problem facing us? Was it not the same as was offered in the 1930’s during the depression: reduce costs and increase production? Did not wages go down in the 1930’s? Had not we a lock-out in 1926 for the miners? Were not the miners locked out for weeks on end, until prices were brought down? Did that bring prosperity? It brought misery, poverty and degradation. I am surprised to hear some of the arguments today. What are the Government going to do to see that we can meet France and other countries in fair competition? It does not seem to occur to anyone that we recently decided upon a European bloc and unity. Now we are deciding to go into competition with the very people with whom we were to be united. We are hoping that instead of unemployment being in Scotland, it will be in France. That is the cure. I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if Scotland were a free and independent country—I am not pleading Nationalism— it could stand on its own economy in the world blizzard that is likely to hit us.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Bouquet for American Capitalism—from a Labourite

Mr. J. Carmichael (Labour, Glasgow, Bridgeton): “. . . My only trouble is the attempt on the part of some people to complain about the interference of American capitalism. Does anybody doubt the fact that whatever Government would have been in, there would have been need of American aid? Our complaint all along has been that America might have been more liberal in her aid, recognising the great economic sacrifices made by this country during the war. They were compelled to intervene. I do not complain about American financial intervention. I welcome it, because today in Scotland we have less unemployment than we had in the bad old days.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

Plain Words from a Tory

Major G. Lloyd (Conservative, East Renfrew): “. . . The solution is to be found in a steady courageous determination to bring down costs of production, to make it easier in a buyers’ market for our industrialists, traders and men of commerce to sell the goods, as a result of which alone they can employ the people . . . People can only be employed if our industrialists can sell goods. If they cannot do that, they cannot employ the people. There is no politics in it. It is a matter of plain economic common-sense.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Labour Leader talks Capitalist Economics

Mr. A. Woodburn (Secretary .of State for Scotland): “. . . However, one thing is certain, that the buyers’ market which has obtained since the war is ending. Just as we may have to go without some imports, so other countries may have to do without what we would like to send them. We may have to make both effort and sacrifice to stimulate trade by quality, price and delivery. If then, we are to keep vital trade going, our efforts must be directed to producing goods which the world wants at the prices at which other people are able or ready to pay. We cannot live without imports. This country must trade, or die.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Letter: Landlords and capitalists (1949)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received the following letter from Mr. C. Stowasser, Manchester, who writes on the notepaper of the “Henry George School of Social Science.” Ed. Comm.)

Dear Sir,

In the interesting article of your May issue, “A Budget Secret Revealed,” you made one or two statements which I would like to comment on. In the first place you implied that the subsidy system should have been extended by increases of subsidies on foodstuffs. There are two points to be made on this: (a) subsidies, like taxes, ultimately come for the most part out of the pockets of the workers; (b) subsidies instead of increasing production merely help to increase land rents and are therefore of benefit to the landlords only. In the second place you implied that all incomes should be equalised. Now, although I sympathise strongly with this idea, 1 should like to point out that even if there was a completely equal distribution of wealth in this country it would only raise workers’ wages by about five pounds per annum. So you see the question is really and truly mainly one of production and redistribution. Now what all Socialists fail to see is that full production can only be achieved when we break down that all powerful barrier, the Land Monopoly. As you well know, since there is no tax on the site-value of land, the landowner is able to withhold valuable town land from use and by so doing creates a tremendously high monopoly value of land. Is it any wonder that there is poverty and unemployment when the community must pay a toll, amounting to as much as £500,000 or £600,000 an acre in the case of towns, for the right to use land. If we taxed landowners on the positional value of their land all landowners would be forced either to use their land fully or sell cheap—there would be full employment and plenty of houses—the exploitation of the worker would cease. Your paper shows clearly that autocratic planning does not bring prosperity—why don’t you go one step further and proclaim that true freedom can only come by giving all men access to the land through the taxation of land values.

Yours sincerely,

C. Stowasser, B.A. Comm.

Reply:

Our correspondent reads into the article he criticises (“A Budget Secret Revealed,” Socialist Standard, May) implications that were not suggested or intended, and that were in fact expressly disowned. He assumes that we are in favour of an increase of the subsidies on foodstuffs, and that we “implied that all incomes should be equalised.” He is quite mistaken. The S.P.G.B. stands for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. We hold that there are no ways in which capitalism can be made to function in the interests of the working class. We do not say that the Labour government in general and Sir Stafford Cripps in particular have followed a wrong budgetary policy and that all would be well if they followed some other policy. As we pointed out in the article,

“Budgets are the financial arrangements made for the conduct of the capitalist state and it is childish muddle-headedness to ask that they be transformed into ‘Socialist’ budgets.”

Having taken on the job of administering capitalism “they are forced within very narrow limits to do those things that capitalism requires.”

On the question of equalising incomes our correspondent is equally wide of the mark. Under capitalism incomes come from wages or from the ownership of property and they vary greatly in amount. Socialism is not a scheme for making them equal. Wages and incomes from property-owning will both disappear under Socialism. The principal way in which Socialism will lessen the labour and increase the consumption of those who under capitalism are the working class will be by cutting out the enormous waste of labour inseparable from capitalism.

