H-Bomb diplomacy (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Well, it had to happen. Of course, on all sides there was dismay, or fear, or anger, when first Russia and then the United States announced that they were going to resume testing nuclear bombs. And who wouldn’t feel like that. Ever since the atom bomb came mushrooming onto the world scene, there has been no lack of scientists to tell us how bad it is for our health to have the things tested. True, there is disagreement on the extent of the danger from the tests (the testing governments, as we may expect, like to play it down), but nobody has yet been able to say that they are anything but dangerous. But now the big tests have started again, and the fact is—it had to happen.

Because, as now seems fairly obvious, the nuclear powers agreed to stop tests in 1958 only after they had completed a significant stage in their nuclear weapon build up. At the time, we remember, the United States and the Soviet Union packed in a lot of tests, pushing themselves hard to beat the deadline. (Russia just failed to make it). These tests, with their predecessors, must have yielded enough knowledge for the nuclear powers to mull over whilst they were busily developing other aspects of their weapons. We all know that they have been polishing up on rocketry, perfecting their accuracy and boosting their range. Now, they are at the stage which demands further bomb tests, if the work of the last three years is not to be wasted.

The big snag is that, for political reasons, neither side wanted to be labelled as the one which started it all again. Over recent years, Russian foreign policy has often shown itself sensitive to such things. Perhaps Khruschev did not want Russia to be the country to break the test ban. Perhaps he held off as long as he could, until his hand was forced. There certainly seems to be in Moscow a belligerent, military pressure group which regards Khruschev’s policy as too conciliatory to the West, just as America and this country have their hotheads who are all for a showdown. We saw some of the work of the Moscow group when Khruschev was forced to break up the last Summit meeting in Paris. If these people have had their way again, that would explain the brusque manner in which the Kremlin announced the resumption of tests.

So it might have been a clever waiting game, with each side needing to test but reluctant to make the first move for fear of the political repercussions in countries like India and on the African continent. There is no reason to blame the U.S.S.R. for losing the game, nor to suppose that the Americans held out for humanitarian reasons. For when it came to it, they were just about as ready to let off their bombs again as were the Russians. We know that all capitalist countries like to describe their policies as being inspired by zeal for human benefits. But that simply does not even start to wash as far as nuclear weapons go. There is one certain way in which Russia, America and the rest could serve human interests, and solve the problem of nuclear warfare at the same time. They could destroy all their weapons and refuse to make any more.

That sounds like a pipe dream. In fact, it is a pipe dream. Capitalist nations build up their armouries because they must always strive for military supremacy, to defend the economic and commercial interests of their ruling class. Britain wants a base in Cyprus so that she can keep troops and weapons there, handy to move into Kuwait or any other trouble spot in the oil rich, economically vital Middle East. The United States wants its missile bases on the Continent, its Polaris ships in Holy Loch, because they cannot allow Russian capitalism to expand freely into Europe. Now these competing economic interests are an essential part of capitalism; if Russia and America were to settle their differences tomorrow, the day after we would have some other powers at loggerheads. Once you have such competition, you have armed forces. Once you have armed forces you have weapons, with each force trying for the weapon which will make it the most powerful of the lot. That sounds too simple for words, but it is in fact the reason behind the horror story of the development of weapons. That is the story to tell the unilateral nuclear disarmers, because it is the hundred per cent. reason for not being one of them.

Perhaps without realising it, Khruschev and Kennedy have punched a big hole in the case of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Let us suppose that the C.N.D. had its way, and that the governments of the world agreed to renounce the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons. All the diplomats would gather at Geneva, or some other equally pleasant place, to sign the instrument of renunciation. There would be moving speeches about a new era of human welfare, a better chance for children yet unborn: we all know what to expect on such occasions.

But the sombre fact is that, after the fine words have evaporated, treaties and agreements are worthless to the governments of capitalism. Germany’s signature to the 1919 treaty which disarmed her was worthless. The powers which signed the Locarno Treaty of friendship in 1924 were very soon at war with each other. The post war problem of Berlin is chock full of agreements which have been broken or ignored. And in the same way, now that it suits their purpose to do so, the nuclear powers have ignored their 1958 agreement to ban tests. There is no evidence to suggest that they would behave any differently about an agreement to renounce nuclear bombs completely.

There is nothing necessarily dishonourable in this. The diplomats in themselves might be men of sensitive’ integrity. It is the disputing nature of capitalist society which forces them to make, and break, their pledges. However deep in the mud they may lie, or however thick on the pavement they may sit, the unilateralists will never get around that problem.

In fundamentals, the policies of capitalist governments never change, although in more superficial matters there are opportunities to alter their immediate policy, and they often do so. For example, there is a lot of evidence that since Stalin’s death the Russian ruling class has tended to adopt a less belligerent attitude towards their opponents. Stalin, whatever else can be said of him, was one of capitalism’s strong men; his successors have shown a more subtle touch. That is what has made Moscow’s tough attitude on the tests that little bit more chilling.

How serious is it, then? Travellers from the United States and from Eastern Europe tell the same story — of people all in a panic about war. But we should keep the bomb tests in their perspective, and remember that weapons are not in themselves the cause of war. The next conflict will spring from the disputes of capitalism — from the Koreas, the Kuwaits, the Berlins. In the meantime, with their bomb tests, space shots, sub-Arctic submarines and the rest, the powers are only taking the normal capitalist precaution of arming themselves as destructively as they can.

Yes, the tests had to happen again. That may sound crazy, but that’s the way it is. Because for the majority of people, happy to keep capitalism going, that is the way they want it.

Ivan

The Race for Space: Rockets Galore (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was 9 a.m. on August 6th, that the Russians fired Major Titov into orbit. The spaceman himself seems to have enjoyed the trip in Vostock II. He even managed to eat three meals and sleep for eight of the 24 hours he was out in space.

Who can deny that the whole thing was an impressive achievement? Indeed, it stands out as yet another example of man’s technical ability and his power to acquire knowledge and apply it to solve the problems he faces. In the space race these must be formidable, yet such has been the fantastic advance in the last few years that Professor Sir Bernard Lovell of Jodrell Bank hardly turned a hair when told of the latest Russian achievement. “I am not a bit surprised,” he said. According to a spokesman at his observatory, the Professor holds the view that a manned flight to the moon is only about five years off and nobody laughs at him for thinking it. Yet it was not so long ago that the British Interplanetary Society talked with daring optimism of perhaps a 50 year wait.

But it is against a background of events here on earth that we must view the Soviet feat. While the Bank holiday crowds in Britain digested the news, and messages of congratulations were heaped on the beaming young astronaut, the Western diplomats and politicians were doubtless reflecting gloomily on this latest indication of Russian rocket mastery. It was just one more worry to add to their already splitting headache over Berlin.

Some British scientists have expressed, the opinion that Vostock II was one of a series of “in between” flights to bridge the gap between Major Gargarin’s single orbit and a manned lunar flight. It should not be regarded, they say, as just a prestige trip. Be that as it may, it has certainly been exploited to the full by Mr. Khrushchev and the propaganda organs of the Soviet ruling class, as a boost to Russian confidence. There is little doubt also that American prestige suffered a corresponding blow, although it remains to be seen to what extent, particularly among the newly rising capitalist states.

The Guardian of August 8th offers a crumb of comfort to the American rulers and tells them not to be downhearted.

