Indignity of the old age pension (1965)

From the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAMO

Rationalising the Petrol Industry. (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAMO.

The Scottish Season (1932)

From the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramo.

Wages in Germany. (1932)

From the October 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

Ramo.

Beveridge Deals with the Birth Rate (1943)

From the July 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

And We Deal with Beveridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramo.

Did you listen to Smuts? (1942)

From the December 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramo.

Letter: The Plight of the Merchant Seaman (1942)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am, Gentlemen, Sincerely,

WM. E. BENNETT.

Reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramo.

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

From the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramo.

Tit-Bits from the Press (1941)

From the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The American Navy.

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

* * * *

One Suit since the War.

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

Ramo.

Looking Forward. The conflict in Perspective (1941)

From the June 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramo.

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

Democracy—Fact or Slogan? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lady Rhondda, daughter of a South Wales coal owner, contributes an article entitled “The People’s Will Must Prevail,” in a recent issue of The Star (August 8th, 1941). The article commences with the following grandiloquently worded paragraph : —

 The intention of democracy is as Abraham Lincoln defined it, but the machine for achieving that intention can be fashioned in many different ways. Our model, for example, is quite unlike the American. Both are based on the ground-plan of universal suffrage and the election of representatives, but the superstructures are vastly different. Nor does either country suppose that its particular machine is yet perfect. Each is being gradually shaped to get better results in respect to the two tests by which every democratic machine must be judged : Does it enable the considered will of the people to prevail ? And does it work ?

The rest of the article is of minor importance. It suggests the necessity of speeding up legislation after the war, criticises the actions of certain “anti-democratic” cliques in influencing Government policy before the war and also criticises the dictatorial attitude of Civil Servants. In fact, a rather poor finish up tp a somewhat flamboyant start.

Let us see if we can develop Lady Rhondda’s introductory paragraph on more rational lines. Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy was “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” but we accept the definition of the Harmsworth (1906) Encyclopaedia, which says: “Democracy means, however, in its last analysis, popular control.” This corresponds to Lady Rhondda’s, query as to whether “it enables the. considered will of the people to prevail.”

Most people, if questioned as to what was meant by democracy, would probably reply—”the system of government as we know it in this country and the U.S.A., whereby means of periodical elections the people select those who shall rule over them for a given period.” In association with this idea it is also frequently stated that people with unpopular ideas in these countries are freely allowed to express them. Yet the same people will frequently state that for expressing certain ideas, certain people “ought to be shot.” This shows the weakness of the belief in the right of a minority to express and publish its opinion. Yet, in actual fact, the ability of minorities to express their opinion is at the very basis of the democratic idea, for how can a legislative body be said to be freely elected if the ability of the electors to consider the pros and cons is fettered by an inability to hear the whole of the arguments for and against? How, in such circumstances, is it possible for there to be even such a thing as the “considered” will of the people?

The next point to be considered is whether democratic capitalism does give minorities the ability to give full expression to their views.

