. . . . Begger Man, Thief (1948)

From the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a well known spokesman of the Tory section of the British Capitalist Class, G. L. Schwartz seems to write the most incredible nonsense, especially when he gets on the subject of economics in his article, “Rich Man, Poor Man.” (Sunday Times, May 30th, 1948.) He is twitting the Labour Government for their caution in lifting controls, and says

“A thing is in short supply unless it is in absolute abundance like fresh air in the open or salt water at the sea shore. There is, a simple test, Has it a price? If it has a price even of one farthing per unit, there is a shortage.”

So presumably he is telling us that the Capitalist class put a price on commodities only when there are not enough of them to satisfy everybody’s needs. We rather wonder why capitalists have been known to burn tons of wheat, and dump other unsaleable, commodities into the sea, not because these goods had no price, but simply because the price was not high enough for them to realise their profits. Since these goods had a price they must have been in short supply, according to Mr. Schwartz’s theory—and yet they were dumped! Mr. Schwartz mentions two things, which are absolutely free—fresh air and salt water; we have an uncomfortable feeling that if it were at all possible to commercialise them, these too would have their price—after all if a man’s potential energies can be given a price why not?

It is however rather comforting when one is feeling weak at the knees about the task of converting the world’s millions to Socialism, to find Mr. Schwartz putting over a point which the Socialist Party is always making. Supporters of the capitalist class are fond of telling us that Socialism won’t work, because human nature being what it is, certain greedy people would not be content with taking just what they need, but would proceed to grab as much as possible, and here is one of their own spokesmen making the point for us : He says,

“Gloves and ties are coming off the ration. They are still in ‘short’ supply for they still have price tags. Now let’s see if the rich buy up the whole lot, Here’s a chance for my Lord Croesus to fit glass cases in his bedroom, and collect ties by the thousands including first editions.”

True he is only making a point for the capitalists’ pet squabble at the moment about which controls to lift, but you see even capitalists (known to be the greediest specie) can only wear one tie, and one pair of gloves at a time. Mr. Schwartz also has a very queer idea about equality. He tells us a little story. About 50 years ago he used to get a penny a week pocket money, and the grocer’s son got tuppence. Well he so hated this inequality that he knocked all the boy’s sweets out of his hand into the gutter. He speaks of this as his “early essay in equalitarianism” of which apparently he is rather ashamed ; but he comforts himself by saying that he might have been in the present Cabinet if instead of sublimating his inhibition he had bottled it up until it was sour. Well this is not even the Labour government’s idea of equality. Their idea is not to knock the sweets right out of the hands of the owning class but merely to abstract a few (just a very few, mind) and pour them into the hands of the very poor. As far as we are concerned in a Socialist system someone will not come, along and say “Here’s two for you and two for you and two for you !” This is not equality—it is absurdity. Under Socialism each shall have according to his needs, be it one or two or three or more, and despite what Mr. Schwartz says about a perpetual shortage, there could he enough and to spare even now, and still more reason to suppose there will he under Socialism, when everybody capable of it is doing a useful job of work instead of a large proportion of them doing useless jobs like ticket collecting, rent collecting —and peddling false notions of economics in Sunday newspapers.

E.D.

Into Battle! The War over Soap Substitutes (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to all reports, the first salvoes are now being fired in what promises to be one of the biggest trade-wars we have seen in this country for many a long year. The contestants in the struggle are the manufacturers of detergents, or soap-substitutes.

The set-to in Britain is actually the second round of a contest which has only just come to an uneasy (and probably temporary) end in the United States. Here, Proctor and Gamble an American firm, and Lever Bros., the Anglo-Dutch combine, fought out a bitter struggle for many months before Lever Bros, were defeated and forced to content themselves, for the time being at any rate, with only a minor share of the American soap-substitute market.

Now the scene has changed to this country, though the chief contenders are the same. On the one hand is Thomas Hedley & Co., the British subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble; on the other. Lever Bros, once more, fighting this time on their own ground. In addition there are a host of smaller fry, all trying hard to keep a foothold in a very precarious and uncertain market.

All of them, big and small, are spending large sums on advertising (Hedley’s and Lever Bros, are employing two of the biggest firms in the business). Hedley’s are reported to have already spent £72,000 on Press advertising for “Dreft,” besides about £100,000 on film publicity. Now they are busy launching “Tide” on the public, with what seems like lavishness of advertising even greater than that devoted to “Dreft.” Lever Bros, in their turn have already spent £73,000 on “Wisk,” and £22,000 on their liquid product “Quix.” Both seem ready to spend a lot more besides. These two big firms, it will be noticed, are playing the game of running two products, so giving themselves an opportunity of pitting one against the other, as well as against the products of their rivals. When one product really begins to outstrip the other, then they will probably drop the poorly-selling one and concentrate on the one that is selling well. One of them, perhaps both, may even now be working out plans to launch a third, so getting the additional advantage of newness—an important factor when each new product is launched with lavish publicity.

Just recently, the situation has been further complicated by a new big rival, the American Colgate-Palmolive-Peet combine, which plans to put its own product “Fab” on the market in a big way. The smaller fry are, of course, now some way behind, but they are all struggling hard for their own little place in the trade. Domestos Ltd., for example, have already spent £39,000 on advertising “ Stergene,” and the Brobat Mfg. Co. £33,000 on “Brobat.” Boots with “D.10,” and the Co-op with “Cascade,” are of course at some advantage in that they can distribute their products in their own shops, but their trade will in effect be confined to their own distribution system. They will not stand a chance on the open market unless they are prepared to risk a great deal of money in pushing their products. Having taken a look at the jungle outside, they have no doubt already decided to stay at home!

This high-pressure advertising is, of course, only the prelude to the fight. The first real blow was struck by Lever Bros, when they offered, temporarily, to let housewives have two packets of “Wisk” for the price of one. Hedley’s replied by covering large areas of London with vouchers offering a 1s. 7d. packet of “Tide” for 6d. Apart from stunts, prices generally are already on the way down. “Fab” recently dropped from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d.; “Dreft ” from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 4d.; and “Cascade ” from 8d. to 6d. (Price differences are largely accounted for by differences in the sizes of the packets). All of them are probably working frantically to think of other bright ideas which will enable them to gain an advantage.

Even when soap-rationing is abolished, all the manufacturers seem convinced that there is a future for detergents. If they did not think so, they obviously would not be doing what they are doing. Reinforcing them in their belief is their determination to bring down the price of detergents below the price of soap. One of the main ways in which this can be done is by reducing the price of the raw materials from which detergents are made.

Detergents, as is well known, are derived from petrol, and just as competition is now rife among the detergent manufacturers so is competition among the oil-producers. At least four companies are already producing raw materials for soap-substitutes, and others are thinking of doing so. Shell are the biggest producers at present with “Teepol.” After them come I.C.I. with “Lissapol,” Anglo-Iranian with “Comprox,” and Monsanto Chemicals with “ Santomerse ”— all struggling hard to get hold of as much of the rapidly growing market as they can. For detergents to really compete with soap, the oil-producers will have to cut their prices. That they can do so was shown when the soap ration was last increased—prices immediately dropped. They will probably find means of doing so again when rationing is fully lifted and their products have to compete on equal terms with soap.

Whatever form the struggle takes, it should be interesting to watch. The contestants may fight to the limit, as they did in the United States. They may try to reach a compromise, which will certainly be an uneasy and temporary one. Perhaps the abolition of soap-rationing will prick the whole bubble. We do not know, nor do we wish to speculate.

What is worthy of comment is the stupidity of a system in which huge sums of money are being spent in selling, one against the other, products between which there is probably not a scrap of difference worth troubling about; the stupidity of a system in which adults in complete possession of their senses spend their working hours thinking up new and better stunts to help sell these products; the stupidity of a system where other fully mature men and women worry themselves sick wondering whether “this” is a better name than “ that,” or “that” is a better name than “this” (we have it on no less an authority than the Financial Times that enormous care and market research is expended on choosing just the right brand name). The example of soap-substitutes can be multiplied a thousandfold, and the wastefulness in terms of wealth and human effort is correspondingly greater.

Capitalism has introduced a substitute for soap. When are you workers going to introduce the substitute for capitalism—socialism?

Stan Hampson

A Journey Through Dreamland (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was a frosty clear morning when I found my foot-steps taking me towards an exclusive store in the heart of the West end of London.

