Death on the Highway (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is strange that in a world where so much effort is being spent in trying to find more diabolical ways and means of destroying life, that there should also be so much effort directed towards preserving it. Whilst governments spend money on bigger and better bombs to blow babies to bits, they also spare a few coppers to exhort road users to be careful in order to reduce the toll on young life on the roads. Between rival posters extolling the merits of the army, the navy or the air force as a career for young men, can be found one that depicts a stern looking mobile policeman pointing and urging “Mind how YOU go!”

Sitting in a bus reading in the morning paper about the large number of lives that can be wiped out with one atom bomb, we can look up and see pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, Belisha beacons, pavement railings, halt and go slow signs, subways, “cross here" indicators, speed limit notices and all the other paraphernalia calculated to reduce road accidents and save life.

“The borough of — ?— welcomes careful drivers” is a common sign these days. Lamp posts are decorated with picture posters and slogans, “The next step may be your last;” “ Better safe than sorry ” or “Pedestrians use, motorists observe the crossings.'’ Footprints are painted on the pavement to indicate where to cross the road and studs are arranged to spell, “Look to the Right” Local authorities erect notices comparing the monthly number of deaths from road accidents in the district with the number during the corresponding month the previous year. Newspapers tell us of the total number of deaths from the same cause throughout the country.

Letters to editors and to the B.B.C. argue around various schemes to prevent the growing toll of the roads. Some say that greater penalties for careless driving will have an effect Some claim that the roads are to blame as they are too narrow or not fit for fast traffic. Others divide their condemnations between bright headlights, intoxicating drink, speed, jay-walking, bicycles and lack of courtesy.

No doubt speed is a contributory factor to this death toll. Not high speed necessarily, but excessive speed under the prevailing conditions. A better word than speed is haste, hurry or hustle. What would be classified as dangerous haste when driving a car through a market town on market day. would be considered a menacing crawl when on a wide concrete by-pass road.

This is an age of haste. The competition of capitalism has driven men to hurry and hustle. "Time is money” is a slogan of the day. We search for ever quicker ways of getting things done. We have quick service snack bars, speedy boot repairs, time saving soap substitutes, ready in moment breakfast cereals, time saving household gadgets and even quick fire entertainment to satisfy this urge to speed up the tempo of life. We live in the system of the alarm clock, the factory punch clock, the school bell, the time-table, the moving belt and the speedometer. So that no time shall be “lost" we have the hours divided up, the minutes portioned out, whistles are blown, sirens are sounded, bells are rung and "pips” come over the radio. We even have time and motion study experts.

Centuries ago, although men lived a more primitive existence, they also led a more leisurely one. With the growth of trade came the need to be first with the goods and early in the market. Speed on the road was very limited whilst the only power unit for transport was the horse. But the tendency for greater haste and more speed was apparent Stage coaches vied with one another in their endeavours to whisk their passengers from place to place in the shortest possible time. In 1776 Mathew Pickford advertised flying wagons from Manchester to London in five and a half days at an average speed of just over 1½ miles an hour. In 1800, Thomas and James Pickford sent a daily service over the same route in four days.

The development of steam power opened up new possibilities of greater speeds. With the advent of the petrol motor came the era of high speeds which have only recently been exceeded by the turbine jet engine. An Act of Parliament of 1861 limited locomotives on the highways to a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour in the country and 5 miles per hour in the towns. Four years later these limits were reduced to 4 and 2 miles respectively and every vehicle had to be accompanied by three men, one of whom had to walk in front with a red flag to warn horses.

This low speed limit and the "man with a flag” regulation, hampered the early motor cars. In 1896 the law was repealed and the "Locomotives on Highways Act” of that year permitted speeds of 14 miles per hour. In 1903 the "Motor-car Act” allowed a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour. Today the speed limit is removed except for certain types of motor vehicles and in "built-up” areas.

Another quality which, together with speed, is a factor in the road death problem, is weight. Weight and speed give momentum, and momentum, in either a bullet or a car, can kill. The laws which allowed ever-increasing speeds ran parallel with others which allowed increases in weight. A "Heavy Motor-car Order” of 1904 allowed a maximum unladen weight of 5 tons, and with trailer 6½ tons. The "Roads Act” of 1920 increased this to 7¼  tons and allowed six-wheelers to carry 10 to 12 tons.

This, then, is the set-up that is responsible for many of those road deaths—greater speed, greater weight and greater size coupled with the urge to hurry. The need to get to work on time and the strong desire to get finished on time. The fear of being late and the desire not to waste time. Drivers trying to maintain time schedules and children scared of being late for school. Salesmen speeding to be first to get to a customer and housewives hurrying to be first on the queue at the shops. Heavy transport vehicles that are paid by the load and hasten to get in as many loads a day as possible; and old folks who are not sufficiently nimble to fit into an age of hustle and rush.

We are not going to claim that Socialism will eliminate all road deaths. Neither do we anticipate that, in a Socialist order of society, there will necessarily be a great restriction in speeds or weights of vehicles. Fast moving, heavy load-carrying vehicles can be an asset in any future society. But, with the introduction of Socialism there will be an end to the competitive scramble of capitalism: worker competing with worker for a job; shopkeeper competing with shopkeeper for custom; company competing with company for markets; nation competing with nation for international trade. All trying to steal a march on one another by being first. All hurrying for fear of being "left at die post.” Socialism will end that and will allow of a more leisurely tenor to life. There may or may not be solutions to the road casualty problem within capitalism. That is not our worry. Capitalism fritters away human life in many ways and it is our task to overthrow the system itself. We are no more, and no less, shocked by the number of road deaths than we are by the numbers who die from malnutrition or from tuberculosis through lack of clean, fresh air and sunshine; or those who are killed in capitalist wars; or those who perish in mine disasters and shipwrecks in the scramble for profit. Nearly all this waste of life is the result of a system in which production is for sale with a view to profit. We aim to end that system and, in so doing, extend the lifetime of many, and make that lifetime more enjoyable.

When we see on the hoardings a poster advertising the number of children killed per day on the roads in Britain, or one that shows the tear-stained face of a widow over the words, "Keep Death off the Road,” and close beside it another poster pictorially glorifying the life of the man who is trained to kill—the soldier, we can think of only one word. HUMBUG!

W. Waters

Socialism on the slate? (1951)

Pamphlet Review from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nationalisation has always figured prominently in the plans which Labour Party theorists formulate from time to time for the administration of British capitalism. Labour politicians out of office are full of schemes for the betterment of society, but when, as now, they have had ample time to put their ideas to the test they have to try to explain what went wrong. A good example of this stock-taking mood is a recent publication of the Parliamentary Socialist Christian Group entitled, “‘Dirty Coal' and Socialism,” which purports to be a statement on the true meaning of nationalisation.

Fifty-nine Labour M.P.s give their general support to the argument of this pamphlet. They are quite safe in so doing, since at no point does it touch, even lightly, upon issues which are of any concern to the working class. After some sanctimonious claptrap about the will of God, and men being by nature selfish there is a sort of recapitulation of capitalism over the last century or so, with special reference to the widespread acceptance, in his time, of Disraeli’s  "two nations.”

