Introducing the Socialist Standard (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Because of new distribution arrangements we hope that many people will be reading the Socialist Standard for the first time this month. This is to tell them more about it.

The Standard has been published continuously for seventy-three years. The front page of the first issue, in September 1904, said: “In the Socialist Party of Great Britain we are all members of the working class, and cannot hope that our articles will always be finely phrased, but we shall at least endeavour to lay before you on every occasion a sane and sound pronouncement on all matters affecting the welfare of the working class. What we lack in refinement we shall make good by the depth of our sincerity and by the truth of our principles . . . In dealing with all questions affecting the welfare of the working class our standpoint will be frankly revolutionary.”

That standpoint has never altered. That first issue told its readers that the Labour Representation Committee, forerunner of the Labour Party, was “not based upon Socialist principles and should not receive the adhesion of working men”. A few years later the Standard voiced the Socialist Party’s uncompromising opposition to the first world war, which was repeated in 1939. It was censored and its distribution restricted—but it still carried on. When the Russian Revolution came, the Standard published a series of analyses of what was happening and showed what “experts” discovered forty years later; that the Revolution was to turn Russia not to Socialism but into a massive capitalist state.

After the second world war the cure-alls of nationalization and Keynesian governmental economics were “taken apart” and the reasons for their inevitable failure shown by us. We opposed racism long before it became a fashionable issue. Many other unique analyses have been made down the years, and are still being made, in the Socialist Standard. It is not written by academics or paid journalists. The contributors and editors are working men and women who give their spare time to it. It has no advertizing, and is supported from the funds of the Socialist Party whose journal it is. From time to time we produce special issues on important questions; some of these are still available from our literature department, as are other back numbers (and bound volumes).

If you like the Socialist Standard, place a regular order or take out a subscription. Tell other people about it. If you have questions or criticisms, write to us or go to a meeting in your area. Our aim is simple: to put the case for Socialism before as large a public as possible, to build support for the Socialist movement.

Lewisham and free speech (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The nineteen thirties were resurrected on 13th August, when the fascist National Front held a march through Lewisham in south London. This area was selected by them because it has a high proportion of black people. The march was claimed to be a protest against mugging, and carried placards which said: “80 per cent of muggers are black, 85 per cent of victims are white”. Implication obvious.

Opposition to the march was organized by the Socialist Workers’ Party, and the result was an afternoon of violence with 214 arrests and 110 people taken to hospital. There was further violence in Birmingham, where the National Front had a candidate in a by-election, and several indiscriminate attacks in London. The SPGB was among the objects of it. Though we oppose both the National Front and the Socialist Workers’ Party and condemn everything which happened in Lewisham, the front window of our premises was smashed by a brick on 16th August.

The question raised is of democracy. Should the National Front be tolerated when they are preaching intolerance? Why cede free speech to them when everything known about them indicates that their aim is to suppress free speech? In the same terms, is there any justification for the Socialist Workers’ Party trying to prevent forcibly the expression of views they object to? The word “fascist” is both definite and indefinite; in the early ’thirties the Communist Party used “social fascist” as a self-granted licence to break up any opponent party’s meetings, and the SWP and its predecessor International Socialists have done the same.

The SWP produced two curious arguments. First, Paul Foot was quoted in The Times (15th August) as saying 98 per cent. of his party are against violence. Since the SWP now claim 4,500 members, this means only 90 support violence and 4.400 are against it. In a democratically-run party a minority accepts the view of the majority. Why are not these 90 expelled from the party? Second, Duncan Hallas said on TV (18th August) the National Front is outside the rules because “it is not a political party”. That is absurd. A political party is a group which aims to win or participate in control of the state machine, and that is the nature of the NF.

The SPGB’s attitude is quite clear. We are against violence as a political means because it denies democracy; we are for the expression of views, however pernicious they are considered to be. The way to defeat the National Front is to expose its policies fully (most of its supporters either do not know or do not understand them). The SWP and others play into its hands by seeking to make superior force the issue. It is not a matter of “should be allowed”. That means, again, some forcibly superior body — in this case the government — deciding what views may or may not be expressed. Most people take it as a question of “right” and “wrong”, but governments do not act on ethics.

The legal “rights” of free speech, publication, assembly and voting are permissions given by the state for historically or immediately practical reasons. They can be withdrawn, as has happened many times and is suggested now; The Times had an editorial on 15th August saying the citizens should not mind losing “these nebulous rights” in the interests of public order. Socialists understand the value of these facilities which capitalism has to allow, and at the same time see them in perspective. We link democracy with Socialism, as an essential of the means for a democratic society to be established.

Democracy depends on knowledge, and that is why we are for all views being expressed, questioned and debated. We do not, however, join with non-Socialists to demand legal rights for them as a stepping-stone to run capitalism. Under existing conditions it is always possible for the bully or would-be tyrant to use democratic procedures which he wants to stamp out. Why should we help them? The application of democracy in the true sense, as part of the demand for Socialism, is the only realistic way to deal with fascism—and all the other evils produced by capitalism.