I stopped outside the ostentatious entrance, hesitating before entering. In the mean time a contiunual stream of taxis and cars deposited beautifully robed ladies, escorted by men in immaculate uniforms. From their appearance they had neither toiled nor spun throughout their lives.

I mused, thinking, dare I enter in my cheap utility costume, which had taken months of saving and scrimping? I took my courage in both hands and passed through the swing doors.

As I crossed the threshold, I stood wide-eyed with wonder! Was this the sixth year of the War? Were not we all rationed? Had we not been told over and over again that equality of sacrifice was demanded from each and even one of us, irrespective of our station in life? That the rich and poor received only what was allotted to them in foodstuff and clothing? What I saw did not bear this out.

To the left of the entrance, was an array of the most exquisite blooms one could desire; Orchids, Roses, Early Spring Violets, Snowdrops, and Daffodils. I drank in their sweet aroma and enquired the price of daffodils. 1 was told “15/6 a bunch, Madam." I turned sadly away; this was outside the scope of my wage packet.

To the right a space was allocated to beautiful antique furniture and hand-made glass of the finest workmanship and design. I picked up a tiny Venetian wine glass, one of a set of six, and hurriedly placed it down again. £10 the set! An old antique cabinet was marked £70. These goods were not for the poor workers, they were only for the idle rich.

My wanderings carried me along to the food department. Here a veritable Alladin's cave opened in front of my eyes. If this was the kind of food supplied to the clientele of the store in wartime, what could it have been in times of peace! Arrayed upon the shelves and counters were wonderful things to eat and drink. Red Currants in Cognac, Cherries in Brandy, Asparagus in wine, turtle soup (real, not mock), Roast Chickens, various fruits and rare cheeses, fine teas and coffees. Even the dainty rolls and loaves of bread seemed to be made of a different Hour from that of the bread in my local stores. I enquired the price of the cherries in brandy, £3 10s. a small bottle. I looked around and saw the well-fed men and women giving their orders for these things. I noticed their air of general well-being, their smug contented looks and wondered whether they ever gave a thought, to the men and women who produced all these good things for them to consume.

Continuing my journey, I came to the clothing department in which I found beautiful dainty silk underwear at prices ranging from £6 to £18 a garment. Chiffon blouses at £7 each, dresses, coats, and costumes, all to delight the eyes at fabulous prices. The Linen department contained the finest household goods, towels, sheets and other things requisite for the furnishing of a home. Sheets were marked up at £8 a pair, all in delicate colourings.

I retraced my footsteps slowly into the sunshine again, my thoughts wandering back to the stores where I usually do my shopping. I could not recollect ever seeing such an array of foodstuffs on those counters and shelves. I had never seen cherries in brandy there nor fine cheeses, nor roast chickens. What usually struck me in the eyes were tins of spam, more spam, and still more spam, the inexhaustable supply of powdered eggs and milk, the tins of cheap soup, the tinned fish and other synthetic foods. The clothing department invariably displayed ill fitting utility garments made of shoddy material. The exquisite garments and the dainty underclothing were conspicuous by their absence. It was impossible to obtain any household linen unless one queued up for hours at an end.

The workers have always been rationed, they never have sufficient money to obtain more than the necessities of life not only during a crisis but during the whole time that Capitalism has existed.

The words of Shelley's poem flashed through my mind as I turned towards home.

The Seed ye sow, another reaps.

The Wealth ye find, another keeps. 

The Robes ye weave, another wears.

The Arms ye forge, another bears.

Sow seed, but let no tyrant reap,

Find wealth let no impostor keep.

Weave robes let not the idle wear.

Forge Arms in your defence to bear.

Anne.

War and Health (1942)

From the December 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the beginning of the present conflagration we have been assured by numerous authorities that the nation’s good health has been maintained “beyond all expectations.” Wireless and press, doctors and politicians, have all remarked on this rare and peculiar phenomenon. We also wondered. We thought of Sir John Orr’s statement on pre-war conditions, “that one-third of the nation are not receiving enough food to maintain them in a reasonable standard of health and efficiency.” We thought of the health of the unemployed.

There is no doubt that many workers are better off now, despite food rationing, than they were on their labour exchamge diet. Making bombs and shells requires more fodder than merely sitting on a park bench. We reasoned, though, that a slightly higher intake of food into the workers’ stomachs would be more than offset by the strain and slogging of war production. And then we learned all about the newly discovered virtues of carrots and potatoes, of dried eggs and dehydrated meat; and during the “blitz” we were told of the invigorating effect of a two hours’ sleep. . . . But at last it comes out. An increase in diphtheria, whooping cough, measles and chicken-pox is now reported; there are cases of smallpox in the North; a disturbing rise in tuberculosis, particularly among children, and a rapid growth in the case rate of venereal disease.

Nevertheless we still hear that “the stubborn good health of our people is maintained. We have, thus far. avoided serious epidemics.” Of course, much depends on what our medical experts care to define as a “serious epidemic.” We are inclined to think that the scope of infection will have to be high indeed before any disease conditions are thus described. After all, we must not be too faddy in war time!

However, we are afraid that the health of the workers will surely and quickly deteriorate despite frantic appeals to eat carrots and be inoculated. There is no device known to the doctors that can prevail against the effects of overwork and underfeeding, and the anxieties inseparable from total war. One can appreciate that the health situation is not so pleasant if the chief medical officer is obliged to entertain us over the air with a fireside chat on consumption and syphilis.

It may well be that the number of people killed on the battlefields and through air-raids will be surpassed by the millions destroyed by sickness. The great influenza epidemic that followed the last war is stated to have been responsible for more deaths than were sustained in four years of fighting.

The prospect for the workers to-day is not very hopeful. Many of them are working long hours in badly ventilated factories, are not eating enough nourishing food, and have to live in the vitiated atmosphere of blacked-out rooms. In these circumstances, it is hardly possible that they will be in a fit and proper condition to enjoy the pleasures of the new world order faithfully promised to them by President Roosevelt and Mr. Winston Churchill. Freedom from good health is more likely to be the reward of capitalism’s wage-slaves than freedom from want.

When Mr. Churchill recently addressed the miners’ representatives it was said that he laid before them the “true facts,” and fully explained “the gravity of the situation.” We feel, somehow, that a good discourse on the merits of steak and onions would have been much more to the miners’ taste.

We hold the view that whatever the military outcome of the war may be, its various effects will influence the lives and health of our class. It is quite certain that the workers in the defeated countries will suffer as much as the workers in the victorious countries; they will have the same share of consumption and lunacy, ulcerated stomachs and venereal disease.

Kaye.

Work of National Importance (1941)

From the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In The Tatler and Bystander (October 1st, 1941), Bridget Chetwynd, in her “Social-Roundabout,” reported the following: “Mrs. Paul Willert (who was Brenda Pearson) gave a wonderful dinner party for Air Force people stationed in Regent’s Park. She has a darling little house in Chelsea, into which she fitted incredibly many people, and gave them glorious lobsters, with mayonnaise made by herself, cold chicken, fruit and cake, and there were big stone kegs of beer. Young women being amused by the chaps included Miss Duff, Mrs. Pamela Tiarks, Miss Jean Nicoll and Miss Eve Fayne.”

Contrast that irresponsible nonsense with statements made in the House of Commons during a debate on the food question. Mr. Griffiths, speaking of the conditions in the mines in South Wales, said (Daily Telegraph, October 4th): —

“Three hundred men were observed for a week during the investigation in a coal mine in his constituency. One hundred of them could only bring in their ‘tommy-boxes’ plain bread and cheese with unsugared tea to support them during eight hours’ work. Some of the remainder were able to bring jam, some butter and some vegetables from their gardens. Unless steps are taken to provide these men with more adequate food, it is not physically possible for them to perform the tasks the nation is demanding of them.”

Mr. Griffiths also championed the interests of the steel workers in South Wales. “… Investigation in steel works showed,” he said, “that many of the workers had lost weight during the summer months—some as much as two stone. What they need is cheese, butter, and, in particular, more sugar.”

Major Lloyd George, in reply to the modest demands of Mr. Griffiths, said: “As to the supplementary rations for industrial workers, the Government intended to maintain their policy of allowing the maximum rations for all consumers generally rather than give a supplementary ration to a particular class.”

