The Automatic Factory— Fantasy and Fact (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Automation and its sister magic word electronics have inspired extremes of panic on the one side and rapture on the other, both flowing, however, from lack of understanding of what is involved. One man’s nightmare is another man’s dream of bliss. On one extreme it spells a world without jobs, all the workers being unemployed; on the other a world of leisure and abundance without anyone having to work.

There is no evidence to support either fantasy. Automation is an extension of the familiar mechanization of production, a series of complex processes operated and controlled by the machine itself using electronic controls which help “to reduce the amount of routine brainwork in factories, just as mechanical handling on the production line displaces routine labour.” (For those interested in definitions the correspondent of the “Times Radio and Television Supplement,” 19 August, 1955, whose words are quoted above, defines an electronic device as one which depends “at some stage upon the passage of current through a vacuum, gas or semiconductor ”).

Much that is being written about automation and its likely consequences is confused in the minds of writers and readers alike. Because it has been possible to operate certain factory processes automatically and with very few workers (as is already true of modern oil refineries) it has been rashly assumed that automation is capable of general application and that it will bring great saving of labour and cost. In general the confusion is caused by failure to separate technical problems and solutions from economic and social ones.

It is assumed that because a mechanical and electronic apparatus is technically possible for the engineers it is commercially acceptable to business men and will be adopted by them. While governments may go to almost unlimited expense to apply a technical invention to armaments, business men have to look at cost, which usually means that they look at saving of labour. (There are exceptions to this. As Marx pointed out, if wages fall below the value of labour power, employers, being interested in saving cost not saving labour, have no incentive to go to the expense of introducing a labour saving machine).

The extent to which automation will be commercially practicable and the speed with which it will be introduced are then largely governed, by considerations of cost and profit.

Factory owners who are invited to spend large sums re-equipping plant for automatic methods want to know whether it will cheapen production; it is not sufficient to tell them that technically the job can be done. But so far little attention has been given to providing the kind of information needed. The Manchester Guardian (20/6/55) criticised the recent Margate Conference on Automation for that reason:—"A more serious deficiency has been that, with one limited exception, there has been no attempt to assess the economic cost and advantage of automatic processes, for the answers to such questions will determine the rate at which automation can be introduced.”

The “experts” generally take the view that the development of automation in Britain will not be extensive, and will not be rapid even where technically it is possible. A contributory cause of delay is that the factory owner, under present boom conditions, has first to overcome the difficulty of getting the equipment and then of getting workers to instal and operate it; the electronics industry is itself hampered by “shortage of technical manpower.” (Times Supplement).

A pointer in the slowness of industrial change in this country is given by the telephone service; the first automatic exchange was opened more than 40 years ago but still a quarter of the exchanges have not been converted to automatic working. This is one of the industries in which the introduction of automatic working was expected by an earlier generation to accomplish a speedy and revolutionary change, but the overall saving of manpower has proved to be quite small. And such is the amount and cost of the equipment that several hundred thousand would-be subscribers still cannot be provided and have to wait in the queue.

The most serious and misleading error in the approach to the problem of automation is that of assuming, without examining the facts to find out, an enormous increase of productivity. To be told that a machine has been produced which eliminates hand labour from the “end processes” in cigarette making, or coal cutting or telephoning or any other operation, does not tell us anything at all about labour-saving and productivity; all it tells us is that labour has been eliminated from the end process, and that labour has been necessarily increased in the preceding processes of making driving and maintaining the machines. To the extent that, for the same total output, the labour saved at one end exceeds the increase of labour at the other, there will be labour saving and increased productivity. Although from time to time a particular industry may make a big jump in productivity when new machines and methods are introduced, the average increase over a period of years for all industries is of very modest amount. In Britain during this century it has averaged between one per cent. and two per cent. a year.

The general picture of British industry since back in the nineteenth century is of a transference of workers from end-process work (miners, landworkers, and hand workers generally) to the engineering and allied trades which have grown enormously and are growing still. In effect many tens of thousands of land workers, mine workers, cigarette makers, etc., are now employed in the engineering industries making machines for those trades.

If it is said that automation will be markedly different from the older mechanization processes and will really increase overall productivity at an unprecedented rate, past experience calls for caution: it should be remembered that similar claims have been made endlessly and falsely throughout the past century, and that no-one has yet produced evidence that will support the claim that automation can rapidly increase productivity in industry as a whole. (An influential committee is reported now to have been set up in U.S.A. to study the effects of automation on costs).

The illusion that industrial invention and mechanisation, have in the past enormously increased productivity is still very widespread. A Labour Party publication, “Towards World Plenty” (July, 1952) informs its readers that the application of scientific knowledge and the revolution in the methods of production in Western Europe, North America and Australasia “has raised productivity a thousandfold.” This may be described as somewhat more than a slight exaggeration. Productivity of British workers in the past 150 years has not risen a thousand-fold or a hundred-fold or even ten-fold. (In passing one wonders why, if the Labour Party believed that productivity of British workers had already gone up by a thousand-fold, the Labour Government was badgering them in 1945-1951 to increase productivity by the trivial addition of 10 per cent. “to save the country”). 

We have, too, a ample test of current announcements of new processes. If they really brought about a dramatic saving of labour this would show itself in a fall of prices even against the general monetary factors that are tending to raise price levels. But though we read of six men who “can produce the electricity for a town” and four men who “can do the major job” in the production of a third of Britain’s crude oil (Daily Mirror 29/6/55) and twenty-one gas workers who do the work of 350 (Daily Sketch 27/6/55), we read almost simultaneously that electricity, oil and gas, are going up in price! Doubtless the innovations in these industries have produced some small overall saving of labour so that there is a small increase of productivity, but not enough to offset other factors leading to higher prices. In the coal industry all the mechanisation has failed to counteract the effect of the coal having to be mined from greater depths, so that average coal output per man per year is lower than it was 70 years ago and there is little prospect of it getting back to the former level of output.

And the new fuel source to replace the expected diminution of supplies of coal and oil, atomic energy, only slightly changes the situation since the labour required for its production and application is expected at best to be only moderately below that required for the old fuels, and that not at once but ten years ahead. At the Geneva conference on nuclear power in August

“ the papers presented . . . here show that we must not expect the cost of nuclear power to be cheaper in the next decade than power from coal." (Times 20/8/55).

The Times goes on to quote Sir John Cockcroft, Director of the Atomic Research Establishment at Harwell, as saying that “there is good reason to believe that in the second decade the cost of nuclear power will fall below that of power from coal and oil.”

It would be wise on past form to accept even this estimate with caution, since it may turn out to be no more accurate than the “expert” forecasts of a few years ago of expected increased productivity and cheapening of coal.

But if the problems of automation have been misunderstood by many observers that does not mean that there are no problems for the workers to face. To an economist, remote from the factory and the farm, it is easy to talk of farmworkers becoming engineers, miners going to work in factories, and clerks becoming bus-workers, but the transference may be impossible, or, where possible, very difficult and costly to the worker. Lord Halsbury, speaking at the Margate conference on Automation, dealt with this:

“A more serious problem, he thought, would concern those workpeople who could not be fitted into the future pattern of industry with its demand for high skill. A farm labourer can be trained as an engineer if he is still young, but can this be done after he is 40?

(Manchester Guardian 18/6/55).

His two further remarks, that the farm labourer’s children will become trained as engineers, and that automation will not spread quickly, may or may not bring comfort to the man whose job is threatened.

What other bearing does automation have on unemployment ? As already mentioned there will be the closing down of certain jobs, and unemployment for the workers who held them. If they can find other work that they can do, in the place where they live or where they can get accommodation, the loss of employment may not last long under present conditions, but they may have to take a lower wage because their old skill may not have much use in another job.