The thing democracy cannot be considered in a vacuum. It can only be considered in relation to the system of society in which it functions, and as we are living in a capitalist era, in which the U.S.A. and Great Britain play two of the leading roles, consideration must of necessity be given to the manner in which it functions in either or both of these states. Our readers will be more familiar with conditions in this country, so let us confine ourselves to the United Kingdom. To what extent is the expression of opinion free and untrammelled? We do not think it is necessary to labour the point. What happens to the man in a provincial factory who is suspected by the local magnate or his toady hireling—the foreman—of holding “advanced” views? In the Metropolis conditions are not quite so bad; but how many workers feel that they can openly express unpopular opinions to their workmates without the fear that some seeker after promotion will run and tell the boss ? Here we get at the core of this question of the freedom of expression of opinion. It is the property basis of existing society which gives the boss the power to place the holder of disliked views into a state of semi-starvation; it is the desire to improve those living conditions which it is in the power of the boss to improve, which causes the tale-bearer to hurry to his boss. Again, if those who hold certain ideas are poorly paid workers, their ability to spread those ideas is seriously handicapped by their lack of means. But for the wealthy no such handicap exists. Newspapers can be bought and sold, and even operated at a loss, if the owning clique have certain ideas which they wish to put over. The whole of British industry is gradually getting into the control of fewer and fewer hands, but, within recent memory, the separate interests pursued separate policies, and so we had the spectacle of the News Chronicle continually hammering away at the necessity of “Free Trade” —really, of course, a campaign in favour of the shipping interests—for these were the people to whom unrestricted trade was an obvious advantage. Of course; it was never expressly stated that “Free Trade” was to benefit the shipping interests—instead we were told that it made food cheaper, prices lower, etc., etc. Not so long ago the wealthy Sir Oswald Mosley was able to lavish large sums on furthering his Fascist ideas. The running of a daily newspaper is an expensive business: only big capitalist concerns can operate the present type of newspaper; but the newspaper is regarded as a necessity by most workers. With the news goes the views, and so workers get their opinions, as well as their news, ready made. Not only this—but the news is frequently distorted or suppressed in order to colour the views. And the news and views, of course, must not be detrimental to the big advertisers—again the property influence. Furthermore, newspapers, being capitalist concerns themselves, are naturally interested in the preservation of capitalism, and so wealthy writers of harmless or amusing articles, such as Lady Rhondda or Lord Castlerosse, can get their articles accepted without much difficulty, whereas any article which endeavoured to show up the deficiencies of the existing form of society AND to point to the only logical alternative, would be extremely unlikely to be accepted. A recent example is the statement of the big business chief, who is now Minister of Food, to the effect that a number of small retailers had become such merely in order to get foodstuffs, etc., for supplying their family and friends. This statement was accorded quite a lot of publicity in the Press. One is inclined to think that a statement by a small retailer that he had been forced out of business owing to the reduction in trade, and that numbers of retailers, in order to make ends meet, had taken up air-raid precautions work, leaving their wives to look after the shop, would not be accorded so much publicity. You have to be a lord to get away with a statement like that.

In their attempts to arouse interest in wider circles, minority movements are to a great extent dependent upon advertisements in the national newspapers. Yet the ownership of a newspaper gives the proprietors the right to refuse such advertisements. Thus, the Daily Telegraph, after inspecting a copy of the Socialist Standard, which we had wished to advertise, declined the advertisement and refused to give any reason for their action.

Prior to and during a war newspapers get hints from so-called “official circles” as to what attitude to take up on certain questions. Why are these “official circles” so influential? The answer is that they are a department of the Government—which, under capitalism, is the executive committee of the ruling class, i.e., the employing or propertied class. The Government also controls the schools and the wireless, and is this able to exert an enormous influence in the moulding of people’s minds.

For those who have property, in order to preserve their rights over that property, it is essential that certain ideas should be put over into the heads of the propertyless—the proletariat. And the interesting thing is that it is this very fact of the possession of property winch makes it so much easier for them to get these ideas put over and accepted.

We think we have said sufficient to show that in a social system based on private property relationships, true democracy is an impossibility.

Under war conditions the power of minority expression is further restricted, not only by the aforesaid property qualifications, but also by special regulations issued under authority of Parliament, enabling not only the stoppage of certain publication but also the destruction of the printing press to be carried out by the authorities under certain conditions.

In Canada, our associated paper, The Western Socialist, which is produced in the U.S.A., has, together with five other papers, been banned. The action puts the last nail in the coffin of the assertion of Canadian ministers that they have entered the war in order to safeguard democracy.

A word or an idea can also be used as a slogan in the leading capitalist countries millions of workers are going more or less willingly to war for various mixed and hazy notions. One of these is that the war is one which is being fought to safeguard democracy. Since the inception of the war thousands of headlines and articles which have appeared in the popular Press have sledge-hammered this idea in their heads. In this sense the idea of democracy is being used as a slogan, and a very effective one that.

For reasons connected with “war-time democracy,” many of the points of this article have not been developed to their logical conclusion. We must let the reader do that for himself. But, at a rate, we think we have made it clear, firstly, that the ability of minorities freely lo express themselves is the essence of democracy, and, secondly, that true democracy cannot possibly flourish under the existing social order.

Ramo.

Cases from the Courts (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Re-Written for the Socialist Standard. (The original reports appeared in the “Evening Standard” of July 3rd and 24th.)

Sambo, the curly-haired negro worker, was not drunk. His work consisted of playing the guitar to theatre queues. But he had stolen one bottle of gin and one of whisky. He was sent to prison for a month.

Another gentleman did not steal any whisky. He did not need to, for he was a company director. The evidence added that he was a good-living, religious man. But he had some whisky at the house of a friend, and was later charged with driving while under the influence of drink. He was fined £5 (which he could afford) and was disqualified from driving for a year.