“To-day, the march of events, in which we may reverently discern the hand of God, has made such acceptance obsolete.

We therefore affirm that it is now a major task for Christians to find out how to reawaken in most people a sense of satisfaction and of responsibility in their duly work, without the loss of production which the breaking-up of industry into small units would mean." (p. 7)

How very anxious these Labourites are to convince us that every objection to capitalism, now its responsibility is theirs, is obsolete. Marx's ideas, according to them, are obsolete, poverty has been abolished, hunger is unknown, and now, apparently, the class division in society has been ushered out of existence by the helping hand of God.

The Christian task of reawakening satisfaction and responsibility, in a system that breeds their opposites, is really nothing new. How to reconcile the workers to their exploitation and to gain their support for its continuation have long been the aims of capitalist propagandists, and have given rise, among other things, to the gentle art (hardly science) of industrial psychology.

In order to obtain any sort of conscious support for a particular group to run capitalism it must first be shown that the proposed methods are different from, and superior to, those of rivals, past and present. The signatories of the pamphlet are of the opinion "that most Conservative industrialists would welcome consultation for negative reasons—as a trouble-shooting device, an insurance against unrest.” (p. 10). This implies that the Christian Socialists want consultation for a positive reason, which turns out to be the taking by all of some share of the responsibility for working out the policy of industry.

Let us try to understand what is meant by this much-publicised democracy in industry and how it affects the workers. We may take as an example the question of pay for a certain type of job. The workers say it is too low, and in a gentlemanly way their representatives sit round a table with those of the boss, the managers. The boss is not prepared to pay higher wages, and to support his decision he quotes die Government to the effect that increased wages lead to increased prices and the workers are then no better off. The latter won’t have this—they want a larger share of the cake they produce, but what choice have they? What fresh arguments can they produce to alter the decision, and what pressure can they bring to bear to back up their demands, except the threat or action of withdrawing their labour? There can be no advantage to them in relinquishing the right to strike, and thereby helping to make the “responsible” decision of rejecting their own wage demands.

It is true that many employers are willing to pay a little more for the services of reasonably contented workers in industries which require skilled and relatively permanent labour. This is done, not out of any abstract sense of fairness, but merely in order that the greatest profit may be realized from the use of expensive plant and machinery.

If workers were willing to work for a decreased real wage then no offer would be made by their employers to pay more. The standard of living of the working class is maintained or increased only as a result of their own efforts against the employing class whose interest is to buy the maximum energies of the workers as cheaply as possible.

So much for consultation in industry in general. We now come to the main theme of the pamphlet under discussion—the nationalisation of “our” basic industries. Having been flattered by the use of the first person—somewhat in the style of the valet asking his master "Which suit shall we be wearing to-day?”— we learn that

“Nationalisation is a long and ugly word. We prefer to speak of public or common ownership, which can include other forms of ownership than national ownership and administration through public corporations. Nor do we refer, as some do, to the 'socialised' industries: it seems to us that such a usage may cause confusion in the minds of those who already think, vaguely, that nationalisation is Socialism, instead of merely a necessary part of the machine or framework within which people can begin to learn the Socialist way of life.” (p. 11).

It is difficult to appreciate in what way the word “nationalisation” is ugly. "Demobilisation” is only one letter shorter, yet no stigma attaches to it on that account. The unpopularity of nationalisation lies not in the length of the word but in the reality to which it refers. We have always pointed out that nationalisation is not socialism, and we have also pointed out it has no connection with learning the socialist way of life either.

This notion of giving people a little taste of socialism, so that they will come back for more if they like it, is a typically reformist one. It always turns out that these dainty tit-bits contain the same old capitalist ingredients, and leave the same bad taste in the workers' mouths.

There is ample evidence to show that nationalisation is merely a particular form of capitalism. It is true that sections of the capitalist class oppose it when it threatens to reduce their income from the industries taken over by die state. However their show of resistance must in most cases be interpreted as an effort to obtain greater compensation. The groaning and grunting of the "dispossessed” capitalists in industries in the process of being nationalised is comparable to that of all-in wrestlers who are keen to show the customers how much punishment they are supposed to be taking from their opponents.

The group of fifty-nine who call themselves Christian Socialists also play down the angle of material prosperity, for the workers at any rate.

“Common ownership of the major industries does not lead us all at once to the good life by Act of Parliament; but it is a prerequisite of that end.” (p. 14).

An attempt is made to show in what way such “common” ownership (nationalisation) is a prerequisite of the good life. We are told that the most important point is that the public interest should determine industrial policy.

We must be forgiven if we are a little sceptical about the significance of this statement. To our knowledge no government has ever admitted to acting against the public interest. Our own benevolent Labour government is resolutely facing a cut in our standard of living only because it will, they say, hurt the wage-earners less than unrestrained inflation, and is consequently “in the public interest.”

Lord Bruce of Melbourne, chairman of the Finance Corporation for Industry, had this to say on nationalisation:—

“The Socialists have blindly pursued the dogmatic theory of national ownership. Others have made almost a fetish of private enterprise. The result is that the nation is divided politically, as if this was a great fundamental issue. This is, of course, pure nonsense. Neither public ownership nor private enterprise is the sovereign remedy. Some industries may be suitable for public ownership. The overwhelming majority are not—the iron and steel is an outstanding example of this latter class."

(Manchester Guardian, 22.9.50).

We are not concerned with discussing the relative merits of state or private ownership in any particular industry, or in general. The basic features of capitalism remain the same in either case—the. relation of buyer of labour power to seller, with the propertyless and poverty condition of the latter.

Those workers who expected a better deal from the state than from private employers have been, and are being sadly disillusioned. In rejecting claims for pay increases for railway workers Mr. W. P. Allen, for the Railway Executive, recently told a Court of Inquiry “It is possible that far too many of those in our employ expect far too much from nationalisation far too quickly.” (The Star, 8.1.51).

As time goes by it is becoming increasingly clear that the interests of the majority of people cannot be served by any group of leaders who profess to be ‘‘on their side” any better than those who avowedly rule them. As Gordon Rattray Taylor puts it, "workers in nationalised industries are slowly waking up to the fact that they have only changed one kind of master for another.” (“Are Workers Human?” p. 18).

To those who voted Labour last time in the belief that state ownership holds out a solution, or even a step towards it, of their problems we say—profit from your mistake. The only prerequisite to a good life is your understanding its highest expression—a socialist world.

S. R. Parker

Anti-climax (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past year our attention has been turned to the skys in many ways. We had Fred Hoyle’s Lectures (broadcast by the B.B.C.) on the New Cosmology, giving many of us a fascinating insight into the wonders of the universe. In a B.B.C. broadcast we also learned that Societies exist to plan trips to the moon and later to mars, although it is stressed that many years will elapse before they can actually be attempted. In the same programme (Focus on Interplanetary Travel), we were taken on an imaginary trip (by rocket) to the moon.