But the mass unemployment of a crisis is a different proposition. This is caused by widespread dislocation and failure of markets and when it occurs it engulfs all industries, whatever their degree of mechanization; mechanization itself will not be the direct cause of a crisis though its development can be a contributory factor in helping to create dislocation of markets. Crises occurred in earlier days when machine production was in its infancy, and the problem of their cause is not much altered by automation.

Which brings us to the most important aspect of all as far as the workers are concerned. Automation will not be applied for the benefit of the workers but for the benefit of the Capitalists. They own the old means of production and will own the new ones. If anyone benefits from its introduction it will be the owners not the workers, except to the extent that some of the latter can struggle successfully to make it so. And the owners will as usual find plenty of university professors and technical experts to prove the inevitability of whatever harmful effects automation has on the workers. We may fittingly conclude with an observation made by one of the experts on automation. Professor Norbert Wiener, of Massachusetts:

“The ordinary worker . . . is just a source of low-level judgment. He can and will be replaced by machines."

 (Manchester Guardian Review of Industry 1952. p. 72).

It is up to the workers to exercise their capacity themselves and in their own interest by replacing Capitalism by Socialism—they can expect no salvation from the owners of industry, the politicians and parties that administer Capitalism, or from the technicians and scientists who preside over the new technques of production.

Edgar Hardcastle

Marxism: Past and Present – pt.2 (1955)

Book Review from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Marxism: Past and Present by R. N. Carew Hunt. (Published by Geoffrey Bles)

Nothing more crucially establishes contrast between Marx and Lenin than their views on the nature and function of class-consciousness. Marx saw it as a development of class-awareness of the true position in a system based on antagonistic productive relations. Lenin viewed it as the intellectual prerogative of a political intelligentsia. Marx and Engels never tired of proclaiming that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. Lenin never tired of denying it. Marx and Engels came to hold that long and patient work was necessary to fit the workers for the task of social transformation. Lenin lived in the hectic expectation of “imminent revolution” and “the psychological moment.”

Lenin, like many “intellectuals” and certainly all dictators, had a naively sublime faith in the powers of leadership. It was the Bolsheviks, in fact, who classically taught the “leader principle” which later produced star pupils like Mussolini and Hitler. While Lenin in his more expansive moods spoke of the masses being the historic instrument for the achieving of Socialism, he never relaxed his iron belief that only an élite could provide the intellectual and organizational means for its accomplishment. To the workers he never conceded more than a trade-union consciousness as the upper limit of their mental development. “The mass,” he contended, “have no independent movement of their own.” (Collected Works, Vol. IV. Part III pp. 222 and 235.) He also said: “Left to themselves, the masses become enslaved to bourgeois ideology.”

Marx and Engels saw the working class as the representatives of a new and larger aspect of mankind. Lenin regarded them as political raw material which the Bolsheviks would work up into the finished article. Docile acceptance of Bolshevik plans Lenin taught as the cardinal virtue for the workers. When they demurred, the Kronstadt incident, among others, was a reminder that Bolshevik authority was not something to be lightly disregarded. “Lenin knows best” was the phrase he wanted to hear lisped most from the lips of the infant Russian working class.

Not even so accomplished a literary ventriloquist as Mr. Carew Hunt can make Lenin a convincing mouthpiece of Marxism. Actually he was a mouthpiece, but a mouthpiece of certain social forces in Russia making for a bourgeois revolution. Politically Lenin was not a Marxist but a Jacobin revolution-monger. Not unjustly did a contemporary dub him “the Russian Marat.” It is not surprising, then, that he so earnestly studied “the Jacobinic dictatorship” of the great “French bourgeois revolution” in order to discover techniques for his own. That he veiled his Jacobinic pretensions with Marxist phraseology has deceived shrewder observers than Mr. Carew Hunt.

Essentially Lenin’s dictatorship theory was an inflexible belief in the dictatorship of a party or a State. In spite of his dialectical pose, this constituted an absolute political principle applicable at all times and all phases of economic development. This is in flagrant contrast to the principles of the Communist Manifesto, which states: “the practical application of the principles will depend everywhere and at all times on existing historical conditions.” This political premise of Lenin is still enshrined in Communist doctrine, for we are asked to: believe that everywhere Russian domination extends “Socialism” has come into existence.

Little wonder that Lenin declared: “Majority rule is a constitutional myth.” (“Constitutional Illusions,” Aug. 1917, Collected Works, Vol. XXI, Book I.) At the first All-Russian Soviet Congress, where his party was but a fraction, he announced their readiness to take over immediately. He added: “Maybe we shall hold power a few weeks and then die at the barricades”—a whimsical notion, for Lenin, intended to be no martyr à la Thomas Müntzer. Power at all costs was writ large in Bolshevik belief.

Many, out of piety to Lenin, believe he forsook Marxism when he thought the end of the first world war would see the end of capitalism and that a Socialist, not a bourgeois, revolution, would be the order of the day. But such a view was always implicit in Lenin’s political theory, as we have seen, even if at times it conflicted with assumptions derived from Marx’s economic doctrines. In line with his Jacobinic assumptions, he had always held that it was possible to seize power during the course of a bourgeois revolution in Russia and by holding it control its corresponding economic phase and “steer” it in a Socialist direction. Even as far back as 1908 he said: “The victory of the bourgeois revolution will as a victory for the bourgeoisie be impossible.” (Collected Works, Vol. XII, p. 252. Quoted from Bolshevism. R. Sprengler, International Review Publishers.)

It might also seem that when Lenin identified State Capitalism with Socialism he sought to hide from himself the cruel historic truth of the limits of his own revolution. Yet again this identification was always implicit in the views he held as to the role his party would play in the Russian scene, culminating in a bourgeois revolution. When he said “State capitalism run in the interests of the whole people is nothing but Socialism” The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it (Sept. 1917), it was Lenin who first perpetrated the myth of “Socialism in one country.” He thus finally revealed himself as the anti-Marxist adherent of that Bolshevik prototype, the Narodnik. It was these old Russian national revolutionaries who maintained that Russia would bypass capitalism and achieve a uniquely Russian Socialism. Stalin’s formulation of “Socialism in one country” via Lenin’s state capitalism, itself a by-product of Narodnik political influence, was under its ideological trappings but Russian nationalism come to ripe maturity.

Ironically enough the Russian “February Revolution” caught the Bolshevik élite on the wrong foot. It was the workers who took the initiative, not they; just as it was the ordinary soldiers who encompassed the fall of the reactionary Miliukov government. But the small, relatively backward working class of Russia could not decide or direct the course of the revolution where 80 per cent. of the population were peasants. It was the upsurge of the black discontent of the latter, coupled with the adroitly unscrupulous tactics of the Bolsheviks, which swept Lenin into power.

The Bolsheviks did not and could not represent the interests of the Russian working class. Even if they had vainly sought to do so, Engels had a word for them in envisaging a situation much more favourable than the Bolshevik seizure of power. In The Peasant War in Germany he expressed himself thus: “The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to take over a government in an epoch where the situation is not ripe for the domination of the class he represents … in the interests of the movement itself he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class . . . with the assertion that the interests of an alien class are their interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost.”

While Marx’s and Engels’s writings show apprehension as to the reactions of the ruling class to any threat to their social privileges, to darkly hint, as the author does, that they were ruthless politicos incipiently formulating the techniques of modern dictatorships seems to show that the edge to his criticism can only be sharpened on the whetstone of malice. Yet even a cursory acquaintance with the works of Marx and Engels reveals a social vista incomparably superior to the motley crowd of purblind politicians and ideologists who clutter the band-wagon of “Western Democracy.”

The author assumes that Marx and Engels held that Socialism would automatically, even naturally, convert the Capitalists into a depressed minority. We have found no evidence for this in their writings. Mr. Carew Hunt might do well to ponder on capitalism’s own long and odious record of minority treatment.