“They have some new and powerful rocked corning into service in the next year or two; they may soon be the pacemakers again. If Vostock II was a military weapon, a twelve months start might be technically decisive. In the history of scientific exploration twelve months is the blinking of an eye.”

The last sentence is true enough, but how foolish it is to ignore the war-like potentialities of scientific study in a capitalist world. This neat little piece of “compartmentising” just does not face up to the unpleasant reality that there really is no such thing as research for “peaceful purposes” in private property society.

While Vostock II itself was not a war weapon, it does nevertheless point to the undoubted technical lead currently held by the Soviets, and the military significance of this will not be overlooked by the U.S. and her N.A.T.O. allies. We can all remember the fear expressed in some sections of the British press, when the Russians successfully fired their “Moon Probe” rocket, that it would be possible to set up a military base on the moon, from which a power would be able to bombard its earthly enemies in a future war.

Now, with Major Titov’s flight, similar fears have been given voice in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Richard Russell, has warned that “… a satellite of this size could be utilized as a very dangerous weapon.” On the same day, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confessed his admiration for the Soviet feat but “prayed that the arms race will not spread to outer space.”

But even ignoring this possibility, the sheer power of the present rockets and their accuracy as inter-continental missiles, give us all a glimpse of the terrifying prospect which we face if the cold war gets hotted up at any time. Mr. Krushchev has told us of Russian military might. When talking on August 7th about the Berlin crisis, he said :

“We are developing various rocket weapons, inter-continental ballistic rockets, of various range, strategic and tactical purpose, with atomic and hydrogen warheads. We also pay the necessary attention to other forms of military hardware.”

It was shortly after this that we heard of the Soviet 100-megaton bomb and his claim that there was a rocket to deliver it.

More specific was the Soviet Governent’s announcement of August 30th that they would resume nuclear testing and that “Titov-type” rockets could be used to carry their new super-powerful bombs to any part of the globe. An acceleration of the arms race can now be confidently expected and the space race is part of it.

And what of America? Although, at. present, she lags behind Russia in rocket development, she will make frantic efforts to catch up and snatch the lead. Already, anyway, there are three very advanced American rockets available—Polaris, Sky-bolt, and Minuteman—all highly mobile, but having warheads of no more than about 1 megaton yield. Now that Russia has broken the three year old moratorium on tests, the U.S. Government has the ideal political excuse to try out a greater range of bombs and develop the rockets to carry them. It is admitted in the Guardian of September 1st that pressure of opinion in favour of this has been building up in American military circles for some time, and designs already exist to increase the yield of Polaris and Sky-bolt to 2 megatons each.

So it is clear that the usual dirty and cynical game has been played by both sides over the past two or three years, and that all their talk of banning nuclear arms has been so much hypocritical eyewash. We shall not here take part in the futile debate on the relative advantages of the Russian and American types of rocket. Is it more desirable to have one that is massively powerful and can deliver 100 megatons, or one that is far less powerful and destructive, but has greater mobility? We neither know nor care. As far as we are concerned both types are highly undesirable.

Despite all these melancholy developments, do not let us lose sight of the tremendous possibilities of rocket propulsion. It is here to stay, and in the years since the end of the second World War, we have seen great strides in its development. There seems little doubt that fairly soon, it will be used in the exciting adventure of landing men on the moon and maybe even on the planets further afield. It could have great potentialities as a means of enhancing our knowledge of the universe. One thing is certain, it will unfortunately suffer perversion and defilement like so many other things in a capitalist world. But do not blame the rocket for this. Get rid of Capitalism.

Eddie Critchfield

The Passing Show: No paradise (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

No paradise

Now that the native Cypriot owing class, with the help of those Cypriots whom it deluded into helping, has thrown out the former British rulers, its spokesmen are making clear to the Cypriot people that they cannot expect much benefit from the struggle. Archbishop Makarios, the leader of the fight for “liberation,” and now President of Cyprus, takes the lead. Recently he was reported as having admitted that unemployment has risen to an unprecedented peak (Daily Express, 22/8/61). He went on to say: “It isn’t going to be paradise.”

Who said it was going to be paradise? When the Cypriot propertied class wanted to throw the British out, there were plenty of promises about the good time coming when Cyprus achieved “independence”: but now the fight is over, the Cypriot workers — like workers elsewhere — are finding out that the only people who ever achieve freedom and independence in a propertied society are the property-owners. The Cypriot workers are no more “independent” or “free” now than they were under British rule.

Freedom and Justice

Another non-paradise is Ghana. There, President Nkrumah’s right to imprison without trial about two hundred of the opposition United Party has been contested unsuccessfully in the courts. Counsel for the prisoners, who have been in jail untried since November, 1959, based his objection on the presidential declaration that “freedom and justice should be honoured and maintained” (The Guardian, 29/8/61). The Ghana Supreme (Appeal) Court has, however, upheld Nkrumah’s Preventive Detention Act, and has decided that the declarations made by Nkrumah on taking office were “similar to the Coronation oath taken by the Queen of England during the Coronation service.” The declarations, they said. “merely represent the goal which every President must pledge himself to achieve,” and held that neither the Coronation oath in Britain nor the presidential declarations in Ghana “can be said to have the statutory effect of an act of parliament.”

Promises

Two points may be made here. The Coronation oath of the British monarch, to keep the laws and customs of the country, is one which would be rigidly enforced if necessary. Any monarch disregarding it would get his or her marching orders from the ruling class forthwith. Only twenty-five years ago the ruling class sacked its then figurehead, Edward VIII, giving him less notice than a well-behaved butler could have expected, simply because that monarch showed signs of wanting to ignore the code of behaviour laid down for him by the ruling class and marry a divorced woman. This code, of course, is not observed by the ruling class itself necessarily : indeed, some of our rulers marry and divorce each other with a regularity which would have made a Turkish Sultan shake his head. But the figurehead must observe stricter standards. And if a monarch was dismissed merely for wanting to breach a social code, how much mere speedily the ruling class would act against one who contravened the laws made for the benefit of that class. The Ghana Supreme Court, in fact, was well wide of the mark here.

But in the other half of its judgment it was on firmer ground. How right it was to pour scorn on those who expect a politician to keep his promises! President Nkrumah is not merely a figurehead, but the chief executive of the Ghanaian ruling class, and he is sure of his position so long as he serves his masters well. If the exigencies of policy require that opposition politicians shall be jailed without trial, then to jail they go. And no pious oaths, however solemn, about upholding freedom and justice can be allowed to stand in the way.

Anti-strike effort

But Nkrumah’s police-state methods do not stop there. Some five thousand port and railway workers recently went on strike “over Government austerity wage cuts” (The Times, 11/9/61). The Ghana Government has assumed “far-reaching powers to prohibit meetings, requisition vehicles, control traffic, and imprison saboteurs.” In the twin port towns of Takoradi and Sekondi, the centres of the strike, “convicted saboteurs” can be jailed for ten years.” Anyone suspected of hampering the anti-strike effort can be held for 72 hours instead of the normal 20 hours.” Police headquarters reported that all was quiet in the two towns, and all gatherings of workers were being dispersed. The Minister for Presidential Affairs warned civil servants — a term which includes railwaymen and some of the port workers — that if they stayed out on strike more than ten days they would be sacked and not taken on again. According to the Sunday Times (10/9/61), “the Government is now taking the strike leaders to court, charged with illegally inciting to strike.”

The Ghana Government appears to be going very near to making striking itself illegal — in other words, almost introducing a system of forced labour. What a change of front since the days when the Ghanaian owning class wanted the help of the workers against the British!