Oh, quite! Oh, quite ! The miners and the steel workers are not, of course, rationed in the quantity of lobster, cold chicken and other delicacies. They could, of course, buy them just like Mrs. Paul Willert (who was Brenda Pearson). Mr. Griffiths also knows this too. But, like us, he knows that they cannot afford them.

We wonder whether the “Air Force people” purred their approval of the party at Regent’s Park so unctuously as the society gossip writer. Or did they wonder why in these days when even the very rich are reduced by income tax to a mere thousand or two a year . . . that there are still people who can throw a party which costs the equivalent of probably many workers’ wages.

J. Cuthbertson

The Slave's Awakening (1947)

From the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The wage-slave is showing signs of bewilderment towards present day events. A beneficient Labour Government promised him full employment and he wonders why he is on the dole. He cannot make head nor tail of the explanations they give him: fuel shortage, famine in man power, have a false ring because he knows that there was apparently no shortage of fuel during the war and the Labour Exchanges prove that there is a superfluity of fellows like himself who cannot find a master. He listens to arguments when in the queue: ‘‘It’s the Capitalist class that’s doing it, they want to force the Labour Government to quit and the Capitalists have the money: they did the same thing last time we had a Labour Government.” He is interested in the reply: ‘‘We own the Bank of England now, don‘t we? All the money is ours, so that can’t be it.” The wage slave feels in his empty pocket and vaguely wonders why he is broke— a shareholder in the National Bank should not be in his precarious position. Another argument starts heatedly: “I know for a fact that when work opens up again everybody will be kept busy for years; I saw it in the paper, many firms will be running night and day; there is a demand for houses, clothing, shoes, everything, this is not going to last long.” This cheers the queue up a little, but a doleful old man butts in with “I've seen this sort of thing before, I believe there are a lot out of work now who will never work again.” The wage slave is shocked when some one yells out: ‘‘Well, that’s one comfort anyway, it’s work that wears you out, the less we work the longer we shall live.”

The queue shuffles forward a few paces and then one fellow obviously suffering from the cold says : ‘‘My feet are frozen stiff; why is it they can’t put more men on, there are a hundred men in the queue who can do the job the clerks are doing just as well as those who are working there now.” Another move forward and some of the grumblers are swept inside; a policeman tries to keep order but finds it extremely difficult.

One by one they receive the form to sign and make their way with it to the queue in front of the pay window. After they receive their miserable pittance they fight their way through the queue outside and wend their way to their respective homes., flats, prefabs or tenements.

Those that are married, and our fellow-slave is one of them, are awaited by an impatient wife, a war bride on the war path. “Where have you been all this time? Is that all you’ve got? What can I buy with it? I’ve got to go now and stand in queue after queue to get what we want. I don’t know what we are going to do; it’s worse than during the war; look after the baby: when she wakes up give her the milk that is in the saucepan: see that it's not too hot. Where’s my ration book? 1 suppose there will be nothing left when I get there."

The wife and mother hurries out and the wage slave sits down and bemoans his fate. “What did 1 get married for?" The baby awakens and he attends to its wants as best he can, hut the mother’s touch is lacking and the child is fretful. It will not take the milk he prepares for it and eventually starts crying loudly. After trying various devices to lull it into a quiet frame of mind he eventually turns on the radio and a melancholy voice tells him to “think on these things." “Oh hell,” he says, and changes the station quickly to something less inclined to remind a proletarian of his sins.

Although he tries his utmost he fails in his attempts to comfort his offspring and when his wife comes home, tired and disappointed, the child is bawling loudly. "What have you been doing to her? You are about the most useless man I know.” He is filled with indignation and retorts in a manner that leads to a row: the neighbours are entertained for an hour or more with vivid descriptions of the immoral acts and shortcoming of both the husband and wife. The affair ends with the man going out and the woman and the child left crying together.

“ Oh what a happy land is England "—if you are poor.

The puzzled wage slave knows that things have gone wrong somewhere but he does not hit upon the cause, and feels inclined to blame himself. His wife also endures agonies of mind but she is helpless: they are both tortured by economic conditions over which they have no control.

Such is the life of the worker.

The present situation has certain peculiar features that need elucidating.

The means of production need renewing as a result of the strain of the war; in most industries new equipment and materials are lacking. Capitalism has nothing ahead; the new mechanism has to be brought into being by the producers putting their backs into it. The ruling class must force the workers to ”forge the gilded chains that enslave them.”

Capitalism is run by the capitalist class for one purpose only, the obtaining of a profit. Profits cannot be realised until goods are sold. The market of the world consists of the purchasing power of the people of the earth. In proportion to what is placed on the market the purchasing power of the producers is becoming relatively less. The trouble is further complicated by constant capital in the shape of machinery having always to be sold to Capitalists; working men and women do not buy machinery. As the Capitalist class have only claims on wealth yet to he produced they are finding things extremely difficult at the present time. .

It is the above facts that are driving the Labour Government to indulge in all kinds of tricks and experiments to induce the worker to produce more per man hour. The wage slaves are re-acting well, they don’t like the idea of speeding up, their class instinct warns them that there is something wrong with what the leaders advocate; they smell treachery but can’t detect exactly where it is. Neither do they like the irksome restrictions that are everywhere in evidence. Identity cards, ration cards, the worker must sign on the dotted line, at every move. The country is fast becoming one huge slave camp and feelings of frustration are everywhere being revealed in the expression on the faces of those of our fellows we meet on the street and on the job.

The emancipation of the working class cannot he brought about by developing the mechanism of Capitalist production ; the present machinery was not designed for the wage slave’s benefit, but to exploit him.

To achieve a state of society in which goods are produced solely for use, a complete transformation of the mechanism of production will he essential. Socialism means as great a change in the mode of production as in the mode of distribution.

The society of the future is one of associated humanity; man is the main consideration. The welfare of mankind is the sole aim of Socialism.

In order to live a life worth living man must be free, there will he no ration cards., and no identity cards either; no speeding up for wealth will be brought into being for the use of the people. The aim and object will be quality, pure food, the best of clothing. homes that are homes—for everybody. “We will eat as much as our tummy will hold, and if we feel that way drink as much as our heads will stand," and this will be ours without money and without price. Labour applied to the natural resources of the earth will give us everything necessary to our existence and well being.

When the workers have the intelligence to abolish the wage system and establish their own social order we emerge into what may he described as a new world. SPEED THE DAY!

Charles Lestor

Twixt The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Critics of the Labour Government are rapidly increasing in number. With daily increases in the cost of living, whilst wages climb at tortoise pace in pursuit; with the ever growing threat of war and the prospect of devastating atomic warfare; with some essential foodstuffs and other commodities being rationed down to infinitesimal quantities, the Labour Government stands accused of being the cause of it all. That is the fate of all politicians who undertake the job of capitalist government. The government of the day, whether it be Conservative, Liberal Labour or Coalition, always bears the brunt of criticism for the prevailing bad conditions. Socialists do not subscribe to this idea. They do not claim that the problems that confront the workers today arise because of the Labour Government, but rather, in spite of a Labour Government. These problems arise from the capitalist society in which we live and governments are powerless to prevent them.

This does not mean that a government has no power to affect the prevailing conditions. The outbreak of war may be advanced or postponed by a particular government policy. Governmental action can cause the meat ration to be increased or it can cause it to dwindle to an even less amount. One government might cause a few more houses to be built than would another or one government might impose import duties where another would remove them. One could introduce harsh anti-working-class legislation whilst another could repeal it. Although a capitalist government can modify, amend, adjust and generally tinker around with the problems that confront it, it is powerless to remove them.

Amongst the critics of the Labour Party are many erstwhile staunch supporters whose votes help to put that party in power. It is not in the least unusual these days to hear Labour Party supporters vehemently denouncing the government for doing things that should have been left undone and not doing things that should be done. They will readily admit the shortcomings of Labour ministers and oppose the Labour Government's policy. They will agree that socialism is the only solution to working class problems, but—BUT—as it is not possible to establish immediately they intend to support the lesser of two evils, the Labour Party in preference to the Conservatives. “The lesser of two evils"—how often the workers have been hoodwinked by that notion! As though one capitalist political party was even a little bit preferable to another. As though there is anything to chose between them as far as the workers are concerned. As the Irishman is reputed to have said, “The only difference between them is that they are all alike.” Looking back over the years of working class struggle, under all kinds of governments, should be sufficient evidence that the workers' position is not altered whenever there is a change of government Giving the workers the choice of two political parties, each competing for the job of administering capitalism, is like giving the Christmas goose the choice of being roasted or boiled.