The author refers to the role of force in Marx’s political doctrine, but only in so far as to vaguely equate it with insurrection and civil war, leading possibly to political terrorism. Marx and Engels certainly saw their “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a force—not, however, a destructive physical force but a socially organized power of a politically mature working class. If they argue that an enforcement of that power may be needed to implement a majority decision, this is not inconsistent with democratic precept.

Moreover, Mr. Carew Hunt’s objection to the force of socially organized power is inconsistent with his support of capitalism. Capitalism as a system of private property relations generates class conflicts which require the force of the State, with its control of the armed forces to provide the physical sanction for its continuance. Are we to conclude that the author’s acceptance of this makes him anti-democratic? Again, the present order produces the most pernicious form of force in the shape of the organized violence of war (latent in re-armament; actual in war itself). If Mr. Carew Hunt’s ideological defence of western capitalism is extended to military defence as well, must we rate him as a ruthless ideologue? And if he supported the last war and consequently “our glorious ally Russia,” was not he, even if for the period of war only, a supporter of Stalinism? We do not suggest this: it is merely a sample of the author’s own logic.

The rest of Mr. Carew Hunt’s book is pointless pin-pricking. This is his second book on Marxism. We wonder why. Cold print often produces chilling doubts. He may yet try again on the assumption “third time lucky”!

Ted Wilmott

(Concluded)

Editorial: Marx "proved wrong" again (1955)

Editorial from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Railway Review (29 July, 1955), publishes an article by Mr. A. B. Cramp, called “Wages in Society,” in which he claims that an earlier article was wrong because it was based on Marx’s theory of value —“which was disproved some 60 years ago by Philip Wicksteed, economist, Unitarian Minister and acknowledged friend of the working classes.”

Mr. Cramp is strengthened in his opinion that Marx was wrong by the fact that G. B. Shaw was won over to Wicksteed’s view. It may be remarked that if we are asked to believe that any attitude must be deserving of acceptance if Shaw supported it, we would have to swallow some very curious doctrines, among them Shaw’s adoration of dictatorship and the dictators, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.

However Mr. Cramp tries to prove his points. Having briefly and not very clearly summarised the Marxian explanation of the tendency towards equal rates of profit between industries with much constant capital (machinery, etc.), and little labour and those with little constant capital and much labour, he goes on as follows:

“ The implications of those views which Marx ignored are:—1. That if competition forces prices down, some part of the surplus value created by labour is being passed on to consumers. 2. If machinery made labour “more productive,” it was in fact contributing to increased production in a way that made some return on capital just and equitable. 3. As capitalists were forced to increase orders for machinery, another portion of surplus value was being passed on to labour in the capital goods industries, and labour thus benefitted by increased employment.

“Finally, Marx’s contention that competition would continually drive down profits has not been borne out by subsequent history”

Taking point (1) Mr. Cramp, who evidently is not very familiar with the real world, imagines that when prices fall those consumers who are the working class just sit back and watch their standard of living rising. In the real world of course this is the signal for the employers to start a drive to try to reduce wages. Mr. Cramp should look up the price fall of the early nineteen twenties and see what happened to wages, including railway wages.

His point (2) is that if machinery increases production this makes some return on capital “just and equitable.” The logic of this is peculiar. As the machinery is itself produced by the working class why does this justify a return to someone else? Or does Mr. Cramp think, for example, that the locomotives on the railways were designed and constructed by the ex-shareholders who have now been provided with a guaranteed permanent income by a beneficent Labour Government ?

In his point (3) Mr. Cramp appears to have hesitated in the middle and changed his line of thought. The sentence begins with the statement that Capitalists “passed on” surplus value “to labour” in the capital-goods industries; but it lamely ends with the different idea that it wasn’t actually “passed on to labour” (after all the Capitalists still own it), but reached them in the form of “increased employment.” Mr. Cramp might pause to ask himself why, if “increased employment” is a “ benefit,” the Capitalists don’t pass the benefit on to themselves? Why do they bestow that benefit only on the workers and reserve to themselves the real benefit of continuing to own the capital they have invested in the capital goods industries?

Mr. Cramp’s final point here is an alleged prophecy by Marx that profits would continually fall. If Mr. Cramp would turn to Chapter XIV, of “Capital,” Volume III., he would find Marx going into some detail to explain why the rate of profit does not fall. Before examining the factors in detail Marx opens the chapter thus:—

”. . . the difficulty, which has hitherto troubled the vulgar economists, namely that of finding an explanation for the falling rate of profit, gives way to its opposite, namely to the question: How is it that this fall is not greater and more rapid: There must be some counteracting influences at work, which thwart and annul the effects of this general daw, leaving to it merely the character of a tendency. For 'this reason we have referred to the fall of the average rate of profit as a tendency to fall.”—(p. 272).

Mr. Cramp then risks a prophecy of his own, that the Government can always prevent unemployment.

“It was the discoveries of economists in the 30’s, of Lord Keynes and others in England and abroad, that made lasting full employment possible. The Labour and Conservative parties favour different methods of achieving this end but today both are able to achieve it. In the inter-war period neither party knew how to do it.”

We suspect that Mr. Butler and Mr. Gaitskell do not feel nearly so confident about this as does Mr. Cramp. Perhaps they recall that, despite the new knowledge provided by Lord Keynes and others to the Roosevelt Administration in U.S.A., the amount of unemployment in that country was as great in 1939 as it was six years earlier when Roosevelt started curing it with his “New Deal” policy.

Correspondence: Request for a debate (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

I trust you will afford this letter space in the columns of the Socialist Standard.

Whilst 1 was a member of the S.P.G.B. I developed views which were critical of the declaration of principles of the Party. Early this year the members carried a resolution which made it impossible to express those views within the party and retain membership.

I resigned my membership.

A few weeks ago 1 wrote to the Executive Committee, asking them to appoint a representative of the Party to debate with me publicly. I was fobbed off with the lame and untrue statement that the S.P.G.B. does not debate with individuals (during my 25 years membership I was officially appointed to debate several “individuals”) It was also stated that if and when I join another organisation they would be pleased to debate with me as a representative of that organization.

Now I have very sincere and serious criticisms of the S.P.G.B. principles and policy, I suggest that such a debate would have greater value than the debates with Sir Waldron Smithers. I do hope that the S.P.G.B. will back up the statements of those members who said that they would be pleased to debate with me when I left the Party. I have pleasure in accepting their challenge.

As I stated in my letter to the Executive Committee, I am quite prepared to leave the choice of title to them, providing it will permit the following issues supported by the S.P.G.B., to be debated.

1. That a Socialist Party must be a working-class party.
2. That the working-class must capture control of the machinery of Government.
3. Violence.
4. Materialist Conception of History.

Also that I can defend my positive position as laid out in the article appearing in the April, 1955, issue of “ Forum,” and any other article appearing over my name in the “ Forum ”

A. W. L. Turner

Reply:

The letter of May 1st, in which A. W. L. Turner asked for a debate, was replied to as follows:

“If and when you can get the support of another political organisation, we would be happy to debate with you as their representative, and, that until such times as these conditions arise, you can use the same method of attacking the Party as is open to any other member of the public in opposition."

To his further letter, reproduced above, the following reply was sent:

“Replying to your letter of July 11th, we wish to inform you that the Party is prepared to debate with you through the columns of the ‘Socialist Standard’ on the question of the validity of our object and Declaration of Principles.”

The first statement in Turner’s letter is inaccurate. In fact, he “developed ideas” opposed to the Declaration of Principles of the Party. The resolution he refers to was a question put to a poll of the membership. The question was as follows: —

“Shall members of the Party who do not accept its Object and Declaration of Principles be asked to resign, and if they refuse to do so their membership be terminated?”