A book was published entitled, “The Conquest of Space.”  W. Ley had collected technical information on this subject and presented it with pictures (by Chesney Borestell) based on the latest authentic research. The trips to the various planets in the book were, of course, purely imaginary. Becoming “sky-conscious” Hollywood gave us a brace of films, “Destination Moon” and “Rocketship X-M.,” but the most spectacular appeal to public attention was made by the “ Flying Saucers.” This elusive and much publicised phenomena caught the public imagination and the most extraordinary rumours were circulated regarding their speed, manoeuverability and brilliant light, particularly in America where they mostly appeared, although people in British Isles claimed to have seen them.

On 7th October, following much advance publicity, the Sunday Express featured a series of articles on the subject entitled (rather dramatically) “Is another world watching us?” The author, Gerald Heard, was introduced as “distinguished writer and well-known broadcaster,” and the articles were extracts from his book, “The Riddle of the Flying Saucers.” He certainly spread himself at length on the subject as the series did not finish till 3rd December. First a mass of testimony was brought forth by those who claimed to have witnessed the phenomena. Then it was said. “The question of their speed seems to rule out any human designer. . . from a quiet brooding to a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.” Heard put forth an astonishing assortment of suggestions quite seriously, the most fantastic being that they were “manned” by insects from outer space. (Insects being able to withstand the pressure of the tremendous acceleration). Each planet of our solar system was solemnly examined and mars singled out as the only one upon which insect life could exist.

We were told that U.S. Army and Navy denied all knowledge of the saucers: surely Mr. Heard could not be so naive as to accept that as conclusive? A child of average intelligence would realise that if It were a military or naval “ top secret ” it would be disowned rather than acknowledged prematurely.

The conclusion of the articles is more fantastic than all that has gone before and we really question whether Mr. Heard is indulging in that pastime, colloquially known as pulling our legs. He quotes earlier on that “No form of life as we know it could exist on mars, but insect life.” Nevertheless he concludes in the following extraordinary manner:—“The earths rind of rock (the lithosphere) may not be at all thick. It may be possible with our 'modem atom power explosion to burst through it. Then, quite likely, out would come our molten insects. Martians might well have strong views about planets that explode themselves. For turning ourselves into a dust belt filling our entire orbit with a thick mist of fragments we might cut off a dangerously large amount of the all- too-little sunlight they now get . . . When we twice struck Japan and then not to slaughter but to astound— made the Pacific spout, when we, time and again sent up great super-thunderheads of smoke, spray and the wreckage of human industry and human bodies right up into the stratosphere, then we put out a finger to beckon attention on any watching fellow planet that we were the little fellow out for trouble and able and itching to give it. They could hardly have failed to see that defiant wanton signal. Does that close the question Why Now?”

Well! Here comes the anti-climax, the secret is out—flying saucers are atom test balloons. The information was released by the chief of Nuclear Research, U.S. Navy (Daily Herald, 13/2/51).

Shades of Jules Verne. On 31st December, 1950, the Sunday Express patted itself smugly on the back that it had led the field with articles on “that interesting topic Flying Saucers ” and were much flattered that other newspapers were following their lead. They can claim no credit, rather the reverse, for sponsoring these articles as a serious attempt to solve the mystery.

The Astronomer Royal (Sir Harold Spencer Jones) took a dim view of the whole thing and said (when questioned about flying saucers) “It is very significant that most of the reports appear to have come from a country where mass hysteria is rather prevalent.”

We will close by following Mr. Heard’s lead and indulge a short flight of fancy. Supposing that space ships brought beings from another planet. One imagines they would be fleeting visitors to this miserable world of conflicts, and want alongside potential plenty. Interplanetary travel presupposes a more intellectual and very much farther advanced form of life, the outcome of which we should presume to be a classless society, where all the evils that are the outcome of capitalist society could not exist. The inevitable and ultimate goal of all human endeavours.

Many of us would want to “thumb a lift” for the journey back.

F. M. Robins

Equality under capitalism (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the Sunday Observer (31/12/1950), Charles Davy poses the question, “ what will Britain be like in ten years’ time?” He wonders whether Britain should aim at a “classless” society, since he recognises that the so-called “Welfare State” is one “where class differences are still wide and well- marked.” Mr. Davy goes on to show that a classless society is understood by some people to be one in which “freedom will be maintained and equality at last achieved.” But Mr. Davy, like many before him, finds “equality” a stumbling-block. He wonders what it can mean in practical terms, since he sees “no obvious sense in which all men are equal, and so many ways in which they are not.”

In his “practical” way, Mr. Davy starts off with the viewpoint of the “child’s fear of being cheated" from which he traces a conception of justice “which implies equality before the law.” However, Mr. Davy himself in his wisdom realises that this lawyers’ well-worn phrase is meaningless. As he puts it:

“We can give men equal legal and voting rights; but we find that they are still subject to economic exploitation, and to gross family poverty which makes a mockery of the fair and equal chance.”

But even with the introduction of the “Welfare State” we find “that glaring inequalities persist.” So what can we do? One can now see Mr. Davy almost trembling with excitement; he daringly continues: “Should we then go further still, declaring that the very existence of rich people, while others are poor is an affront,”—and here at last comes the anti-climax —“and use taxation to narrow the gap until it is hardly noticeable?” But this is rejected, as it is only the viewpoint of some Labourites.

Mr. Davy himself is not so radical! He finds the solution in the “religious idea of equality,” which turns out to be—guess what?—the nineteenth century dogma of laissez-faire in twentieth century garb:

“ It requires that everyone should be given (as far as is humanly practicable) a fair chance in life.” This is the top-level of equality to Mr. Davy, above which “there should be freedom and variety: competition within the rules of fair play.” At last, he shows himself in his true colours: wistfully recalling that “in earlier societies, inequalities were accepted as part of the given order,” he regrets that “to-day it is very hard to get them accepted without envy and resentment.”

So inequality must now be disguised, it must be “seen and felt to be functional, derived not from privilege or influence but from the demands of the work in hand.” This is what Mr. Davy understands by a classless society, “ for the class to which a man belonged would not be fixed nor would it apply to him as a human being. It would simply be a working-dress.” This principle of functional partnership “would' call for far-reaching changes in the forms of ownership and association whereby power and authority are exercised, and rewards distributed in economic life." Thus Mr. Davy’s Britain of ten years hence would exemplify the “fundamental social paradox” of “ the equality and inequality of man”!

Of what “the far-reaching changes in the forms of ownership” will consist, their promulgator is not explicit. But no matter—he says they are only changes in form. This must mean that the substance of our present system of ownership will remain. This system consists in the class ownership of the means of production and distribution, whether through private or state forms, by the privileged minority, called capitalists. The propertyless majority of the members of society are forced by their economic condition to sell their labour-power for a wage or salary-to the privileged capitalists. A surplus-value is produced by the working-class over what they receive back in the form of wages; from this surplus-value all rent, interest and profit is derived. The motive of capitalistic production is to make profit. This is the basic economic disease of our time; from this arise the social inequalities. Mr. Davy is yet another of those social charlatans who see the symptoms but know not their cause. He is a typical apologist for the evils that are inherent in the nature of capitalist society. His concern is not to abolish inequality, but only to disguise it in such a form that the workers will no longer recognise it.