It will be noticed that Sambo’s offence was one against property. Hence the comparatively severe sentence of a month’s imprisonment. No to turn to the other case. Anyone driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drink is a potential manslaughterer. But human lives under capitalism are not valued very highly. Hence our friend the director got away with a nominal payment plus the inability to drive his own car for a twelvemonth. (Of course, there are chauffeurs!)

Under capitalism it is evidently much better to be a company director than to be a queue musician. We hope that Sambo, after his month’s rest cure, will line up for the blood transfusion test.

An old man, 76, entered the court. He was charged with being poor. The technical charge was “wandering and failing to give a satisfactory account of himself.” A policeman had found him sleeping on a bench in a park close to Mayfair. Asked if he had any money, he said, “No.” The policeman invited him to go to the London County Council institution at Charing Cross, but he re­fused to go, saying, “We don’t get enough to eat there.” (What do you say to that, Herbert Morrison?) In court it was disclosed that he lied when he said he had no money on him. Actually, he had twopence and a pair of scissors ! Nothing else. “A week in custody won’t do him any harm,” said the magistrate. So that was the end of Edward—for the time being. Capitalism—and the Law—had got out of their quandary.

This was the case of a man who, despite his poverty, had declined to be regimented into the meshes of the P.A.C., and preferred the compara­tive liberty of the streets, the parks, the pubs., and the police courts. Capitalism, however, is such that a poverty-stricken old man cannot choose the three former to the exclusion of the latter. Notice, inci­dentally, how he was not even allowed to sleep in peace in a public park.

Ramo.

War! Psychological Causes (?) Aldous Huxley Psychoanalysed ! (1935)

From the March 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Aldous Huxley is a writer of some repute, but that he is not of the calibre of his illustrious ancestor is shown by some of the material which he occasionally publishes. One of his latest efforts appears in The Listener, under the title of “Sadist Satisfactions in War,” and a more illogical lot of nonsense it is difficult to conceive of.

He starts by saying that out of a mistaken idea to simplify things, it is now fashionable to state that the causes of war are economic. We were unaware that it was “fashionable,” but let that pass. He gives as the causes of war: "psychological causes," geography and climate, differences in race, language, and culture, the intellectual gifts, passions, and subconscious tendencies of great men, and, finally, and presumably least important, the economic causes of war.

“Strictly speaking," we are told, "all the causes of war are psychological." Mr. Bertrand Russell is quoted as having passed judgment in his latest book on the dispute between psychologists and economists in a single sentence, to wit: "It is true that the conflicts between nations are largely economic, but the grouping of the world by nations is itself determined by causes which are in the main not economic"—“causes," adds Aldous, “which are largely psychological." A careful reading of the quotation from Bertrand Russell gives one the impression that he is of the opinion that the causes of war are mainly economic, so that although Bertrand Russell is quoted in support of Aldous Huxley, it would seem that he is of a different opinion.

"Wars," he goes on to say, “are not fought by climates or systems, but by human beings" (Really!), “and wherever there are human beings, the question of psychology inevitably arises." No sane person would take the affirmative of the denied proposition, but it is evident from the last part of this sentence and other matter in the article, that Aldous is of the opinion that the mental states of a people taking part in a war are the cause of that war. Yet the majority of pictures of mental states which are given are those which have arisen once the war has started and cannot, therefore, be described as the causes of war.

There is, however, one paragraph which deals with the mental states preceding a war. Let it be quoted:

   So far from discouraging nationalistic hatred and vanity, all governments directly or indirectly foment them. At school, children are taught to boast about their own nation and look down on all other nations. In dictatorial countries, this education in jingoistic sentiments is continued by the state throughout adult life. In liberal countries, it is left to the voluntary labours of the Press. Our rulers profess to desire peace, but do their utmost to make their subjects think and feel in such a way that, the moment a crisis arises, they will all acquiesce in or even actively clamour for war.