Having disposed of one correspondent’s misconceptions about Socialism now let us look at his scheme for reforming capitalism by the levying of “a tax on the site-value of land.” This is not a working-class issue but a hangover of the conflict of interests between landowners and industrial capitalists. It is not even a vital issue to the capitalists any longer. When the land was monopolised by a relatively small number of big landowners the industrial capitalists suffered the mortification of having to give up to the landowners a large part of the proceeds of their exploitation of the workers. They resented it and would have liked to escape that burden. The result, however, would have been to increase the profits of the capitalists; it would not have lessened the exploitation of the workers. But in the past half century landownership has undergone great changes. We read in the Sunday Express (20/3/49) that whereas “less than 50 years ago 2,500 private landlords shared between them over half of Britain, today, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, there are only 469 estates of more than 1,000 acres left.” The government itself, the Local Authorities and the nationalised industries have vastly increased their holdings of land and much land is now owned by farmers: “of Britain’s 370,508 farms, a third are now owner-occupied. ” Also much land is now owned by estate companies and industrial companies and the writer in the Sunday Express states that the Prudential alone owns land valued at £35 million. These changes have taken place but they have not in the least improved the position of the working class.

In a leaflet that our correspondent sends us we arc assured that the scheme he recommends would “provide public revenue without hampering industry,” and that the burden would fall only on the landlord. But nowhere are we told why the working class should object to the landlord receiving part of the proceeds of working class exploitation without also objecting to the industrial, commercial and financial capitalists receiving a much larger part. According to official estimates the receivers of rent from land and buildings took £430 millions in 1948; but the profits of traders and partnerships amounted to £970 millions, and the trading profits of companies were £1,639 millions. In 10 years the percentage of the total national income going to receivers of rent has fallen from 8.5 per cent., to 4.4 per cent., while the other two groups of exploiters have increased their percentage from 21.2 per cent. to 27 per cent. This may please the capitalists but it is no concern of the working class.

The S.P.G.B. urges the workers not to interest themselves in the internal squabble of the exploiters but to work for the abolition of all exploitation.

Ed. Comm.

The Emergency Regulations in the Dock Dispute (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

By proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, the Labour Government on 11th July issued Emergency Regulations dealing with the dock dispute. The 1920 Act authorising the use of emergency powers was parsed by the Lloyd George Coalition Government against the fierce opposition of the Labour Party and Trades Union Congress. Its repeal was demanded by the Labour Party Conference in 1921, the resolution being moved by a docker. The Act was used by the Tories against the General Strike in 1926 and the T.U.C. that year carried a resolution which held that at no time during the strike need the Act have been used.

Yet this is the Act now used by a Labour Government in a dispute that is of negligible proportions compared with the 1926 General Strike.

The sixteen Emergency regulations give the Government sweeping powers over the working of the docks and over any attempt to interfere with the carrying on of work. The Daily Herald (12/7/49) published a summary of all sixteen regulations from which the following are quoted:

“Regulation 3. This concerns acts of sabotage and declares:

” ‘No person shall do any act with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working or movement of any vessel, aircraft, vehicle, machinery, apparatus or other thing used or intended to be used in the performance of essential services.’

“Regulation 4. Deals with trespassing and loitering on any premises taken over for the maintenance of essential services.

”Mere presence in or near such premises is sufficient for conviction, if it can be shown that the person’s character suggest a purpose prejudicial to public safety’

“Regulation 5. Covers acts of violence endangering, obstructing or interfering with troops, police and others engaged in essential services.

“Regulation 6. Makes it an offence to induce any troops or police to commit breaches of discipline. Possession or distribution of leaflets or other documents likely to cause disaffection comes under this heading.

“Regulation 7. Authorises the Home Secretary to employ police from outside the area for the maintenance of public order.

“Regulation 8. Gives powers for billeting of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

“Regulation 9. The Postmaster-General is authorised to hold up the delivery of packages and refuse the use of telephone and telegraph services as he thinks fit.

“Regulation 11. Gives police power to stop any vehicle if it is suspected that an offence is being committed against the Regulations. A constable may seize any incriminating evidence he finds.

“Regulation 12. Gives to any constable power of arrest of suspects without obtaining a warrant.

“Regulation 13. Makes it an offence to incite any person to commit offences against the Regulations.

“Regulation 14. Directors, general managers or secretaries of companies or corporations offending against the Regulations will be liable unless they can show that the offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance.

“Regulation 15. Provides that persons convicted shall be liable to three months jail or a fine of up to £100 or both.

“Taking part in, or peacefully persuading a person or persons to take part in a strike is not an offence.

“Regulation 16. Enables the authorities to seize any articles believed to provide evidence of an offence.”

The use of troops and of civilian workers brought into the docks from outside is governed by Regulation 2.

In spite of the long years of Labour Party denunciation of the Emergency Powers Act the Emergency Regulations received the sweeping support of Labour M.P’s. Not one Labour M.P. voted against.