Socialists desire to show their fellow-workers that Socialism alone means equality. By Socialism is implied a system of society where the private ownership of the means of life, production for profit, a money or exchange system, and the existence of classes are all abolished. All the members of society will stand in a similar relation to the world’s wealth—all will be owners, or if you like, non-owners. Each will contribute what he can to society and take what he requires. There will be plenty for all. This is what Socialists understand by equality. In the words of Marx, “from each accord to his ability, to each according to his need."

D. A. Stern

The spectre of communism (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over 100 years ago, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels jointly produced the most famous of all political pamphlets “The Communist Manifesto.” In the prefatory paragraphs they wrote:—

“A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. . . .

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties as well as against its re-actionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself."

(S.P.G.B. edition, p. 59) 

When these words were written capitalism was developing in Europe. In England and France the capitalist class had obtained political power and the working class were making demands for political liberty. In other countries the workers supported the rising capitalist class against the feudal aristocracy. The hopes, dreams and aspirations of the more advanced workers were expressed in vague utopian communist ideas. This made the rising capitalist class “tremble in their shoes” and drove them to seek alliance with the feudalists powers.

It was Marx who made the discovery

“that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it form the basis upon which is built up and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of the epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited; ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolution in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class—the proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class—the bourgeoisie—without, at the same time, and once and for all emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction and class struggles." 

(Engels Preface to 1888 Ed., Communist Manifesto, S.P.G.B. Ed., p. 56).

With Engels, Marx applied this theory to the changes taking place in society and brilliantly sketched an outline of this development in the "manifesto.” 

They pointed out how the voyages of discovery in the latter part of 15th and the earlier part of the 16th centuries created a world market, giving incentive to the growth of industry and commerce. The inability of the existing methods of production to satisfy the demand forced the rising capitalist class to seek political power for the abolition of the restrictions which feudalism placed on production. Methods of production kept developing. The new methods, wherever they took root supplanted the older methods uprooting the old way of living and its traditional beliefs. The development of the means of production concentrated property into fewer hands, driving more people into the ranks of the working class, reducing society into two classes—the capitalist class, who own and control the means of production and the working class who, having no property in the means of production, must sell their labour power to live. The workers, due to the pressure of the circumstances in which they find themselves, must struggle to better their conditions. This struggle will ultimately lead the workers of all countries to realise they have a common interest, the abolition of capitalist society, which is based on the private ownership of the means of production—the source of their exploitation—and the establishment of socialism, which is based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Today, 100 years after the publication of the pamphlet, the area has extended. The spectre of Communism is no longer confined to Europe. It haunts the world. Again the “nursery tale of the spectre of Communism ” must be met.

Communist still remains one of the most common terms of abuse. Defenders of free speech in the Western democracies, brigands in hills of Greece, bandits in the jungles of Malaya are all classified under this epithet.

The terms socialism and communism mean the same thing, a classless form of society. Marx and Engels chose to use the term communism because it was associated with the working class movements of the time whereas socialism referred to utopian movements, composed of reformers, and men like Robert Owen who thought the change must be brought about from above by the “educated classes,” while Marx and Engels maintained the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class themselves (see Engels Intro to Manifesto). At the present time, the term communist usually refers to those who claim that Russia is a socialist country and endorse the Leninist-Stalinist interpretation of Marxist theories. They claim that socialism is the transitory stage to communism.

But according to the Chinese Communists the change taking place in China is “generally speaking, still a new-democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism, and not a revolution of a socialist nature " (The Economist, Jan. 20th, 1951). Capitalism is developing in Asia, breaking up the age-old customs and beliefs, bringing with it Western ideas. The Chinese Communists are more truthful than their Russian predecessors and teachers, who stated that in Russia, at a similar stage in social development, a socialist revolution had taken place.

The underlying theory held by those who call themselves Communist, whichever nationality they claim, is that the working class can be led to socialism. This idea is principally the same as that of the “utopians” in 1848. It leaves out of account the economic conditions and the political development of the working class, and. therefore, it contradicts the fundamental Marxian theory quoted earlier in this article in Engels own words. The development of Russia since 1917 shows how this idea that socialism can be installed from above is false. Lenin regretted the need for the inequality of income which has now given rise to rouble millionaires. The law of inheritance was abolished and in later years restored. After the revolution, education was free, then later could be had at a fee; divorce laws were relaxed, and divorces easy to obtain, but now these laws have been changed and only the more privileged section of society can afford divorce.

These regressions demonstrate that it is impossible to construct socialism before certain conditions have arisen. These conditions arc a sufficiently developed means of production, which could provide the requisites for a comfortable living for all members of society and a working class, the majority of whom understand that only by the common ownership of the means for producing wealth can a comfortable living for all be obtained. Capitalism is run from top to bottom by the working class. If any socialist transformation is going to take place, the workers must want the change and know how to make it The change can’t take place in the face of their opposition. Society is a group of people with ideas in their heads; if it isn't socialist ideas then they will have non-socialist ones.

The task before the asiatic workers is the assimilation and the dissemination of socialist knowledge. Capitalism will look after the development of the means of production. Let these asiatic workers look after the other necessary condition for socialism, a majority of workers who know what socialism means and want it

And the task faring the workers in the more advanced Western world is the same. Learn what socialism is. When the workers in both Eastern and Western countries gain that knowledge they will obtain political power, and collectively set about to establish such a society. The main obstacle in the way of Socialism is that the workers don’t know what it means. Once they do, the obvious advantages of this system will compel the workers in the advanced countries to bring it about, and will bring their more backward brothers in swift pursuit.

J. T.

Editorial: Capitalism cant about strikes (1951)

Editorial from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

During 1950 over 1,300 industrial disputes were reported to the Ministry of Labour. Almost all of them were “unofficial," because declared in defiance of the 1940 Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, and the majority took place in nationalised industries. In the coal industry alone there were 863. The Labour government and the capitalist Press join in condemning strikes on the grounds that they are unpatriotic, unnecessary, and useless but they part company about the cause. While the government spokesmen and trade union officials put most emphasis on alleged Communist incitement some of the newspapers prefer to believe that the chief cause is the cumbersome machinery of the nationalised industries and the big trade unions, and the too close association of the latter with the government.

This makes it possible for some newspapers to shed crocodile tears over the workers' grievances while sermonising over the wickedness and futility of striking to redress them. Thus on 21 February the Daily Mail editorial found it “wrong than an engine-driver should get only £6 18s. 0d. a week, or that the lowest-paid should receive less than £5," and on the same day the editor of the Manchester Guardian had this to say:—

“There is general sympathy for the individual railwaymen’s case for better conditions. The lowest paid man's £4 16s. 0d. a week is not enough to meet today's living costs, and there is some validity in the trade union argument that men should not be forced to rely on overtime and Sunday work to make ends meet.”