More Freedom

A third country to gain its “freedom” in the last decade is Nigeria. There, thirteen citizens of the Northern Region recently had a drink—harmless enough, one might think. But the penal code of the region forbids Muslims to touch alcohol. So the offending Nigerians have been fined, and sentenced to eighty strokes of the cane.

What good does it do the workers to exchange one set of masters for another?

Alwyn Edgar

Letter: Those bonus shares (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Those bonus shares

To the Editor

Although bonus shares “does not add to the market value of a company’s shares”, it could put increased dividends in the pockets of shareholders. Assuming that the following financial year the particular company made increased profits, the shareholders could receive £200,000 dividends in the form of 20 per cent on 1 million £1 shares, or 10 per cent on 2 million £1 shares.

It could happen (and no doubt does) that after a number of years shareholders could have returned to them in dividends the whole of their original invested capital, and yet at the same time still possess increased number of shares above their original number which have been handed out in bonus shares from time to time.

T. W. C., 

Welwyn Gdn. City, Herts.

Reply:

The article (August Socialist Standard) set out to show how erroneous is the belief that doubling or trebling a company’s shares, by an issue of bonus shares, doubles or trebles the market price of each shareholder’s holding. All that each shareholder gets from the change is double or treble the number of shares but with the market price of each share reduced to approximately a half or a third of what it was before, leaving the market price of the whole of the company’s shares unchanged. In his letter our correspondent concedes that this is correct.

He goes on, however, to claim that a bonus issue “could put increased dividends in the hands of the shareholders”, and he asks us to consider the position of the company referred to in the article if its profits increased so that it paid out a total dividend of £200,000 compared with the £100,000 of the year before. But of course this increase of dividend does not arise from or depend upon the issue of bonus shares. Our correspondent’s letter admits as much, for in his own example the shareholders get the £200,000 whether the bonus issue is made (10 per cent on 2 million shares) or whether no bonus issue is made (20 per cent on 1 million shares). All that it tells us is that if a company’s profits increase sufficiently it can pay out twice as much dividend, whether it makes a bonus issue or not.

The final paragraph is equally irrelevant to the question of bonus shares. It is quite true that if a company makes enough profit to pay out an annual dividend equal to 10 per cent of the original capital it will take only ten years for the shareholders to get back all their original investment and still hold their shareholding. But this result is achieved whether the company issues bonus shares or not, it all depends on making sufficient profit. If the company does not make enough profit an issue of bonus shares is not going to make any difference.

We repeat—the issue of bonus shares does not add to profits or dividends.

H.

Obituary: Florence Dale (1961)

Obituary from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

With deep sadness, we have to announce the death of Comrade Florence Dale of Wembley Branch, who was better known to many party members by the friendlier name of Queenie.

She joined the party in 1950, becoming first a member of Ealing Branch and later helping to found the new branch at Wembley. Queenie was not a speaker or a writer, but she played her full part in the backroom jobs without which the more “glamorous” work in the party could not carry on.

Much of her work was on the party’s Library Committee, looking after our collection of books, and —most essential—seeing that each month the SOCIALIST STANDARD went out to the long list of postal subscribers. She also served on the Head Office Social Committee and on many working committees in her branch.

Queenie was an active, warm, humane person who has left many friends in the party to grieve that she will no more listen to the music, and hike over the Downs, which she loved so well. She worked hard for Socialism and we shall carry on that work, because we know that that is what she would have wished.

To Queenie’s husband, Comrade Leslie Dale, also of Wembley-Branch, we offer our sincere, comradely sympathy. We share with him the loss of a loyal friend and a staunch comrade. We shall remember her for a very long time.

50 Years Ago: Proposal to abolish strikes (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the recent Trades Union Congress. . . a resolution was moved on the Friday severely condemning the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Will Crooks to end industrial disputes. . .

Briefly, it is a bill that seeks to abolish strikes altogether. It lays it down that employers and employees should give at least thirty days’ notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours; that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lock-out, or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before or during a reference of such a dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation, any employer declaring or causing a lockout being liable to a fine of not less than £20 nor more than £200 for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any employee going on strike being liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 per day. (Why didn’t Mr. Crooks make the employees’ fine £100 or £1,000 per day while he was about it? The modesty of the bill in only claiming £10 per day from a man who is probably striking for a living wage is distinctly rich.)

A further clause in the bill declares that any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare and continue a lock-out, or any employee to go or continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10 nor more than £200.

[From the article, The Trade Union Congress, by F. J. Webb, Socialist Standard, October 1911.]

[Other Labour M.P.’s who supported the Bill, which was not passed, were Henderson, Barnes, Fenwick and Enoch Edwards; the last-named said it was “inadvertently” as he gave his name without reading the Bill and did not approve of it. The T.U.C. resolution of condemnation wits passed unanimously.]

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

As advertised above, Jack Law spoke at the Hackney Branch of the SPGB this month on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. Earlier in the year, Jack Law had written an article on the same subject for the Socialist Standard.

Cyril May was the listed party speaker for the Wembley Branch meeting on the subject of "Introducing the Socialist Party of Great Britain".

As mentioned in a previous post, it's always worthwhile, where one can, to provide some background on the Socialist Party speakers from back in the day that populated the back pages of the Socialist Standard. And, again, it's a bit grim, but sometimes the best source of information for those members is their Socialist Standard obituaries. Linked to below are the obituaries for some of the speakers listed above in the October 1961 issue of the Standard.

• Richard Donnelly
• Robert Russell
• John Higgins
• Joe Richmond
• Alex Shaw
• Robin Reid
• Jack Law
• Cyril May

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

The advertised debate between CND's Richard Headicar and the SPGB's Melvin Harris was unfortunately derailed. Details of what happened are available at the following link.

As advertised above, Gilbert McClatchie's ('Gilmac') spoke on the subject of his recent political tour of the United States at the Paddington Branch of the SPGB on the 8th November 1961. He also wrote an article on his visit to the United States for the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard.

It's always worthwhile, where one can, to provide some background on the Socialist Party speakers from back in the day that populated the back pages of the Socialist Standard. It's a bit grim, but sometimes the best source of information for those members is their Socialist Standard obituaries. Linked to below are the obituaries for some of the speakers listed above in the October 1961 issue of the Standard.

• Ted Kersley
• Eddie Grant
• Gilbert McClatchie
• Johnny Edmonds
• Jack Law
• Richard Headicar

Editorial: The Strike in Belgium (1961)

Editorial from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Belgian strike is an attempt on the part of some of the Belgian workers to force the Government to resign or change its method of dealing with the economic crisis. The Government, a coalition of Christian Democrats and Liberals, has precipitated this situation by its austerity measures. These consist of cuts in the social services such as the Belgian equivalent of the National Health Service, in the education programme, in unemployment pay, and in coal subsidies, along with the introduction of a Means Test and what is called “additional temporary taxation.” The Belgian local authorities are also to be empowered to impose additional income taxes of their own. The Belgian opposition party which calls itself “Socialist” claims that workers will suffer a loss of £21 to £28 a year.

The popular reason given for these austerity measures is the need to meet the trade and finance deficit caused by the loss of the Congo. But to accept this one has to accept the view that the Belgian capitalist class subsidised its workers out of the proceeds of exploitation of the Congolese: and that wealth which might have bought continued support for Belgian rule in the Congo was diverted to Belgian working class pay packets out of sheer generosity on the part of the Belgian capitalists.