If it were true that one particular party was likely to be less harmful to working class interests than another, there is still no means of telling which one it is. The German workers in 1932 selected what they considered to be the lesser evil when they elected Hindenburg as president in preference to his opponent. Hitler. But a year later Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship of Germany and the German workers had both evils to contend with. After nearly 30 years of Labour Government in New Zealand the workers there have apparently come to the conclusion that there is a lesser evil than the Labour Government and have kicked it out. Working class supporters of the Conservative Party will, of course, claim that their party is the lesser evil. The fact of the matter is, that all capitalist governments are evils from the viewpoint of the working class, and the minor differences that exist between them are reflections of the sectional interests of the capitalist class. The promises, plans and programmes that they present at election times are only possible of fulfilment if the capitalist system allows. Whether a particular government smites the workers with a velvet gloved hand or a mailed fist depends on the capitalist needs of the moment. In times of crisis for the capitalist class it will be as ruthless with its workers as it dares and the government then in office will have to do the dirty work. If a government is at all inclined to leniency in favour of the workers, all the might of the combined sections of the capitalist class will be turned to achieve that government’s destruction. But as Labour Parties, like Conservative Parties, are parties of capitalism, they can be relied upon to serve capitalist interests in opposition to the workers. If capital needs increased production, it is the job of the existing government to see that it is increased; if capital wants wages frozen, it is the task of the government to put them in the refrigerator; if capital is forced to fight for its fields for investment and its markets, it is the job of the government to whip up the workers and send them off to kill or be killed; and if the workers embarrass capital by striking, it is the job of the government to use the troops that it controls to “ preserve law and order.”

International capital will drag governments around by their ears. The Rumanian Government, just before the last world war, was re-shuffled a number of times first at the dictates of German capitalism then at the dictates of British. The members of the political organisation known as the Iron Guard were first taken into the Rumanian Government, then turned out and later brought in again. The British Government is now leaning heavily on American Capitalism. The British army will operate under an American general and the British Atlantic fleet will take its orders from an American admiral. Because American capital wills it. Just as, where British capital holds sway, there can be found native armies officered by Britons. No matter what the politicians may say, the position would not be seriously altered if any other party formed the government.

Socialism is the solution to the workers’ problems and until they establish socialism they will have to put up with capitalism and all its attendant evils. The great need is to convince the workers of the necessity for socialism and that will not be done by telling them to support a capitalist party because it is considered to be a “ lesser evil ” than some other party. By that means they will be giving support to the capitalist class to prolong this system and delay the establishment of socialism. By supporting the capitalist parties the workers are forming the tail-end of capitalist politics. Those who urge them to do that and betraying working class interests.

The workers must be urged to break completely with the political parties of capitalism, whether openly pro-capitalist like the Conservatives or avowedly pro-labour like the Labour Party. They must be brought to realise that they must join a political party, separate from and opposed to the capitalist parties. Socialism is an immediate necessity. As long as capitalism lasts there will be wars, poverty, insecurity and all the rest of the evils that flow from this system. There is no “lesser evil ” to be found by supporting any one of the capitalist parties in preference to another.

If a man is robbed by two thieves, it is in his interest to regain his property, not to take sides with one thief or the other in their differences about the share-out of their loot, even if one of them has got a kind-looking face. When be tries to get his stolen property back he will soon find that the two robbers will sink their differences and gang up to prevent him recovering his goods. They will both be vicious and he must oppose the two of them or else find himself "between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

W. Waters

Money Will Go (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why do so many members of the working class find it difficult to understand the Socialist case? Certainly not because of its complications. On the contrary, it must be because of its simplicity. So accustomed are they to having placed before them the complicated plans, programmes and policies of other political organisations that the simplicity of the Socialist proposition makes them suspect that there must be a flaw somewhere.

The detailed plans of reformist labour parties, the hotch-potch of incomprehensible “immediate demands” of the communists, the cunningly conceived schemes of currency reform cranks and the elaborate domestic and foreign policies of all kinds of governments gives them the idea that politics is a most profound business. Then to be told that all their problems have a common origin in the capitalist system of society and that the solutions lie in the abolition of capitalism, leaves them somewhat bewildered and suspicious. Like a woman who, on entering a shop to buy a certain commodity, finds it on sale at a price so much below her anticipations that she suspects that it must be faulty and refuses to buy.

The socialist declares that the workers have it in their power to build a society wherein the wealth produced shall be freely available to everyone without the need to buy, sell or exchange everything that is required. To imagine themselves having access to the goods that they have worked to produce without having to ask “How much?” or "Can I afford it?” makes many workers smile and shake their heads. They recognise everything as the property of some person or persons. They accept without question the fact that goods are only available to them when they can afford to buy. The proposal that there can be a condition of things where the institution of buying and selling does not exist, makes them look for a flaw.

One can well imagine children, having grown accustomed to the practice of producing a ration book, a coupon or a permit before a purchase can be made, looking askance at any proposal that may suggest that such coupons and permits be no longer necessary. All the arguments advanced in support of a rationing system when it was introduced would then be trotted out against those who advocated its abolition, and by the very people who stood to gain by the change.

But one cannot imagine adults of today opposing the abolition of a rationing system. They have recent recollections of the days before rationing and a return to those conditions would not seem at all strange to them. Having experienced a certain condition they would know that it is practicable.

A number of those workers who pooh-pooh the idea of making the wealth produced available to the producers, are men and women who have served in the army, navy or air force. At socialist meetings they will ask in a surprised tone, “Do you mean that we can just walk into a place and eat without paying?”, “Do you mean that we don’t have to pay rent? ”, “Are you suggesting that we can go into a shop and get a suit of clothes and walk out without paying?”, "How will the boot repairer or the bus driver or the canteen waitress live if we do not pay for the goods that we have?”

Yet, quite recently, these ex-service people have lived in conditions wherein they did not have to put their hands in their pockets and produce money in order to eat, dress and sleep.

What happens when the soldier wants his boots repaired? He takes them to the unit cobbler. And when the unit cobbler wants a meal he goes to the cookhouse. Does he pay for his dinner? Of course not. Neither does the cook pay for the battle dress suit that he gets from the quartermaster’s stores. The army lorry driver does not pay for the petrol that he draws from the petrol depot or for the spares and tools that he uses. And when he drives his truck on a recreational journey, do his passengers pay a fare? Not likely. The storeman does not charge for the blankets that he issues, neither does the medical officer charge for his services. If the service man was asked to pay rent for his billet, barrack room or bunk he would regard the idea as preposterous. Despite this "non-payment” arrangement, or because of it, the whole military organisation is effective. Men do not eat greedily when they do not have to pay for their meals. Soldiers do not obtain umpteen pairs of boots just because they do not have to pay for them. In fact they often regard one of the two pairs with which they are issued as an encumbrance. Requirements are satisfied as far as stocks and stores allow.

We are not suggesting that the army form of distribution is an example of socialism in operation. Far from it. The goods that are available to the soldier have been bought. They were produced, as are all goods where the capitalist mode of production prevails, for the purpose of being sold or exchanged with a view to a profit being made. Having been through the buying and selling process they are finally placed at the disposal of the army and made accessible to the troops. All things are not freely available. In fact army life is notorious for its lack of variety and its uniformity. We use the illustration to show to those who are unable to appreciate the possibility, how goods produced for use could be distributed without having to pass through a market as far as the actual consumer is concerned.

Men and women in the armed forces produce a variety of services. They cook and cut hair, repair boots, drive trucks and lorries and sweep out barrack rooms, etc. Each in turn takes advantage of the service provided by others without thought of making payment. It should not be difficult to visualise a society where such procedure prevailed. Goods and services would be produced as they are today. The difference being that many who now are engaged in socially useless tasks and those who are not engaged in production in any shape or form, would then contribute their share of effort, thus making the task lighter for all. All the things produced, food, clothing, houses, transport facilities, entertainment, furniture, etc., all the things necessary to make life comfortable, would then be at the disposal of everyone, according to their requirements.

