We can’t both have it ! (1948)

From the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

SOME MAKE BIG STUFF

SOME MAKE SMALL STUFF

MORE FOR EACH—IS MORE FOR ALL

The above wording is to be seen on a large landscape poster on hoardings to-day, and is one of the propaganda efforts of His Majesty’s Third Labour Government.

This poster, like others which have preceded it, is .intended to urge the working-class to greater efforts of wealth production, as it is on the ability of the workers to produce commodities for the markets (export) in ever greater and greater volume—thus cheapening their cost—that the Labour Government and the capitalists cling to the expectation of running capitalism with a minimum of friction. The former contending this will bring full employment and prosperity to the workers and be a step towards Socialism : the latter anticipating a continuance of “business” and the ensuing profits. To paraphrase a well-known cliché: “Two minds with but a single thought. “—but both expecting a different result.

In its effort to run capitalism—masquerading under the name of Socialism—the Labour Government is committed to certain activities. One of these is the avoidance of a slump and the consequent unemployment, and because it fails to understand the motive forces of capitalism, from time to time it demonstrates its ignorance and puerility. In fact, it is capitalism that runs the Labour Government.

Unwittingly, of course, the Government publicity experts have adorned the poster with wording that is in keeping with the facts. The “stuff” that the capitalists are concerned with is profits: the workers’ “stuff” is wages. The workers’ portion of the “stuff”‘ is small. Relative to the overall increase in the amount of wealth produced the workers’ portion of the ”stuff,” coming to them in the form of wages, tends to grow smaller.

It logically follows that MORE FROM ALL means more from all of the working class : more production, more distribution, more salesmanship, more marketing—more of everything that will keep British capitalism ahead of its competitors ! In a word, more and intensified exploitation of the class that looks to the present Government to solve its problems. And the resulting increase in wealth, brought into existence as a result of increased production MEANS MORE FOR EACH member or group of the capitalist class. This is because the workers will have increased the quantity of surplus value (the source of profit), i.e., the amount of wealth they create over and above their wages and salaries.

Posters on a wall will not rescue the Labour Government from the mess they will eventually find themselves in as a result of trying to serve two masters. Neither will more production rescue the vast majority of workers from their poverty position as members of a wage-earning, property-less class.

GUY.

Obituary: Ernest Guy (1987)

Obituary from the June 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with regret that we report the death of Comrade Ernest Guy at the age of 81

Ernie was a member of the Party for 54 years, having joined Southwark Branch in 1933. When he moved to Bellingham he transferred to Lewisham Branch then to Central Branch.

He was always an active member of his Branch and in the days of the local outdoor meetings would be found selling literature while his son Ray, also a Party Member, was speaking on the platform.

Included in his activities was membership of the Executive Committee over a long period, only ceasing to accept further nomination when he was 70 years of age.

He worked in the printing industry as a proof reader and the Party benefited from his expertise in this field. He did the proof reading for the Socialist Standard for a number of years and also worked for the Pamphlets Committee.

Although less active in his later years. Ernie maintained a keen interest in Party work especially in the new printing facilities at Head Office.

He was a comrade who did his share, and more, to spread the ideas of socialism.

We extend our sympathy to his wife Ethel, a familiar face at Conferences and meetings, and to his sons.

Grace Wood

The Festival of Capitalism (1951)

From the October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

It may have been part of the general optimism of the good times ahead that pervaded His Majesty’s third Labour Government in its early days, that induced “Old Moore” Morrison to announce in December, 1947, the Government’s plan for a national display to mark the centenary of the 1851 Exhibition. Possibly it was thought then that festivals were to be part of the usual scheme of things that was to be “ours” in the “Brave New World.” Alas! it was not to be. In fact the attitude generally expressed is for Christ’s sake let’s go to the Festival and forget Korea and raw materials just for one day.

As always, only this time more so, the main problem confronting trade unions is the standard of living. As is to be expected, resolutions calling for wage increases are the order of the day.

In line with their political thought trade unionists have in the past few years made many sacrifices; the outstanding instance being the wage freeze. But the harsh realities of the capitalist economics expressed in the continual increase in commodity prices make a mockery of present day wages—the wage increases of last year, last month, or even last week, have already been gobbled up—and force unions to go forward with new demands in the attempt to catch up with the rising cost of living.

One of the slogans that carried the Labour Party into power was “Fair Shares For All.” This, like many of the catch-phrases bandied around the political arena, is an ambiguous statement; just as meaningless as “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.” Supporters of the Labour Party would claim, however, that “Fair shares for all ” and “Redistribution of wealth ” mean simply: that the rich get poorer, and the poor get richer. But the evidence of six years of Labour Government bear out once again the correctness of “Tin Pan Alley ” who said in “Ain’t We Got Fun,” “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” You would think then—if we accept for a moment the seeming logic of the Labourites—that if the workers are up against it, then the capitalist class should be really on the floor. The position, however, is to the contrary; published figures for the five months up to the end of May show that the aggregate profits of some 1,300 companies hit the all-time high of £700,000,000. This indeed is festival year for British Capitalism.

The ever increasing announcements of record profits have even astounded some of the most devout supporters of Capitalism. The City Editor of the Sunday Express is promoted to the front page, leading article, on June 17, 1951, where he asks, “Are Prices Too High Because Profits Are Too High? ” He wrote thus:—

“These [profits] in the aggregate total more than £700 million, compared with £587 million in the previous year.