A correspondent in The Guardian (28/12/60) gives a more reasoned view of the situation:

“Even before the Congo crisis, plans were being made to face the unpleasant fact that Belgium’s period of peak prosperity is over, and that her industrial production is growing very slowly in comparison with that of her Common Market partners. By economies in state spending, by increased taxation and by attracting foreign capital, M. Eyskens’ austerity programme was designed to achieve a vast investment drive to modernise Belgian industry and make Belgian products competitive in world markets. The most uneconomic of Belgian products is her coal, a chronic problem since the thirties. In recent months Belgium has launched on a serious programme of reform of uneconomic mines including a number of closures. Closure of mines, however, means social disruption; alternative jobs for discharged mineworkers are not yet available in mining areas and the Socialist Party has seized On the consequent unemployment and unrest to find support for its present frontal attacks on the austerity programme and the present Government.”

Socialists feel deep sympathy for the Belgian workers on strike. But they realise that their action is futile as a means to achieve anything but temporary respite from the encroachments of their masters on their standard of living, and that they are jeopardising their chances of achieving even that by using the strike weapon against the State, instead of using it to back up wage demands with which to offset the effect of the Government’s policy.

The lessons of this situation should be taken to heart. The strike weapon has a very limited usefulness and at its best can only deal with effects and not causes. To use this weapon against the might of the State is to invite disaster. If at election times the workers give their votes to the parties of capitalism, it ensures that the present type of situation will occur again.

The “Socialist” Party in Belgium is similar to the Labour Party in this country. It is these so-called “Socialists” who foist such wage-pruning schemes as National Health services, unemployment pay, family allowances, and so on, on to politically ignorant workers as bits of Socialism. And it is the same political charlatans who seek to make capital from the present situation by using the strike as a means to achieve government office themselves.

Governments do not develop reforms or pruning schemes because their attitude to the working class is necessarily either sympathetic or antagonistic. Governments administer the affairs of a capitalist economy in the interests of the national capitalist class. The Belgian workers would be well advised to consider this fact in relation to the present situation, recognising that a change of government is merely a change of label.

A more fundamental change is needed. Austerity, in a world of potential plenty, is always the lot of the working class under capitalism. It is not enough to demonstrate against one type of capitalist government. The workers must organise consciously to abolish the present economic system and establish in its place their own system of society—Socialism.

News in Review: Mr & Mrs Average (1961)

The News in Review column from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr & Mrs Average

According to a new Stationery Office publication—Britain, 1961 Edition— “ Mr. and Mrs. Average " are described as having a TV set, vacuum cleaner and occasionally a washing machine and a 'fridge. The acquisition of these goods is equated by advertisements, films and magazines to true, lasting happiness. We all know the phrases “No more washday fatigue with Blank's wonderful washing machine", etc. The mere fact of possessing these goods, however, does not produce happiness as soon as the gadget is installed. On the contrary, they often produce problems, mainly financial, and occasionally their "happy" possessors are driven to desperation, as in the case of a young couple in Birmingham, who clearly were "Mr. and Mrs. Average". The husband was the envy of the neighbourhood. He had bought a five-piece living room suite, washing machine, bedroom suite and TV set on hire purchase, and had redecorated his 15/- a week house from top to bottom. On 28th December I960, with the Christmas decorations still hanging gaily, the husband, wife and their 2 year old daughter were found dead in their gleaming, gas-filled kitchen. The wife was expecting her second child the following week. A note said that they worried about their hire purchase debts.

Never had it so good . . .

Airways Strike

The maintenance staff of BOAC and BEA staged a four-hour stoppage on Wednesday, January 2nd, in support of a wage claim that has been going through the laborious negotiating machinery. This, of course, caused some dislocation of airline schedules. This undoubtedly caused a lot of hardship to some passengers, but the unfortunate fact is that for the aircraft workers one of the few ways in which the employers and their own union officials can be gingered up is by resort to a strike. This was bound to be unpopular: remember how the press and the Government castigated the railwaymen and the busmen in the past for their strike action that "inconvenienced the public"?

But what happened when the strikers at the airport reported for duty after the four-hour stoppage? BEA immediately suspended them for a further 24 hours, causing six times as much inconvenience to the public. 

One would have thought that this would have brought howls of protest from the press and Government. But the only newspaper comment was typified by the Daily Mail of January 6th, which said that BEA was determined to push home the lesson to the strikers. It seems that what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

On the Brink

Both Russia and the United States waxed indignant about each other's interference in the Laos disturbances. Sheer hypocrisy of course, because they had both been dabbling their fingers in that particular pie.

The Russians have supplied arms to Captain Kong Lae's army. Since 1954, the United States has pumped between forty and fifty million dollars into Laos. Washington wants value for its money: in 1958, it played its part in the dismissal of Prince Souvanha Phouma's government, after the elections in May of that year had returned a lot of communist members.

China is probably interested in the strategic potential of Laos, as a buffer between her and SEATO member Thailand. The Americans, notoriously trigger-neurotic in the Far East, seem to want the country more firmly under their control, and not simply neutralist.

The Laos dispute may be small in itself, but it is a miniature of the clashing interests of two giant power blocs. It could be another Korea. Or even a Sarajevo or a Danzig.

This must be the fear which overhangs every minor upheaval in the world. We are as far away from peace as ever.

Yes to De Gaulle

General de Gaulle came to power to joyful motor horns tooting the rhythm of Algerie francaise in the streets of Paris. This was an exuberant indication of the hopes of the general's supporters, that he would ruthlessly crush the FLN and maintain French rule over Algeria.

In the event de Gaulle, by resolving to come to terms with Algerian nationalism, has shown the more realistic assessment of the interests of French capitalism. In this, like many other politicians, he has disappointed a lot of his former supporters.

Last month's affirmative vote for the general's proposals gave the go-ahead to the organisation of another referendum, to be held in Algeria alone. This could express a preference for an independent country.

The second referendum will be held if security conditions in Algeria allow. This could mean that there will soon be further talks between the French government and the FLN, and that the end of the present fighting in Algeria may be in sight.

Evidently de Gaulle was determined to get his way. The questions in the referendum were loaded, the government hogged most of the propaganda and left the French army in no doubt as to how it should vote.

If this is the beginning of the road to peace in Algeria, there is no cause for another joyful tooting of horns. We all know that there will be other Algerias, with their own bloodshed and misery.

Canadian Illusion

It was not so very long ago that some of the air and sea lines in this country were working hectic overtime to accommodate all the people who were clamouring to emigrate to Canada.

These people must have gone with great expectations of a country full of good things, where everybody was happy. How has it turned out?

It is now expected that this month, Canada’s unemployment will reach ten per cent, of its working population, which is the highest since the war, and several times higher than in Great Britain.

The solutions which have been recommended for Canada's slump are not new. Some economists favour higher import tariffs and a strong effort to replace imported goods with home products. Others advocate a freer economy, with fewer fiscal restrictions.

Perhaps these are the same economists who were telling us, only yesterday, that the days of boom and slump belonged to an old era of ignorance and were gone for ever.

The emigrants must know differently. But there is little hope that they will lose the illusions which they took west with them.

Some may return to this country, or travel on to other lands. Others will stay in Canada. But wherever they go capitalism, and its problems, will be waiting to greet them.