People could eat by entering the appropriate building, sitting down, and being supplied with food just as the soldier is supplied in his cookhouse. Or they might prefer to collect their foodstuffs and take them to their dwelling place to prepare and eat them. Such details as how people will prefer to eat, in public halls or in private dwellings, we are unable to forecast. We cannot attempt to map out in advance the detailed plans of organisation of a future society. Society is not a piece of architecture, it grows like an organism, and organs develop as the need for them arises. The prevailing conditions will determine such details in a socialist community.

The same applies to the distribution of other goods. Just how clothing will be distributed we cannot say. It may be in like manner to the quartermaster’s issue or it may be by mail order or by distribution from shops as today except that the payment business will no longer exist.

With travel it is easier still to visualise. It should not be difficult of comprehension to realise that one could board a bus, a train, a coach or an aeroplane, travel to one's destination and alight without the necessity of paying a fare. In all these instances the collectors of money will he freed from those jobs and made available for a more useful contribution to the social effort. They can be free to assist in the production of more goods or the rendering of more and better services.

The socialist does not advocate such a system of society just because it would be nice to live that way. He recognises that the present system of producing things in order that they may be sold, and that someone may make a profit out of the process, is the cause of all working class problems. From this root cause arises the poverty of the workers with its attendant problems of housing, malnutrition, overwork and unemployment, economic insecurity, crime, etc. Also from the same source comes the greatest of all catastrophes, War. To eliminate these evils it is necessary to remove the cause. So what must we do? If the cause is private ownership with its production for sale, what stands in the way of abolishing this condition? Private ownership. Only things that are owned by someone can be sold or exchanged. When goods are produced they are not made available to the producers. They remain in the hands of those who own the tools and machinery which are used to make them. By virtue of their ownership these people have the right to say what shall be produced, how much shall be produced and how the goods and services shall be distributed. The whole of the structure of present day society is directed towards maintaining this order of things. The majority of the workers accept this system, governments administer it, police, judges and jailers enforce it, soldiers, sailors and airmen fight for it, and the owners of the land, mines, factories, transport systems, workshops, etc., thrive on it. Only the socialist challenges it

Many workers try to find ways and means of remedying the evil effects of this system without even realising the fundamental cause of these evils. To them it seems a very complicated affair, requiring complicated plans. To them the simple socialist proposition of converting the means of production from private or state ownership to common ownership, and thus making all the wealth produced freely available to everyone according to their needs, is difficult of comprehension. But there is no problem thrown up by society that does not have its solution portrayed in that society. If we seek an example, a lesson or an illustration of a future social development we can always find it in our present circumstances.

To those who boggle at the idea of having the needs, comforts and luxuries of life made available to them; to those who take fright at the idea of a society without goods for sale, we would say this: Our proposals are not the result of a dream. They are the product of a scientific study of social development and a recognition that socialism is the next stage in that development, not merely because we wish it but because it is inevitable if society is to continue. There is nothing difficult or incomprehensible about socialism once you cease to regard it as too simple to be true or as an idea of men who seek to trick you. All that is necessary is for you to give up seeking arguments in favour of maintaining the system that keeps you in subjection. Give a little earnest thought to the socialist case in a sympathetic manner. We know what the result will be. Then bring your actions into line with your ideas and the job of establishing Socialism is as good as done. 

W. Waters

The above article appeared in the February 1948 edition of the Socialist Standard.

What is a Spiv? (1947)

From the October 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

In these days, when everybody is becoming Spiv-conscious, to ask what is a Spiv might seem to border on the fatuous. The purpose of this article will merely be to attempt to show that as a comprehensive definition of idler, drone and parasite the word Spiv leaves much to be desired.

Undoubtedly high-powered publicity has focussed the Spiv in constant if dubious limelight. For some he may yet come to acquire something of the symbolical status his more sinister counterpart, the American gangster, possesses for a generation of film-goers.

Shortages, Rationing, The Black Market, as some of capitalism’s present evils, have provided the conditions and opportunities for making England much more a land fit for Spivs to live in than it ever was: or likely to be it seems. For if the statements of certain Government spokesmen are to be taken at their face value, the Spiv is already on his way out. The Government in their efforts to ease the embarrassing, even if temporary, “labour shortage” for contemporary capitalism, have ear-marked the Spiv as a source of potential labour-power. For this Government of planners the unplanned existence of the Spiv (unplanned that is for the existing requirements of Capitalism) becomes at least a little irksome.

The Spiv thus finds himself the subject of Governmental interest and the object of weighty political pronouncements. The word is officially recognised now and is considered normal to the vocabulary of Cabinet Ministers.

Even in the rarefied atmosphere of The House of Lords the word has made its debut. Lord Pakenham replying to Lord Amwell (formerly Mr Fred Montague, MP) on the direction of idleness, said, “Lord Amwell no doubt referred to the gentlemen known as spivs and drones. He agreed that however wide his definition we had no use for slackers at this time”. (Daily Telegraph, 7/8/47). No doubt an interpretation of slackers in the sense of “a wide definition” might have found room for a broader and perhaps more embarrassing inclusion than that permitted by the more restrictive nature of the word Spiv. Doubtless comprehensive definitions of terms, while admirable in theory, are not necessarily politic in practice.

Mr Attlee in the House of Commons the same day said, “We shall take all action open to us against the Spivs and other drones”. Like Lord Pakenham Mr Attlee did not attempt a definition of terms. To have done so might have held awkward implications for the consideration of the members present. It might conceivably have led to the reading of “The Riot Act” in the “Mother of Parliaments”. A political flash-back, nevertheless, recalls the coupling of drones with “idle rich”, in the classic days of Labour Party propaganda.

Nevertheless, Mr Shinwell speaking on the question of appointments to the Electricity Board, did say “We have no regard for those persons who perform no useful service at all . . . They have been described as parasites, idlers, drones and rentiers”. He added, “I don’t intend to appoint them to any Board for which I am responsible.” (Daily Telegraph, 24/6/47). Whether this constitutes one of Mr Shinwell’s noted lapses into indiscretion or a momentary glimpse of a more fundamental aspect of drones and parasites, we venture no opinion. No threat of work direction for these gentlemen, however, only non-appointment to various Boards.

Mr Isaacs, Minister of Labour, has said, that “Spivs are not so numerous as some people think”. But at the Trade Union Conference he spoke of using full Governmental powers of direction in regard to them (Daily Telegraph, 3/9/47). He also told us that there are people who toil not and depend on the dividends earned by other workers. Had he said a wealthy section live on dividends and profits produced solely by the workers, he would have obtained full marks. Mr Isaacs is, however, not a person inclined to indiscretions.

Mr Tom Williams, MP, also spoke on direction of labour. He suggested if there are Spivs and drones or any one else (italics ours) who refused to accept occupations, Unemployment Benefit should be stopped, adding that starving men and women into work is the highest penalty which ought to be tried in the first six or twelve months. (Evening News, 2/9/47). Coupon clippers, rentiers and other profit-participants are, however, debarred from drawing Unemployment Benefit. Moreover, as their level of incomes have no more relevance to “The Poverty Line” than it has to “The Plimsoll Line”, Mr Williams’ dire threats to people refusing direction of work will doubtless be met by them with calm and studied contempt.

The Spiv assumes then the role of the Labour Government’s whipping boy. In the past the hard-faced business man and the treble-chinned plutocrat could be pilloried in the political stocks for Capitalism’s shortcomings. Called upon to administer capitalism the Labour Party must perforce—vide Morrison—ask for their co-operation and even enthusiasm for “Labour’s” New Social Order. The Spiv will be pleased or perturbed to discover that it is he and not the private ownership of the means of wealth production which now constitutes the basic contradiction of capitalism.

The Spiv, however, is not merely a post-war product or the illegitimate child of a Labour Government. His prototype has for many decades alternatively flourished and decayed in capitalist society. He is generally a big city product. Born mostly in city slums or near slums he early experiences the drab life and sordid surroundings of those who, like himself, dwell there and toil for others. When the opportunity occurs for doing a bit on the side or fiddling, he seizes it as a more lucrative and more colourful occupation than the monotony of the daily grind. He is often, however, compelled to devote more time and energy to his peculiar calling than is customary for him to admit. Neither can the Spiv for the most part wholly emancipate himself from his working class status. “In bad times” he is often reluctantly forced back into workshop or factory. For the Spiv, however, the age-long habit of work engrained in his fellow-toilers has been seriously undermined.