The majority of the members answered “yes” to the question.

As a late member of the Party Turner is well aware of the fact that be can put his opposition to the Party in writing for publication and reply in the columns of the Socialist Standard. In this way the statements of both parties to the discussion or debate are set down in writing and the reader can check arguments and statements if in any doubt. This is the most satisfactory way of making the position of each side clear, and gives Turner all the opportunity he should need to state his case.

As Turner is constantly on our platform stating his case in opposition, which is more than equivalent to a formal debate, we are puzzled at his unnecessary request for an oral debate.

Executive Committee.

Letter: Wicked Uncle (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader in Canada writes asking for information about the nationalisation of the Bank of England. His letter and our reply are printed below.

Victoria, B.C., Canada. 

July 11th, 1955.

Dear Comrades,

A reformist friend of mine claims that when the Bank of England was nationalized, a 90 per cent. tax was imposed by the Labour Government upon the Government stock, thereby leaving the bondholders with only one-tenth of what they formerly owned. I can’t see a Labour Government being so unkind to stock or bond-holders.

I showed my friend the affixed letter taken from the January ’46 Standard, and he said the tax must have been imposed after nationalisation, because he has an uncle in England who was a shareholder in the Bank of England, and he lost “just about” everything through nationalization and the imposition of this tax.

If it doesn’t take too much of your valuable time, I would like to get the facts on this matter.

Thanking you, I am.

Yours for ours,

J. G. Jenkins.

Reply.

Our correspondent provided his friend with a copy of a statement published in the Socialist Standard of January, 1946 (not reproduced here), which explained the compensation terms given to Bank of England stockholders. The basis of the compensation was to give the holders Government stock sufficient to provide the same return as had been paid by the bank on average in the previous 20 years, i.e., 12 per cent This was done by giving them £400 Government stock yielding 3 per cent., in return for each £100 of their bank stock paying 12 per cent. The Government stock is redeemable by the Government in 1966, so that the stockholder will then or after be paid off at £400 for each £100 bank stock that was originally held.

The story given by uncle to his nephew is a pure fabrication. There has been no such tax imposed on his stock, either of 90 per cent. or any other figure, except, of course, income tax, which is, however, lower now than it was then. Can it be that uncle just wanted to plead that he is hard-up?

The utmost that he can say is that the present higher money rates have depressed all gilt-edged stocks. The stock given to Bank of England stockholders is at present down to about three-quarters of its nominal price so that if uncle had to sell now he would get about £300 for each £100 he originally held of Bank Stock. But this is a temporary situation. When money rates fall again the price, will recover and in any event he will receive the full £400 on redemption in 1966. And in the meantime, irrespective of fluctuations of the selling price of the stock, he goes on receiving his £12 a year on each £400 stock, in place of the original £12 on £100 of Bank Stock.

Ed. Comm.

Answers to Correspondents

C. Luff (British Columbia). Many thanks for letter. Hope to deal further with currency in later issue.

E. Littler (Ashton-in-Makerfield). We will deal with the problem you pose in a later issue.

Ed. Comm.

The Revolutionary Proposition - Part 2 (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

To Socialists it is an almost pathetic spectacle to see the mass of the workers everywhere looking up to and voting for leaders though the latter have invariably let them down and failed to bring about any change in the great disparity between the status of the workers and that of the owners. The struggle between the two classes continues unabated. Every demand for an increase of wages is resisted by the employers as fiercely as ever. For, does it not curtail the Capitalists’ profits? Whatever improvements have been made in working conditions for the slaves in the industrially-advanced countries in the West, and in the backward countries in the East, have been and are in the interest of the employers themselves. All reforms have left the problem untouched. The rich have become richer, the poor poorer. The working-class continues to be excluded from ownership and control of the means and instruments of wealth production and therefore from the degrees of social dignity and economic independence that modern man could enjoy. Nationalisation of industries is still being dangled before the eyes of the workers as a panacea, but wherever industries have been partially or—as in Russia and elsewhere—almost completely nationalized, it has not altered the position of the workers one iota. In some respects it has made matters worse for the workers.

That the fallacy and uselessness of nationalisation as a remedy for working-class problems can on occasion be admitted even by its advocates, with impunity, would, show how deplorably slow the masses are to draw conclusions and move in the right, i.e., in the revolutionary direction. Thus, Jean Jaurès was recently quoted by the Vienna Arbeiter-Zeituny as having stated:

"Whether the worker toils for the State, the Department, the city-councils, or for privates, is all the same. Whether the employer is called State or tailor, the dependency and the misery are always the same. If the Socialist organization meant nothing but the extension of the present State enterprises and public works in their present-day form, it would be nothing but a colossal swindle . . . ' '. . . as long as the State does not stamp out the Capitalistic organisation and establish a new organisation in its place, the State is caught by this Capitalist rule in the same way as the private producers: its despotic hand is impotent against the terrible, steelhard juggernaut and so becomes, willy-nilly, the slave of the present social order of the brutal machines which trample on and squeeze the workers just as a steam press squeezes the grapes and pours forth riches for the fortunates of the world, but leaves for the people nothing but the useless residue of want and misery.'

And in another issue of the paper they quoted in a leading article:

‘The transfer of all private capital to the State does not by a long way do away with the function of capital, and does not by a long way exclude the exploitation of the working-class—it is in truth FAR FROM BEING SOCIALISM.’ 

Yet, they call themselves Socialists while all the time doing the dirty work of the exploiters and calling for more State-control! Is it so difficult for the multitude of voters and the dues-paying party-members to perceive the fraud and swindle that is being perpetrated upon them?

Is it too much to expect that the two world-wars also would have opened the workers’ eyes after the smoke had cleared and shown the old great gulf between the two classes, the haves and the have-nots, unchanged in both the victorious and the defeated countries alike? And is the swindle not equally clear in Russia, where even the Western democratic facilities which the Russian workers had precariously grasped for a moment in 1918, were again lost under the bloody onslaught of the Bolshevik monster? Incidentally, the fact that the present enemies (East v. West) fought hand in- hand to destroy the “militarism” of an adversary whom they are now straining every nerve to re-arm. should convince the most credulous of workers that NOT ideologies, but sordid commercial interest and loot are the stakes in these' conflicts.

If some innocent youngster, such as the writer was when he made his first steps in Socialism, were to suggest to these Austrian or, for that matter, any Continental “Socialist” or “Communist” leaders, that they might in the present “unique and fateful” emergency urge the revolutionary Marxian solution, i.e., the expropriation of the expropriators, and the establishment of a classless and moneyless society, as the only way to ensure real peace and prosperity for all, such a suggestion would only be considered as simply incongruous and impossible by these “ Socialists.” It was only to be expected that the leaders of the S.P.O. and the Arbeiter Zeitung also would do nothing but just echo the great fears, add some sloppy sentimentalities and pretend standing aghast at this development.

No wonder that, in spite of the Capitalists themselves living now uneasily and even dangerously, armament manufacturers are reassured and consider their profits safe, just as “Nehru’s expose of the. Socialist pattern of society provided a stimulus for the Bombay stock-market. The market reflected the encouragement to investors from Nehru’s speech! it led to widespread buying, and the market is again buoyant.” Slyly, the Times correspondent described Nehru’s politics as “Ghandian principles and modern politics, economic theories, and—what appears to be essential—a touch of humbug.”