“Profits reported last month were on the average 5/6 in the £ higher than in May, 1950.

“City experts I have consulted believe that by the end of the year the total profits to be announced may be nearly half as much again as in 1950, which itself was one of the lushest years for money making.

“On all the evidence never before has British industry experienced such a profit boom as it is enjoying now."

Here are four examples showing the fantastic increase in profits: —

Usually the last ten or so pages of the Economist each week, are given to reports of company meetings, together with a summary of the accounts. To read some of the comments of the chairmen, when trying to explain away the high profits in terms of high taxation, and the high cost of replacing plant, you would think they were one step away from the workhouse. Workers also have to contend with higher costs—the high cost of existing. Only they start off with a measly six or seven pounds a week.

They can, though, if they will, comfort themselves from the following nonsense:—

“ . . . that the higher the increase the greater has been the rise in the average price of goods and services bought. The wage-earner has therefore improved his comparative lot to an even greater extent than is indicated by the income differences already calculated.”

(Economist, 16.6.51)

Therefore take the example of two men, say, ten years ago. One could afford a car, the other couldn't. To-day, neither of them can afford a car. This, then. makes the person who couldn't afford a car in the first instance, relatively better off than the other. Or so this cockeyed writer in the Economist would have us believe.

We see in another direction how the facts belie the claims of the Labour Government. Those in the past who styled themselves socialist, often stated in round figures that 10 per cent. of the population owned 90 per cent. of the wealth. For comparison we give these recent figures of Mr. Hugh Dalton: —

“One per cent, of the people still own 50 per cent. of the wealth, and five per cent. of the people still own 75 per cent. of the wealth. Official figures show that we still have several hundred millionaires among us. and it is notorious that, apart from the large incomes assessed for tax. many people have been living on capital gains and many have been tax-dodging.”

(Sunday Times, 17.6.51.)

Although Mr. Dalton does not go into the top flight and give comparative figures of to-day and pre-war, so that we may adjudge his party's claim of “redistribution of wealth,” we would say that there is very little difference. Before we leave this point let us give an illustration, using Dalton's figures of five and seventy-five. Let us say that both population and wealth equal a hundred. This means then, that five persons have £15 each, and the remaining 95 have approximately 5/3 each. This is the sum total of the “redistribution of wealth.”

Members of the Labour Party in debate with the Socialist Party of Great Britain have claimed the respective aims to be identical. Where the Labour Party have it over us, so they say, is that they will arrive first by reason of their practical approach. Before leaving the reader to decide which party is on the road to Socialism—that is a classless, wageless society—may we remind you again of the words of Mr. Dalton that “ five per cent. of people own 75 per cent. of the wealth.”

Ray Guy

Capitalism: the crisis society (1966)

From the September 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the American political system the President makes an annual speech under the title “The State of the Nation”. Since Harold Wilson became Prime Minister he has taken up this practice, only his title has become—the Nation In A State.

Despite the vagaries of the British electoral system which seldom produces a House of Commons with a composition equating to the votes cast, it was not surprising when the Labour Party won the election of October, 1964. For some time political and economic commentators had been suggesting that perhaps the Conservative Government was getting tired after 13 years in office and a new virile Labour Party under the leadership of Harold Wilson was proclaiming that it could get Britain moving again.

This time there were no phoney references to Socialism. The whole case of the Labour Party as enunciated by Wilson and company rested on the premise that they could manage the affairs of society—capitalism, that is—more efficiently than the Conservatives. Indeed the nationalisation of steel was not presented as a means to equalise the ownership of wealth, which had been alleged of previous acts of nationalisation, but purely as the way in which to increase the efficiency of the industry and its ability to supply the home market and compete abroad.

Immediately upon taking office the government was faced with problems—as if there was a time when the managers of capitalism didn't have problems—and within a month Bank Rate was raised to seven per cent for the first time since the merry days of Selwyn Lloyd. Further, Chancellor of the Exchequer Callaghan introduced import surcharges, tougher hire purchase restrictions and took the unprecedented step of announcing increases in taxation to be introduced in his forthcoming budget of April, 1965.

Whilst these measures were regretted they were blamed on the state of the economy at the time the Labour Party succeeded the Conservative government. At worst, however, they were to be short term emergency measures whilst the government prepared its plans that would revitalise the British economy.

A number of new agencies, led by the Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board, were formed under George Brown, the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, in charge of the Department of Economic Affairs. If capitalism could be planned the machinery to do it had now been created. In the autumn of 1965 after one year in office the National Plan was produced and Mr. Brown, forgetting the lesson he should have learned from Rab Butler, was proclaiming an increase in the standard of living of 25 per cent in five years.

At the same time a number of journals and economists were no longer supporting the government and indeed were becoming critical of its handling of the economy, especially with regard to the exchange value of sterling which was saved from a crisis only by obtaining concerted support from friendly governments. They were friendly to the extent that 40 per cent of world trade is conducted through sterling and if it were devalued they would have to bear some of the loss and the probability of devaluing their own currency.

It was widely held that the economic climate would become decidedly colder during the winter of 1965. Indeed this appeared to be the opinion of the government also. Minister of Labour Gunter was to the forefront of the week-end speakers with their tale of woe as indicated by this extract reported in The Observer of 9th January, 1966: “If we cannot or will not match our productivity to our spending, then measures deflationary in character must follow and unemployment will arise.”