Blogger's Note:

This issue of the Socialist Standard also carried two other pieces on the Dockers' dispute:

• Editorial: The attitude of the London Dockers
• The Dispute at the London Docks

Passing thoughts (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

To rebel against convention is a good thing; a sign that the bonds of tradition are loosening. To rebel against wage-labour is a better thing; a sign that the understanding of social bondage is dawning. To rebel against wage-labour and to understand how to end social bondage is the best thing; a sign that comfort and security for the whole of humanity is within measurable distance of accomplishment.

When two young people love one another how sad it is that lack of money so often interferes with their unity. When two young people love one another and unite how still more sad it is that lack of money so often breaks up their unity. What a paradise Britain would be shorn of buying, banks and dividends.

The tragedy of modern war is that thousands upon thousands of bright young lives are snuffed out before they can enjoy to the full their birthright, love and laughter; the essence of the tragedy is “Not that they die, but that they die like sheep.”

A dreamer is a common butt of the stage, the screen and the platform; but when the dreamer keeps his feet upon solid ground and dreams of those things that are possible then his dreams merit serious thought instead of idle laughter. A Socialist is a dreamer, but he dreams of a world that can and will be.

Doctors, psychologists, social workers and government officials speak with smug satisfaction about the modern treatment of mental troubles, and the wonderful hospitals provided for poor mental wrecks. How shocking it is to realise that all their work and satisfaction proceeds from the wrong point of view. The mental sufferer is treated from the individual point of view, striving to adjust him to his surroundings instead of striving to alter the surroundings so that maladjustment cannot occur. Since the upheaval of the industrial revolution and social absorption with speed, with markets, with wars, humanity has been unable to adjust itself fast enough to rapidly changing conditions; it is always mentally behind, and unluckier sections mentally break down. When the world becomes a place of security and happiness by removing the source of these too rapid changes, maladjustment, and the resulting mental disorganisation, will vanish.

Gilmac.

Those noble slogans (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

For four solid years the British working-class has been urged, entreated, and cajoled to work harder and produce more. Hardly a day has passed without an appeal or exhortation from someone or another for increased output, until one would have thought that the very weight of words would have proved too much even for workers, and they would have thrown up the sponge in sheer weariness and disgust. The fact remains that they did not do this—rather did they put their noses to the grindstone and increase production to record heights

With what result? With one result at any rate—that the production programme of Messrs. Marshall, Sons and Co. Ltd., one of the largest groups of agricultural engineers in the country, is now being halved and more than 400 men have been dismissed. The statement made by the firm about the dismissals sums up the economics of capitalism so well that it is worth quoting in full. This is what it says:

“There is no sense in making machines that cannot be sold. Something has to be done and the first thing is to cut the programme for the time being in half and thereby at least halve our worries, liabilities, and costs.

“The cut leaves us with a number of people for whom there is no employment, and it is just not possible, at a time when costs must be cut to an absolute minimum, for those people to be given alternative employment unless that employment is going to contribute to the general economy. The first step, obviously, is to cut down on non­-productive labour, the next step is to cut down on certain productive elements. Length of service, age, past record (absenteeism, lateness, general behaviour, and performance) all have to be taken into account.

“Most of us are working hard and working properly, but there are those who are not, and we can’t afford it any longer. The war is over and the post-war boom is finished, money is tight and getting tighter. We’ve got to earn our living now and we can’t afford passengers.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/7/49.)

We wonder how those noble slogans “Work or Want” and “More from each is more for all” are sounding in the ears of those who got the sack, and in the ears of the rest of the firm’s workers who are wondering whether it will be their turn next.

Stan Hampson

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Week-end Summer School has been arranged to be held on Saturday and Sunday, September 17th and 18th. The school will be at Tree Tops Holiday Camp, Farley Green, near Guildford in Surrey. Those who know this area will be aware that it is as pleasant a district as one can find in the county.

Arrangements are also in hand for private coach transport between London and the camp. The charge for accommodation and meals at the camp will be 18s. a head, the coach transport will be extra. The camp offers pleasant accommodation in chalets, individual, double and triple and it has a variety of attractions such as a swimming pool, tennis courts, pleasant walks, etc.

It is intended to arrange for a two o’clock departure from London on the Saturday afternoon. There will be no lectures on the Saturday, but a social evening is being organised. Two lectures are arranged for the Sunday, and it is hoped to be able to hold them outdoors on the lawns. The school will disband after supper on Sunday evening. Accommodation is very limited so those who are anxious to attend should get in touch with the Social Committee or the Central Organiser at once. In order to be assured of accommodation we suggest that intending visitors should send a cash deposit. It will help the organiser to conclude the arrangements.

St. Pancras Branch is holding some very successful meetings at mid-day on Sundays on the Broad Walk in Regents Park, London. On Whit Monday the branch held a marathon meeting at this spot, lasting from noon until 9.30 p.m. It has been decided to continue these marathons, with relays of speakers on Sundays throughout the season. Members can enjoy the amenities of the park whilst engaged in Socialist activity.