If any of the exploiters of labour ever feared action by these self-styled “Socialist” leaders endangering the safety of their profits and dividends, they have now proof absolute that their fears were unjustified. What present fears persist, spring from the discovery of nuclear energy which, only under the idiotic system of Capitalism, is primarily applied to the forging of weapons for the most effective mass destruction and so becomes a nightmare to all humanity. The fears then stem from the existence of nuclear weapons and the uncertainty whether the Capitalists with their managers and statesmen in East and West, and in the other opposing camps, will be capable of containing and permanently controlling their fine virtues of greed, commercial rivalry in the world’s markets and resources, lust for power, jealousy, envy, hatred and mistrust engendered by the possibility of extracting tremendous wealth from the exploitation of a disinherited working-class, and so prevent a fatal explosion and world conflagration.

The writer felt it necessary to restate what the Socialist Standard has in much better form already pointed out on the situation. I wished that in particular Gilmac’S fine article: “Should we Despair?” in the January issue,' were read and re-read, and taken to heart by all workers for the really welcome stimulant it is in these dark days. It is time indeed that the workers shook off the old dirty cloak of nationalism, the illusions of nationalisation, and that—in the words of Marx—“he faced with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”

Much would have to be said about such words as “nationalism” and “patriotism,” so assiduously fostered among the people from the cradle to the grave. But taking: “Right or wrong my country” at its face value, we would say to the workers: “If you find it hard, or if you have any scruples in discarding your nationalist sentiments, since they have become the apex of the retreat from reason, here is an authority on the value of nationalist sentiments: Sir Winston Churchill. His words:

“What is the use of being a famous race and nation . . . if at the end of the week you cannot pay your housekeeping bill?” 

should help you to discard nationalism and become CLASS-conscious!

R.

Concluded.

Blogger's Note:

It just struck whilst scanning this in that 'R.' is the Austrian comrade, Rudolf Frank. It was obviously the quote from the Austrian newspaper that was the giveaway, but I should have known anyway. Early Socialist Standard writers — and Frank joined the SPGB around about 1910 — would sometimes just use a letter as their pen-name, so 'A.' was Alex Anderson, 'K.' was Adolph Kohn, and a later Socialist Standard writer, Edgar Hardcastle, adopted it in the 1920s by using 'H.' as his pen-name. 

The other giveaway was that I just posted on the blog another article — from 1910 — with the same title. This was obviously Frank's hat tip to Jacomb's earlier article.

The scientist and war (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard 

“Do not reproach chemistry with the fact that nitro cellulose, of which the first application was to heal wounds and to advance the art of photography, was stolen away from these ultra pacific purposes for making smokeless powder and for loading torpedoes.

Do not curse the chemist when phenol, which revolutionised surgery, turned from the blessing to humanity into a fearful explosive when it had been discovered that nitration changes it into picric acid.

Let us hope in the meantime that war carried to its modern logical gruesomeness, shorn of its false glamour, deceptive picturesqueness and rhetorical bombast, exposed in all the nakedness of its nasty horrors, may hurry along the day when we shall be compelled to accept means for avoiding its repetition.” 

(Dr. L. H. Baekeland, in an address before the American Chemical Society, Seattle, Washington, 1915. Quoted by R. R. Butler in “ Scientific Discovery,” English Universities Press, 1947.)

Your help is urgently needed (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

We need year help at once. For some time the cost of carrying on the Party’s propaganda and other activities has been running ahead of income. One reason for this is the heavy loss we incur each month through selling the Socialist Standard below cost We are reluctant to increase the price and we hope in time that with your help we may increase the sales which will reduce the loss. In the meantime we want your donations to enable us to meet necessary expenditure on the Party’s general activities. Send what you can afford.

Party News Briefs (1955)

Party News from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

August Bank Holiday Meetings. Camberwell and Fulham Branch jointly organiscd two very successful meetings. In the afternoon, from 3 p.m. to 6.30 Comrades Garnham, Keys, Baldwin, McCarthy and Cash, spoke to an attentive audience of about 200 in Hyde Park. In the evening 12 members went out of London to Heron Court. Richmond, where Comrades Keys, Robertson, Baldwin and McCarthy addressed an audience of almost 200 from 7 o’clock until 10 p.m. About 10/- worth of literature was sold at the two meetings.

* * *

Under the heading: “A London Bus Worker tells of one of the earliest struggles for the Right to Unionise.” the July 7th edition of the Samasamajist, an English language paper, published in Colombo, Ceylon, reprints Comrade Waters article in the Socialist Standard, “The Story of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.” It is hoped that the Samasamajist will reprint other articles from the Socialist Standard in the future.

* * *

The Swansea Branch prepared a programme of activity for August which was to include outdoor meetings and an indoor public debate with the Welsh Nationalist Party. Whilst the outdoor meetings are underway with the visits of Comrades from Cheltenham and London, unfortunately the debate has fallen through owing to the inability of the Nationalists to finalise the arrangements. The national headquarters of the party threw the onus on their Swansea Branch who declined under pressure of work. Swansea Branch have challenged the Communists, Labourites and Welsh Republicans by personal letters and an open challenge in the Press but have had refusals all round. We now look forward to the visit of Com. Ambridge from London.

* * *

Provincial Propaganda Tour. Nottingham was visited by two London Comrades for a week from July 31st to August 7th. Thirteen meetings were held, with audiences averaging 300. Twenty dozen August Standards were sold in addition to pamphlets and back issues of the Standard.

Dundee is being visited by two London Comrades who report very good meetings held—more details next month.

* * *

The Autumn Delegate Meeting is being held at Denison House. Vauxhall Bridge Road (nr. Victoria Station) on Saturday and Sunday, October 8th and 9th, commencing each day at 11 a.m. It is hoped to arrange a social at Head Office on the Saturday evening—more details will be given in the October Socialist Standard.

* * *

Obituary. We regret to announce that another old member of the Party has recently died. Comrade A. Maskell, of Paddington Branch, who joined in 1927. He had been ill for a considerable time.

Prior to the war, he engaged in all Branch activity, and sold many copies of the S.S. to personal contacts. He was Branch Treasurer for more years than one wishes to recall, and throughout the war years was one of the most regular Branch attenders. In two election campaigns in N. Paddington he put his flat at our disposal for us as Committee Rooms, and it gave him great pleasure to feel that, despite his enforced inactivity, he could still be of assistance to the Party. Many of the older Paddington members will recall the assistance he gave them at all times and we should like to express our sympathies to his wife and family.

* * *

Documentary Films at H.O.. 52, Clapham High Street, S.W.4 (near Clapham Common Tube Station) every Sunday at 7.30 p.m. These films will be followed by a short talk by a Party lecturer. Questions and discussion follow. Admission free.

Oct. 2nd. Public Opinion. Speaker, R. Coster.

„        9th. The Beginning of History, W. Kerr.

„       16th. Mediaeval Village, V. Phillips.

„       23rd. The Story of Money, E. Wilmott.

„       30th. We’ve Come a Long Way, J. Trotman.

Nov.  6th.   Man-One Family, J. Read.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Note:

Comrade A. Maskell's obituary had previously been posted on the blog as a standalone post.

SPGB Meetings (1955)

Party News from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are You Reading "The Western Socialist"? (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Standard goes all over the world, from Mexico to Moscow, Iceland to Australasia. Often, people write in and tell us what it means to read a real Socialist paper. For example, this reader, 8,000 miles away: “to say how much I admire the Socialist Standard and its refreshing and enlightening material; how cleansing this is to the mind! . . .  perhaps one day we will have a true demonstrable 'peace on earth, good will toward men,’ because of such positive thinking.”

We shall not be content until everyone reads the Standard. In the meantime, however, we think that no one who appreciates a good Socialist magazine should miss The Western Socialist. Published by our comrades in America and Canada, its viewpoint is the same as the Socialist Standard's, looking at American Capitalism through the sharp eyes of scientific Socialists.