But so unmanageable and unplannable is capitalism that the economy did not deteriorate in the manner envisaged and Wilson was able to have an election in March 1966, and get returned with a massive majority on the slogan “You Know Labour Government Works”.

Indeed the following budget of May surprised all the professionals in not increasing taxation immediately; the new innovation of selective employment tax would not take effect until the autumn.

Even if at this stage the government thought it had the situation under control, its passage had not been without incident. Although the TUC had reluctantly and grudgingly agreed to acquiesce to the part allocated it in the government's charade, those individual unions which had tried to protect or improve the position of their members had met with open hostility from a government party spawned of the trade union movement. Mr. Aubrey Jones, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board with all the comfort and security of a £15,000 per year salary, was telling various groups of workers that they could not have an increase of wages until they reduced overtime and became more productive in the normal working day. The Railway workers, thinking they were more secure under the umbrella of the Cameron and Guillebaud reports accepted by a Conservative government, were told by Wilson over a glass of beer at Number Ten that they could not have the rise, despite the threat of a strike. And the seamen who actually did strike could not obtain the rise they sought. During this same period members of Parliament, doctors, senior civil servants and others obtained increases equal to the average wage of those refused.

Let there be no mistake about it; controlling capitalism is impossible. It is not only the British government that is telling its working class that they are overpaid and underworked. Germany, Japan and others which for so long have been offered as examples and targets to aim for are suffering the same troubles. The workers in those countries resort to strike action in support of their struggles and they in turn are urged by their capitalist class to return to work, not ask for higher wages and not to damage the economy.

For a long time now it has been impossible, unless you are cut off from all dissemination of news, not to be aware that the British capitalist class had problems. The balance of trade, the balance of payments and exchange value of sterling were going from weakness to weakness. And the master planners were helpless. The manner in which Wilson made his announcement before going to Moscow only helped to exacerbate the sterling crisis. And the plans, oh yes, they will always have plans, which were delayed so that they would be complete when they were announced were in fact further amended and reinterpreted for the following ten days.

Naturally those further plans brought further discussion and the opinion now hardening among the '‘experts'’ is that the latest measures would cause deflation and consequently unemployment this autumn. When announcing the measures in Parliament on July 20th Prime Minister Wilson said: “I do not think the House would consider a rise of up to two per cent (470,000) unemployment unacceptable.” At a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting of July 26th Michael Foot asked what would the government do if unemployment reached unmanageable proportions. To which Mr. Wilson replied—they had plans.

It is no part of our case that the Labour and Conservative governments fail because they are not doing the correct thing. If the Socialist Party of Great Britain was foolish enough to attempt the job of managing capitalism it, too, would fail. The vital point that the Socialist Party makes to political discussion is to point out the nature of capitalism and the reason why it can never be other than the way we know it.

Capitalism is a competitive society. Firm competes with firm, industry with industry, country with country, and eventually continent with continent. Never mind that the commodities produced satisfy some human need—and that is not always the case—the motive for production is that the person or persons who put up the original capital for the operation shall at the end receive back their money plus a profit. And the whole operation is enacted for the securing of that profit. If the market conditions are such that the rate of profit, or even the profit itself, is in doubt then production is curtailed.

The trouble with British capitalism today is that it has become senile. It may have been the front runner during an earlier period of capitalism but the nature of the commodities produced and the materials required for that production is changing and the advantage is flowing to other countries. As is often the case, the ageing and formerly successful participator is reluctant to change.

This is not to say that British capitalism is not as successful as it can be within these limitations. The idea held in common by Mr. Wilson and company directors, and usually expressed by the latter over their third pre-lunch gin and tonic, that workers are lazy and inefficient, is belied by the fact that most firms, both large and small, continually and ruthlessly examine their costs to see that they extract every globule of surplus value.

Notwithstanding all the plans, politicians and business men do not run capitalism. Rather the system pushes them around in the manner of a grotesque Punch and Judy show. Despite all the writing on today’s wall there still might not be any crisis this year. It may turn out as Mr. Wilson envisages with half a million unemployed, or, as some pessimistic economist predict, unemployed might reach a million. There is still the possibility of a crisis reaching the proportions of that suffered in the Thirties. Such is the nature of capitalism that nobody knows. Not even the planners.

On the other hand the Socialist Party does not have any plans for socialism. All we can do is to urge you to consider the idea that the productive forces of society be utilised to produce those things urgently required by men and women everywhere. The adequate satisfaction of those basic human requirements: food, clothing and shelter can never be satisfied in a world that requires bombs and bases in space. The two things are contradictory. Socialism is not a Utopia, and when we achieve it that will not mean the end of all problems. But the problems will be of a minor nature compared with those that confront us today. A society that produces for use can never be placed in the position of deliberately curtailing production when people are in need of those things that are no longer to be produced.

Ray Guy

Finance and Industry: What is an incomes policy? (1966)

The Finance and Industry column from the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is an incomes policy?

Last month we examined the wealth of people at the time they leave this world and found, in the majority of cases, that they had little to leave. Could it be that working on the basis “you can’t take it with you" they had the wealth at one stage, but had frittered it away on a merry-go-round of solo, scotch and sex? Alas, the answer, as they say in the best American war films, is negative.

For our evidence on this point we again turn to the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1964-65, where we find the table of personal incomes for the year ended 5 April. 1964, on page 82: —

It is difficult to understand how so many people enjoy such affluent pursuits as Continental holidays and motor cars, until it is realised that of 12,780,900 married men included in the above table 36 per cent of them send their 4,592.000 wives out to work.