Lunch Hour Meetings in London are encouraging. Meetings at Lincoln's Inn Fields on Tuesdays and Fridays are always a well attended success. Tower Hill on Thursday and Finsbury Pavement on Wednesday are now on an organised footing. The propaganda committee has obtained the services of two additional speakers for mid-day meetings and is trying to work the meetings on a rota basis. It is intended, if possible, to extend the activity to include other places, such as, we believe, Leather Lane on Mondays.

Provincial Propaganda is being extended. The central organiser with the propaganda committee are arranging for speakers to visit various provincial towns, where a branch or a group of members can render assistance, throughout the summer season.

Central Branch Representation at Annual Conferences has been engaging the attention of the Executive Committee. Acting on a resolution passed at the last Annual Conference, the E.C. has agreed to a scheme whereby Central Branch members will each receive, before the Annual Conference, a ballot paper bearing all the resolutions and amendments that are embodied in the Conference Final Agenda. They can then vote “for” or “against” each item and the voting at the Conference will be on the basis of one vote for each ten, or part of ten, votes cast either “for” or “against.” Thus, if 68 Central branch members vote in favour of a certain resolution and 33 vote against it, the voting accepted on behalf of Central Branch at the Conference will be seven votes “for” and four votes “against.” This proposal will be placed before the Autumn delegate meeting.

Dublin Branch of the S.P. of Ireland has commenced a series of outdoor meetings in that city. At the first meeting, a comrade who had never mounted an outdoor platform before, a Dublin busman, spoke for 25 minutes and attracted an audience of between 400 and 500 workers. Despite interruptions about Cardinal Mindszentsy and Moscow he spoke for much longer than his colleagues anticipated. When the official speaker mounted the platform, the heckling became more persistent. Those in front of the platform who had been interrupting on the religious angle now made it apparent that they were carrying out an organised attempt to break up the meeting. They kept up a continual shout about religion and Moscow until our comrades had to appeal to the one of the two “guards” who were present. But the police merely smiled and shrugged their shoulders. This gave the interrupters encouragement and the cries became louder. The speaker continued in a good voice and a number of supporters and members of radical organisations who were present voiced their protests at the interruptions. The meeting had, by this time, grown in numbers to between 600 and 700 and, one of our Dublin comrades writes, “by now the atmosphere was like that of a Fascist meeting down at Ridley Road—only worse.” The Catholic Actionists, who were the instigators of the disturbance, then started to sing their well known hymn, “Faith of my Fathers.” This is the hymn that they sang a year ago when they attacked the headquarters of the Communist Party of Ireland. “But this time it didn’t have the desired effect the singers thought—nobody joined in.” As the police still took no notice the Catholic Actionists became bolder and threatened the speaker, making a move towards the platform. The speaker defied them and nobody accepted his challenge to try to put him off the platform. But at this point the police decided that the meeting should close as a breach of the peace was being committed. The police said that they knew that the meeting had been reported to Police Headquarters and that it was within constitutional rights, but if they left for re-inforcements the platform might be rushed and considerable trouble caused. So the meeting closed. Our Irish comrades are taking steps to try to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances, but they are determined not to surrender their meetings to the religious fanatics. One thing pleases them considerably. That is, that the organised interrupters got no support from the rest of the audience. They anticipate that more than 90 per cent. of the audience disagreed with the Socialist case, “but they wanted to listen to the speaker.” A letter just arrived from the Dublin Branch literature secretary orders an additional quantity of Socialist Standards in preparation for the next outdoor meeting.

All members of the Socialist Party of Ireland wish to convey their thanks to the S.P.G.B. for the valuable assistance given them, “without which the task of forming our Party would have been much more difficult.” “We would like workers everywhere to learn of this splendid example of Socialist co-operation.”

The S.P.I, is preparing a manifesto. It will be completed in the very near future.

The Socialist Party of Canada writes: “Though the Dominion Elections are due this month (June) we find ourselves unable to conduct an extensive campaign and as a result of financial deficiencies we are issuing only 5,000 copies of a leaflet.”

Visits from Overseas Comrades—During July and August we are anticipating meeting a number of comrades and friends who will be visiting this country from Africa, America, Canada and different parts of Europe. We extend a comradely welcome to them all.

W. Waters

SPGB Meetings (1949)

Party News from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour Party trouble with the Co-operatives (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In “Labour Believes in Britain” the Labour Party says that since its foundation “the Party has been solidly based on our great Trade Union and Cooperative Movements.”

While the Labour Party was in opposition and had a free hand to defend the claims of the Co-operators in such matters as taxation, and to give general support to wage increases, this partnership worked fairly smoothly. Now they are in power rifts are appearing. On the one hand, the Government is antagonising trade union members by the policy of wage-freezing and refusal to allow wages to keep up with the cost of living; and on the other, trouble is brewing with the Co-operative societies on several issues.

First the Labour Government upset the Cooperative Society leaders by the threat to nationalise the Co-operative Insurance Society along with the rest of the insurance industry.