But sympathy for the individual railwaymen turns into hostility at the idea of the individuals getting together and doing something to enforce their demands after long drawn-out negotiations have failed. For alternative remedy the Guardian slides off into a demand for radical reorganisation of the railways, while the Mail preaches the need for all to work together ‘‘in these desperate times,” and laments that “the community is ruled by force and not by justice.”

All the critics of strikes-in-practice profess to believe in the abstract right to strike. Thus the Daily Mail—“Every man has the right to withhold his labour —and we stand by that"; and, “The strike weapon is a legitimate part of our industrial machinery.”

We wonder however when the Daily Mail ever supported men on strike!

Mr. Francis Williams (News Chronicle, 22/2/51) put the usual case of the Labour Party that “in these days ” (as if they were any different from what capitalism has always been) strikes are obsolete because “everyone concerned knows that it is in fact only through negotiation that a settlement capable of advancing die interests both of the community and individual workers can be secured."

Mr. Williams was particularly incensed with Mr. Figgins, general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, on account of his refusal to appeal to railwaymen not to strike during the negotiations. Mr. Figgins, warned by the intense discontent of the members of his union, took the line that “negotiations and strikes could take place at the same time," and he pointed out that “in 1911 we held an unofficial strike and there were negotiations very quickly."

On this issue Mr. Figgins is obviously right and the critics of strikes are wrong. Arbitration and negotiation have no meaning apart from the pressure the workers can exercise by being willing to strike. And the pretence that the strikes under Labour government play no part in securing wage increases is mere hypocrisy, as there is plenty of evidence to show. After long refusals and discussions many railwaymen struck and then the Railway Executive came out on 20 February with its willingness to offer £9,250,000 wage increases instead of £7,000,000. Later they increased it to £12,000,000.

Can anyone doubt that the unofficial strikes of miners helped to induce the Coal Board to agree to further wage increases in January, 1951, only three months after the increases granted in October last year?

The Irish Bank Clerks who held up the banks for a month can certainly claim that it brought results.

Then there is the interesting case of the electricians on the Festival of Britain site who struck for an additional 2d an hour and got it. After the strike had been going oh for weeks the Minister of Labour appointed a Committee of Inquiry. They met on Saturday, 10 February, and reported immediately in favour of the increase. The employers’ association opposed it, refused to accept the Committee’s findings, and complained that they would pay it only “under severe protest" and that it had been granted under pressure from the government. The explanation doubtless is that the government were very much concerned about the possibility of the Festival buildings not being ready in time for the official opening date.

The secretary of the employers’ National Federated Electrical Association, is reported in the Daily Telegraph (14/2/51) as saying that the increase would be paid in view of “the extreme pressure which has been exerted through the Ministry of Labour and in other directions”

“... as the government has decided that it be paid, there is nothing else for us to do but to pay it.” 

When Labour leaders say that strikes are not necessary under Labour Government and Nationalisation, and when capitalist newspapers plead for “justice” instead of “force” they are crying for the moon. Capitalism has not changed and class struggle is inherent in it. Capitalists oppose wage demands to defend their profits and the Boards of Nationalised industries are doing the same though not quite so obviously. The government by law lays on the Boards the obligation of making enough profit to pay the interest on the compensation stocks held by the former owners. If the members of the Boards fail to do their job they will get the sack, to be replaced by more ruthless directors.

In conclusion we must not overlook another group who, along with low-paid railwaymen, earn the sympathy of the Daily Mail leader-writer. These are the company shareholders whose “dividends are expected to remain frozen” under government policy. They too, according to the Mail, are being “shabbily treated.”' Perhaps if this goes on the Mail will lose patience and advise then “to withdraw their labour” like the unofficial strikers.

Passing Comments: Why we don’t get the coal (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why we don’t get the coal

The prospect of a coal crisis has produced the usual crop of enquiries about the coal industry. What exactly is wrong with it?

As might be expected, the Sunday Express has the answer. It has gone to the expense of sending a journalist, a Mr. Gwyn Lewis, on a three-week tour of the coalfields. Mr. Lewis has now produced his report: it appeared in the Sunday Express on February 4th.

The article covers nearly thirty-two inches of column-space; and more than three-quarters of it (over twenty-four inches) is taken up with complaints about the idleness of some of the miners. :If every man on the payroll did an honest day’s work the present hardships would have been greatly mitigated.” The article avoids statistics which would give the exact position over all the coalfields: instead, there are vague allegations, interspersed with figures applying only to single pits on single days, which are of no use at all to anyone who wants a true picture of the situation, but which are none the less valuable for propaganda purposes. This is the kind of thing: “In Midlands colliery towns I saw miners’ welfare institutes filled with men playing cards when they should have been working.” There are no details given with the aid of which one could check up on the accuracy of the observation. Which Midlands colliery towns? Which miners’ institutes, and how many of them? What exact number of men is the vague verb “filled” intended to convey? How did the reporter know they “should have been working?” After all, there are some men in a miner’s institute at every hour of the day: in the morning, the afternoon shift men, and in the afternoon and evening, the day and night shift men. Perhaps Mr. Lewis is skilled in telepathy; at any rate, his information did not come from the men themselves, for in his next sentence his complains that “when I tried to get their point of view I could only get ’whose deal?’ and a request not to interfere with the card-playing.”

* * *

Contrast

What a contrast this makes with the recent incident at a club which caters for another class of the population. On the one hand we have a group of miners, spending their leisure hours in their own institute, accosted by a Tory journalist who wants to know why they are not working harder: and all they do is to request him politely not to interfere with the game. And on the other hand a group of “gentlemen” in a London club last month were so incensed with the mere inoffensive presence of a man whose political views they consider too Leftish, that one of them, who learnt his manners at Eton and Oxford, made an unprovoked physical assault on him as he left.

* * *

Duties as Citizens

But to get back to these idle miners. A printed sheet was distributed to every one of them containing a New Year’s message from Mr. Attlee, appealing to him to work harder; but Coal Board officials say it has had no result. A Coal Board assistant director tells this woeful tale: “We tried giving the men lectures on their duties as citizens. Most of them listen, but some call out 'Tell us when you are finished.’ ” The lecturers’ task would probably be easier if the duties were the same for all the citizens. As it is, the miners can be forgiven for taking up a cynical attitude when they read an article by a man who hints that colliers are lazy because they are paid too much, but who doesn’t mention the £14,000,000 a year paid to the ex-coal-owners; and who says it is becoming a “common practice” for miners to take Monday off, and sometimes Friday as well, but who has no harsh remarks for the shareholders who take all seven days off and still draw an income.

* * *

No wage-earners need apply

Do you want to be a Conservative M.P.? You stand a poor chance if you come from the lower income groups.

“Comment,” which describes itself as a right-wing magazine run by undergraduates, has published in its January, 1951, number some statistics about the social background of the Conservative members of the House of Commons. Of the 298 M.P.s, the schools of 52 are unknown: but of those whose schools can be discovered, 214, or 87 per cent, went to public schools (including 79, or 32 per cent., to Eton). Again, of the 298 M.P.s, 62 per cent, went to Oxford, Cambridge, or “one of the military colleges—nearly always Sandhurst.”