Battle of the Roads

Despite the reduction in road deaths over the recent Christmas period as compared with that of 1959, the Ministry of Transport and the various road safety organisations are still faced with the task of exhorting the restless tide of humanity, to walk and drive carefully. Each year hundreds of proposals for road safety are considered. One of the main difficulties is that of the separation of pedestrians and traffic, but since this can only be accomplished at enormous cost, it is not considered practical, and consequently palliatives and not remedies are preferred.

There is a mistaken belief among some people that these road problems are only a recent phenomenon, but as long ago as 1846 the daily newspapers were complaining of the inadequacies of the principal thoroughfares and of the fact that all that could be done was to patch up and mend. In today’s battle of the roads one can see all the contradictory nature of capitalist society. Whilst Mr. Marples is making his appeal, we are being told about the super-petrols which are supposed to make cars go faster, not to mention the prestige value of the bigger and faster car.

But big problems are often solved by simple remedies. The question of cost in relation to profit is at the root not only of the road problem, but of most of the major problems facing society today. The road problem is aggravated by the thousands of commercial and business vehicles which congest the highways and bye-ways, taking back and forth goods which have covered the same ground several times before. There are also thousands of small, medium, and large size shops selling identical goods to the people in the already overcrowded towns and cities. We can only wonder that the accident rate is not higher than the statistics show.

Appeals for less density of commerce and industry in the larger cities have failed. London, for instance, seems to be going the same way as New York and this fact alone should dispel any illusions the long suffering travelling public have of ever avoiding the “ peak hour ” chaos—a battle of the roads with no holds barred.

Excuses and Admissions (1961)

From the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

When he was Prime Minister, and a plain Mister, Earl Attlee made something of a name for himself as a calm, quiet, pipe smoking, doodling, ruthless chief. Now that he is in retirement, his views are much sought after by the newspapers, radio and so on, who presumably think that there is nothing so sage and objective as the opinion of the elder statesman. A few months back, Earl Attlee went to a meeting of the World Association of World Federalists in Bonn and there made the sort of speech which was expected of him. In the course of that speech he said, as an indication of the urgency of resolving international disputes, that there were “… not more than ten years in which to find the road to peace.”

Now this was something of an admission. If there was one thing for which the last war was suppose to have been fought, it was to ensure a peaceful world. Earl Attlee, as Deputy Prime Minister in the wartime coalition, played his part in promoting that idea in the minds of war-weary workers. Yet here we are, fifteen years after, still apparently looking for the road to peace.

Of course, Earl Attlee’s statement is by no means exceptional. Many politicians have a seemingly infinite capacity for explaining away, and promising to remedy, the malfeasances of capitalism. Whatever the strife and poverty which may be evident at any time, there is never a shortage of smooth politicos, each with his solution to the world’s problems and the hope of better times to come, when we have found the road to peace or prosperity or some other paradise.

Take, for example, the recent trouble in Laos, over which the State Department displayed its famous trigger-neurosis. A popularly touted solution to this flare up was the recall of the 1954 Geneva Conference. This, we were invited to believe, would do something to settle the Laos disturbance. But this is what the 1954 conference was supposed to have already done; remember the knighthood which Anthony Eden received for the part which he played in it? Now we have evidence that the disputes in Indo-China are as rife as ever. The new trouble spot—Laos—was, in fact, established as an independent state by the Geneva Conference as part of its supposed peace making. What reason is there to assume that another conference would have any more lasting effect than its predecessor? None whatever. Nevertheless, this is all that capitalism’s representatives have to offer.

It is true that these conferences sometimes seem to bear fruit. But this is only a superficial impression; actually, they can only ever manage to suppress one aspect of a particular problem, which is simultaneously in evidence, or about to emerge, somewhere else. Consider the case of Cyprus. For years, the Greek Cypriot nationalists fought the British forces on the island, taking occasional time off to kill Turkish Cypriots or their own traitors. Then came the Zurich Pact which, when the various disagreements had been hammered out, seemed to have put an end to the fighting in Cyprus. Now, apart from the odd settling of a score which was made during the emergency, all is peaceful on the island. What about the rest of the world? We have already mentioned Laos; the war in Algeria goes on; the Belgium Congo is still in bloody confusion. And we know that, if an international conference were to settle these conflicts, similar problems would spring out somewhere else. Perhaps, even, in Cyprus again. This may make the conference look pretty sick as a pacifying instrument, but we can depend on it that it will not prevent the politicians from offering it as a remedy when the world’s next sore spot breaks out.

This is not peculiar to the international scene of capitalism. At home, the working class are familiar with—and, sadly, receptive to—the excuses and nostrums which flood from the organs of capitalist opinion as fast as the events which provoke them. Sometimes, directly opposite solutions are proposed for the same problem. The government has stated that, to stabilise the British economy, they must impose some strict controls over hire purchase facilities. In contrast, there are many spokesmen for the industries which thrive on H. P. who take the view that the way to stabilise the economy is to remove, or at any rate to relax, those restrictions. Neither side has any interest in pointing out that the H.P. boom, and the recession which followed, is an example of the fundamental anarchy of capitalist society. At least one firm in the domestic appliance industry felt the H.P. cuts extra keenly because, when the restrictions were off, they invested in a lot of extra productive capacity to enable them to exploit the market which had opened before them. When the squeeze came, this production—and a lot of workers— became redundant.

Is it too much to hope that the redundant workers will reflect that they have been caught in something which, we were assured, could never happen again? Some capitalist economists are fond of blaming the 1929 crash onto the fact that, in the excitement of the preceding boom, there was a lot of reckless investment which was bound to collapse sooner or later. This was supposed to have taught everyone a lesson. Yet some of the stories which have gone the rounds in the City about the recent collapse of a couple of H.P. finance companies almost recall the days of the South Sea Bubble (although admittedly no company has again reached the blissful state of raising capital to finance “an enterprise the nature of which is to be divulged”.) In their eagerness to exploit the boom the financiers trusted their weight to as creaky limbs as their forebears did in the twenties. Whatever other changes there have been, the basis of capitalism—production for sale—remains. And with it remain the anomalies and upheavals, try as the politicians may to explain them away.

What is to be done about this? Should we look for better politicians, with better excuses? Self evidently, this is futile. Wars, uneasy peace, booms, slumps, poverty are part of capitalism because they spring from the roots of that society. No politician, however smooth, can change that. This, strangely, must be done by the working class over the world. These are the people who produce our wealth, suffer capitalism’s wars and its insecurity. Now, they accept their leaders’ excuses and apologies. As easily, they could reject them.

Ivan

The New Cyprus Republic - Part 2 (1961)

From the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

(2) The Rude Awakening

The rude awakening was to come before the new Republic was three weeks old, and Ledra Street, which once echoed with the revolver shots of those bent on replacing the colonial government with one of their choosing, was to echo with the shouts of demonstrating Trade Unionists, striking in support of their fellow workers sacked for “economy reasons”.

The attention of the new representatives had been drawn to the plea, uttered against the dismissal of Public Works Department employees in the Paphos district, four days before Independence. Promises “to see what he could do about it” were given by the Minister of Labour in the transitional government. Combined right wing (SEK) and left wing (PEO) unions then issued strike notices against wrongful dismissal. At the same time, Mr. Beeley, the British representative at UNO, was placing the application of Cyprus for membership before the Security Council, saying “A democratic system of government and the necessary machinery for safeguarding the human rights and the interests of all sections of the community” exists in Cyprus.