Reynolds News, the Co-operative Sunday paper, in an editorial (30.10.49) had the following:—

“We think it is neither good Socialism nor good sense to absorb the Co-operative system in a State scheme, as Labour proposes to do. A strong case can be made for leaving the Co-operative and State systems to function side by side, to the benefit of the community .”

Of course the Co-operative Movement is no more concerned with Socialism than is the Labour Party and what they are really troubled about is that if the Co-operative Insurance Society is nationalised it would be a bad stroke of business for the Co-operative Movement. A writer in Co-operative News (20th October, quoted in Manchester Guardian, 21.10.49) dealing with this aspect had no scruples about admitting this. He wrote: —“ Our own 'private' enterprise in this sphere of investment and activity has been a good money-maker.”

The same writer in the Co-operative News went on to doubt whether it would even be worth while to try to get special exemption from nationalisation, because the Government would be bound to lay down the condition that if the Co-operative Insurance Society remained outside nationalisation it would be on the basis “that all Co-operative insurance profits will go, after administrative and collecting expenses are paid, back to the insured persons.”

Like the ordinary capitalist industrialist and trader, what the Co-operatives are concerned with is profits.

The second row between the Labour Party and the Co-operatives started with a speech by a Labour Peer, Lord Shepherd, that the Government might in certain circumstances set up State retail shops—a threat to the Co-operatives as well as to private traders. Mr. Strachey hastened to soothe the Co-operatives’ feelings but the harm was done. According to the Co-operative News the threat of State shops had caused “ consternation in high-up Co-operative circles ” (Manchester Guardian, 14.10.49).

Not unnaturally, the Liberals and Tories have hastened to intervene and assure the Co-operatives that they, and not the Labour Party are their real friends. Lord Woolton (Sunday Express, 30.10.49) assured them that they would be safer under Tory Government; while a prominent Liberal, Mr. Arthur Seldon, writing in Co-operative News (27.10.49) implored his readers to desert the Labour Party for Liberalism.

But while the Co-operatives resent those parts of Labour Government Policy that cut across their profit-making activities in the world of capitalist trade and industry, they do not at all mind the Government’s attempt to keep down wages. On the contrary they have given it a warm welcome. The following appeared in the Daily Express (4.11.49): —

“More than a thousand Co-operative societies were urged yesterday by their National Wages Board to resist pressure for more pay. The Board accused some union organisers and branch officials of using tactics 'which do not square with the promise of restraint.’ ”

Covering the same ground the Co-operative Reynolds News (6.11.49) under the heading “Wage Tactics: A Warning," stated that the National Cooperative Wages Board had issued its warning because of “Local trade union pressure on Co-operative Societies, especially in the Central Midlands, to pay more than agreed national rates of pay."

The warning was that this practice might cause the negotiating machinery to disintegrate.

The whole of this Labour Party — Trade Union — Co-operative bickering is a row about the effects of the capitalist system, not about its abolition and replacement by Socialism. The trade unions, if they are to survive, must defend the workers against the employers, including the Co-operative employers, and the State as the employer in the nationalised industries. They must also oppose the efforts of the Labour Government to solve capitalism’s problems by wage-freezing. The Co-operatives as capitalist concerns have the same interest as other capitalists in striking a good bargain with the Government if their concerns arc nationalised, and in resisting trade union wage demands.

The dispute between the Co-operatives and the Labour Party about whether Socialism requires nationalised insurance or Co-operative insurance betrays the non-Socialist outlook of both sides. What insurance exists for is to protect the insured against some evil consequences that arise out of capitalism, that and nothing else. The idea that insurance will be needed under Socialism is ludicrous, an idea that could only be held by those whose talk about Socialism covers a neglect ever to think what it really means.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

'Labour Believes in Britain' was a draft programme published by the Labour Party National Executive in April 1949 for the next upcoming General Election.

Leadership and Lenin (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The idea of “ Leadership ” developed alongside the growth of private property; it was a reflection of class-divided society, and the leader or leaders always represented property interests. Behind the idea was the theory that a few are born to lead whilst the many are born to serve. Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, put the idea this way;—

“He who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject, and by nature a slave."

“And so in one point of view, the art of war is a natural art of acquisition, for it includes hunting, an art which ought to practice against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit, for war of such a kind is naturally just."

In the last century Thomas Carlyle, in his essay on Chartism, put the idea in a more polite form:—

"Surely, of all 'rights of man,' this right of the ignorant man to be guided by the wiser, to be, gently or forcibly, held in the true course by him, is the indisputablist. Nature herself ordains it from the first; Society struggles toward perfection by enforcing and accomplishing it more and more . . . In Rome and Athens, as elsewhere, if we look practically, we shall find that it was not by loud voting and debating of many, but by wise insight and ordering of a few that the work was done. So is it ever, so will it ever be."