A related matter is the myth which has grown up round the “Battle of Cable Street” in 1936. Here, the Communist Party and other groups organized opposition to a march by the British Union of Fascists; the street was barricaded, there was fighting, and the BUF leader Mosley agreed to divert his march. This has led to the legend that the fascists were defeated, and the SWP today are trying to emulate it. In fact the fascists marched again in East London, and continued their activity and contested elections until the outbreak of war in 1939. According to Martin Walker in The National Front they gained about 2,000 members in the East End in the two months after the battle of Cable Street.

Finally, it should be noted where the National Front gets its support. Its policies apart from racism are a miserable ragbag which would not in themselves elicit votes on any useful scale. But, like the Nazis and other fascist parties which have won political power, in a depression it attracts workers who are discontented and misdirect their resentment — and, in particular, think parliamentary democracy has been no good to them. The rise of fascism since the first World War is due above all to the failure of the social-democratic parties who consciously rejected Socialism. The policies and activities of the SWP do nothing to alter that.

Robert Barltrop

Socialism—What it is, and how to get it (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The other political parties, who claim to stand for Socialism or Communism (identical terms), never trouble to define either. Most of these parties regard it as unnecessary. The SPGB has always been careful in defining Socialism. Our object, containing our definition of the new society that will one day replace capitalism, is prominently reproduced in all our literature. Likewise the method of obtaining Socialism—this too appears on all our literature in our Declaration of Principles.

Socialism is like capitalism in that it is a system of society where human beings cooperate to produce things that people require. There the resemblance ends. Socialism means that everything in society is owned by everyone and available for use to everyone. There will be no ownership of wealth in any form; the concept will become meaningless to humanity. As Marx put it: “From the standpoint of a higher form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another.” Capital Volume 3, p. 776, Lawrence & Wishart edn.)

Production will take place by people voluntarily applying their energies to satisfy the needs of themselves and others; material and mental needs. All wealth that is produced will be available to all, to take according to their own judged requirements. The only reason for production will be to satisfy that need. As there will be no private ownership, there will be nothing to prevent people using the resources of the world in their own interests. Likewise there will be nothing to stop people taking from the resources of the world.

World Society

This society must be a world society. It is quite meaningless to think of capitalism existing in the UK as distinct from the rest of the world capitalist scene. The system of society that is to replace capitalism will also be a system of society for the whole world. World resources must be freely available for Socialism to work.

People in Socialist society will have to produce things they need. It is a precondition to society itself that men cooperate to satisfy their requirements as living creatures. But the purpose of production will be completely different from that under all forms of property society. The object of production, looked at as a social whole, will be to increase the wealth of society itself, not of one class. If that is not the outcome then, unless there are some very special reasons, that particular line of production will be suspended.

So that whereas under capitalism the wealth of society is increased by the production of arms, or bombs, or useless luxuries, or pointless (to the majority of people) office blocks etc., in Socialist society there will be no question of producing anything other than something that fulfills the requirements of people. It won’t be possible to sell anything, so all that is produced will be produced for use. And in a world- harmonious system, no one will have any use for armaments. In this form of society people will democratically decide what is required in the interests of all. There is an argument for saying that in the first few years after the revolution, production will concentrate on building up the immediate pressing requirements, such as food and shelter, which capitalist society has kept in short supply. Once that temporary problem is overcome (if it actually proves to be a problem) society will produce everything required to the best of the technological possibilities available at the time.

Distribution will be a simple process under Socialism; once the absurd complications of capitalist social relations have been removed, there is no reason for it to be otherwise.

Free Access

Access to everything that is produced will be free and unrestricted. There will be no limitations on individual consumption, augmented by laws, backed by armies and police forces. The only restraint on consumption will therefore be social, that is, society will not produce what society cannot afford. Today’s society produces much that most people cannot afford. “Supposing everyone in Socialist society wanted a Rolls Royce? and their own Buckingham Palace and thirty-seven meals a day?” says the absurd questioner at Hyde Park almost every Sunday. “How would Socialist society cope with that?” The answer is simple—so far as we can tell, with current technological possibilities, it wouldn’t!

There is no reason to suppose that such absurdities will exist in a free society. Why should they? What the questioner fails to realize is that he is imagining that Socialist society will be the same as capitalist society, where the ownership of Rolls Royce, or a house like Buckingham Palace, actually means something. Such ownership concepts will have vanished once the revolution takes place. Besides, in a Socialist society, where distribution is organized, the number of things like cars actually required by society will probably be far fewer. What’s the point in having a car standing outside your front door all week, if you have no use for it until next week, when you will be able to take one for as long as you need it? When ownership is social, it will also be efficient.

Socialist society will not have class ownership of wealth. As it will be a voluntary non-coercive society, with no limits on individual consumption, it follows that there will be no compulsion on anyone to produce anything. A human being as a part of society will not be compelled to make his whole existence dependent on producing more for somebody else. So why should people work? There are many answers. Perhaps the most important for people emerging from capitalism is this; just as Socialism is a voluntary society when established, so also is its actual establishment. It will have been established by the majority in the interests of all. As it is absolutely necessary for man to produce (without that there is no survival) then it seems reasonable to suppose that people who have taken the trouble to set up this (system of society will do all that is necessary to ensure that it thrives. In fact the objection to Socialism “no-one will work” illustrates that the person that is making the objection has not understood the nature of Socialism and what is required to establish it. Society must produce: and this applies to a voluntary society. If people do not accept that proposition, i.e. that it will be necessary for each person to “do his bit for the common good” then Socialism cannot be established yet.