While the voice of organised labour was beginning to express itself, the body of employers had been reorganising. Even as the daily press, was relaying as front page news the visits of diplomats presenting credentials at the Presidential Palace, (the old Government House) there appeared notices on their back pages. These were to give notice that “application had been made to the Cyprus Government for a licence ‘to form’ . . . The Cyprus Employers Consultative Association … to safeguard and promote the interests of all employers in Cyprus, especially in securing their fullest co-operation in, dealing with matters affecting relations between employers and their workpeople.” Continued link-ups of employers’ associations throughout the island have resulted in the association covering leading employers and most individual employers’ associations.

Still the sackings continued, amid strong press reaction, with T.U. delegations making representations to the Minister of Labour. A letter was published from the Government Workers’ "freedom is of real value as long as the worker is deprived of the sacred right Union to the Government saying, “No” to work" (Cyprus Mail 26/8/60). On August 27th, while pickets were demonstrating on the streets of Famagusta against dismissals, President Makarios announced a scheme for the expenditure of £331,300 on new public works to reduce unemployment. Then with cruel irony he said “We are in sympathy with those dismissed from Public Works, and certainly we don’t want them in the streets jobless. But I want to make it clear that I am not going to give in to slogans of demagogues. A labour conscience must be developed for the good of the country. Demagoguism and laziness must stop. What our country needs is work and production. Workers will be protected in the new state, but they must also work “.

One can be quite safe in saying that the first pronouncement of a government after its election is to call on the workers to work harder. In this case it came rather later than expected, but rarely has such a call been so cruelly worded. The “unemployed worker” who out of sheer desperation is forced to send deputations to beg for work from his newly-elected government, is roundly berated by the leader of that government for not working. The dismissals continued amid protests. The grant was seen by the workers as a stop-gap measure which, apart from failing to secure the re-engagement of the dismissed workers, would do nothing to relieve unemployment in the future. Plans for abolishing unemployment by means of foreign loans were discussed continually. Finally, a meeting of SEK, PEG, and the Turkish Federation of Labour decided on an island-wide strike for 8th September if the dismissed workers were not reinstated.

We Want Bread

The workers’ representatives negotiated up to the last minute with Minister of Labour and the President, who assured them that it was government policy to help the workers and that they would do everything in their power. But governmental concern was not sufficient for them to reverse their previous dismissal decisions, and a twenty-four hour protest strike was called. Shouts of “We want work—we want bread” went up outside the House of Representatives, while a union delegation went inside to present a solution. In every town mass rally and picket demonstrations were held, with placards saying, “Our children are hungry”, and “Let the promises become deeds”.

This token strike, undertaken by workers half-fearful of bringing the government in disrepute, had the sympathy of the general public, was peaceful, and moreover was an extremely effective example of how the working people, in default of anyone else, were prepared to “safeguard their imprescribable rights”. The strikers returned to work the following day to await the next move by the government.

The naively unrealistic “friendship with all countries” policy was to bring immediate reaction from the United Arab Republic. The friction was caused by the declaration that Mr. Zev Levin would be installed as the first Israeli ambassador to Cyprus. This came in the face of warnings by the Arab League to Cypriot merchants against trading with Israel. The announcement of the appointment was like a slap in the face to Egypt. Since the Suez, invasion launched by the British in 1956, Egypt had given full support to the self-determination agitation wishing to remove the threat of an unfriendly Cyprus on its doorstep.

The first reaction from Egypt was to suggest that the reports were circulated by Israel to disturb the excellent relations with the new republic, but when it became evident that the report was factual, the question was given priority at the Arab League Foreign Ministers’ meeting which started in Beirut on August 22nd. At the closing session of its meeting, the League passed a resolution warning Cyprus that Zionism aims to succeed imperialism in every country and to continue exploiting it. The Cyprus Federation of Trade and Industry, in expressing great concern in the deterioration in diplomatic relations, revealed their real concern in a cable sent to the President. This stated that the economic interests of Cyprus demanded the strengthening of ties between the Republic and Arab countries. In reply to this a message was sent to the President by a committee of businessmen trading with Israel, who expressed support for the “bridge of friendship” policy, and requested a meeting with him to put forward their viewpoint. Although a trade pact was signed with the UAR at the end of September, the Arab-Israeli dispute continued to be one of the main newspaper topics, and no solution seems likely to satisfy all parties permanently.

Hence the two main policies upon which the new state was to have based its action had come to grief; and with it the idealistic policy of independence and industrial peace in a capitalist world of political and economic line-ups.

Opening the Seventh Cyprus International Trade Fair, President Makarios stressed the importance of the island as a trade link between East and West. In doing so he was merely following the path mapped out for him by numerous government leaders in as many countries, engaging in the monotonous and dangerous pastime of market-grabbing. The urgency of his appeal is underlined by the recently published Economic Review for 1959, which lays stress on the continued unfavourable trend in the terms of trade.

Storms Ahead

In spite of continued expressions of optimism in the future of the new state, from the point of view of economic and political stability, and trade and foreign relations everything points to more storms ahead. Cyprus has mainly an agricultural and mining economy, the latter accounting for more than half the value of exports. Agriculture can absorb no more of the labour force; already it accounts for over half. Although the most important single activity, it is uneconomic and heavily subsidised. A large number of farmers, unable to pay off loans, are threatened with the enforced sale of their land.

The question of capital investment to finance such projects has been the subject of much dispute. The Ambassador to Greece for the Soviet Union, Mr Sergeyev, with the appearance and behaviour of a miniature Khrushchev, visited the island and offered aid “without strings”. AKEL of course advocate taking up the offer, whilst others advise caution and consideration of other offers.

The question of future intercommunal disturbances has recently been given prominence by the statement of a Turkish political leader, Mr. Denktash, that attempts by Greek Cypriots to undermine the Zurich and London Agreements would lead to chaos and civil war. Scarcely a day passes without the Greek and Turkish dailies on the island throwing mud at each other. The prospects of even elementary political organisation involving both communities seem remote at the moment. The brightest hope, from the working, class point of view, is the admirable demonstration of unity during the recent strikes and demonstrations, which the workers have threatened to repeat. Both Turk and Greek spoke as one. The Trades Unions have recently opposed the principle, imposed by the Constitution, of a 70 per cent./30 per cent. division of Civil Service jobs between Greeks and Turks as being discriminatory and introducing political factors into a purely labour field.

Difference of Opinion

The difference of opinion between Makarios and the mayors mentioned earlier is developing into a full scale feud. A week after Independence Day it was announced that the mayors would publish a book stating their opinion of the Agreement. At the same time they served notice that they would revive the feud with Makarios, who went on record as saying “that some of them deserve to be tried by people’s courts”. Their next move, taken with a number of doctors, editors, lawyers, and party leaders, was to send a telegram to the Secretary General of UNO on the eve of the maiden speech made by the island’s representative, Mr. Zenon Rossides. As though to belie his references to newly independent Cyprus as “a bridge of unity for understanding and co-operation”. The telegram pointed out that the settlement was imposed on them, and infringed their fundamental right to self determination. Two more telegrams followed immediately, one from the Turkish Communal Chairman in support of the agreement and another of opposition from the Greeks. It is quite probable that an influential body, a kind of unofficial opposition outside Parliament, will develop.

In municipal matters a Greek and a Turkish Municipal Chamber administers the respective communities with moneys allocated by the government according to the 70 per cent./30 per cent. Ratio. This rigid partition in municipal matters is also found in education and in separate representation at parliamentary level.