As soon as the workers began to combine to try to obtain some amelioration of their conditions their Movement was also cursed with this idea of leadership, and a contemporary of Carlyle, William Lovett —a working man who drafted the six points of the Charter —complained bitterly about it: —

“They were always looking up to leadership of one description or another; were being swayed to and fro in opinion and action by the idol of their choice, and were rent and divided when some popular breath had blown that idol from its pedestal. In fact the masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to 'great men' (or to men professing greatness) rather than to great principles."

Despite Lovett’s complaints the leadership idea was firmly entrenched in the radical and social democratic movement, and became one of the pedestals of Bolshevism. Lenin, the most prominent of the early Bolsheviks, had a complete contempt for the workers, looking upon them as just pawns in the struggle for power. In a pamphlet written by him in 1902, entitled “What is to be Done,” he indicated the attitude that governed his actions. The following quotation will make clear what this attitude was: —

“We said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working-class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realise the necessity for combining in unions, to fight against the employers and to strive to compel the Government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. The founders of modem scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia." (pages 32-33.)

“The workers can acquire class political consciousness only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers." (page 76.)

Lenin was arguing against those who contended that only the trade union struggle mattered, but in doing so he showed his hand. It may be pointed out, in passing, that it was largely from the theories of French, German and English working men that Marx and Engels acquired the knowledge that they systematised into scientific Socialism.

Lenin was an opportunist struggling for power and when it suited his policy he glorified the intelligence of the workers (see for instance his arguments in favour of trusting “ the masses ” in “Lessons of the Russian Revolution," page 24) pouring scorn on the alleged intricacies of organisational functions; later on he was just as emphatic in the opposite direction. This whole organisational policy, however, was built upon the idea that only a few possessed the intellectual capacity to direct the masses, and this was his interpretation of the “ Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Let us just give an example of how he wrote when he was appealing for working class support:—

“Capitalist culture has created industry on a large scale in the shape of factories, railways, posts, telephones and so forth, and on this basis the great majority of functions of ‘the old State' have become enormously simplified and reduced, in practice, to very simple operations such as registration, filing and checking. Hence they will be quite within the reach of every literate person, and it will be possible to perform them for the usual 'working- man's wage.’ This circumstance ought, and will, strip them of all their former glamour as 'Government,' and. therefore, privileged service.

The control of all officials, without exception, by the unreserved application of the principle of election and, at any time, recall; and the approximation of their salaries to the 'ordinary pay of the workers'—these are simple and ‘self-evident' democratic measures, which harmonise completely the interests of the workers and the majority of peasants; and, at the same time, serve as a bridge, leading from Capitalism to Socialism." (“The State and Revolution," page 46.)

The above was written just before the Bolsheviks obtained control of State power; after this was accomplished the tune changed. To illustrate this change of tune here are some extracts from “Resolutions and Regulations of the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (29th March to 4th April, 1920) Published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International. Moscow, 1920." In considering these extracts it must be remembered that Lenin was the dominating figure in both the Russian Communist Party and the Communist International-

“The Congress makes it obligatory to all members of the party mercilessly to fight that particularly obnoxious form of ignorant conceit which deems the working class capable of solving all problems without the assistance in the most responsible cases of specialists of the bourgeois school. The demagogic elements who speculate on this kind of prejudice of the more backward section of our working classes can have no place in the ranks of the party of scientific Socialism.

Registration of individual output or productivity of labour and the granting of corresponding individual premiums must also be carried out in a way suitable to administrative technical staff. Better conditions must be secured for our best administrators and engineers to enable them to make full use of their capacities in the interests of Socialist economy.

A special system of premiums is to be established for those specialists under whose guidance the workers can attain the necessary qualifications to make them capable to accept further independent posts.'* page 16.)

Gone was simplicity, election of officials, equality of wages and the rest of the support-catching slogans. In place of them the iron hand of dictatorship and of the “intellectual minority” was revealed. Many pages of the report were given over to arguments alleging the necessity and advantages of one-man management and responsibility. It is interesting to notice that the penalties to be imposed for failure to fall in line with labour discipline included internment in concentration camps. This shows that forced labour and concentration camps were used to bolster up dictatorship at the beginning of Bolshevik rule.

“The way to fight this labour desertion is to publish a column of desertion fines, the formation of labour detachments of deserters under fine and finally internment in concentration camps.” (page 20.)

The quotations we have given will show that leadership, an attribute of private property society, which has cursed the working class’ movement from its inception, was elevated into a guiding principle by the Bolsheviks, and sedulously followed out up to the present, bringing with it domination and the “flesh pots of Egypt” to the privileged minority whilst the masses suffer penury, hard labour, and the threat of the concentration camps or worse.

(All italics in the quotations arc in the originals.)

Gilmac.

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

Editorial from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes by the Way: Bigger Armaments Under Labour Government (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bigger Armaments Under Labour Government

In the course of an explanation why taxation is so much larger than before the war, Mr. Douglas Jay, M.P., Economic Secretary to the Treasury, recently repudiated the view 'that it is solely due to expenditure on social services. He was speaking to the Westminster Savings Committee, and went on to tell them of another reason: —

“Equally important is the growth in defence expenditure (£750 million to-day, compared with £200 million before the war), and also in debt interest due to the war.” (Daily Express, 4.10.49.)