Human ‘Nature’

In fact, once Socialist society has been established, more fundamental reasons will emerge making sure that society does not commit social suicide by failing to produce. Without wishing to sound puritanical, man must work. First, without work, man is not man. One characteristic that distinguishes man from all other forms of life is that he consciously acts on nature; animals can only unconsciously react to it. If there is such a thing as “human nature” then its first feature is the desire to use energies to satisfy the needs of oneself and others. Second, work will be a pleasure; it will not be a “job”. A job today is something unpleasant, to be avoided (as the capitalist class avoids it) because it is made so unpleasant by the requirements of society. The worker cannot avoid a job, and consequently he has to work in order to live, instead of wanting co live to be able to work, i.e. use up energies in a fulfilling way. Not only are the majority of jobs performed by the working class today unnecessary (except in terms of capitalists’ profit-making), they are usually terrifyingly boring.

The most satisfying moment of any creative activity (having a useful end-result) is by definition, denied to the worker. The product of his joint labour with others when completed is automatically taken from him. It belongs to another class — the capitalist class—to whose interests, the worker, is diametrically opposed. In Socialist society, people will do things that are pleasurable because they want to do them, and because they have the satisfaction of doing something useful. In time, the distorted distinction between work and play will vanish. To the people who grow up in Socialist society working for themselves and others will seem natural, satisfying and an absolute requirement of “the good life”.

There are two obstacles to be overcome before this type of society can be established. First, it must be technically possible to produce sufficient of the requirements of life, to enable all to live without fear of want or deprivation. This requirement was satisfied a hundred years ago. It is certainly not an obstacle today. Second there has to be a substantial majority determined to establish this new form of running human affairs. Understanding has not been necessary for the establishment and running of capitalism (and other forms of property society) since the majority are compelled in one form or another to cooperate. In capitalist society, the workers are forced to sell their labour-power. Capitalism functions if a minority understand the total workings of society, so long as the majority understand how to produce. Socialism will require the substantial majority to cooperate in its establishment. To do that, the working class needs to understand how society works and why Socialism is in their interests. There are two irresistible forces at work doing just that. The first is capitalist society itself— its operation shows to the workers that it cannot function in their interest. The second force is the world Socialist movement.

Ronnie Warrington

Capitalism—the real enemy: The case of Germany (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Fascism is not an alternative to the capitalist
 system, but a way of running it”

The word “fascism” is one of the most loosely used terms in the political vocabulary. To call every other opponent a fascist, as the more hysterical elements of the left often do, is to reduce a term of political description to the level of political insult. Socialists do not oppose fascist parties, like the National Front, specially because they are fascist. We oppose them for their support of capitalism.

Fascism is not an alternative to the capitalist system, but a way of running it. When it seems inexpedient for the working class to have whatever exists in freedom of speech, assembly, press, and trades unions, and if the working class can be persuaded to support a regime which withdraws these rights (which a non-Socialist working class can), then capitalism is run along fascist rather than liberal lines. The working class can only positively defend democracy by organizing for Socialism.

That fascism is a part of capitalism, governed by the profit system as much as “bourgeois democracy” is can be seen by the events which took place in Germany under the Nazis. Like most groups which see themselves as being revolutionary the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party did not stand on an original platform. Indeed, at the outset they hardly stood for any programme at all, but for the negative policy of anti-semitism and the revival of Prussian greatness.

The dissatisfaction exploited by the Nazis related to the particular post-war problems of German capitalism. It was a non-competitive, highly concentrated, high-priced industrial economy; the political influence of the rural landowners was disproportionate to their size; there had been a high birthrate before 1914 with the resulting problem of an expanding working class demanding more and more from the developing German industries; and there was a large “middle class” of small businessmen with no political expression. The crisis produced by the first World War made matters even worse. The monarchy collapsed in 1918, leaving political instability; demobilized soldiers returned from the war feeling bitter and angry; a flood of east European refugees entered the country, many of them Jews; the liquidation of war credits meant that millions who had previously seen themselves as members of the “middle class” were thrown into extreme poverty; there was the additional frustration of an imbalance between the numbers of men and women. These problems are not new to capitalism in a crisis, and crises are an integral part of the capitalist system.

The Nazis were able to direct their political propaganda towards certain sections of the working class. Small shopkeepers, for instance, were easily attracted. Between 1882 and 1907 the number of small shopkeepers grew, but after 1907 they faced fierce competition from new department stores, some of which were owned by Jewish immigrants. The Nazis, because of their anti-semitism (and, to some extent, a leftist opposition to “big business”) exploited this discontent. White-collar workers, small farmers, and students were further groups to which the Nazis had a special appeal. Then, as now, the fascists realised that they would get nowhere without the support of the working class. The Nazis won it; the modern fascists may not.