Police Power

In this government as in so many others, the responsibility of power has had a very sobering effect on the erstwhile rebels. They have become respectable, cautious, and apprehensive. No doubt it is the current crime wave, including some murders of those who were informers during the emergency, that has prompted the President to announce an island-wide arms round up; after which very serious action is to be taken against those holding arms. The response to this was the negligible total of 30 guns; shocking the government into the threat of snap road checks and surprise house searches. Indeed, police power has already been strengthened by the government decision to retain the pass system, introduced by the British Government during the emergency, where by all adults over twelve years old must be in possession of civilian identity cards.

The possibility of an outbreak of violence between the Communists and the Eoka faction, which had spasmodically flared during the emergency, cannot be far from the President’s mind. Reports have come from Athens of renewed political activity by Grivas, and of his statement concerning the further clarification of certain points in the Constitution. We are reminded that it was in Athens that he first organised a private army, during the German occupation in 1943. During the civil war that followed liberation, the royalist Grivas had aligned his army against ELAS, the Communist army which he had known for a long time, intended to take over Greece, and which had put a price on his head. After Greece had been forced into the camp of Western Capitalism, he made an unsuccessful attempt to get into the Greek Parliament. The subsequent failure and disillusionment turned his interest to his native Cyprus, where the growth of Communist Party influence gave him cause for concern. Although AKEL had supported the earlier Enosis movement, the Greek Civil War and its outcome had resulted in a typical about face. As always the communist attitude was inconsistent and vacillating, but union with a member of the Western, as opposed to the Eastern Capitalist blocks was not to their liking. Whilst apprehensive that self-determination would result in Enosis, their present attitude appears to be in favour of independence. The present set-up suits them very well, giving them plenty of room of manoeuvre Cyprus into the communist camp. True to the principle of “catching them young”, both groups have already formed youth organisations.

Under colonial rule, there is often identification of the ruling class with the colonial power. The belief used to be current in the “left wing” that after the achievement of national independence the resulting disillusionment would provide the experience necessary for the working class to see the class issue more clearly. Of course, this is not believed by Russia who is just as anxious as any other country to woo the newly independent states, to capture their trade and to use them as counters in international diplomacy. In any case it is a fallacious argument and certainly not borne out by the facts.

The struggle in Cyprus resulted in many hundreds of working class dead and wounded. The voice of its Capitalist Class, as yet young and weak, but struggling to be heard, finds a ready mouthpiece in its government which has shown itself to be just as chauvinistic and trade conscious as any of the other governments set up as a result of national independence. It has taken its place with the other capitalist states in a world of actual and potential aggression, and will add its voice to the general discord which is called “trade and peace”, no doubt falling into line behind one or other of the major powers.

Socialist Knowledge

This is not a step forward for the working class of Cyprus or anywhere else, and far from there being any sign of them becoming socialist, independence has thrown the nationalistic aspirations of Greek and Turk into relief. The introduction to the Cyprus working class of socialist knowledge with its clear-cut class issues, uncomplicated by nationalistic arguments, is badly needed to dispel these bars to its emancipation.

Then it will realise that its struggle, whether resulting in Enosis or independence, effectively enables its capitalist class to capture more elbow room to develop, and secure a hold on labour, in order to exploit it more efficiently in the name of the new Cyprus Republic.

R. J.

Finance & Industry: Our educated politicians (1961)

The Finance and Industry column from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our educated politicians

In an interview published in the Observer (8.1.61) the banker Lord Brand, asked if he thought that academic economists do more good than harm, replied that they are extremely valuable. He claimed that through the studies of Keynes and other economists knowledge has grown and this “has altered the whole picture of economic life”. Possibly because Lord Brand would hesitate to claim that economic life has altered particularly (“I do not think we have an easy time ahead of us in the next year or so”) he went on to blame the politicians for not accepting the good advice of the economists.

He recalled the reparations chaos after the first world war, when the politicians (backed however by 3 out of their 7 banking economic advisers) insisted on exacting impossible reparations from Germany. Lord Brand says: “It was clearly mad at the time to those who would, and could, see, and were prepared to act accordingly. But the people who had control of policy could not see”.

He singles out Lloyd George—”Like most statesmen of the day, he knew little or nothing of finance”—yet Lloyd George had been Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it appears, according to Lord Brand, that Lloyd George insisted on the mad policy because he had boasted of squeezing Germany “till the pip squeaked” and dared not back down for fear of losing political support among voters as blind as he was.

But in the second world war the statesmen appear not to have changed much. Lord Brand tells how Churchill and Roosevelt, on the advice of Morganthau, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and with the agreement of Lord Cherwell (a “highly intelligent” man) adopted a plan to reduce Germany to a purely agricultural country. Lord Cherwell’s defence of his action was that the British Government wanted a loan from America and acceptance of this fantastic plan would make it easier to get the loan.

Capitalism 1961

Lord Brand’s complacency about the altered picture of economic life reads oddly in face of the motor car slump and the looming difficulties facing international trade and currencies. The years between the wars were spent creating currency collapse in one country after another and then laboriously re-establishing stable currencies. After World War II it was all supposed to be different but now Professor Meade is warning of the drastic remedies that he thinks may be necessary because of America’s loss of gold, so he proposes that the dollar and the pound should be cut adrift from their existing link with gold.

The Guardian in an editorial (3.1.61) remarks “Undoubtedly a period of chaos would follow. Professor Meade feels sure that stability would return at a new level of exchange rates within six months. Perhaps so; but in the process the structure of the International Monetary Fund, one of the greatest achievements of international collaboration in our generation would have been laid in ruins “.

One prospect seen by the Guardian is that “soon the Russian rouble might be the only major currency with a fixed gold parity “.

This seems ironical to the Guardian but only because they persist against all evidence in believing that Russia is not a great capitalist power, but something else.

Flood Havoc in China

Through floods and storms China is threatened with what may be a catastrophic fall of food supplies. In a Socialist world such an event would be met by movement of supplies from elsewhere. But under capitalism a different set of values rules. America, Canada and other countries have masses of food they cannot sell profitably. The Times (20.12.60) reported that in the four chief exporting countries America, Canada, Argentina and Australia, “the end-of-season carry-over on July 31 next are expected to reach the unprecedented total of 60,400,000 tons, a rise of 7,500,000 tons on the year”.

So what problem can there be? But capitalist trade and rivalries create problems. The American government when it wanted to give wheat away or sell it cheaply met opposition from the other exporting countries, who feared this would reduce world prices and cut into their own sales. Secondly there are those who on political grounds would object to help being given to China, and according to Mr. Cyril Osborne, M.P., who was recently in Peking, there are politicians in that country who reply that the Chinese people “would rather starve than eat American food or accept American charity”. (Daily Telegraph, 3.1.61). (The starving might give a different answer).

According to Reynolds News (1.1.61) projected Canadian sales of their surplus to China are likely to meet with objections from the American government.

In the meantime the American food stocks are being nibbled at by the recently increased numbers of unemployed :

“In September 3,200,000 Americans were given food from the surplus supplies held by the government”. (Guardian 2.1.61).

Speculating in Misery

Under the heading “It’s an ill Wind” the Financial Times (9.1.61) had the following:

“Americans, by their law, may not trade with Communist China. But no law stops them speculating on the effects of China’s misfortunes, and for the past week they have been rushing to do just that. Scene of their operations is the Chicago soybean (spelt this way in America) market, biggest commodity futures market in the world.