Why do governments directly or indirectly foment nationalistic hatred and vanity? Aldous Huxley does not give the answer. Yet surely here is the point which does require to be answered if it is honestly desired to get to the roots of the matter. Aldous Huxley has omitted this point, Possibly, had he thought of it, we might have been told to look for it in the sub-conscious minds of the Government officials! Yet everyone knows that governments exist by virtue of the support of the majority of the people, and under capitalism the different parties gain that support by making various promises to the electorate, and these promises have as their basis the satisfying of certain economic needs on the part of the electorate. The promises are frequently not carried out, but the backing is there. The parties themselves act in the interest of the capitalist class or sections of it—economic self-interest again! Why does a capitalist (Labour in office) Government operate a Poor Law Means Test? Why does a National Government decrease and then increase the unemployment benefit? The answer to both is "to enable capitalism to function." Again, economic interest. And why wars? The Marxian analysis of capitalist society explains the conflict of interests which causes capitalist wars. The capitalists use the State power to capture markets and sources of raw materials, to protect trade routes and areas in which they have invested their surplus wealth—the motive all the time is the profit one. It is so clear and easy to understand as to be almost self-evident.

We will, however, endeavour to deal with a few more of the points in the morass of “psychological causes," in which Aldous Huxley would have us believe.

Perhaps the most farcical of these is the suggestion that, because less suicides are committed in war time, therefore life during war time is more worth living! Continuing, he says (and now prepare to laugh!): “We say, and with our conscious minds, we firmly believe, that war is a catastrophe; but our sub-conscious selves, it is evident, do not agree with our conscious selves!” How the warriors must have loved the mud in the trenches, how they must have enjoyed the sub-conscious delight of falling over rusty barbed wire, half their face being blown away by a bit of shell, or the amputation of a gangrenous leg! According to Aldous, the suicide statistics show that this sort of life is 45 per cent. more worth living than the dull humdrum life of peace! It would be difficult to believe this, were not Aldous Huxley there to assure us that it is so. Aldous Huxley has forgotten one thing, however, namely, that the majority of people who commit suicide do so, not from peregrinational gallivantings in the sub-conscious mind, but simply and solely because life is not darned well worth living. Has Huxley not read in the papers during the recent economic depression how day after day people committed suicide because they would sooner be dead than cold and half-starved? And is it not a fact known to everyone (except Aldous Huxley) that during a war, when capitalist powers need all the labour power at their command in order to wage it to a successful conclusion, jobs are easier to find and that, although destruction is the business of the majority of the people, yet everyone can get jobs and that, therefore, the prime cause of suicides at once disappears?

It should also be borne in mind that the official statistics of suicides during war time are unreliable, because they omit to take into account the suicides of the soldiers at the Front. There were hundreds of such cases during the last war, and these were almost invariably reported as “ killed in action.”

In the same issue of The Listener is the report of a broadcast discussion between Captain Ludovici and A. A. Milne. Captain Ludovici, who advocates armaments for "self-protection,” states "I am not a militarist. I loathe and detest war, and nobody could have been more wretched at the Front than I was.” This is probably the feeling of the majority of those who participated in the last quarrel over the wealth stolen from the workers. Yet Aldous Huxley would have us believe that, at least for many individuals, war is a source of “substantial pleasure” !

Aldous Huxley quotes with approval the saying of a psycho-analyist that the battle of Waterloo was prepared in the nurseries of Corsica. If the Huxley of our generation knew anything about history, he would know that the Napoleonic wars were caused mainly by the lust for markets, the invasion of France by surrounding countries, who saw in French capitalism a menace to their trade, and in the French revolution a menace to their own systems. And that revolution, which enabled the rising bourgeoisie to throw off the yoke of feudalism, was, it need hardly be said, due absolutely to economic causes.

The question may be raised as to whether the mental outlook of psychologists themselves is not determined by economic interests. The psychologists, if they are to get a living, must write books which will have a sufficient sale to enable them to get a living. The new “science” also opens the door to certain professorial appointments. These appointments being under the control of capitalist interests, they must be careful not to say anything which would undermine the capitalist system. Psychology, with its mostly incomprehensible terminology, unduly impresses the bourgeois mind and opens the door to the much-desired El Dorado. The bourgeoisie also, in their desire to find an excuse for the continuance of the present insane system, find natural allies in the psychologists.

Much light entertainment could be provided by giving further quotations from the article under review, but lack of space forbids. It must be added, however, that, in an article purporting to deal with the causes of war, the discussion of a remedy would naturally have first place, though, if war is so satisfactory from a psychological point of view, it would hardly be necessary to worry about its prevention. And the psychologists are not impatient, as the concluding paragraphs of the article, here below quoted, will show: —

   The psycho-analysts profess to have explored the unconscious to a greater depth than has been reached by other investigators. Perhaps it is for this reason that they are so pessimistic about the immediate prospects of abolishing war. Dr. Edward Glover, in War, Sadism, and Pacifism, asks for fifty years of intensive research into the human mind. Only then, he thinks, shall we know enough to be able to act with any real prospect of getting rid of the tendencies that make for war.