We do not intend to join the argument here as to whether the place of a wife is in her home. But the evidence does suggest that there is a large number of families who might be homeless if the wife did net bring home that additional pay packet.

There arc some ladies of course who are not even bothered by the thought of losing their job because of the Selective Employment Tax as they are already in the £20,000 per year class.

What can a government armed with an “incomes policy" do about such incomes? If words were the answer it would all be resolved by now. But the words have to be translated into actions that are consistent with capitalism. And the only thing consistent about capitalism is that the few will continue to exploit the many—just as long as the many are prepared to stand for it.

Them and us

One thing abundantly evident from the previous item is that we still live in a world of them and us. The wide disparity of incomes coldly tabulated in columns of figures can be confirmed upon examining the dual quality of commodities produced, even those satisfying such basic human requirements as a house to live in.

The latest occasional bulletin issued by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society is an analysis of the 2,802 people to whom they advanced mortgages, during the quarter December, 1965-February, 1966, to purchase new dwellings. From the survey Mr. Average emerged as 28 years of age, producing a deposit of £846 toward a house costing £3,864; and earns £24 14s. 0d. per week from which to pay a mortgage of £20 9s. 0d. per month for approximately 25 years.

As two-thirds of these workers were buying homes for the first time they were probably pleased to get them before the increase of “hundreds of pounds” threatened by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers in response to the government's proposals to raise the standards required of building and house equipment.

If this is how some younger members of the working class are trying to acquire a piece of the property-owning- democracy—and you will notice there is a prejudice against the older ones—how does the enemy fare?

The London Evening Standard carries a property news page, and on July 7 it had items on the following which might be of interest to you. A fifth-floor flat overlooking Hyde Park; the owner. Val Parnell, only asks £37,000. Are you a top executive fed up with commuting and want to move back into London? Your solution is in course of erection at Enismore Gardens, price range £35,000-£68,000. Perhaps you are only a younger executive, then unfortunately you must commute to the riverside at Chiswick, mooring fees are £13,000-£I8,000. Did you enjoy canvassing for the Socialist Party of Great Britain in Hampstead at the last election? Then you will be sorry you missed the eight bedroomed house sold recently for £40,000 by Sir Arthur Porritt, the Queen’s surgeon.

Do you still think there is an equality in poverty?

146 Shopping days to Christmas

Most newspapers make claims on the earnings of their readers in the scramble to attract advertising. And although many products are advertised in most newspapers there are some which only appear in those papers generally thought to be read by the higher income groups.

In case you missed the Sunday Times of July 3, we would like to bring the following to your notice, which might be of some help when preparing your present list for Christmas.

Firstly, Dupont have a new range of lighters selling at £10 I5s.-£165 and they even boast that “a few people can afford a Dupont."

Secondly, if you are fed up with the old plastic salt and pepper pots used  by your mother-in-law, nip along to Gerrard, the crown jewellers; they have a silver set for £44 10s. Or perhaps she would prefer the sauceboat for £24 10s., the sugar dredger for £25 or the coffee pot for £101 10s.

When you go, please don’t show your working class origin. Don’t ask for trading stamps.

Ray Guy.

Pay As You Learn (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

It must be obvious to most that in the world today the Western and Eastern powers are antagonistic toward one another. The gymnastics of the Four- Power deputy Foreign Ministers in trying to arrange an agenda in Paris recently, both side striving to get that which is most favourable to themselves, is an example of this.

Since the end of the hot war in 1945 there have been many conferences. But under the lofty tones of Peace, Freedom and Democracy that leader writers love to tag on them, the points under discussion have been the old ones of access to markets and sources of raw materials.

At the same time however, the business of Capitalism continues. Despite the recognition by the government that Russia may in the future be an enemy of war, trade still exists between the two countries.

In point of fact the good old “Allies” themselves whilst trying to re-arm and run “business as usual ” come into conflict. On March 3rd, 1951, Mr. Strauss, Minister of Supply, and Mr. Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, journeyed to Eastbourne to speak to some 500 or 600 industrialists at the Dollar Convention, organised by the Dollar Export Board. In their speeches they were both concerned with the supply of raw materials.

  "Mr. Strauss denied that the Government had failed to guard against scarcity of raw materials.
  Long term agreements with Rhodesia and other Commonwealth countries had assured British imports of copper, aluminium, and nickel for ‘a long time ahead.'"
   "Mr. Wilson agreed that ‘the raw materials problem constitutes far and away the gravest of all the economic problems we have to face in 1951.'
    He said that upon the outcome of the current Washington talks on international allocation of raw materials very largely depended the ability of this country and its partners in the North Atlantic community to maintain industrial production and the defence effort. Anxiety over future supplies of raw materials to industry, rather than the state of the country’s balance of payments with America, has unquestionably dominated all the discussions." (Observer 4/3/1951).

The Observer's correspondent Nora Beloff reporting on the Washington talks referred to by Mr. Wilson says

   “British officials are highly sceptical of the outcome of the commodity talks now starting in Washington. They believe there is little chance that an assortment of technical committees can reconcile the split between the British and American views on the remedies.”