The occupations of Tory M.P.s are also listed, though no attempt is made to divide them into two or three big groups; “Comment” says it would be difficult to know in which group to place a man “who is perhaps a landowner, director of a big industrial company, and was for ten years in the regular army." Readers of the Socialist Standard might enlighten the editors of “Comment” as to which social group an M.P. with these particular qualifications would belong. But the statistics given are quite interesting enough in themselves. 36 are farmers or landowners; 37 are in business; 16 are in industry; 17 are publishers. These groups provide 106 M.P.s, or 36 per cent, of the total number. Then there are 31 (or 10 per cent) from the Services, and 124 (42 per cent.) are professional„ men. Of those M.P.s who are not listed in any of the above categories, 6 are women, and 59 are put down as “unknowns’’—this figure, which" is 19 per cent., includes all the full-time politicians. Furthermore, “Comment” calculates that there are anything from 500 to 1,000 directorships spread among the 298 members.

* * *

Good opportunities for smart aristocrat

Even after five years of Labour Government with its “inevitable fall in the number of knighthoods and baronetcies conferred on Conservative members,” there are well over 100 M.P.s, more than a third of the total number, who “either hold titles themselves or are intimately related to title-holders.”

And how do these sirs and honourables get into Parliament? Elsewhere “Comment” quotes from a forthcoming book by Mr. Herbert Nicholas on the General Election; and it appears, even allowing for the fact that the Tory definition of “working-class” is more restricted than the Socialist definition, that 54 per cent. of those who voted Conservative last year are working-class electors (compared with 89 per cent. of the Labour voters). So both big parties get most of their support from wage-earners.

* * *

Incomes

Last October the Commissioners of Inland Revenue published their report for the year ended March, 1949; and according to this, in a country which some simple Labourites continue to refer to as “Socialist Britain,” there were eighty-six people left with an annual income exceeding £6,000 a year after payment of income-tax and surtax. There were more than five thousand people having incomes of between £80 and £120 a week, and nearly 80,000 with between £40 and £80 a week after payment of taxes. On the other hand, there are eight and a half million given as having incomes between £3 and £5 a week, and 1,113,000 with between £2 14s. and £3 after tax. Those with less than £135 a year are not mulcted of income-tax by a generous government, so they are not dealt with in the report.

* * *

How to suffer in style

These figures go some way towards explaining the news which appears every so often in the Tory papers about the activities of the rich, and form a strange commentary on the statement of the Continental Daily Mail (26-7-50) that “the wealthiest classes have been almost destroyed by the tax-collector.” If we believed the Continental Daily Mail we would find it difficult to understand how the Eton entry-list is filled up till 1963, when its costs £308 a year to send a boy there, “plus a small amount for extras ” (Daily Mail, 12-12-50); and why Harrod’s think it worth while to insert an eight-inch two-column advertisement in the Observer (11-2-51) devoted to the charms of a fur coat which costs £357—more than most workers get in a year; and how Sir Bernard and Lady Docker can afford to give an “epic” cocktail party at the Royal Thames Yacht Club, which was just large enough, so we are informed, to take the hundreds of guests, while motorists queued for a mile outside to get to the party (Sunday Express, 17-12-50). For good measure we are told, in the same paper eight weeks earlier, that Sir Bernard is having a car made specially for his wife, complete with cocktail cabinet, radio set, silver- equipped vanity case, bookshelf, and fluorescent lighting. Gallant Sir Bernard. And wealthy Sir Bernard. The car is costing £5,622.

* * *

Dodgers and super-dodgers

But the official figures apparently do not tell the whole story. The report issued by the income tax authorities cannot be wholly accurate if some people do not reveal their real incomes to the tax inspectors; and it seems that evasion is being practised on a large scale. One inspector of taxes says: “There are roughly 20,000 dodgers, but half the £40,000,000 withheld from the State each year can be accounted for by approximately 2,000 super-dodgers.” (Sunday Express, 31-12-50). This would make the super-dodgers withhold an average of £10,000 a year each. And what is the total income of a man who should pay tax at the rate of £200 a week”

Yet the Tories still tell us that the wealthiest have been almost destroyed.

* * *

Undesirable familiarity

It is comforting to think that Mr. Millard Caldwell, the head of US Civil Defence, has confidence in us. Mr. Caldwell said in London: “ You will find that your people will take atomic bombs just like they took others.” (Reynolds News, 11-2-51).

An official of the Ministry of Supply agreed with him. He said: “ It would be just the same as in the last war. The more familiar we get with atomic bombs, the easier they will be to deal with.” But just how familiar do we have to get with atomic bombs? J. Bronowski, writing in the Observer (4-2-51) says that whereas the type of atomic bomb used in the last war caused a circle of destruction only two miles across, a hydrogen bomb weighing a ton would “cause irreparable damage over a circle on the ground which measures twenty miles across.” That is to say, it could destroy London from Barnet to Croydon, and from Hounslow to Woolwich; and burns and fires from it would reach through a circle of thirty miles in diameter. Such a bomb dropped on London “would kill far more than 1,000,000 people.”

Has the Ministry of Supply worked out how many bombs of this size will have to be dropped before we consider ourselves familiar with them?

Alwyn Edgar

Wages, interest and nationalisation (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. Waters

Capitalism and ill-health (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

With all the wonderful knowledge at our disposal, with all the efforts of the National Health Service, and again with all our doctors, dentists, specialists, hospitals and facilities for teaching health and preventing disease—it would appear on the surface that there should be no such thing as ill-health. But what do we find? Sickness is everywhere, and disease rather than health is the order of the day. Can it be that this problem under capitalism has something in common with other factors which are likewise conditioned or controlled by capitalism?

There are the means for producing an abundance of food in the world, and according to a recent issue of “Time” it is costing America over a million dollars a day to store food which they can’t sell, yet there are millions of workers facing starvation in Asia. There is abundance of raw materials for the purpose of building houses, yet there is a shortage of houses. There is an abundance of resources in the world capable of giving leisure and happiness beyond our wildest dreams, if only it was used intelligently. Yet there is poverty, want, misery, insecurity and everything that would appear to indicate an absence of wealth rather than an abundance of it.

But surely critics will say, the workers can’t be worse off under capitalism from a health aspect. With all the modern sanitation methods, doctors, radio propaganda, school instruction in matters of health and hygiene, and factory cleanliness, and a literate race who should know how to look after itself. 

Under feudalism, the health of the people was appalling, chiefly because of filth and lack of rudimentary sanitary knowledge. Capitalism has provided this knowledge, but in addition brought with it other factors which affect the health of the worker. Since the time when children and women were not allowed to work in coal mines, about 150 years ago, there has been a steady improvement in the health of the worker measured in terms of extension of life. But what about the pressure under which so many thousands of workers have to spend their days? What about the sweat shops in the East End of London where even if the worker doesn’t work so long in hours as previously, has nevertheless to keep up a pace with machines which work ever faster. Sewing, cutting, sawing, planing, chiseling, spraying, nailing, packing, etc. And again, there is the enormous amount of van driving which has to be done along streets ever more congested and at speeds which would have frightened our ancestors. Hurrying to work, hurrying all the time at work, hurrying over meals—and the result is, sooner or later, a breakdown in some part of the digestive or nervous system. All this is made very much worse by the precariousness of living and lack of any real economic security.