  What is to happen in the interval? We must be content, I suppose, to prescribe such political, economic, and psychological sedatives as shall prevent the patient from going completely out of his mind and committing suicide. If we can keep him alive long enough, the doctors may at last agree on the diagnosis and discover a cure.

If the workers are going to rely upon the psychologists to bring about a mental state unproductive of war, they will evidently have to wait a long time!

If our contention is correct, however, that is to say, that wars naturally arise from the existing form of society, then it is evident that only by a revolutionary change in the structure of society can they he eliminated.

Ramo.

Sir John Anderson is very unhappy (1944)

From the July 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

A large part of Sir John Anderson's Budget speech was devoted to the question of subsidies, wages and prices. As he so very clearly explained it, the trouble is that whereas as a result of the subsidisation of most of the essential commodities, prices have only risen by 28 per cent., wage rates had risen by us much as 40 per cent. He said : — 

  We had aimed at maintaining a reasonable stability in the cost of living, partly by means of an intensive and successful rationing system, and partly by subsidising costs. Here again our policy had been fully successful, but he could not claim that in this field the position was so satisfactory that he need do no more than leave well alone, for he was not altogether happy about the present trend of events. (The Times, 26/4/44.)

The whole of his remarks is worth reading, but we selret the following: —

  When the stabilisation policy was first introduced, wage rates had risen 6 per cent. less than the cost of living, but today they showed a rise of 11 per cent. more than the cost of living. It would place the stabilisation policy in an altogether false perspective, and the purpose of it would be to a large extent be stultified if the Government were to continue blindly pouring out subsidies to keep the cost of living down rigidly to a predetermined level without regard to the current level of costs and wages.

In considering Sir John Anderson's statement, it should be borne in mind that he was speaking on behalf of the Government (the executive committee of the British capitalist class), whose main concern is to protect the interests of the British section of world capitalism, to keep the British workers and fighters in a proper frame of mind, and to make sure that the war does not cost them a penny more than they can help.

If there were ever any danger of the British Government continuing "blindly" to pour out subsidies to keep prices stable, Sir John Anderson can at least claim the merit of having opened their eyes. However, he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is his job.

To explain all this pother from a purely capitalist angle, it is this. The capitalists had their eye on the post-war period; they wanted to keep the workers in a happy mood, and in order to avoid the conflicts likely to arise from a continued rise in the cost of living, they decided to stabilise the price of most of the essential commodities. This, they thought, would also enable them to avoid the possible post-war conflicts when a full in prices would have to be met by a corresponding fall in wages. But the economic laws of capitalism have a bad habit of defeating the most ingenious schemes to get around them, and so, due to other factors, wage rates have actually gone up by "as much as" 10 per cent.

Most workers have short memories, but those whose recollections go back to the pre-war period must surely remember that the one eternal conflict with the employer was the question of wages. If you went after a job, you never dared to ask for more than you could live on, because you knew the other fellow would surely ask for no more, and equally you could not ask for less, because thus you could not carry out your job efficiently. And didn't the boss know this too? Similarly the trade unions in their negotiations with the employers always harped on the "cost of living." Now that, as a result of the urgency of war, there has developed a system of state controlled capitalism, the state has taken a hand in this question of wages and prices (cost of living).

To get down to rock-bottom facts, the position is that present-day society is divided into two classes, an owning class—the bunch who own the factories, mines and transport systems, etc., in the British Empire—and the other lot, the workers, some with white skins, others black and yellow, some with snub noses, and others with crooked ones, who do all the dirty work, physical and mental, including quite a spot on the organising side, all for wages, or, as they are sometimes euphemistically termed, "salaries.” The same conditions apply in the other bits of the world which are controlled by rival groups of capitalists, but in these other cases, owing to certain geographical and historical circumstances, there is not the same variety in pigmentation, though noses have a habit of repeating themselves all the world over. Between the two classes there has always been, and, so long as capitalism lasts, always will be, a conflict. The workers want to get their wages up, the capitalists want to keep them down. Combining the fruits of much experience, however, the capitalists have now evolved more than one process of controlling wages. Under war time controls they can reduce subsidies and cause prices to flow upwards a little faster than wages, and if it goes too rapidly for their liking, they can again subsidise the more important articles figuring in the workers' standard of living. There is the third and last and most inconvenient resort, of forcing the workers to accept lowered wages when prices fall. It is clear, therefore, that from the workers' point of view, the only thing that basically concerns them is their standard of living, and low wages or high wages, low prices or subsidised prices, high taxes or no taxes, it is only from this angle that they can logically view the matter.