It has been said that the Spiv is at least a rebel. Some people have even sentimentalised him as a kind of revolt against the conditions imposed by the nature of capitalist exploitation. The Spiv’s own anti-Government and anti-authoritarian outlook might seem to lend colour to this view. The Spiv, however, generally lacks the class loyalty and class sentiment that goes to the making of the class-conscious social revolutionary. The zeal and selfless devotion of the socialist, with his illimitable vista of a world based on production for use and the Brotherhood of Man, lights no fires in the mind and imagination of the Spiv. A good time and plenty of fun at the expense of others gravely limits his social horizon. Pleasure and “the easy way” becomes basic to his existence. His mode of life constitutes a form of social parasitism which conflicts with the healthy social instincts of the vast majority of workers.

Also the Spiv evolves a standard of values that make for unconscious subservience to wealth and luxury. He is consequently, however insignificant, a factor making for its perpetuation. At his best he is a politically unreliable element. At his worst he can become the strike-breaking instrument of the employing class or a tool for political reaction. In a socialist society where all able-bodied people will engage in productive activity and where the principle prevails—From each according to his ability, to each according to his need—the Spiv, as such, can have no place.

The social solidarity of a system such as the present one is cleft by its basic class antagonism. With the decay of its own outworn economic functions goes the decay of its outworn ethical creeds. The ideological veneer of its so-called public opinion merely hides the subversion of its traditional moral tenets to private forms of hypocrisy and cynicism. The wealth and luxury of present society then breeds its own type of social parasitism with its individual greed and unscrupulousness and its inevitable anti-social consequences. It is this which sets the individual against society and, as in the case of the Spiv, who attempts to imitate and emulate the ruling section, society against the individual. It is hardly to be wondered that the putrefying effects of such a social cesspool as Capitalism, fail to secure for the population at large a 100 per cent immunity from contamination. Given capitalist society the Spiv must flourish like a green bay tree. Changing circumstances may decimate his ranks, but as an inevitable product of existing social conditions, he can hardly cease to exist.

True that the padded shoulders, the diagonally woven suit, the spear-pointed collar and dazzle tie have given the Spiv a sartorial significance and setting. If, however, for a double-breasted camel coat we substitute a faultlessly cut dress suit, the four bob jive for the dance floors of expensive clubs and exclusive hotels, the cheap billiard hall and garish saloon for Monte Carlo and other fashionable gambling resorts; the significance attached to the word Spiv becomes vague and even blurred.

It may be said that the Spiv, by devious methods of obtaining goods in short supply and selling at extortionate prices, is guilty of anti-social practices. Nevertheless he has the time-honoured methods of “Rings”, “Market Corners” and their inevitable outcome, Trusts and Combines, to set him a precedent. Again, if he plies a doubtful trade, the long existence of nefarious company-promoters and Bucket shop sponsors shows that in the matter of shady transactions the Spiv is no path-breaking pioneer. That the Spiv lives by the dubious exercise of his wits may also be true. Yet while a section of the community live on the unpaid labour of others well might the Spiv-kettle, in the matter of social parasitism, retort “Why call me black, brother pot?”

Nevertheless the word is accepted now. From a slang term of doubtful pedigree it is on its way to an assured place in the English dictionary. Henceforth it will be synonymous with idler, drone and parasite. As a definition it will obscure rather than enlighten. Its emphasis will be on those who live by their wits and doubtful practices and not on those whose social parasitism is the outcome of the exploitation of the vast majority through the medium of class-ownership of the means of wealth production. All of which might suggest that there is a form of intellectual Spivery in addition to a social one. Concluding, may we repeat—What is a Spiv?

Ted Wilmott

Passing Comments: Aggression (1952)

The Passing Comments Column from the March 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Aggression

While all capitalist powers are by their nature expansionist, this tendency is seen more obviously in the behaviour of those who came latest to the game of international grabbing; and many of these new powers are grouped together at present under the leadership of the Soviet Union. Thus one of the most telling weapons in the propaganda armoury of the Western Powers is that of “resistance to aggression." But, of course, neither bloc is unimpeachable on this count, and perhaps we should not hear quite so much about "defence against aggression” from the NATO powers if they were not in the majority in the United Nations. This majority enables the United States to get its own views as to what is and is not aggression endorsed by the United Nations. Endorsement of the American view is made all the more easy by the fact that "aggression” has never been legally defined: indeed, those who talk most loudly about resisting aggression are the most reluctant to define exactly what it is they wish to resist. It is as if there were no laws laying down what constitute burglary, merely a court which decided each time a dispute came up whether or not a burglary had been committed, and if it had been which party to the dispute was the burglar. This lack of definition is very useful to the NATO powers, for if aggression were defined it would be very difficult to explain why such open acts of aggression as that of India against Hyderabad were tacitly condoned.


Entirely justified

The Soviet Union has now taken the question up again in the legal committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris, and has submitted a long list of acts which in its opinion should be proclaimed aggressions by the United Nations. The Western Powers have of course voted against this move. The reasons for their doing so were given in The Times of January 19th with a frankness which must have been embarrassing to them. The Times said openly that a definition of aggression would mean that many acts of the Anglo-American powers would under such a definition be ruled as aggressive—

  “In fact, a detailed list of definitions would he endless and would certainly prejudge, as aggressive, many acts which when the time came could be entirely justified.... During the present tension in the world no power wishes to be committed to military action on the bask of arbitrary rules attempting to govern every eventuality.”

Burma

The wisdom of this stand from the point of view of the Western Powers was again demonstrated soon afterwards. On January 28th the American, British and French delegates on the political committee of UNO were making the usual threatening speeches about “resistance to Communist aggression” in S.E. Asia, when the Burmese delegate got up and drew the attention of the meeting to the fact that an army of Chinese Nationalist troops under General Li-Mi had invaded the Kengtung province of Burma after having been thrown out of China by Mao Tse-Tung’s forces. The Burmese army had given battle to these Chinese Nationalists, but had been unable to defeat them decisively. Two days later, in the plenary Assembly, the Burmese delegate again spoke of Kuomintang aggression, and pointed out the connection between the reluctance of the Western Powers to define aggression and their equal reluctance to act when the aggressor was one of their allies. He said:

  “Doubts were being expressed in some American quarters about the presence of any Chinese troops, in spite of confirmation by the United States embassy in Rangoon that the Formosan Government had been asked for its co-operation in getting them out. It could be seen from this example that, even when an act of aggression had taken place, people were disinclined to accept undenied facts. The Nationalist troops would get out fast enough if those states which had been against defining aggression but had favoured collective measures in the United Nations told the aggressor, accepted by many 'under another name.’ that all aid and recognition would be annulled unless the 'invaders’ were immediately withdrawn." (Times, 1-2-52.)

Home and away

It is not only those promises and pledges relating to home affairs which the Conservatives have had to discard since the election. The promises made by the Tories in international politics have also been thrown overboard. One of the main features of many Tory election speeches was a promise that if Churchill were returned to power Britain would recover her freedom and independence in world affairs, and would resume her natural position of leadership. The unspoken idea behind such promises is that a nation owes its position in the world not to its economic resources and military power, but to the “great men” which lead it. The worth of the idea can be seen in the rapidity with which the pledge has been abandoned. It was not long before the election that Churchill protested vigorously in the House of Commons against the appointment of an American admiral as Commander-in-Chief of the naval forces of the Western Powers in the Atlantic. But the realities of power—60 per cent. of the naval forces in the Atlantic are American and only 30 per cent. British —have now forced Churchill to agree to just that. In extenuation the Conservatives say that Churchill has obtained a million tons of American steel but has had to give up equally valuable tin and tungsten in return, besides paying the Americans double the present British price for their steel.


Second fiddle

The subsidiary position of British capitalism can also be seen in the attitude of America in those parts of the world where the British Empire is crumbling, and where Britain is being pushed out of strategically and economically valuable areas. In Persia, America stood by when the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. was given its marching orders by the Persians, and the American-led World Bank is now trying to arrange terms on which the Persian capitalists themselves can carry on the production of oil. In Egypt, America watches from the sidelines. On January 29th a State Department spokesman said that America had no intention of mediating between Egypt and Britain. “The Government was not at present contemplating any moves and it had advanced no proposals” (Times, 30-1-52). A recent report made by the Senate foreign relations committee to the Senate was even more definite:

  “The report also contains a specific assurance to the Senate from Mr. Acheson, the Secretary of State, that an attack on British forces in Egypt would not bring the North Atlantic Treaty into operation." (Times, 23-1-52).