(Observer, 4/3/51)

These highly competent, clever types, have come to the conclusion, that, when allies are re-arming against a common enemy (guess who) it is perhaps, just a little foolish to scramble against each other for raw materials, and thus send prices bomb-high. Both Britain and America claim that they are prepared to accept controls on prices and distribution. At the same time, however, both claim that the other is responsible for the situation today. For example, America is "niggly" at the price of Malayan rubber and tin, and Australian wool The British reply is that to control prices, America would have to contract to bulk-purchase from these countries over a period of years. To this the Americans say, that Congress, which has only two years to run, could not accept anything that might tie the hands of its successors. The British representatives in pressing for long term agreements recognise that the boom period of to-day in these countries and commodities will not last for ever.

A report of the Preparedness Sub-committee U.S.A. Senate analysing domestic and world tin supplies says

  “That control of most of the world’s tin reserves was held by a relatively few British. Dutch. Belgian and Bolivian corporations with interlocking connections across national boundaries!
   The report alleges that for the past 30 years these producers had joined to restrict production so as to ensure a satisfactory price, and that frantic speculation had driven the price of tin from 75 cents just before the Korean war to nearly two dollars a pound.”

(Observer, 4/3/1951)

The report concluded, “We are no longer in a position where we must buy tin at any price." The truth of this statement appeared four days later when the City Editor of the News Chronicle (8.3.51) reported that tin had fallen by £125 to £1325 per ton.

Whilst at home the present meat ration forces vegetarianism upon us, the Australian Meat Board have just published figures for the half year ending December, 1950, showing that, compared with 1949, the exports of lamb to Britain fell from 2375,000 carcasses to 521,000. The reason of course being the high price of wool. So even the Tories and Empire wallahs (must help the mother country of our great commonwealth you know) when faced with the economic realities contained within capitalism dive in and make a kill, though not the lamb of course.

At home almost daily the Government announces further restriction and shortages, everything being subjugated to the demands of the re-armament programme. It must be a very naive person who does not comprehend that ultimately these highly costly arms will be used in another world war—whether you call yourself an aggressor or defender.

Of course as usual, “we" must all play “out” part in paying for this Defence programme. As Mr. Gaitskell like his predecessor is never tired of telling us. Trade Unions are asked not to ask for wage increases, not withstanding the increase in the cost-of- living.

If you acquiesce in the continuance of capitalism, and accept the possibility of a third world war, then some of you will pay with your lives.

Ray Guy

Finance and Industry: The affluent die rich (1966)

The Finance and Industry column from the July 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The affluent die rich
At the end of 1964 there were 8,266,000 people in Great Britain whose total net wealth was under £1,000 individually and £3,704 millions in the aggregate. There was another group of people numbering 12,000 who had over £200,000 each and £4,930 millions in total. If this was one gigantic Christmas club and now was the time for the share-out, then the first group would receive £448 each and the second £410,833.

The above figures—with the exception of the share-out calculation which is our own—have been taken from the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1965, published in February, 1966, at page 170 in the section on death duties. And we now reproduce the table in full:—

Estate duty is levied on amounts of £5,000 or more, so you can see from the table that 85 per cent of the wealth owners do not own sufficient to be brought into charge for the duty. This, in fact, was confirmed in the Estate Duty Statistics for the year 1964-65 where of the 295,798 cases reported 79 per cent were exempt from duty. The analysis of the estates shows, as was to be expected, that the smaller ones comprised of traditional working class savings such as Post Office Savings, National Saving Certificates and Life Assurance, plus houses with mortgages. Whereas the larger estates predominate with stocks and shares as well as property.

Capitalist sources continue to supply us with evidence that capitalism is the unequal society. And Mr. Callaghan can have as many budgets as he likes introducing capital gains tax, corporation tax and selective employment tax, but it will not make any difference to a society that organises itself on the basis of production by the many for a profit for the few.

It is possible you may solve your own individual problem by transferring from the working class to the capitalist class, and then you would have to engage accountants, solicitors and barristers to sort out your estate duty problem. But we cannot all make that move, as capitalism is dependent upon a working class continually producing profits. What we can do together is to say that we have had enough of capitalism and pull the political chain that will flush it away. Then we shall not have to insure for the future. It will be ours.


Wilson’s man
In so far that most trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party it is usual to expect that their leaders will support the Government in general, whilst at the same time producing good reasons why their own union cannot do so.

Even though the National Union of Hosiery Workers is not affiliated to the Labour Party, its President, G. E. Dearing, must have brought much joy to Harold Wilson when in his address to the Union’s Annual Conference this Whitsun he was “pragmatic” to the point of absurdity.

The hosiery industry has been the subject of take-overs, both real and abortive, in the past few weeks and after expressing regret at the loss of some names well-known to the industry, Dearing said of the newcomers who he described as “outside companies and finance groups”—

  More and more, we as a union find ourselves dealing with industrial situations influenced by decisions of faceless management; dealing with people who, by the nature of things, are compelled to measure progress in terms of money and not men and women.
  While recognising and accepting that profits are the lifeblood of any industry, there are limits to the acceptability of the pressures that can be applied to attain them.
  While we will willingly work with the large, strong, powerful elements, we must take care that there is a place for the smaller units' and ensure that their interests are safeguarded.

The idea that a union should take an interest in a special group of employers is preposterous. In any event the wish of today's small firms is that they become tomorrow’s large firms. And we have not yet seen it reported where any party to a take-over consulted the workers employed. The interests agreed about by the parties and their advisers are those of the shareholders.