The Western Socialist is bi-monthly and costs sixpence. Its latest issue has an illuminating article called “ Profits v. Polio,” another on “ Belt-Line Culture,” and a debate on “Political versus Direct Action.” There is a page of of cuttings from the American Press, and the latest in a series of articles by one of the Socialist Standard's regular contributors. In addition, the editors are publishing the Socialist Declaration of Principles in different languages—this time in Italian.

Not nearly enough Socialists are reading The Western Socialist. From our head office, about 600 copies go out of each issue. That is an absurdly low figure for so good a magazine. We want to see many times that number being sold. One reason is that a bigger circulation will do our finances good. The other—and next important—reason is that we don’t see how anyone can afford to miss what is in The Western Socialist.

If you aren’t already a reader, buy a copy straight away. If you are, see that everyone you know buys it; six hundred will stand any amount of multiplying.

R. C.

50 Years Ago: Mr. Keir Hardie's Election Address (1955)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

MR. KEIR HARDIE’S ELECTION ADDRESS MERTHYR BOROUGHS PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, 1900

To the Electors 

Gentlemen, 

It is with pleasure that I accept the hearty invitation of the TRADE UNIONISTS OF THE MERTHYR BOROUGHS to come forward in the Labour interest as a Candidate for the representation of the constituency in the House of Commons. 

The confidence and friendship shown by this invitation is an honour which I value as being far above riches.  

WE ARE NO STRANGERS TO ONE ANOTHER. 

I was among you endeavouring to cheer, encourage and strengthen you in the dark days of your recent great Industrial struggle. Not many years ago, when during the Hauliers’ Strike, the Government sent soldiers into your District, it was MY VOICE THAT PROTESTED against this in Parliament, when others upon whom you had more claims were silent

 My Programme is the Programme of Labour. My Cause is Labour’s Cause—the cause of Humanity—the Cause of God.

For twenty-four years I have been before my fellow-men as a Trade-Union Official and a Political Leader. 

MY RECORD FOR THESE YEARS is the best pledge I can give of what my future course of action will be. Whether in Parliament, or out of it, I always have been, and always shall be found on the side of the Workers. I know everything that is to be known about the life and work of a Miner. 

Born and reared in a collier’s cottage, and afterwards working for FOURTEEN YEARS IN THE PIT, I know only too well what such a life means, and I am not willing that any human being should continue in the life, without further essential reforms. 

I am a Democrat in Politics, and a Socialist in Economics. I first learned my Socialism in the New Testament, where I still find my chief inspiration. 

Our claim for one representative is moderate and reasonable enough. In a constituency where we are in an overwhelming majority, we ask but for half the representation. Workers! in being true to me, you will be TRUE TO YOURSELVES! Let us, then, work hard for a great Labour Victory at the Polls on Tuesday next.  

I am. Gentlemen, respectfully yours,

J. KEIR HARDIE, 

Lochnorris, Cumnock, Scotland. September, 1900.

#    #    #    # 

It will be observed that Keir Hardie made a point of reminding the electors that he was claiming only half the representation of Merthyr. Merthyr was a two-member constituency, and hitherto it had been represented by two Liberals. D. A. Thomas and Pritchard Morgan. The I.L.P.’s electoral tactic was to put up only one Labour candidate and to attack only one of the Liberal candidates and not the other, hoping in this way to get Keir Hardie returned along with one Liberal and with Liberal votes. They therefore attacked Pritchard Morgan, who supported- the Boer War, but supported D. A. Thomas who opposed it The tactic was successful, the votes being:—

D. A. Thomas         8,508
J. Keir Hardie         5,745
W. Pritchard Morgan 4,004

Commenting on this, William Stewart, in his Life of Keir Hardie (“J. Keir Hardie,” I.L.P. Publication Department, 1925, Page 175) wrote:—

“Their energies were directed wholly against Pritchard Morgan, characterised by Hardie as a dangerous type. They did not expect, and, indeed did not desire, to defeat D. A. Thomas, the senior member (known in later years as Lord Rhondda), who was one of the few Liberals definitely opposed to the war. . . . " (p. 170).

Stewart says that Hardie had suggested for the general election, that “all the anti-imperialist forces should work in unison with each other.” and among those he particularly mentioned were “some Socialists like Dr. Clark and Lloyd George.”

Even Stewart found it difficult to stomach the description of Lloyd George as a Socialist:—

  "The latter name classified as Socialist, sounds strange today, but was certainly justified by some of the Welsh politician’s utterances publicly and privately on social questions at the time."

It is characteristic of the kind of opportunist tactics followed by Keir Hardie and the I.L.P. that before many years had passed they were discovering that the “good” Liberals they had supported in 1900 were just as odious as the “bad” Liberals they had opposed. They supported Lloyd George and D. A. Thomas in 1900 for being anti-imperialistic and in 1914 were opposing them for supporting an "Imperialist war.”

Editorial Committee

Keir Hardie's election address was from the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Obituary: A. Maskell (1955)

Obituary from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce that another old member of the Party has recently died. Comrade A. Maskell, of Paddington Branch, who joined in 1927. He had been ill for a considerable time.

Prior to the war, he engaged in all Branch activity, and sold many copies of the S.S. to personal contacts. He was Branch Treasurer for more years than one wishes to recall, and throughout the war years was one of the most regular Branch attenders. In two election campaigns in N. Paddington he put his flat at our disposal for us as Committee Rooms, and it gave him great pleasure to feel that, despite his enforced inactivity, he could still be of assistance to the Party. Many of the older Paddington members will recall the assistance he gave them at all times and we should like to express our sympathies to his wife and family.

Phyllis Howard

"The Mixture as Before" (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

German Social Democracy Today 

We are in receipt of the “Action Programme” of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, adopted at the Party Conference at Dortmund in 1952, and revised by the Party Conference at Berlin in July, 1954.

If the date had not been appended to the title page nobody outside would have known.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany has not changed.

It remains what it was, a nationalistic capitalist outfit, peddling a typically Labourite programme of reforms, while professing to be Socialist.

Indeed, without the vague introductory references to Socialism in the foreword to the programme, it would hardly differ from its opponents at all.

Those with knowledge of the facts will read with amusement that

  “The Social-Democratic Party of Germany commits itself more definitely than ever to file great ideas of Socialism and Democracy."—(p. 7).
  “It remains for ever committed to . . .  its great leaders from Karl Marx Frederick Engels, Ferdinand Lassalle and August Bebel down to Kurt Schumacher, Hans Boeckler and Ernst Reuter."—(p. 8).

Nobody would be more amazed at the cool effrontery of this than Marx and Engels themselves, who were so angry with their friends in Germany for having anything to do with Lassalle’s “Union of German Workers” (which they amalgamated with in 1875 at Gotha) that they warned them that they would publicly break with official German Social-Democracy, and denounce it

Marx’s language was so strong that when publishing his “Criticism of the Gotha Programme,” 15 years later, Engels had to insert dots for some of the more unparliamentary expressions.

Why was it that a man of Marx's calibre should be so incensed at what the Social-Democrats in Germany were doing?

After all, he had endured outrageous slander and calumny for years without complaint.

Examination of the facts shows that they started then, what they are still doing now, supporting capitalism by advocating reforms.

Marx wrote a detailed criticism (which he said was more than the doctor had allowed) to W. Bracke, saying that the reason he was so annoyed was because the tale was spread about Europe (especially by Bakunin) that he and Engels secretly ran the Eisenach (or Social Democratic) Party from London, and were therefore personally responsible for a collection of daft rubbish which was actually quite meaningless.

This rubbish was the stock-in-trade of Ferdinand Lassalle, a romantic figure of the day who became an agitator, before being killed in a duel, at an early age.

He was a Malthusian and advocated State regulation of Labour to operate the “Iron Law of Wages.”