Two things must be remembered about the rise to power of the Nazis. One is that without the support of the majority of workers it could not have happened. Capitalist government, be it fascist or liberal, could not be imposed upon a working class which does not want capitalism. Had the German workers been united for Socialism, then nothing could possibly have stood in their way. The second is that the Nazis had the support of important sections of the capitalist class.

When they came to power, what was more significant than the atrocities committed by the new tyrants (which are of interest to historians who like to see the past in terms of a battle between “goodies” and “baddies”) was their inability to offer the working class anything new.

They had promised to create a strong central authority to safeguard law and order (a cry of the British Tories). The Nazis succeeded in strengthening the rule of the state by uniting the party with the government: Hitler became not only total leader of the National Socialists, but complete leader of all Germany. The Enabling Act of March 1933 made the Reichstag powerless and invested full political power in the Chancellor. Adolf Hitler. A law of July 1933 outlawed all other political parties, and a law of January 1934 enabled the Nazis to change the Weimar constitution at will. The German army was taken over by the party, which was clearly satisfactory for the military as fascism meant a growing arms budget, evident diplomatic strength, popular support for militarism, compulsory conscription and, of course, a greater political role for the military.

Economically, the Nazi policies were consistent with the needs of the strongest section of the capitalist class. This was to cause division within the party. The business interests had financed the Nazis as an alternative to the power of the unions or, worse still, Bolshevism. On the other hand, there was a powerful left wing of the National Socialist Party, led by Strasser and Muchow, which preferred to stress the “socialism” of the Nazi Party, by which they meant nationalization.

For all their talk about destroying “big business” the Nazis failed to change the face of German capitalism, even refusing to close down Jewish department stores because they needed the taxes they were receiving from them. Income distribution did not alter under the Nazis and wages fell between 1934 and 1940, while the average net income of the better-off sections who paid tax rose by 46 per cent. As usual under capitalism the rich got richer while the poor stayed poor.

Essentially, fascism created no major changes in German society except, of course, for certain minorities, such as the Jews, the Catholics, and the dissidents. But these were a minority. For the majority it was work as usual; exploitation as usual. As Schoenbaum states:

In 1939 the cities were larger, not smaller; the concentration of capital greater than before; the rural population reduced, not increased; women not at the fireside but in the office and the factory; the inequality of property and income distribution more, not less conspicuous; industry’s share of the gross national product up and agriculture down, while agricultural labour had it relatively good and small business increasingly bad.

In September 1934 at Nuremberg Hitler declared:

The revolution has achieved without exception all that was expected of it . . . in the next thousand years there will be no new revolution in Germany.

Hitler was speaking of a change in the circumstances of German capitalism, not a social revolution. The former happens all the time—leaders come and they go—but the latter means a fundamental change in social relationships. The Socialist Standard of June 1939 clearly explained the Socialist attitude to fascism and democracy:

Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy. It cannot be emphasised too much that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy.

Steve Coleman

Education for what? (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Tory MP for Wokingham, William Van Straubenzee, addressing his constituency advisory committee recently, must have sorely disappointed some of his less-discerning friends when he claimed that it would be quite unrealistic—“pie-in-the-sky” was one phrase he used—for Conservatives to think of unscrambling the comprehensive schools and turning back to the grammar-secondary-modern system. (Times Educational Supplement, 8th July.)

His words, however, will have reassured his more realistic industrial and commercial masters, for whom the comprehensive system had become essential if they were to compete successfully with their capitalist rivals elsewhere in the world.

For this reason, if for no other, one may be confident that Straubenzee’s views broadly coincide with those of his party bosses, Mrs. Thatcher and Norman St. John-Stevas, whatever they may feel obliged to say publicly. It is obvious that neither of them will be particularly anxious to restore the educational privileges of the self-styled middle class if, as they clearly do here, they happen to conflict with the interests of the capitalist class they represent. (No doubt they would also privately argue that it is not, after all, the continued existence of the public school system that is at risk.)

Of course, the introduction of comprehensive schools has made no significant difference to the principle of selection enshrined in the 1944 Education Act. Only the manner in which the selection is engineered has changed.

Neither has the overall condition of the end-products been altered in any way. Those school-leavers who can find jobs are obliged to sell their labour- power in the form of a commodity to capitalist employers. The remainder help to swell the ranks of what Karl Marx accurately described as the “reserve army of capitalism”—the unemployed.

And in the end, a major imperative of capitalism— that its education service should, as nearly and as effectively as possible, match up to that system’s requirements—will have been consolidated.

Richard Cooper

Time for a change ! (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

No member of the working class needs to wade through the press or listen to television and radio to realize that living standards have taken a sharp plunge over the last four years.

A reading of Labour’s two manifestos issued for the elections of 1974 shows what has happened to Labour’s attempt to make capitalism work for the benefit of the majority of the people.

Remember how the slogan “Back to Work with Labour” was used as a piece of propaganda against the three-day week, which large sections of industry were working under the Tories prior to the election. The one-and-a-half million unemployed, and thousands of other workers whose jobs are threatened, know that the alternative slogan “Out of Work with Labour” would be far more accurate. In both manifestos there was the inevitable electioneering talk about the need for “social justice.” The Labour Party claimed that this could be achieved under capitalism. It talked of the “need to tackle rising prices”, “to strike at the roots of the worst poverty” and “to make the country demonstrably a much fairer place to live in”.