Also unrealistic, and even dangerous, is the notion that names you know are safer than “faceless” men. Is it in any way preferable that you should be exploited by some one you know, as your dad was by his dad, and so on? Surely what should concern us is that we live in a faceless society. Where all employers exploit us to the best of their ability and are exhorted by the Government to improve the process.

Not only hosiery workers, but all workers, must eventually realise that in the society where “profits are the lifeblood of industry” they are the donors.


The build up boys
If you have a television set and look at the commercial channel, where they show programmes between the advertisements, you must have wondered at the rapid progress being made by the manufacturers of some products.

Within the past few years some items have been advertised for the first time, followed after a short interval by a second appearance when they are described: as new and the third time round they are described as improved. Meanwhile the soap powders just go on all the time becoming whiter and brighter.

Can it be that the items advertised are being improved, whilst those that do not remain cheap and shoddy? The answer is no. Apart from certain restrictions on outrageous claims for patent medicines, there isn’t anybody that has to vet the validity of the claims. Take, for example, the well-known advertisement of “fabulous pink Camay”. This was for a tablet of soap being sold for a shilling. The announcer claimed it contained perfume worth nine guineas per ounce.

We may not have realised 1984 and Big Brother may not be at the other end of the cathode tube—but the build-up boys are! Today advertising is a big, powerful and growing industry. It has become highly organised and sophisticated. The large agencies employ people skilled in multifarious arts and sciences, and they would claim to know you better than you know yourself.

Their researches enable them to categorise people so that, apart from certain geographical variations, they know the make-up of families, the likely income and the spending habits. From this point their task is to get you to take their client’s product—say, beer instead of milk—and their client’s brand. instead of a competitor’s.

At the same time the advertising industry claim to be giving a service not only to their clients, but to all people, although we are still awaiting the first announcement that a product has been withdrawn because it has been found to be inferior to that of a competitor. Further the industry claims that it helps to create demand and thus plays a part in continuing full employment and the affluent society, although a number of newspapers now carry regular columns on advertising giving the news of manufacturers changing their advertising agency in the endeavour to boost sales, or even bring a halt to falling sales. And although the full report on the collapse of the John Bloom empire has not yet been finalised it was well-known that he tried desperately to save his business by even more advertising, but this could not stave off the crash.

Advertising personifies capitalist society, telling you on the one hand you can have everything and on the other justifying why you should accept something inferior. If you are a lowly paid worker and can’t afford to buy butter, then join the “in set’’ and buy margarine containing ten per cent butter. And so the nauseating persuasion goes on night after night.

Socialism will be a democratic society in which information will be collected and disseminated on a scale never seen before. So that men and women will have the free choice to discuss and decide what shall be produced. When that day comes, the adman goeth.

Ray Guy

Finance and Industry: Dollar Safety (1966)

The Finance and Industry Column from the June 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dollar Safety

If you believe all that is said by the propagandists about the cold war between America and Russia then in the words of James Baldwin they have all the baddies and we have Gary Cooper. But where there is a threat to the profits of the capitalist class the facade sometimes slips and they are prepared to use any tactic, however dirty, to safeguard their position.

Consider the case of Ralph Nader, an American lawyer, who published a few months ago a book entitled Unsafe At Any Speed. The book showed, according to reports in various English newspapers, that the accent on car production in America was on rapid obsolescence; safety factors were ignored because they tended to interfere with yearly restyling and production costs. Not unnaturally in a country where the motor car is concerned in the death of 50,000 and in the injury of 5,000,000 people each year, the book became an immediate best seller. So great was the reaction that both the Senate and the House of Representatives had sub-committees considering the subject.

The king of private enterprise firms, General Motors, made a bad start when it had to admit having Mr. Nader investigated by private detectives to see if he could be discredited in any way. On the matter in hand it admitted that it had recalled 1,500,000 cars in the past month to remedy defects, at a cost of £2,000,000. Ford and other manufacturers also declared that they had recalled defective cars.

Despite this Henry Ford II was claiming on April 15th that if critics who didn't know what they were talking about, such as Mr. Nader and the Government, would only leave the motor industry alone they would get on with the job. On April 26th his vice-president, John Bugas, was telling the House of Representatives that the whole industry now favoured “effective and forceful Government machinery for setting vehicles safety standards without delay.”

Whether the American motor industry can make cars more safe and more profitable remains to be seen. But according to Governor Romney, a former president of American Motor Corporation, it was the motor car industry that pulled America out of the depression, and according to Mr. Ford it is the mainstay of the present economy. Perhaps there are some who will argue that the death of 50,000 people per year is a fair price to pay in a society which places the pursuit of profit above everything else.

Who’s grabbing?

In earlier years the Labour Party has made May Day the occasion for massive propaganda drives proclaiming what it called the just demands of the working class. Now that it is the Government, and has been for eight of the past 21 years, the tenor has changed.

The Observer of 1st May, 1966, reports on Prime Minister Wilson's May Day message in which he said “We are still in grave danger of paying ourselves much more than we are truly earning.” Minister of Labour Gunter, who recently had his salary raised from £5,000 to £8,500 per year, said we are living in the “age of grab” and later:—

  We are working on an average only half an hour a week less than we were in 1938. This means that it is not the shorter working week we really want but more uneconomic overtime at enhanced rates. I am told that this uneconomic overtime is brought about because basic rates are too low.

It is at least refreshing to know that a Minister is being given correct information. Workers will, and must, try to raise the price at which they sell their labour power when the conditions are conducive to obtaining increases. Until, that is, they eventually realise the futility of it all and do away with the wages system.