Then there is the quality of our foods. More adulterated than ever before, for there is profit in food adulteration. More coloured and refined than ever, for the same reason. Is it a wonder that digestive complaints rapidly increase? With all our hospitals packed and a long waiting list for beds, the National health service goes on, but does the health of the people steadily improve?

The plague and cholera have disappeared so far as England is concerned, but their place has been taken by new diseases like neurasthenia and those which arrive later in life. It is an undeniable fact that we live longer (or linger longer) as insurance figures for expectation of life have shewn.

All workers are not engaged in industry and therefore don't suffer directly from the effects of industrialisation. But all workers have to eat food, and so do their wives and children. Food makes blood, builds muscles, nerves and gives health and vigour; but only if it is of the right kind. Poor food lacks essentials for preventing disease, helps to clog the system and lays the foundation for ill-health which can easily and totally incapacitate an individual. Food is consequently an enormous factor in the health of any and every community, yet the control of our food is in private hands and the food services run for profit.

Capitalism is a factor which contributes to ill-health because there are profits to be pursued, and incentives which make the capitalist's role in society ignore the health requirements of the majority. Although health is said to be the first wealth—from the capitalist’s standpoint, profit is the first wealth, in fact the only one they think of. Consequently until the working class can organise the production of food for use, it will always be tampered with by the capitalist for his own ends.

Horace Jarvis

Soliloquy on monotony (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Variety is the spice of life we are told but deadly monotony characterises the speeches of our politicians when with outworn phrases they seek to hornswoggle the workers into accepting the idea of another shooting war (defence, of course). The whole bunch of phrases could be collected and broadcast on a gramophone record whenever it was deemed necessary to jerk us to attention.

Whether it be the precise enunciation of Mr. Attlee; the gusty rodomontade of Mr. Churchill; the golden voice of Mr. Bevin splitting infinitives and shedding aspirates right and left, or the nasal twang of Mr. Truman, they all use the same hackneyed phrases and raise the same bogeys. It is true the bogeys differ as the various powers reshuffle. Late enemies become comrades in arms and vice versa with startling rapidity but “san fairy ann,” its all one in a capitalist world.

How many times have we heard that “our way of life is in danger?” (Our lives being such a giddy whirl, we sob ourselves to sleep over this threatened catastrophe). “Our hard-won liberty is at stake,” “Civilisation itself is in danger.” “To ensure Peace we must prepare for War.” “Our whole economic structure is threatened. We must stand firm against aggression.” “The democratic countries must unite, there must be no appeasement; we must defend the rights of small nations,” “The free world must buttress its defences and combat aggression.” “We must fight for freedom and human rights.” And so on till the cows come home.

Monotony also characterises the lives of the workers the world over, and whilst on the subject we must admit that our Socialist message suffers from that complaint. By its very nature it cannot vary. But it differs in this respect from the messages of present day politicians—it holds out hope of peace and plenty, not war and want.

F.M. Robins

£3,000 per minute (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The News Chronicle on February 1st published an article which stated that the Government had not made the people of the country realise the effects of the defence programme. How it would affect the standard of living and freedom of action of the population.

It correctly claimed that these vast sums of many millions of pounds were too great for people to appreciate without looking further into them. The article stated that £3,000 per minute every day and night for the next three years would be spent on defence.

Stating the figure in this way can certainly make one realise the effect it will have on the production of commodities for consumption and on things like the housing programme.

Think for a moment of the effort to produce armaments to the value of £3,000 per minute. Think of the useful articles that could be produced, think of the shortages that this programme will mean, and think that if capitalism did not exist, the tremendous waste of labour and materials would not occur.

The chickens have now come home to roost. The Labour Government has given proof (not that any more evidence was needed), that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of the working class.—Think on these things.

S. W. Lock

Blogger's Note:

Though this short piece is signed 'S.W. Lock', I think that was a typo and the actual writer of the piece was probably D. W. Lock, a regular writer in the Standard in the early 1950s. 

Lock joined the Lewisham branch of the SPGB in September 1948, and remained a member until his death in August 1993. Prior to joining the SPGB, he had been a member of the ILP and the Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist Party.

SPGB Meetings (1951)

Party News from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Sybil Morrison of the Peace Pledge Union was quite a well known pacifist and suffragette speaker and activist in her day.

The General Election (1951)

From the October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

After weeks of speculation and anticipation by newspaper political writers, Mr. Attlee announced the date for the general election, October 25th. It has been suggested that he might wait to make the announcement at the Labour Party Conference and thus stimulate some electioneering enthusiasm amongst the delegates, or that he might wail till after the Conservative Party Conference and so keep his political opponents guessing. All the time it was recognised that the Prime Minister would select a date for the election that would be as favourable to his party as possible.

One may well ask, “How can one date be more favourable than another?” There are many who give loyal and steadfast allegiance to one or the other of the main political parties and who can be relied upon to vote accordingly. There are many, many others who have no political tie-up and who will vote at the election according to the state of their liver, the personality of a candidate or the latest international scare. This is known as the floating vote and it is courted by all vote-catching parties.

To capture this floating vole strategy is employed. If through some action or some event, the stock of the political party that is in power rises and it is in favour with a large section of the community, then the time is favourable to invite re-election. Similarly, if for some reason the parties in opposition are temporarily in disgrace, the time is propitious to spring an election on them. If the opposing parties can be caught unawares or at a time when they are ill-prepared for an election campaign, so much the better for the Government party’s chances at the polls.

One thing is obvious from this, the whole business of an election, from the standpoint of the capitalist political parties, is a vote-catching affair. Policies are moulded to attract votes, candidates are selected with an eye on their vote-drawing abilities, and any manoeuvre that will entice or stampede working class voters to give support to one party or another, is considered legitimate.

In the past the Conservatives have scared votes away from the Labour Party by such devices as the “Zinovieff Letter incident” and the cry “They will take your savings.” At the last election the main tenor of the Labour Party’s campaign was a vague threat of the terrible things that the Conservatives would do if they were to get back into power. “Keep the Tories out," was the cry.

Working class votes can only be juggled around in this manner whilst the workers themselves are ignorant of the manner in which they can use the political machine to serve their own interests. Whilst they can see no alternative to capitalism they will allow their votes to be shunted backwards and forwards at each general election. Many will treat the election just as they treat the annual Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, taking sides according to their fancy, and others, hoping to gain something from the process, will support the party that makes the fairest promises.