In the February 1974 Manifesto, Labour pledged itself to “introduce strict PRICE CONTROL on key services and commodities”. Efforts were to be made to stabilize food prices and the use of subsidies was proposed. Significantly, these promises were dropped from the October 1974 Manifesto.

The result of Labour’s attempt to control inflation has of course been an annual inflation rate rising to 26.9 per cent, at its height. At present it is 17.6 per cent. The Labour government has misled some people into believing that it can control rising prices. A Government White Paper issued in July 1975 declared: “By the end of 1976 price increases will be down to less than ten pence in the pound”. However, prices were rising by fifteen pence in the pound at the end of 1976.

What of the Labour Party’s talk of “social justice’ when Lady Beaverbrook can spend £8,000 to charter a special plane to take her two poodles to New York? According to a report published in December 1976 by the Child Poverty Action Group, thirteen million people in this country alone are living close to the Supplementary Benefit level which the government officially recognizes as being a state of poverty.

But the working class will be making a great mistake if they believe that the Tories can do any better. In April 1972, under the Heath government, unemployment passed the one million mark for the first time since 1940. Under the Tories, workers had to put up with wage restraint and rising prices just as under Labour.

The present economic crisis shows that capitalism cannot be controlled. During the boom period of the 1950s, all the major parties, Labour, Conservative, Liberal and “Communist,” were under the illusion that it would be possible for governments to “spend their way out of trouble”. The Socialist Party of Great Britain said at the time that this Keynesian solution to economic and social problems would be doomed to failure because capitalism is an anarchic system which repeatedly passes through boom and slump periods. The history of capitalism over the last two hundred years makes this abundantly clear.

The leading politicians with all their talk of “national unity”, “increasing productivity” and everyone tightening their belts, are bankrupt of ideas. None of them can offer anything to the working class.

It is possible to say that capitalism was once a revolutionizing system which expanded the machinery of wealth creation. However, the twentieth century has shown that capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It is in many cases destroying wealth, and constantly prevents wealth being produced. Fruit and vegetables are regularly ploughed into the ground, factories are closed down with machinery left idle, while millions of workers are unemployed. Privilege continues while there is worldwide poverty. All this for the sake of the great capitalist god, profit, which benefits only a small minority of the population.

What is the alternative to this madness? The case put forward by the Socialist Party of Great Britain is clear and concise. The alternative is Socialism. It involves the democratic ownership and control of the factories, agriculture and wealth-producing and distributing agents by the whole community. Socialism will be a truly worldwide system.

Vincent Otter

". . . more fun than fun . . ." (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The only way to enjoy life is to work. Work is much more fun than fun."

— Noël Coward, quoted in the Radio Times.

50 Years Ago: Crime and Punishment (1977)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist society will, of course, try to protect itself against anti-social acts. What it will not do is to debase human life and stultify its own efforts by introducing the irrelevant idea of punishment. It will seek primarily to remove the cause, a line which our present rulers are prevented from following by their need to defend private property.

#    #    #    #

Secondly, it will recognise that some breaches of public order are inevitable, and are risks which society must accept as it accepts the wind and the rain. To embody brutal penalties in legal codes is no better insurance against them than is the action of the savage who makes an image of his God to protect him against the terrors of nature and then smashes the image when he suffers loss through storm or flood. All he does is to give vent to his disappointment. We are not savages, and must learn not to wreak our rage on unfortunate prisoners whom chance has brought within the reach of the law!

[From an unsigned editorial on the Sacco and Vanzetti case, Socialist Standard, September 1927.]

The Politicians and the crisis: Part 2 (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

These are the times when unthinking workers look for scapegoats, as they did in Germany in the latter period of the Weimar Republic. There the once proud and powerful Social Democratic Party (SPD) were in government; they unwittingly paved the way for the Nazis. Hence, the concern of the political leaders of Western Europe, North America and Japan. They reason as follows.

The slump of the early ’thirties undermined the established regimes in places like Germany and Japan and many other less powerful countries too. Imitative fascist-type parties sprang up all over Europe (some holding power), gaining support from disenchanted workers. In the case of Germany the Nazis gained power through the ballot box in 1933. In Japan the militarists managed to mobilize popular support against the existing Liberal administration because of the economic situation—unemployment and deflation—not, as now, inflation. The new regime began reflation in 1932 and before the bottom of the world slump had been reached Japanese industry began to recover being propelled along by an aggressive drive in export markets.

This was bad news for capitalist interests whose markets were being successfully penetrated by Japan, e.g. the colonial possessions of the Western industrial states were taking an increasing volume of textiles. This was one of the reasons for “protectionism” of the 1930s, which the governments now wish to avoid. This encouraged Japanese capitalism, with militarists firmly in the saddle, to possess colonies of their own. In 1937 they attacked China, having as early as 1932 driven the Chinese out of Manchuria without any formal declaration of war.