Mr. Acheson here appears to have abandoned even the theory that aggression is only aggression when it is aimed against members of the N.A.T.O. alliance; now it seems that only attacks made on the areas where the United States has a direct influence are to be considered as aggressions. Clearly, as far as America is concerned. British capitalism’s chestnuts are to remain in the fire.


Fall in and follow—America

When Mr. Churchill addressed the American Congress on January 17th, he said plaintively “it would enormously aid us in our task if even token forces of other partners in the Four-Power proposal were stationed in the Canal Zone.” But even though, as the Times put it, such forces would be “considerably smaller than the token forces which they (the Americans) always talk of other United Nations countries having in Korea,” Congress has not even considered the idea. Later in the same speech Mr. Churchill reassured the Congress that there was no danger of British insubordination by saying “we must persevere in the tasks to which, under United States leadership, we have solemnly bound ourselves” He continued:

  “Britain and the United States were working together in the same high cause. Bismarck once said that the supreme fact of the nineteenth century was that Britain and the United States spoke the same language. 'Let us make sure,' said Mr. Churchill, 'that the supreme fact of the twentieth century is that they tread the same path.’ ” (Times, 18-1-52).

The concessions Mr. Churchill has already made, and the tone he took in this speech, make it certain that he realises how this will be done; by British capitalism following in America’s footsteps, not the other way round.


Figures

On January 20th the Sunday Express proposed that there should be a “two-tier meat system,” under which every citizen would have a small ration at a low price, plus the opportunity to buy more at world prices.

  "Socialists will argue that the mass of the nation cannot afford to pay the world price for meat. That is not true. Every family in Britain spends, on average, £1 a week on tobacco. As a nation we spend per head on drink, tobacco and gambling an average of 18s. I0d. a week. If meat were available, most sensible people would soon cut some of that spending and buy meat instead."

Here the Sunday Express employs, one can only assume deliberately, one of the oldest fallacies in numbers—the “average” fallacy—in order to put across a political point. “The average family,” we are told, “spends £1 a week on tobacco.” And “per head” we spend “on average” 18s. 10d. per week on drink, tobacco and gambling. If the Sunday Express's average citizen spends 18s. 10d. a week on these things, no doubt the Sunday Express's “average family” of 4 will spend £3 15s. 4d. per week on them. Perhaps the Sunday Express leader-writer doesn’t see his own fallacy. At any rate, if he is not being intentionally obtuse, he must be astoundingly ignorant of the living conditions among that great mass of the population of Britain which still lives on incomes of under £10 a week—some on incomes a good deal under it—if he can assume that “on average” a family of 4 will spend £3 15s. a week on smoking, drinking and gambling. The fallacy lies in the pretence that there is any real meaning in taking the average in cases where the numbers to be averaged vary greatly. For example, the leader-writer who wrote the above quotation would make a very bad recruiting officer: he might march off eight 10-year-old boys and their 80-year-old teacher to join the army on the ground that their average age was nearly eighteen.

Incidentally, if the Sunday Express's figures are correct (perhaps an unwise assumption) they indicate that the spending on luxuries among the upper class must be very high to bring up the average for the whole country to 18s. 10d. a week per head, since the workers cannot afford to spend anything like that much.

Sound Basis

Captain David Cammans, Assistant Postmaster General, perpetrated a similar fallacy when he said:

  “Mr. Bevan wants us to believe that a country which spends £778 million on tobacco, £488 million on beer. £650 million on gambling, and £107 million on going to the cinema every year cannot afford this charge of £10 million to put the national health service on a sound basis.” (Times, 4-2-52).

Captain Gammans' error here is to take for granted that there is a connection between the total figures of consumption in a country and the rate of consumption among particular groups and individuals within that country. But perhaps Captain Gammans, in spite of having been chairman of the Adamant Investment Corporation and director of five other companies before he became a minister, has been confused by the large sums involved. Let us therefore put a very simple case for the captain and any other readers who may happen to be as backward at statistics as he seems to be.

Elementary paragraph for Tory M.P.s

It is now common knowledge that there are 88,000 persons in this country who admit to having incomes of between £40 and £120 a week after tax, not taking into account income tax evasion and perquisites and expenses accounts, apart from those fortunate few who admit to having incomes even higher. Let us take a mythical figure in this income group, Sir Jasper Turnip-Head, who has an income of £120 a week after tax. In Sir Jasper’s village there are ten cottages, each occupied by a labourer and his family living on about £6 a week. Now Sir Jasper puts aside £20 a week towards extending his shareholdings, and he finds that his living expenses come to about £50 a week. Sir Jasper keeps a small yacht, and hunts regularly, and has an account with a wine and spirit merchant: altogether his luxuries and entertainments come to about £50 a week. The labourers find, though, that after the necessities of food and clothing have been paid for, and after the rent has been handed over, there is only 10s. a week for each family to spend on beer, tobacco and so on. Along comes the government investigator, and he discovers that all the inhabitants of the village. Sir Jasper included, spend a total of £55 a week in luxuries and entertainments. Sir Jasper is much moved by this news, since the country is passing through an economic crisis; so he calls the villagers together and tells them that since, on the average, each family is spending £5 a week on luxuries, they could all afford to go without quite a lot of things they now buy.

Alwyn Edgar

Important People (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

   "We had our party in a restaurant near Piccadilly, where the 'important people' sought after by all propagandists go to see and be seen while they eat gorgeous luncheons that make ration books look absurd."

— Tom Clarke (Reynolds, October 27th, 1940).

Rationed freedom (2006)

Pamphlet Review from the January 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Economics of Freedom: An anarcho-syndicalist alternative to capitalism. Solidarity Federation. 2003. £2.50.

This 40-page pamphlet presents an alternative, variously described as an “anarchist economy” and “libertarian communism”, to capitalism.

We wouldn’t disagree with the general description of the alternative offered:

  “. . . a society without money. People work as a social duty; wages are unnecessary – ‘from each according to their ability’; and cash is no longer needed to acquire goods – ‘to each according to need.’”
  “ . . . a system without the market and where everyone has equal rights to have their needs met . . .”
  “ . . . a society where all have equal control over decision-making and equal access to goods and services.”
 “All work is voluntary, and goods and services equally accessible. Money, wages and prices do not exist.”

But what is surprising is the alternative to having to use money to acquire consumer goods described in the section “planning basics”, which speaks of “voluntary ‘rations’, decided democratically”:

  “Some sophistication is needed to run this ‘rationing’ system. There is no point in allocating everyone four eggs a week. Some people do not eat eggs; others would prefer six but no cheese, and so on. In the case of food, it might be a ration of calories and nutritional intake, taking into account factors like age, height, special dietary and other needs. People would be entitled to any common foodstuff that met these needs, rather than being allocated quantities of specific foodstuffs.”

We really are talking here about a system of rationing (without the inverted commas) in which people would be allocated (equal for people in equal circumstances) certain amounts of things. The proposed alternative to money turns out to be a computerised card to be presented to draw your entitlement from the common store:

  “Allocation of goods can be computerised to record every product or service a person takes or uses with the information also being stored on cards to be presented when someone wants a product or service. The purpose is to prevent very excessive consumption. For example, it allows staff in common stores to query why someone might be requesting a new suite six months after getting the previous one.”

This is surprising as the pamphlet is supposed to be describing an “anarchist economy” whereas the scheme proposed, involving as it would keeping computerised records of everything individuals consumed, can only with great difficulty be described as “libertarian”. Not even capitalism does that! And, what about the shoplifters?

Socialist society will certainly, for planning how much to produce, need a rough figure for what people are likely to consume over a given period, but this only needs to be measured globally for any district – as, for instance, by a computerised system of stock control or by sample polling – not at the level of each and every individual.

But why could not people have free access to consumer goods and services according to what they themselves decide their needs are? There are only two circumstances that would make this unworkable: (a) if it wasn’t technically possible to produce enough to satisfy the needs of everyone, and (b) if it was thought that even a significant minority would consistently take more than they could use.