The capitalist class rule the roost; they want to win the war as cheaply as possible; they have to pay for it, anyway, despite all the camouflage of income tax, beer tax and all the other taxes, and hence any possibility that the workers are going to get away with something while they have to foot the bill is an immediate cause for alarm. Hence the unhappiness of our friend Sir John. But he is a smart fellow, and so he told the assembled representatives of capitalism how he proposed to get over the difficulty. It was not proposed for the time being to continue to increase subsidies in line with increasing world prices . . . "he felt that for the ensuing year a range for the cost of living index of 30 to 35 per cent, over pre-war should he substituted for the 25 to 30 per cent, laid down by Sir Kingsley Wood in 1941."

As stated above, the principal immediate concern of the workers should be with their standard of living. Yet the fact is that, however much they try to keep it up or put it up, the workings of Capitalism are such that in the long run they cannot, materially improve it. Where the standard of living is higher, it is accompanied with a higher rate of exploitation. This explains the higher standard of living of the workers in U.S.A. as compared with Britain, while in this country, due to the exceptional circumstance of the war, the workers have been induced to accept a lowered standard of living with a higher rate of exploitation, the mirage of income tax and post-war credits having blinded them to the real situation. For the post-war period the ruling class envisage both a higher standard of living and. a greater intensity of production. Sir John Anderson says: —

  The plans which my colleagues and I are preparing for the days after the war are based on the assumption that we shall be in a position to import the raw material necessary for active employment and sufficient food to maintain a standard at least a little better than what we are enjoying now. It is right that this should be our assumption, for we intend to make it good.

The News Chronicle (27/4/44) comments: —

  Our capacity to sell our goods abroad depends on our industrial efficiency. British industry will have to make a fresh start. It must modernise its methods; bring its equipment up to date—indeed, if possible, keep a little ahead of its competitors—apply in peace time some of the dynamic energy that has been developed for war production, and utilise all that we have learned and all the physical assets we have acquired in the years of war.

It requires but little perspicacity to see from all this that what we are in for after the war is intensified competition for the world’s markets and intensified exploitation of the workers—in short, a repetition of the conditions which brought about the present armed conflict. As the News Chronicle states : —

  We shall be faced, after the war, with strenuous competition. America’s vast resources will be pitted against ours. Russia will be making her way felt. The whole of Asia will in course of time become industrialised. No one is going to buy British products from philanthropic or sentimental motives.

This is the picture of things to come. A world of giant capitalist nations struggling for world markets and control of the sources of raw material. Even when there is no positive desire for additional territory, bases, etc., the necessity of defending existing possessions implies the continuance of “defence” forces, and who knows what spark may light the next conflagration? And meanwhile the workers will be subject to the same ruthless operation of capitalism, despite Beveridge or anything “better than Beveridge,” for no form of unemployment relief will allow workers a decent standard of living—how many would want to work if this were so?—and the “policy of full employment’’ will be found to be but a rainbow, diffusing before the storm of trade depressions, and even in the “good times" of capitalism, unattainable.

One further aspect of Sir John Anderson’s speech may be noted. Up till now the budget has been mainly a matter of looking round for sources of revenue to meet the cost of administration, armed forces, etc., and of adjusting tariffs to keep out certain competitive commodities. The present budget, however, develops to a new point. Now taxation is studied from the point of view of furthering the interests of the ruling class in all spheres. Taxation reliefs are offered for scientific research, for the modernisation of equipment, and on the excess profits duty, while farmers are promised loans at cheaper rates for the modernisation of farm buildings. etc. The interests of the chemical industry are to be studied, so that they shall not be handicapped by tariffs in obtaining cheap oil as raw material. All this is in line with the logical development of capitalism. The intensification of competition for markets means that the state must be integrated more and more with capitalist industry. The worker, the cog in the machine, is promised “full employment."

But while the worker’s immediate interest, under capitalism, can only be with his standard of living, he has a further and more far-reaching interest. That is to devote a little time to the study of past and present societies, and to ascertain whether there is not some alternative to the capitalism which provides him with poverty, insecurity, worry, unemployment, occasional wars, and a premature old age.

Ramo.