War economy

Germany from 1933 onwards pursued a twin policy of re-armament and so-called "economic self-sufficiency”. Unemployment decreased (although it was still above 1 million in 1936) and the armaments industry and its adjuncts, like the new autobahns and airfields, increased. Many workers were employed on the work connected with numerous Nazi rallies; the 1936 Nuremberg Rally alone cost £2,000,000 to stage. To limit imports, license schemes were introduced and synthetic materials developed, partly to deal with Germany’s balance of trade problem and also geared to their “war economy”.

Germany entered into trade arrangements with countries in South-East Europe and Latin America. These countries agreed to take more exports from Germany in exchange for imports from them, but their volume was only 69 per cent. above 1929; whereas Britain’s exports were then 83 per cent. above that year. Britain had achieved this advantage by bi-lateral arrangements with various countries. The Commonwealth and Empire countries increased their import preferences for each others’ goods and as mentioned above placed restrictive quotas on textiles from Japan.

In spite of all this, unemployment in Britain was still over 1.3 million in 1937. In the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard was the following:

When Hitler for the German capitalists says that Germany must expand or explode, find markets or perish, he meets his opposite in Mr. Hudson. British Secretary for Overseas Trade who said in Warsaw on March 21st [1939] that “we are not going to give up any markets to anyone . . . Great Britain is strong enough to fight for markets abroad. Britain is now definitely going to take a greater interest in Eastern Europe”. (From News Chronicle, March 22, 1939). Fighting that at present takes the form of words, trade agreements, loans, guarantees against aggression etc. may. as in 1914 turn into an armed conflict, and that armed conflict will be yet another war produced by capitalist rivalries.

This area of Eastern Europe was Germany’s existing and expanding sphere of influence, for recovering territory lost in the previous imperial conflict—the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Danzig and the Polish Corridor, and Memeland from Lithuania. Germany also had eyes on the Rumanian oilfields (hence the British guarantee to that country in spite of the fascist regime there), and the wheat-growing areas of the Ukraine, in Russia and Poland.

These brief references are to the seeds which helped produce the second world war, and the politicians at the recent London summit conference said so quite openly. By any sense of logic working-class ears should be pricking up at these statements, questions should be asked and conclusions drawn. The Socialist Party does its best to help draw these conclusions and to develop a Socialist awareness.

It was noteworthy that Mr. Fukuda was particularly alive to the dangers of the present slump. He was a young diplomat in London in 1933 at the time of the World Economic Conference which broke up solving nothing, to be followed by “beggar thy neighbour” policies which were already under way prior to the conference. One of the major factors preventing even formal agreement was America’s refusal to stabilize the dollar; Roosevelt having taken them off the Gold Standard with a view to raising US commodity prices as an inducement for investment by the industrialists. This caused the US dollar to fluctuate wildly in the foreign exchanges. The delegates from the other countries at the conference wanted America to stabilize back on the Gold Standard: this Roosevelt refused to do, being pre-occupied with the domestic effects of the Depression.

Crisis capitalism

This was and is crisis capitalism. Predicament—the conflict between national economic interests and the stability of the international trading and monetary systems. This was recognized well enough in 1933. 

The journal The Round Table declared, some months before the Conference at the time of the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa, that "within a few months, conclusions must be reached in the financial and economic field, the effect of which will probably be decisive for or against the happiness of at least one generation of human beings all over the world.”

In September 1933, two months after the conference broke up, the same journal commented: ‘‘The great international conferences have come to little. The pulse of the Disarmament Conference is beating feebly (which began in June 1932) . . . The World Economic Conference has failed to reduce the obstructions to international trade, or even to make a tentative approach to agreement upon a solution of the world’s monetary problems”.

In the Daily Telegraph of May 9th, 1977, the day after this year’s conference, in an Economic Commentary article ‘‘Best view of the summit in few months” the author, Rodney Lord, stated: ‘‘It is idle to expect any great progress on persuading countries to regulate their economies for the general benefit of international stability. Politicians look first to the interests of the people who elected them.” The latter part of that quotation cannot go unchallenged of course—but we know what he means.

Politicians are the custodians of nation-states in a competitive world—that is, custodians for the capitalist class of their particular countries. At the same time they depend on the working class to go along with the arrangement, and have to try to placate them when it is necessary.

Conflicts of ‘national interest’

This conflict of national interest and international stability, with its inherent dangers, was demonstrated in Tokyo only four days after the end of the Economic Summit.

There were reports of a fire in an oilfield in Saudi Arabia which supplies over 30 per cent. of Japan’s crude oil imports. Prices fell on the Tokyo stock market and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry assured the Press that the fire would probably not have a serious effect on Japan’s supplies in the long run.

At the same time Mr. Fukuda, the Prime Minister, told a meeting of business leaders that the government is to press the case for Japan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. He said that at London he had the ‘‘strong impression” that it will be difficult to get America’s approval because of President Carter’s “deep-rooted opposition”. However, Mr. Fukuda assured the businessmen that he was “most determined” to negotiate the issue with the US independently of other countries. The Japanese, apparently, have been shocked by the American President’s nuclear energy policy (from a report in the Daily Telegraph, May 13th).