Mr. Jay was seemingly content with his explanation but he should now answer the question “What has happened to the Labour Party’s promises that when they came to power they would know how to settle international problems peacefully and drastically cut down the Armed Forces?"

Instead they have to accept responsibility for peacetime conscription—opposition to which is now left to Tories and Liberals—and for maintaining the Armed Forces at far greater strength than in 1939. The number now is 765,000, just over twice as many as before the war.

One consequence of the Labour Party being responsible for running capitalism and keeping its Armed Forces up to standard is that that Party moved far away from the vague pacifist sentiment of the nineteen twenties. When recently the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union published in the Union journal an article appealing to young members to consider joining the Auxiliary Forces he made the comment below:—

“When 1 first became an officer of this union, an article on the Armed Forces of the Crown (unless it had been the purpose of the writer to condemn them as the tools of outworn imperialism, deplore their existence, and dissuade young men from having anything to do with them) would have been unthinkable in the Record. (Record, September, 1949.)

The Nationalistic German Social Democratic Party 

Just as the Labour Parties of the world pay lip-service to Socialism without in any way giving up their real aim of administering capitalism in the form of State capitalism or nationalisation, so they all pay lip-service to internationalism while remaining strongly nationalistic.

The German Social Democratic Party has just issued the opposition platform on which it will oppose the new German Government. It refers to “socialisation’’ of industries, meaning nationalisation, but makes no reference at all to Socialism and is a document similar to the programme of the British Labour Party. It does, however, include a new phrase, “The S.D.P. rejects all forms of nationalism . . ." But any one who thinks this is to be taken seriously need only look at various nationalistic demands elsewhere in the list of demands. One is, the Party rejects the present German frontiers and wants to re-occupy territory in the East annexed by Poland, and the Saar region in the West.

No doubt the S.P.D. leaders will say that they seek these ends by peaceful means, but those who seek to change or to defend the territorial arrangements of the capitalist world must logically be prepared to go to war, and in practice all the Labour and Communist Parties are prepared to do so.

And if any Labourite supposes that the British Labour Party is different he should take note of the utterances of that one-time opponent of conscription and war, Mr. Shinwell, now Minister of War.

The lion’s tail is flying high and we don’t care who knows it.” (Speech to Territorials,. Manchester Guardian, 26.8.49.)

”. . . Commonwealth unity is a reality. It has survived two great wars and is as vital to the economic and political interests of Britain as European unity. I am not prepared to abandon the British Commonwealth for all the tea in China.” (Daily Telegraph, 5.9.49.)

A Leaky Umbrella for the Unemployed

One of the claims of the Labour Party is that they “led the fight against the mean and shabby treatment’’ meted out to the unemployed by Tory Governments in the years before the war. And when they came to power they promised to fix higher rates of unemployment pay to provide proper social provision “against rainy days.” (“Let us Face the Future,” Labour Party, 1945.)

They are proud of what they have done as was shown recently in the House of Commons by Mr. J. Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance. A Labour M.P., Major Bruce (North Portsmouth), asked how much was spent on unemployment benefit in 1938 and was told it was £52,400,000. (Hansard, 18th October, 1949. Col. 460.)

He also asked how much the Government would have had to spend in 1938 on employment benefit if the benefits at that time had been at the higher rates now paid by the Labour Government.

Mr. Griffiths replied that “If current rates of unemployment benefit and family allowances had then been in force the disbursements would have been rather less than £90,000,000.”

Here, surely, is a cast-iron proof of the benefits of Labour rule? A Tory Government gave the unemployed £52½ million, and a Labour Government would have paid them £90 million. Shall we say "good and faithful servant,” or has Mr. Griffiths overlooked one small detail in his arithmetic? He has; and we can complete the sum for him.

The detail is that the cost of living has gone up by about 80% since 1938. What could be bought with 20s. in 1938 now costs at least 36s. So that the seemingly higher rates of unemployment benefit now in force have to be heavily reduced in order to compare them with the rates in force in 1938 when money bought more.

Mr. Griffiths’s “rather less than £90 million” will actually buy only as much as could be bought with £50 million in 1938, and that is “rather less than” the amount that the Tory Government paid out to the unemployed.

So all that the Labour Government has done is to raise the scale of benefits to a point which will nearly, but not quite, compensate for the rise in the cost of living and now the cost of living is rising again.

Capitalism it is

In the House of Commons on 27th October there was an exchange of views between Churchill and Attlee about the system under which we are living. Both of them talked nonsense but as Churchill managed to be right on one important point the victory goes to him. Attlee was hampered by things he has said in the past.

Churchill led off with his one true statement: “It must he remembered as we sit here to-night that Britain is a capitalist society, and that 80 per cent. of its whole industry is in private hands.” (Hansard, 27.10.49, Col. 1625).

He followed with the amplification, “. . . what we have here now is a capitalist society on which we are dependent for our daily life and survival. . .”