F. Engels, in his letter of protest, wrote to Bebel

“Our people have allowed the Lassallean iron law of wages to be foisted on them, a law based on a quite antiquated economic view, namely, that the worker receives, on the average, only the minimum of the labour wage, because, according to Malthus theory of population there are always too many workers. Now, Marx has proved in ‘Capital' that the laws regulating wages are very complicated, that sometimes one predominates and sometimes another, according to circumstances, that therefore they are in no sense iron, but very elastic.” “Karl Marx” Selected Works Vol. II p. 589. Adoratsky, Moscow.

In Marx’s own view, 

   “since Lassalle’s death the scientific understanding has made progress in our party, that wages are not what they appear to be, namely, the value, or price of labour, but only a masked form for the value, or price of labour power. Thereby the whole bourgeois conception of wages hitherto, as well as all the criticism hitherto directed against this conception was thrown overboard once for all, and it was made dear that the wage-worker has permission to work for his own life, i.e. to live, only in so far as he works a certain time gratis for the Capitalist, that the whole capitalist system of production turns on the prolongation of this gratis labour by extending the working day, or by developing the productivity, or the greater intensity of labour power, etc., that consequently the system of wage-labour is a system of slavery, and indeed a slavery that becomes more severe as the social forces of labour develop, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.
   And after this understanding has made more and. more progress in our party, one returns to Lassaile's dogmas although one must have known that Lassalle did not know what wages are, but following in the wake of the bourgeois economists, took the appearance for the essence of the matter.” (“Karl Marx,” page 574, Moscow, 1933.)

Apart from the dangerous ideas he advocated everything in Lassalle’s character and actions made Marx detest him.

Both Marx and Engels smelt a rat when Lassalle wrote offering them editorial posts on his Berlin paper. If Marx would return to Germany, hinting that he might negotiate an amnesty for Marx.

It was not until 1928 that the truth was finally revealed that Lassalle, in fact, was a paid secret agent of Bismarck. (See “Bismarck and Lassalle” by Mayer, Berlin 1928, page 60.)

We have recalled a few facts to show how preposterous is the claim of the modem German Social-Democrats that Marx was one of “their leaders,” alongside Lassalle.

Those interested or sceptical are referred to the “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (Volume II, “Karl Marx Selected Works.” Adoratsky, Moscow, 1933), to verify the facts for themselves.

Everything in the “Unity” programme made Marx furious. Even the first clause—which ran—

“(1) Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is only possible in society and through society, the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society,” nearly drove him up the wall.

This is what he had to say about this mish-mash.

   “In proportion as labour develops socially and becomes thereby a source of wealth and culture, poverty and neglect develop among the workers, and wealth and culture among .the non-workers.
   “This is the law of all history, hitherto. What had to be done was to prove that capitalist society had created the material conditions enabling the workers to lift this social curse.” (Gotha Programme).

Is there any sign that modern German Social-Democracy has any intention of trying to lift this social curse of growing poverty with increasing wealth? Not the slightest.

This latest programme contains 50 pages of resolutions on nearly every conceivable subject except abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, they all concern its maintenance and improvement, including Tax and Penal Reform.

In this “Action Programme” we have the classic vote-catching Bill-of-Fare. Something for Everybody. Just like the I.L.P. Hitler, Mussolini, etc., etc., nobody has been forgotten.

The German Social Democrats are going to help the individual workers, civil servants, small business men, women, scientists, young people, the middle-classes, farmers, small farmers, “those in receipt of public relief” and refugees. (See Action Programme 1954.)

They want a Free Republic, increased production, increased public assistance “for the millions who suffer poverty,” wages to be assured of a reasonable relation to profit (page 25), more credits to the middle-class (page 28) and “the Social-Democrats will sustain small and medium scale Private-Property” (page 26). Healthy Housing for Everybody, Tax Reforms, more equitable distribution of Wealth, a social Security scheme on Beveridge lines for Unemployed or Sickness, Public Ownership of Coal, Iron, Transport and Power, Prison Reform, more Schools, Youth Hostels, and Judicial Reform, are a few more of the plums which the German Jack Homer is promised, if only he will stick in his thumb into the electoral pie for the Social Democratic Party.

What has all this to do with Socialism? Nothing. 

Study the actual record of the Social-Democrats in power in Prussia and it becomes obvious that the election phrases are but the cloak for the Capitalist policies.

Zorgiebel, Social-Democrat Chief of Police in Berlin, mowed down unruly workers with the ferocity of a Cavaignac.

Like Labour Governments everywhere the Social Democrats in Germany were just as active in running capitalism whatever the consequences to the worker, because that was their mandate.

After years in power, they spawned—Hitler.

If the German workers had any idea of the real meaning of Marx’s writings, they would reject the Social-Democrats.

When they learn more about the matter they will organise a Socialist Party.

Messrs, Ollenhauer, Schumacher, Boeckler, Reuter, crooks in the true tradition of Ferdinand Lassalle.

The German Philosopher, Nietsche (an anti-Socialist), called them “clambering apes.”

Horatio.

Buddha puts the clock back (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

In quite a number of homes a little statue smiles down at us from his place on the mantelpiece. There he sits cross-legged, displaying a broad belly with a prominent navel. His ageless face wears an enigmatic smile as he placidly contemplates the best room in the home. Carved in ivory, jade or soapstone, the charming statue of Buddha never palls on us or to judge from his expression, we on him. 

In some Asiatic countries Buddhism is the national religion. It may come as a shock to think that but for an accident of geography, whereby we were born in Europe instead of in Asia that this statuette might not have been an ornament in an English sitting-room but an idol of worship.

Buddha, born in 563 0.C., the son of a reigning Prince in North India, was so surfeited with the idle luxury of palace life that at the age of 30 he set forth alone to seek deliverance for all mankind from the unhappiness and suffering which he found to permeate existence in whatever form. He taught that existence is impermanent and filled with suffering and that there is no immortal soul which separates one man from another but that all men are part of the universe and that in nature the Brotherhood of man is an accomplished fact and so therefore war is foolishness.

Buddha pointed out “Four Noble Truths.” Firstly, that the world is filled with suffering, discontent, disease and unhappiness. The second deduces its cause to be wrong desire or craving. The third “Truth” is that by annihilating wrong desire we remove the cause of suffering. As we think, so we become, or in the words of a Buddhist Scripture "all that we are is the result of what we have thought.” The fourth. “Truth” points out what he thinks to be the nature of the cure; by treading the Path of the Middle Way between extremes. But the Buddhist then goes on to make a point: Nature has taken millions of years to evolve the humble flower, shall man be perfected in 70? He then enunciates the theory of rebirth: man is reincarnated in another life perhaps in the body of an insect or animal or any living creature. Promotion to Nirvana partly depends upon the extent to which the aspirant annihilates desires.

Buddhism is not only a religion, it is also a way of life. For over 2,000 years it has held sway over nearly one-third of mankind. In some countries, such as in Thailand, it is customary for all men to become Buddhist monks at some time in their lives, though with an eye to realism this is confined to three months in a man's life for this is about the maximum time that it is considered practical to abstain from sex and the other pleasures of life.

As a corollary to civilization it is necessary to renounce many individual liberties of action and personal desires, and man co-operates with society instead of acting anarchically. For instance, industry, for obvious reasons, demands that workers keep to pre-arranged hours irrespective of personal convenience. In most walks of life civilization demands repression of personal desires for the general benefit of those living together in society.

The emphasis on the equality of the spiritual potentiality of mankind is a form of democracy not essentially political but in the humanistic man-to-man sense that all men are merely part of a one universal whole. In Confucianist China, where in the past women have held an inferior position the advent of Buddhism which does not differentiate between the sexes (unlike Confucianism) gave them hope and drew strength from their support Kuan Yin, the good-looking Chinese goddess of mercy, is the patron saint of Chinese women and has held an unassailable position of honour in the women's quarters in many Chinese homes. This Buddisatva (a Buddhist saint) previously a male has conveniently changed sex as a sop to the modesty of Chinese women. It can be observed that in Buddhist countries there is not the same sort of snobbishness that frequently pervades society in the West because of this feeling that all men are one with the universe.