An indication of Japan’s problems—even though being currently the world’s most successful economy— is the news that from the end of 1971 to the end of 1976, 30,000 shipyard workers lost their jobs. It is estimated that another 25,000 will go before the end of 1978, which is nearly the total workforce in British yards. (From the AUEW journal for May 1977.)

On May 9th the Daily Telegraph reported that British TV manufacturers were protesting to the Government that Japanese TV manufacturers were “bent on destroying” the British industry. This was in response to the plans of the Hitachi Company to build a factory at Tyne and Wear.

Commercial ‘aggrandisement’

The British businessmen said that there was already over-capacity in the industry. 1,751,000 sets were made in 1976 as against 3,000,000 in 1973, and Hitachi’s arrival would increase to 400,000 the number of Japanese colour sets made in Britain. Two other Japanese companies are already established here. Many more jobs would be lost—up to 6,000—than would be created, it was claimed. Hitachi had already a 20 per cent. interest in a Finnish company which is expected to export to Britain for assembly a substantial part of 800,000 total output of colour tubes. It is part of a policy of “commercial aggrandisement” in Europe, say the British capitalists.

No wonder Mr. Fukuda and the other statesmen are worried.

Frank Simkins

To be concluded

SPGB Meetings (1977)

Party News from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Importance of understanding (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Importance of understanding

I can only presume that the correspondents G. Walford and Ian Campbell (July Socialist Standard) have failed to hear the saying “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know”. The human mind always fears something it may not understand fully, hence the fear of the religious supernatural, and the state capitalism of the so-called Communist countries. Due to the false propaganda spread under the banner of Socialism the working class are naturally enough in a confused state of mind.

A Socialist society is an unknown quantity to some extent. In that a Socialist understands what it will mean to mankind, but he cannot predict the future—how will it work and function? The working class can only be convinced of its possibility by gaining Socialist understanding. For example, by explaining what a change in the mode of production would mean to society, whether it is accepted by the individual or not, this by its very nature leads to further questions on the subject of Socialism. Therefore one less barrier breaks down. The SPGB have constantly propagated the case for Socialist understanding, knowing that ignorance only breeds further ignorance.

Both correspondents should ask themselves: have they acquired a Socialist understanding? If so, have they rejected or refused it, or do they fear what they understand?

Brian Johnson

Pontypridd

Letter: Industrial action (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Industrial action

In your article “Obstacles to Socialist Understanding” in the January 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard you state: “Class consciousness means the recognition of the existence of class society and arising from this the knowledge that political action by the majority based on the clear understanding of Socialism will replace capitalism by a Socialist society".

The first part of this statement is correct but inadequate. The concluding remarks are additionally inadequate and does not pay full service to the introductory part of the statement. It is the knowing of the function of capital and how it does not function in the interests of the working class that is most important. And in knowing this the worker uses constantly his economic knowledge (Socialist understanding of economics) to get as much as he can by all necessary means.

This is political-economic action which is superior to just political action. It brings a showdown and breakdown of capitalism on the industrial-economic field of capitalism. It is at that stage the political action takes over by the introduction of Socialism (common ownership, production only for use, etc.).

While writing, why does the SPGB in a puritanical and snipey way condemn your anarchist correspondent when replying to a letter published in the Jan. issue when he stated of having a society “where there is nothing else but a person’s social habits". The SPGB claims this is being utopian. Yet social habits means needs. And surely under Socialism people will be able to retain or assert their own social habits as it is their needs? Under Socialism, people take according to their needs, which are part of their social habits.

W. J. Street 

London, W9.

Reply:

You give no indication of how industrial action can bring a “showdown and breakdown of capitalism”.

It is quite mistaken to suppose that workers who understand economics can get more out of the capitalist class (some of us wish it were so!). What can be obtained by trade-union action depends on several factors, including the concentration of workers in a particular industry. The biggest factor over-all is the state of production and trade. Wage increases and improvements in conditions are gained with less difficulty in boom periods, when the employers’ order-books are full and they do not want production and distribution held up by disputes. When trade and manufacture are depressed, the employers are more ready to make a fight against demands by workers’ organizations. How would the knowledge that “capital does not function in the interests of the working class” alter this situation?

As you link “political-economic action” with “the worker getting all he can by all necessary means”, presumably you mean the trade unions seeking to bring pressure to bear on governments. Trade-union organization is valuable to the workers in its own field; attempted political action has only a damaging effect on it. Since they are not a political party, the unions which attempt such action must support the policies as a whole of a party which promises legislation favourable to them. If, on the other hand, you have in mind the syndicalist idea of a confrontation between unions and the state, your worker with Socialist understanding will be aware (a) that the majority of workers are not members of trade unions, and (b) that the state has at its disposal the legal machinery, police and armed force. Those circumstances hardly make for breaking down capitalism by that means.

You have misread the reply about anarchism. It criticized a statement by Kropotkin predicting a society where ‘the liberty of the individual will be limited by no laws, no bonds”, and pointed out that this vision of unrestricted individual liberty is incompatible with democratic social organization.

Editors.