Overtime will become the eight-lettered word of 1966. The Prices and Incomes Board have made “Overtime equals inefficiency” their slogan. And a new journal, Management Today, says overtime is necessary because basic rates are not adequate to buy the goods and services workers consider are their due. Although like many generalisations this tends to over-simplify, it is generally true. But it must be remembered that not all jobs offer the advantage of overtime.

But surely this was the position for 13 years with the Conservative Governments and the then Labour opposition was claiming that they would correct all this. The first excuse was that the majority was too small, and now that has been rectified we must wait for the next excuse. The favourite at the moment appears to be the old, one —the lazy and ungrateful working class.

There are still ways of making a quick quid if you have the means to play the game; witness the “bond washers.” Bond washing was a complicated manoeuvre played on the Stock Exchange where a person sold and repurchased shares in different guises, before and after the payment of a dividend, and recouped the income tax on the dividend. You could be as lazy as you like, and no overtime was required. Only lots of money. The Guardian estimated that you needed £500,000 to make a profit of £1,000 and the Sunday Times estimated that the transactions totalled £300,000,000 to produce a profit of £3,500,000.

Ray Guy

Obituary: Johnny Edmonds (1996)

Obituary from the February 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jonathan Edmonds was born during World War I into an Anglo-Irish Catholic family, somewhere in the middle of ten children, dominated by a devout mother. When he joined the SPGB in 1940, relations became estranged; when he became a Conscientious Objector she excommunicated him.

Under direction he worked on farms in East Anglia during the War, fortunately in the company of other socialists.

After the war he returned to the building trade and was general foreman for a firm that converted an old country house into what became the headquarters of the Electrical Trades Union, in Hayes, Kent. He moved to them as Estates Manager for the rest of his working life, starting with the converting of a hotel in Rottingdean, Sussex into a nursing home and a larger one in Esher, Surrey into a college.

When I first met him at Lewisham Branch in January 1948, he was one of two members who said nothing in the branch because they both stammered badly. The other member was the late Mick Miller. But gradually and with great determination. Johnny overcame this impediment and became a branch delegate at Conference and Delegate Meetings, and eventually sat as Chairman at these proceedings. He served on the Executive Committee for a number of years and was General Secretary in 1955. He was also a member of the Premises Committee that found us our Clapham office when the Party was forced to leave Rugby Chambers.

Outside of the Party. Johnny's main interest was music, both jazz and opera. Yesterday he would have played Jussi Björling and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, today would be the turn of Fats Waller and Louis Armstrong, of whom he could give a fair imitation. I still owe him for introducing me to Erroll Garner. He and his first wife Betty were skilled ballroom dancers at which they earned medals and won competitions.

Possibly, due to his previous speech impediment, Johnny tended to speak loudly and forcefully, and some people misunderstood this. Underneath he was a caring and generous person. The sort of person who would have given his all to make Socialism work. After all, he spent his life in trying to achieve it.

Unfortunately his first marriage ended in divorce; a couple of years after which he married Sylvia Lawrence, who died a few years ago. They had no children. It is to the son and daughter of the first marriage. Karl and Frances, that we extend our condolences.

Ray Guy

House loan to Nigel Lawson (1966)

From the February 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Conservative Party champions the cause of those who support the unequal society. They justify this by asserting that some individuals achieve success because they have an ability greater than others. They hold that this success entitles them to a larger share of the material things of life. I have often wondered if it were not possible to put a figure or ratio to this allegedly justifiable difference in consumption. It now appears from the housing committee of the Conservative Kensington and Chelsea Council that a reasonable ratio is of the order of 50: 1.

In this borough of the Greater London Council, embracing the highly fashionable Hyde Park Gate and the highly condemnable Notting Hill area, Mr. Nigel Lawson is buying a house. He is the new editor of “Spectator,” a former financial journalist and speech writer for Sir Alec Douglas Home. The house in Hyde Park Gate was valued by the Council at £34,000. The value placed on a property by a building society, local council or any other lending today is generally about 85 per cent, of the current market price, which leaves the lender a margin if the mortgagor should default on the repayments, when the property would have to be sold quickly. In order to complete his purchase, Mr. Lawson, or his agents, applied to the Kensington and Chelsea Council for a mortgage of £20,000. And got it.

The Labour Party opposition on the Council objected to the loan. Firstly they claimed the money could have been better advanced on say five £4,000 mortgages. or, alternatively, it could have been loaned to one of the borough’s housing associations, who could have utilised the money to house 50 people.

So there we have it: a loan to Mr. Lawson or a loan to 50 other people via a housing association. To take sides in this squabble is entirely to miss the point, which is that the housing shortage is one aspect of the general problem of poverty.

When questioned about the housing problem, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has often given the quick answer, to better illustrate the question, that the housing problem is only a problem for the working class, and has instanced the voluminous advertisements for houses for sale in the press. It is a shortage of money rather than houses that prevents most people from buying a house in a society that builds houses for sale rather than occupation. Despite all the talk of the affluent society, it remains a fact that a large section of the working class cannot afford the price of accommodation. As with any other necessity under capitalism. housing is available only within the limitations of a profit making system.