Again the emphasis that man is merely part of nature together with speculation on the infinite which is part of Buddhist philosophy enhances the imagination, and this in turn leads to a development of the artistic faculties. The importance of Buddhism in the development of art in the East is universally recognised.

But Buddhism has other effects on its adherents. The belief in the transitoriness of an existence that passes from one form of animal life to another gives a sense of essential impermanence and unimportance of human life to the Buddhist. This has the effect of diminishing the importance of the material conditions of environment and of the events of daily life. This makes the Buddhist fatalistic, for example to the effects which arise from the capitalist-worker antagonism in society. Wages, hours of working, living conditions—what does it matter when one believes one has a constant succession of lives to live. He who is too poor to be able to afford to keep a wife or to sample sexual pleasure does not bother to think out the cause of his poverty—perhaps in the next reincarnation he may be a ram and can then make up for lost time. Besides to receive more money means that more desires can be indulged in and this is against the tenets of Buddhism.

What a useful religion this is to a ruling-class. When they are surfeited with luxury or debauchery how pleasant to lead a frugal life for a change and work the toxic matter out of the system. And for the underprivileged it enables them to bear the hardships that arise from their class position and thus they can carry the master-class on their backs with barely a groan.

Even the pacific side of Buddhism, which one might think could be a drawback in an acquisitive society where wealth, markets and trade routes have to be defended by the workers for their masters with force of arms, can be overcome. Japanese Capitalism has obviously found the answer to this.

By posing the belief in the reincarnation of the soul Buddhism has put a brake upon rational thinking and obscures the economic motives in society. This helps to prevent man from logically considering the reasons why riches and poverty exist side by side and such other contradictions in society which should be self evident. This in turn discourages the Buddhist from organizing in Trade Unions and in the political field to end the system of exploitation.

Belief in Buddhism robs the material events of life of their reality and of the interdependence of their cause and effect. Only the tenets of Buddhism count, and the believer has to try to build up as large a stock as possible of individual good deeds letting the stream of life flow by. It is of no use bothering to change society because it is thought that a lifetime is but an inconsiderable part of the long journey to the goal of Nirvana. The Buddhist is not concerned with organising the working-class to end exploitation but with his mind clogged with religious claptrap has acted as a brake on the development of ideas leading to a materialist conception of history. Thus Buddhism by its opposition to the Socialist movement is playing its part in preventing the establishment of Socialism and is in effect helping to hold back the clock of social change.

Frank Offord

English Social Democratic Parties (Concluded) (1955)

From the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

See Parts One and Two in the series

While the organisations we have been discussing were struggling for recognition they were joined by an entirely different stream.

Old trade union leaders like Thomas Burt and Alexander Macdonald had been elected to Parliament, in theory to represent labour’s point of view; in fact they wore little more than supporters of the Liberal Party who used them as decoys. In areas where there was considerable dissatisfaction with existing conditions the Liberals backed these “working men” candidates; when elected the latter fell in line with Liberal policies. The organisation of the unskilled workers and those outside the established unions during the eighties and nineties thrust a fresh and awkward element into the political arena. This new unionism, based upon the most depressed sections of the workers, was inclined to shed constitutional illusions relating to industrial action, and the strike weapon came to the front again as a means to enforce the workers demands for amelioration of their conditions. Workers who were prominent in this new movement attempted to induce the Trade Union Congress to take more vigorous political action, but their efforts did not meet with much success at first; a few resolutions were carried but the domination of the old leaders was still strong enough to prevent any action being taken on them. The battle between the reactionary leaders and those imbued with the more radical ideas of the new working class political parties became stronger and a violent struggle took place at the 1889 Dundee Trade Union Congress in which the militant group, headed by Keir Hardie, was again defeated.

In the meantime Thorne, Tillett, Mann and Bums, had been busy organising the gas workers and dockers and obtaining the concession of an eight hours day for the gas workers without having to resort to a strike. A few months later the London dock workers struck and were successful in gaining their demands. These successes gave an impetus to trade unionism and also raised the prestige of the new trade union leaders.

At the 1892 Trade Union Congress the efforts of the militant section were rewarded by the carrying of a resolution calling upon the parliamentary committee to report to the next Congress on the question of independent labour representation. At the same Congress a resolution sponsored by the Social Democratic Federation that support should only be given to Socialist candidates was lost by a comparatively small margin. The following year the Congress decided to set up a parliamentary fund, and to give support wily to those candidates who advocated “ the collective ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange,” but an amendment by Keir Hardie on complete political independence was lost. That the majority of the delegates who voted for the resolution had little idea of its implications must be obvious; in all probability the vigour of the militant section and lack of faith in the old methods swept them away. Keir Hardie, one of the leading militants, was secretary of the Ayrshire miners union and had been elected to Parliament in 1892 as an Independent. He was opposed to Marxian historical and economic theories, holding the view that Socialist revolutions had been occurring throughout history since the disintegration of tribal Communism. To him “Socialism, like every other problem of life, is at bottom a question of ethics and morals.” (“From Serfdom to Socialism” 1907, page 35.). His idea of the road to Socialism he explains as follows:

“In like manner it is conceivable that the transference of industries from private hands to the State will be a gradual and peaceful process. Already, in fact, the process has advanced to a considerable stage. The property held and worked and controlled by municipalities already exceeds £500,000,000 sterling in value, and is being added to yearly. This process has but to continue long enough to ensure that every industry will pass under public control, and thus State Socialism will become an accomplished fact, by a gradual process of easy transition.”—(p. 27).

By ‘State Socialism’ Hardie meant that Nationalisation and Municipalisation with which we have become familiar, under which the Capitalists as a class own collectively, living upon the interest they draw from their bondholding.

The idea of building up an independent working class party on a large scale was now in the air. At the instigation of the progressive groups a conference was held at Bradford in 1893 representing all kinds of labour groups, including the Social Democratic Federation and the Fabian Society. The Socialist League had fallen to pieces in 1890 when it turned Anarchist and Morris, Eleanor Marx, Lessner, Bax and Aveling had left it and returned to the S.D.F. At the Bradford Conference the Independent Labour Party was formed and rapidly absorbed the provincial groups of Fabians. The Social Democratic Federation affiliated to it for a few months and then left. One of those who took part in forming it was Robert Blatchford, who founded the Clarion as a weekly periodical in 1891 and had written a book “Merrie England,” published in 1893, that had a very wide circulation and was a popular propagandist booklet for many years; its appealing style was mainly responsible for this.

The Independent Labour Party soon made headway displacing the Social Democratic Federation in popularity. Frederick Lessner and other members of the latter party joined it, as also did Ramsay Macdonald and members of the Fabian Society. It had for its object “To secure the collective ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange,” and its programme was made up of the principal reforms that figured in the programmes of the older parties including “Taxation to extinction of unearned incomes,” “Remunerative work for unemployed,” and “Substitution of arbitration for war and the consequent disarmament of the nation.” The Fabian element was, and remained until recent years, the prevailing influence in the Independent Labour Party. Keir Hardie became the President and Tom Mann the General Secretary of the new party.

The further development of the Independent Labour Party was merged in the development of the Labour Party. The majority of the early Labour M.P.’s were members of it. Although it still lingers on the 1914-1918 war Coalition Government, the rise of the Communist Party and Labour Government, practically killed the Independent Labour Party as well as the Socialist Democratic Party. Born in confusion, tied up with reformist policies and supporting all that they thought was “progressive” they finally sank in the morass of “ practical politics.”

Gilmac.