This was, and may have been intended as, a rebuke to woolly-minded Conservatives as well as the woolly-minded Labourites; but he followed it with numerous absurdities. He repeatedly described Attlee’s party as “The Socialist Party” and his Government as a “Socialist Government,” charged it with making a “deliberate attack on the capitalist system,” and then informed the M.P.s that under Communism “society is reduced to a strong hierarchy and army of officials and politicians by whom the proletariat are ruled under a one-party system.” What he meant by the last phrase was Russia; but had he viewed the Russian economic system as clearly as he views the British he would have seen that there is no Communism (or Socialism) in Russia and that all the main features of capitalism are robustly in operation there.

Mr. Attlee had to reply and took the line that “we live in the days of a mixed economy.The Right Hon. gentleman is quite wrong when he suggests that this is a purely capitalist economy. It is neither purely capitalist nor purely Socialist, but a mixed economy in a transition period.” (Col. 1633.)

The only mixture is not the economy, which is capitalist through and through, but Mr. Attlee’s conception of it; and the answer to him is to be found in Labour Party literature and in his own writings. “Socialism and Peace” (Labour Party, 1935) declared that the choice is between a vain attempt to patch up a rotten capitalist society “or a rapid advance to a Socialist reconstruction of the national life. There is no half-way house . . .” (Our italics.)

Now Mr. Attlee is trying to justify “the half-way house,” which he believes to be partly capitalist and partly Socialist but which is nothing but Labour Party administration of capitalism. And in his own “Labour Party in Perspective” (1937, page 123) he admitted that it would not be a Socialist Party that could administer capitalism:—

“The plain fact is that a Socialist Party cannot hope to make a success of administering the Capitalist system because it does not believe in it.”

And here are a few more statements that Mr. Attlee will find difficult to square with his own present declarations.

He thinks now that we are in a mixed economy. Only a few months ago he told an audience at Walthamstow that “The social reforms which we introduced have not been patchy; they have represented a new social order . . . We have had a great experiment in democratic Socialism.” (Manchester Guardian, 12.1.49.)

And Mr. J. Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance still thinks we have got rid of capitalism for he declares “I believe the people of the world have made up their minds not to go back to the old crazy capitalist system of poverty, conflict and insecurity.” (Daily Herald, 7.4.49.)

The Doctor Blames the Patient

Some of the Labour leaders are becoming spiteful—at least in their attitude to the workers. Mr. Alfred Barnes. Minister of Transport, speaking at Chatham said: —

“I don’t think the men of this country have played the game since the end of the war. Wc carried out our mandate against adverse conditions, and we are entitled as a Labour Administration to call upon the great mass of men workers to turn out a greater quantity of goods than are at present pouring from the factories.” (Daily Mail, 24.10.49.)

It is a curious situation and prompts the question whether Mr. Barnes thinks that the workers go into politics for the benefit of Mr. Barnes.

The Labour leaders offered themselves to the working class (at a price—Mr. Barnes draws £5,000 a year as Minister of Transport) with a promise to cure them of the economic ills from which they were suffering; and the doctors certainly didn’t start off by saying that the cure consisted of prolonged austerity, repeated crises, harder work, more armaments, higher prices and no wage increases. Now, after four years, the doctor turns on the patients and blames them for not making things easy for the doctor!

How refreshing it would be to see a Minister resign his job with a frank admission that the Labour doctors were wrong from the outset and that they can’t make capitalism tolerable for the workers.

The 1931 Economy Cuts over again

In 1931, when MacDonald formed a National Government to deal with the crisis and the bulk of the Labour Party went into opposition, economy cuts were imposed, most of which had been agreed to by the Labour Government before its resignation. In some respects the present cuts in Government expenditure are similar to those of 1931, e.g. cuts on armament expenditure, and on education, but the supporters of the Labour Government are insistent that they are not following the example of the MacDonald Government by reducing Civil Service pay, and cutting unemployment benefit by 10%.

The difference is quite illusory. In 1931 when the Government cut unemployment pay and gave a lead to the employers to reduce wages the cost of living was falling, the official index figure falling from 155 at December, 1930, to 148 at December, 1931, and 143 at December, 1932.

This time the cost of living is rising and the Government is trying its utmost to prevent wages from rising in keeping with the cost of living. The effect is just the same as in 1931.

The official cost of living index figure has risen from 100 in June. 1947, to 112 in September, 1949. The effect is that the purchasing power of unemployment pay has been cut by 12% since June, 1947, so that in terms of 1947 prices 26s. a week benefit is now worth about 23s.

One similarity between the two crises is the Government’s action over devaluation. In 1931 the Labour Government declared over a period of months that they would save the £ and not go off the gold standard—then MacDonald went off the gold standard. This time it is Cripps (instead of Snowden) who devalued after saying for months that he wouldn't.

One difference between the two cases is that the MacDonald Ministry did have the grace to reduce the salaries of Ministers and M.P.s; by 20% on salaries of £5,000 and over, 15% on £2,000 to £5,000, and 10% below £2,000. including M.P.s.

Edgar Hardcastle