Mr. Lawson’s £20,000 mortgage carries interest at 6½ per cent, repayable over twenty years. A Councillor who wrote to the “Guardian” estimated that in order to qualify for the loan, Mr. Lawson must have an income of at least £8,000 per year and that the interest factor in the yearly repayments will be £1,256, upon which there will be relief from income tax and sur-tax of £840. So much for beer guzzling layabouts in council houses being the only recipients of subsidies.

In August 1965, HMSO published the table of personal incomes for 1963, which shows that of the 27 million individuals in receipt of personal income, 20 million were getting less than £1,000 and 25 million were getting less than £1,500 per year. If we average this out, it means that 80 per cent. were receiving an income equal to the amount paid by Mr. Lawson in mortgage interest, whereas his income, if the Councillor’s figures are correct, place him in the top 129,000, or the top 1 per cent. of the income table.

That “some are more equal than others” is true not only in Kensington and Chelsea but throughout the land. But perhaps the last word should go to Mr. Lawson, who wrote his first column as the new editor of “Spectator” on 7th January 1966; after all, he said, the Council will be making a profit from the mortgage they granted him. What more could a Tory ask, or give.

Ray Guy

What's it all about? (1966)

From the December 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government must be pleased with itself. Unemployment is increasing.

Those members of the working class who cheered the return of a Labour Government which claimed it would put an end to “stop-go” must now be asking themselves whether the “shake-out” will develop into an economic fall out. An appraisal of how the situation has deteriorated since July 20 does not inspire much confidence in the ability of the Government or the capitalist class to deal with the situation.

Regular readers of this journal will know that we hold that an economic crisis, or the threat of it, is endemic to capitalism, the social system under which we currently endure. We further make the case that the economic ups and downs, loosely described as the good and bad days, do not come about because of the ability, or lack of it, of the capitalist class. Despite all the forward planning horrible gaffs are frequently made and the laws of the economic jungle as expressed in the markets of the world always prevail, often making a mockery of the planned growth so fondly extolled by these lance corporals of industry.

If General Motors is the thermometer of American capitalism, then the British model is ICI, one of the few British companies big enough in terms of capital, labour employed, turnover, and profit, to be included in a world ranking list. For years the prestige of this company appeared as if it could climb to the moon. Its board of directors was held in such esteem that some people would instal them as the Government in preference to the inept politicians of the Labour and Conservative Parties. Any words uttered by chairman Sir Paul Chambers—a former accountant and civil servant, and the innovator of the PAYE system of taxation— were always eagerly waited upon. So much talent was encompassed in the board of directors that they could afford to loan Lord Beeching to British Railways for five years in an endeavour to make that organisation a more profitable concern. The good doctor, as he then was, undertook the task, as you may recall, on the time honoured trade union principle of the rate for the job. The rate in question being the one he was receiving at ICI of £25,000 per year.

It was therefore highly ironical that IC1 should be the first of the large companies to announce cut backs as the squeeze took its effect. Profits for the first half of 1966 fell by ten per cent to £90 million and the forecast for the second half of the year did not look any brighter. Capital expenditure was to be cut back and 1,000 workers declared redundant. All because the high powered, and even higher paid, board of directors had overestimated the growth of the market in those commodities that they produce.

Since then reports have appeared in newspapers every day of firms either dismissing staff or putting them on short time. But as the number of workers involved in these instances are counted in tens and hundreds, rather than hundreds and thousands, the publicity attracted by these events has been small and completely overshadowed by the happenings at the British Motor Corporation, where tens of thousands of workers have been “shaken out”.

The situation has become confused, as some workers have engaged in retaliatory strike action. It is no longer clear which workers are on short time because the company is curtailing production, or, because parts are not available because of a strike in some other part of the organisation. The one thing that is clear, is that if BMC were asked the question recently posed in the pop parade “What’s it all about?” they would have to reply that they just didn’t know.

Unfortunately the Government and our fellow members of the working class would have to answer in the same way. If Prime Minister Wilson is correct and unemployment reaches 470,000 this winter, that will mean an increase of 150,000 in the ranks of the unemployed. How then, does this [plain] crazy Labour Government propose to do to deal with this? According to Minister of Labour Gunter there are a number of firms eagerly awaiting skilled labour as it becomes redundant, and the Ministry of Labour training centres are ready to retrain sacked workers and give skills to the unskilled. But some of the unions whose members are being affected by the dismissals have made a survey of the situations vacant and find the vacancies are falling, and those still available are not suited to the sacked men, and, in any event, there are not enough to absorb the workers now surplus to the requirements of the motor industry. As for the Government’s retraining scheme, there are 31 centres in the country and they can deal with 12,000 men per year.

The situation in the car industry today illustrates the difference between a capitalist society that produces for profit, and a socialist society that would produce for use. Who could argue that man’s requirements for motor cars has been satisfied? There are many families who own a car which often has been acquired at a great personal cost, including sending the wife out to work. A large number of cars have the owner underneath them carrying out repairs for longer periods than the car is actually in use. If roadside checks were made on private cars in the same way as on commercial vehicles a large number of them would be similarly ordered off the road. Some people who have been unaccosted by the affluent society cannot even afford an old banger.

So then, there are people without cars, and some with old cars, all who would like new cars. There are the workers at BMC who want to work a full week manufacturing cars. But the British Motor Corporation will not let them, because its function is not to make cars, but to sell them at a profit.

It may be said that the motor car is not really an essential thing. Have fear. If the crisis deepens you will find that the home makers, food makers and clothing makers will all curtail production if their products cannot be sold at a profit.

Ray Guy