Whether Mr. Attlee, by his selection of a date for this general election, has rung the changes on the Conservatives, we are not aware. One thing is certain though, he has outmanoeuvred his own party critics, Mr. Bevan and his supporters. Mr. Bevan, who has claimed that the Labour Party would do well to be out of office for a while, will now have to pull his weight to make the election campaign a success, unless he is prepared to retire from the contest. He has been rocking the Labour Party boat for a month or so past, now he will have to take a turn at the oars. If the Labour Party is defeated at the polls, then Mr. Bevan’s eloquent criticism will be diverted from his own party and he will thunder his condemnations from the opposition benches—at the Conservatives. From all angles he will be brought to heel.

This general election will be a contest between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Nobody seriously considers a victory for smaller parties. The two giants have much in common. They are both parties of capitalism. They both adhere to the wages system, capital and property institutions. Faced with the problems born of capitalism, they work out a series of futile solutions and present them as a policy programme. In a world where masses of wealth are in the hands of a few, whilst the many have only just enough to live on, both parties are prompted to seek a remedy. They both claim to be in favour of some slight redistribution of property and oppose one another bitterly over their respective schemes. But see them join hands and bare their teeth when socialists suggest that it is not this slight redistribution of property that is required, but common ownership of the means of production and distribution.

The Conservative proposal is for what is termed a “Property owning democracy." This boils down to a vague plan for helping more workers to buy their own houses. The implications are wider.

“A true property-owning democracy must be based upon the wide distribution of private property not upon its absorption into the State machine.” ("This is the Road” p. 14, Conservative Party, 1950.)

The Conservatives think that if everybody owns a little private property, if everyone has a stake in the property institution, then it is more likely that nearly everyone will continue to support a system based upon property ownership. Those who own the millions will feel that their system is safe if those who own the ha’pennies and pennies can be kidded that they are property owners too, and have a stake in the system.

The Labour Party would preserve the system of property by different means. Property would to some extent be taken out of the hands of private individuals and placed under the control of the State. The main difference being that the State manipulates the property on behalf of the private owners. The idea that this makes for a more equitable distribution of property arises from the mistaken notion that the State is an institution which represents society as a whole, whereas, in fact, it is an institution that has grown out of property society to serve the interests of the property owners and to maintain “law and order” in a society of class antagonisms. All property that is taken out of the hands of private capitalists and vested in the State is really placed in the hands of the capitalist class as a whole.

Even the Liberal Party, or what is left of it, although nobody is likely to take it seriously, has its solution to the “property problem.” Co-partnership in industry is the plan. Every worker has his little tiny bit of property and. of course, becomes a staunch defender of the private property system to the delight of those who own enough property to make it worth owning.

None of these schemes solves the workers’ problems. The process of development in capitalist society is for property to concentrate into fewer hands. Any crumbs that may be thrown to the workers will be to save them from getting so hungry that they threaten to take over the feast for themselves, and to encourage them to produce more of the good things for their masters.

The process of bringing certain industries under State control is not an original Labour Party idea. Governments composed of Conservatives, Liberals and Communists have instituted State control. Certain industries are essential to the operation of all others. All industries must use transport, must have coal, gas or electricity, need telephone and telegraph systems and a postal system. To have varying rates of charges in any one of these basic industries and to have the wastefulness and chaos of capitalists' competition in them, is detrimental to all other industry. Centralised State control can eliminate most of the troubles. Conservatives will use it as well as Labourites, just as the Labour Party will adopt the Conservative “property-owning democracy” idea, under a different name, if it is considered a good vote catching stunt.

Now, as in 1950, you are asked to vote for one or the other of these parties. The details of their respective programmes differ but little from the programmes that they presented two years ago, and they differ but little from each other. The question of property is fundamental to all their other proposals and promises. Only those with no property are bothered by the housing shortage. Only those with no means of living except by finding employment are worried about unemployment. Only the wives of the propertyless are harassed by rapidly rising prices. Those with property do not fret over health services, sick pay and pensions. The problems of capitalist society are the worries of the propertyless workers. War, that outstanding problem of this century, arises directly from the property basis of present society. Wars are the result of the continuous struggle between groups of capitalists in their endeavours to accumulate more and more property.

At this election time the workers have nothing to gain by supporting either of the two main parties. They should oppose them both. All the items that fill the pages of their election pamphlets, housing, high prices, industrial disputes, food shortages, pensions, armaments, health service cuts, foreign policies, etc., all these have a common solution—the ending of the system that gives rise to them. Socialism is the only political creed worthy of working-class interest.

Property means ownership. Individuals, companies, cartels, trusts and-states own the means of producing the needs and comforts of life and dispose of these means to suit their own interests. They make them into capital, they invest them with a view to making profit and in the profit-making process the workers go to the wall, are kept poor and are called upon every so often to sacrifice life or limb in a war to make the property of one group of capitalists safe from the grasp of its rivals. Election time is the opportunity for the workers to show that they have had enough of their propertyless status and that they are determined to take the property away from its present owners, the capitalist class, and to transfer it to society as a whole.

With the means of production in the hands of society it can be used to produce the necessities, comforts and luxuries of life for all to enjoy, not for a privileged few. Wealth can then be produced for use and not for profit. That will put an end to all the pettyfogging vote-catching schemes of political parties because the problems they promise to cure will no longer exist. There will be no poverty, hence no housing problem, no unemployment, no overwork, no prices, high or low, no strikes. There will be people working to produce things and having the use of them when produced. There will be no wars as there will be no private property to fight over.

To the workers at this election we say. Do not be bamboozled into voting for the Conservatives because you think that with a Conservative Government the Labour Party will be more militant and that Trade Union officials will work better on your behalf. Do not be tricked into voting for the Labour Party because you think that it will be the lesser of two evils. Both parties support Capitalism and that is the evil. Do not think that Socialism is unattainable at present and so you are bound to vote for one of these capitalist parties. Socialism is only unattainable whilst you think that way. Pay attention to the Socialist Party of Great Britain which does not ask for your vote but for your understanding.

Capitalism will last just as long as you support it. The sooner you manifest your opposition to it the sooner will it be abolished.

We cannot hope to tell you enough about Socialism in this limited space but we will do everything in our power to help you to an understanding of your position in capitalist society and how to achieve a new society in which you can lead a secure and pleasurable life.

Capitalist politicians of all shades have been telling you for generations how their “practical” policies will solve your problems. You know whether they are solved or not. They will go on soliciting your votes at election after election with further “practical” policies. They will make you think that you are a most important person for a week or two before election day and promptly move the troops in on your job the day after if you strike for a little “practical” increase in your pay. That goes for Labour and Conservative, not to mention Liberal and Communist. The fact is that their policies are most unpractical as far as solving your problems js concerned. Time has shown that. The only practical solution is in the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. To that end we say, Do not vote for capitalist parties on October 25th but work with us for the overthrow of this system and the building of a new one that will be in keeping with our interest. As there is no socialist candidate in the field, abstain from voting. If you fear that your voting paper may be mis-used or if you want to give some expression to your zeal for Socialism, go to the poll and write “ Socialism ” across your ballot paper. It will at least indicate to our opponents that there is a rising tide of revolutionary feeling which will in time sweep away their rotten system with all its parasites and hangers-on. What have you to lose? Go to it.

W. Waters.