The present bout of speculation in soya-beans and their products began three months ago, as reports of crop disaster began to seep through from China, only big soya-bean producer apart from America itself. People in the trade saw then that if the usual Chinese exports did not reach Europe, American beans and oil would have to go instead. So they put their money on a rise in the market.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Marx on Piece Work (1961)

From the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Let us now consider a little more closely the characteristic peculiarities of piece-wages. The quality of the labour is here controlled by the work itself, which must be of average perfection if the piece-price is to be paid in full. Piece-wages become, from this point of view, the most fruitful source of reductions of wages and capitalistic cheating.

They furnish to the capitalist an exact measure for the intensity of labour. Only the working-time which is embodied in a quantum of commodities determined beforehand and experimentally fixed, counts as socially necessary working time, and is paid as such.

Since the quality and intensity of the work are here controlled by the form of wage itself, superintendence of labour becomes in great part superfluous. …

Given piece-wage, it is naturally the personal interest of the labourers to strain his labour power as intensely as possible; this enables the capitalists to raise more easily the normal degree of intensity of labour."

– Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Kerr Edition, pages 605-606.

The Passing Show: The Congo (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Congo

U.N. officials report that 300,000 people are slowly starving to death in the Congo, with two hundred dying every day. This is still further proof, if it were necessary, that it is not enough to be merely against capitalism, or colonialism, or the rule of a particular imperial power; one must have constructive proposals as to what is to replace the system to be destroyed—one must, in short, work for the achievement of Socialism, not merely for the destruction of any other economic and social system. A year ago, there were those who criticised the Socialist Party because it would not join in movements for “colonial freedom”, such as the one that aimed to throw the Belgians out of the Congo. We pointed out that this would only entail the Congolese people exchanging one set of masters for another. And this is what has occurred. It would be hard to argue, in face of the mass-starvation, in face of the pictures of Congolese children who are nothing more than skin and bone, that the Congolese people are better off today than they were a year ago. In fact the new Congolese masters, to whom the Congolese people were exhorted to give their support, cannot even agree among themselves. And in the squabbling and fighting among the various sections of the new Congolese ruling class—each of which calls in help from foreign states, Russia, America, Ghana, and Belgium among them—it is the ordinary Congolese who suffer. The system of food-growing and food-distribution has in some parts (notably Kasai) almost entirely broken down. And every day more people starve.

Land of opportunity

Feeling depressed in a monotonous job? Worried about the endless struggle to keep the weekly budget down to the size of your pay packet? Thinking about emigration—perhaps to Canada, land of opportunity?

Before you go, have a look at MacLean’s magazine (it calls itself Canada’s National Magazine) for November 19th, 1960. It carries an article telling you about Canada’s rich. A favourite place for their holidays is Frenchman’s Creek in Jamaica, where millionaires and their wives can have peace and privacy for two thousand dollars a week. Last year a Calgary oil millionaire flew a party of his friends to England to watch his horse run in the Derby; the bill he paid covered a week’s stay at the Ritz for the party and Rolls-Royces for his friends’ trips. A Toronto manufacturer had two swimming pools put in his backyard, complete with lighted fountain, hi-fi music and Japanese teahouse, for 30,000 dollars. A Montreal construction business tycoon often flies to Florida or the Caribbean for weekends in one of the family’s two private planes (a DC-3 and a flying boat); once he couldn’t get a favourite Chinese dish in Miami, so he rang up his usual restaurant in Montreal and got them to make it and fly it down to him. A multi-millionaire distiller had his house festooned with fifteen thousand lilac blooms for his daughter’s wedding; the total wedding bill was reported at 100,000 dollars. Twenty-five upper class wives dress entirely in Paris and London creations at an annual cost of up to forty thousand dollars.

The other side of the coin

You’re keen to? Have a look at the next page. This carries the stories of some of the families of Canada’s 327,000 unemployed workers. (If we had the same percentage of unemployment in Britain there would be nearly a million out of work.) It tells of the bitterness of men trying to make ends meet on unemployment pay. “Today the boss wants a twenty-year-old man with forty years’ experience”, some of them said. A fifty-three-year-old steamfitter suggested, “Why don’t they shoot us old men? Digging graves for us would make jobs for the younger men”. The stories are much the same—mounting bills which cannot be paid, threatening letters from hire-purchase companies as the payments fall behind, the despair of men combing the town every day for jobs and being everywhere refused.

Still, there it is. In a system run by the capitalists you would expect the capitalists to be well off. And you would expect the workers to be badly off. In other words—capitalism in Canada works out much the same as capitalism in Britain. Emigration will give you a change of scenery, but it can’t change your class-position in society.

Unfair to the rich

In the current number of Oxford Tory, the Conservative undergraduate journal, there was a surprising item. One writer commented “To say that we have a just society would be, to say the least, an exaggeration”. Clearly a true statement, but what a place to find it. However, the very next words dispelled the astonishment. “Look”, the writer goes on, “at Schedule A, and the absurd level of death duties”. So it isn’t the ownership of all the country’s factories, and mines, and land by a small ruling class that this Tory finds “unjust”, nor the fact that the workers have to labour to support idlers in luxury: he was only concerned with the arrangements made by the capitalist class to pay for the State which looks after their interests. Perhaps if he examines the nature of society a little more closely, he will be able to find some more penetrating criticisms of the “just society”.

Flogging

Sir Thomas Moore, the Conservative M.P. for Ayr Burghs, is again agitating for the introduction of flogging for crimes involving violence. Sir Thomas said that “peace and justice” were the “keywords” of Hitler’s policy, and also that “Herr Hitler is absolutely honest and sincere,” at a time when Hitler had already set up a dictatorship and begun his campaign to “solve the Jewish problem” with every circumstance of brutality. Socialists do not join in the debate about how criminals should be punished: we go to the root of the problem, By attempting to end the society which gives rise to crime and to criminals. But if Sir Thomas thinks that a man who injures a single other man ought to be flogged, what does he think should be done with political leaders who support dictators whose declared policy is the “liquidation” of millions of their fellow human beings?

Alwyn Edgar

Blogger's Note:

"A year ago, there were those who criticised the Socialist Party because it would not join in movements for “colonial freedom”, such as the one that aimed to throw the Belgians out of the Congo. "

This is in reference to the 'Hackney 13' who resigned from the SPGB in 1960. Hackney is in reference to the fact that they were members of the Hackney Branch of the SPGB. From 'Kaz's paper on SPGB disputes down the years:

The Hackney thirteen, 1960 (13)

Thirteen members of Hackney appended their names to a circular, dated 25th May 1960, announcing their resignation. The letter noted that those listed were “deeply concerned about racialism, about South Africa, about the hydrogen bomb, living standards and other things” and that the resignations were a protest against what they saw as the “unconcern” of the Party with these issues and its “refusal to consider…the welfare of the working class.” 

Connolly, Leo (5929)

Coster, Mrs M (5075)*

Crome, Jack (5735)

Dane, S (5551)

Gleason, J (5856)

Ivimey, AW (5572)

Ivimey, F (5573)

Jarvis, R (5885)

Lawrence, JW (5835)

Temple, MF (5008)

Walby, Dennis (5906)

Walby, S (5292)

Wood, AH (4724)

One name missing from that list was Robert Barltrop ('R. Coster'), who was part of the same dispute within the Party, and resigned from its ranks around about the same time.