All the evidence suggests that, once the artificial scarcity imposed by the need to make a profit has been removed, and once all the resources currently wasted on selling activities (and on armaments and armed forces) have been redirected to useful production, then enough could be produced to supply everyone’s needs. And experience of where even today people have free access to something – e.g. buses, telephones, drinking water, in some places – they only use these things when they need to. In any event, what would be the point of taking more than you needed when you could be certain that the stores would be stocked with what you wanted? That would just clutter up where you lived.

Certainly, particularly in the very early days of socialism and perhaps later after some unexpected natural disaster, there could be shortages of some things that might necessitate recourse to some system of rationing for those things. But this would only be exceptional and temporary, the normal situation being free access to goods and services according to self-determined needs.

What this pamphlet proposes is an intrinsic system of long-term rationing, even if the rations are to be decided democratically. That would be a possible alternative to money and, if it worked, fairer than money, but it’s not necessarily what socialists advocate could – or should – happen in “a society without money”.

Adam Buick

Victory Parade (1946)

From the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the midst of a world where the spectre of famine is stalking, and where daily it becomes more obvious that newly-won peace is only an armistice, the Labour Government saw fit to stage a victory celebration.

Their decision was not greeted with universal acclaim. The die-hard section of the capitalist class did not wish to celebrate victory after the defeat of their Party at the polls, and attacked the event as involving needless expense and being in bad taste. Many workers saw in the great show a tragic encore of the 1919 parade and were not enthusiastic. And on the eve of V-day thousands of miserable housewives, queuing for hours for bread and potatoes., cursed a thoughtless Government for making the celebrations coincide with the Whitsun Bank Holiday. But the Labour Party advocates of planning had planned things quite well, so that the holiday would interfere as little as possible with the production drive. And the L.P.T.B., too, had tilings well under control. The issue of workmen’s tickets was curtailed; the cheering multitudes of workers' hud to pay full fare.

But in spite of the dismal background of world politics and the grey prospects at home the parade was a roaring success, though rain spoiled the other celebrations. Millions of workers, huddled together on hard pavements, cramped and uncomfortable, tired and under-nourished, yet happy to escape for a few hours from the hard realities of a humdrum existence under capitalism, cheered themselves hoarse while the colourful procession glorifying the doubtful victory of British capitalism marched by.

The Royal Family, whose professional duty it is to be present at these circuses, were out in full force; Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee, representatives of the two chief parties of capitalism, travelled in one carriage so as not to split the cheers; Monty and the other big brass-hats were there; fighters and bombers circled overhead; nobody dropped an atom bomb by mistake and everything passed off quite smoothly. But the main body of the procession was made up of working men and women from all over the world who for five long years faced untold dangers and hardships to safeguard the markets of the world for British, American and Russian capitalism. For a few short hours they enjoyed the tribute of cheers from their fellow workers, and then returned to the dreary future which all workers share, at best a degrading lifetime of exploitation known as a “steady job,” and at worst the dole queue or the bread line.

There were some notable absentees from the procession. Marshal Stalin sent no representatives and the Poles were absent. After less than a year of peace the victors are so disunited that they are not prepared to march together to celebrate the defeat of their common enemy. And what has been the fate of “poor little Poland,” on whose behalf our masters told us that this war was fought? She has merely passed from subjection under one great power, Germany, to the domination of another great power, Russia.

Socialists took no part in the hollow cheering. They are no kill-joys, but they cannot cheer an empty victory. When their fellow workers all over the world think as they do, there will he something worth shouting about. No hysterical press propaganda, no military parades, no jingoistic music, no blood bespattered national emblems, no cynical politicians or saluting puppet monarchs will have a place in the day of victory of the working class. Spontaneous, rejoicings will ring out throughout the world, and men and women will at long last be able to build a world, where they can be useful, humane, comfortable and happy.

John Moore

Chinese copy (1989)

From the January 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

The government starts selling off state-owned houses to their occupiers, as a means of raising income and giving people incentives to improve their homes. At the same time it fights inflation and puts limits on government spending. No, this is not Thatcherite Britain but capitalist China, where all too familiar economic problems exist. Nor is the comparison with Britain an unwelcome one, as People's Daily has sung Thatcher's praises and commended her personal willpower and reliance on individual responsibility. China's own version of perestroika (but without glasnost) makes the different varieties of capitalism ever less distinct.

It is ten years since the post-Mao economic reforms began. Individual enterprises had greater power delegated to their managers, and then the system of contracted responsibility meant greater emphasis on the market to determine prices rather than central decision. Now, in the so-called "third wave" of reform, certain enterprises are being merged — that is, loss-making concerns are being taken over by more profitable ones. In ever more explicit acknowledgement that the profit system operates in China, individual factories are now viewed as commodities to be bought and sold. The way in which people are treated in a profit-oriented economy is highlighted by an admission that men are often preferred as employees to women, since the latter produce less surplus value (owing to longer breaks and maternity leave).

Houses in the Chinese countryside are usually owned (and indeed, built) by the occupiers, but those in towns and cities are nearly all state-owned. Rents are extremely low (around 3 per cent of a tenant's monthly income) as part of the social wage but there is a housing shortage and the building industry naturally makes no profits. Overcrowding is appalling, sometimes a family of grandparents, parents and child will have to live in a single room. Nearly half of urban households have access only to a shared lavatory, and over a quarter do not even have their own tap water. It remains to be seen how many will want to buy such palaces. The other problem will be fixing a price for the sold-off homes, as the present market price would be way beyond what ordinary workers could afford. It may even be decided to raise rents in order to encourage buying.

The Chinese health service is in no better shape, with the contradictions now patent between a system supposedly run for the benefit of all and one where profit and loss considerations are decisive. Hospital treatment is not free, but fees are very low, and well below the actual cost of treatment. However, the method of subsidy is such that the more patients a hospital treats, the more money it loses. So some hospitals now turn away patients, even in emergencies. According to one recent report from the south-west of China, doctors and nurses fought in the operating theatre over who should have the gallstones being removed from one patient — gallstones are a valuable ingredient in traditional Chinese medicines, and provide a convenient way for staff to augment their meagre incomes. Capitalism really does put a price on everything.

Just as in Russia, there is a flourishing black market in China: corruption and profiteering have become a way of life for some, and a part of everyday life for many more. Cigarette prices have been increased, with the unintended side-effect that private dealers take advantage of the fact that prices vary from place to place: they buy up popular brands and re-sell them at a profit in more expensive areas. Imported cigarettes are also subject to price speculation. High-quality liquor (costing over a month's wages per bottle at the new higher prices) is bought mainly by firms and various other organisations, presumably as perks for top employees or potential bribes. Such institutional "living it up" has been particularly frowned on, the government having ordered a reduction of spending and prohibited the use of top-class hotels for receptions and banquets.

In the first nine months of 1988, the retail price index rose 16 per cent. Economics spokesmen have complained that the economy is “overheating", with industrial output racing ahead of the production of energy and the capacity of the transport system. In a so-called planned economy, the number of state-run construction projects has had to be curtailed drastically. And a rise in imports has created a massive trade deficit.

Cancelling the construction projects does not just mean fewer luxury hotels, for those who would have been working on them (an estimated 13 million) will instead be returning to the countryside to put further stress on rural employment and living standards. The price at which the state purchases grain (wheat and rice) has stayed low, but has still been too high in many areas where local governments have put resources into construction projects. Consequently, some farmers have been paid not in money but in government lOUs. which do not provide clothes or heating. At the same time, grain imports have reached an all-time high. But 20 million peasants are officially reported to be short of food, after the fourth poor grain harvest in a row. A small minority of rural entrepreneurs have become extremely rich under the new regime, while others are forced to abandon their fields as fertiliser prices soar beyond their means. In other cases, the low grain price means farmers prefer more lucrative crops. But less grain also means less animal feed and so less pig-raising, hence the reintroduction of pork rationing in many cities.

As some workers return to their homes in the country, others head for the big cities in search of work. In Beijing there are nearly half a million so-called "vagrants" who have been there for over three months. Most sleep rough and exist on restaurant leftovers. Beggars are now a common sight in many Chinese cities; some disabled people are forced to beg because they cannot get a job or adequate welfare support. And the flood of overseas visitors has combined with the grinding poverty experienced by so many to cause the reappearance of prostitution.

In September, the free-market guru Miltom Friedman was warmly welcomed in Beijing. As he shook hands with party boss Zhao Ziyang, Friedman may have been reflecting that the two of them had plenty of common ground to discuss.

Paul Bennett