Letter: Socialism with wages (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism with wages

In a television interview with David Frost the miners’ leader Arthur Scargill, in spite of opposition from most of the audience, ably set out principles for the organization of a Socialist society. These principles were those of the SPGB with the exception of the retention of the wage system.

His plan seemed very practical. Would you like to comment?

John Keith

Aberdeenshire

Reply:

It is not uncommon for left-wing spokesmen to say things which, apparently, the SPGB could endorse; some of them even borrow from us in criticizing aspects of the existing order. It is necessary to look further into what they are advocating.

You say Scargill set out Socialist principles “with the exception of the retention of the wage system”. That isn’t a minor point—it is what Socialist principles are all about. The wage-labour relationship is not an optional extra but is basic to capitalism. It exists when and because the means of living are the property of a class: the other class, the non-owning majority, are thus forced to sell their labour-power to the owners in order to live. The retention of the wage system therefore cannot be associated with Socialism, for it implies by itself the existence of these two classes. Wages are the price of labour-power, and the wage-worker is the seller: can you have sellers without buyers?

We may say charitably that Scargill is a very muddled person, but it is worth noting another viewpoint claimed by Labourite reformers in the past. Some of them were aware of the nature of Socialism as a classless, wageless society, and that it is the only alternative to capitalism. Nevertheless they rejected the idea of working to establish it because, in their opinion, it would take too long. Instead they sought quick ways to remedy social problems under the name “socialist measures”, or reform programmes which were held to be different because those who advanced them wanted to think of themselves as socialists. None of them has cured the basic ills of capitalism or shown a possible alternative to Socialist action; but the result has been a great deal of confusion as to what Socialism is.

Editors.

Letter: Eye of a needle (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Eye of a needle

While I believe that the SPGB have a closer understanding of Socialism than most other groups in this country, I completely fail to understand how they can ever visualize a majority of the working class—with such famous members as bankers, debt collectors, hired hooligans of the law enforcement racket etc. all rushing to the polls to vote it in!

When that day comes they must surely be beaten to the post by the "bored with wealth” brigade.

It will be the lower strata of the working class who will finally establish Socialism—not those so-called socialists of the “upper working class", those “middle-class-working-class” intellectuals of Somnambulistic Enterprises Ltd. Socialism will always remain the prerogative of the poor— never of the "managers” of the wealthy!

J. W. Pitt

Worthing

Reply:

If what you say were correct, the most poverty-stricken city areas would be full of Socialists; manifestly, they are not. As an example, at the time of writing there is a by-election in Ladywood, Birmingham, which was described in The Times of 13th August as "one of the worst environments of any big European city”—yet the chief interest in the campaign is the possibility of the Tory candidate being elected. Further, if what you say were correct the Socialist Party would have an interest in obstructing the "lower strata of the working class” from trying to improve their standard of living.

Your point of view is the understandable one that managers, administrative workers and law-enforcers perform anti-working-class functions and therefore cannot act as Socialists. Yet these people are themselves exploited. Marx said of them: “the labour of superintendence, entirely separated from the ownership of capital, walks the streets” (and more about this in Volume 3 of Capital, second half of the chapter headed "Interest and Profit of Enterprise”). Dire poverty is one but certainly not the sole source of Socialist consciousness; many workers become Socialists through other frustrations and perceptions of the hopelessness of capitalism. To whoever does, it means he has acquired class consciousness which over-rides the capitalist-conditioned outlook he previously had (if he is in an anti-working-class job, what he does about it is up to him). Don’t say that certain people are beyond the reach of class consciousness; in a class-divided society, nobody is.

There is another way of looking at this. According to National Income and Expenditure 1965-75, published by the Central Statistical Office, out of 28,123 tax units (i.e. incomes) in Britain in 1973-74, 24,251 were under £2,500 net and 20,496 were under £2,000. So if Socialism were dependent on low incomes the great majority of the working class would qualify anyway. Those who have you worried are a small proportion; the “lower strata" is (most of us.

Editors.

Letter: Does the sun shine? (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does the sun shine?

I fear that the Socialist Standard is understood only by “intellectuals”. Why can’t you cater for the mass of the workers as the Sun and the Mirror do? Yes, they say the same old load of rubbish but they present it in a way the vast majority can accept. They are not “angry” in their approach but present opinions not without humour. It is no good presenting the truth when nobody’s prepared to listen because it’s not entertaining.

David Waite

Nottingham

Reply:

Since you describe the Sun and the Mirror as a "load of rubbish”, we infer that you don’t include yourself in the “vast majority” who cannot understand the Socialist Standard. We do not look down on the rest of the working class in that way.

Certainly we aim to make the Socialist Standard as readable as possible, and—as regular readers know—we are not averse to humour. However, we are presenting analyses and information; the papers you mention do not deal in either, and workers who want them have to (and do) go elsewhere. There is no merit in having a mass circulation if it achieves nothing in enlightenment. The Sun is produced to make money; the Socialist Standard is produced to make Socialists. Would you want to read it if it treated matters in a superficial way?

As for being angry—yes. we are. Instead of treating social problems as bubbles which can easily be burst if we all give a good puff for “the country”, we have to demonstrate that they are ineradicable from capitalism. Instead of giving cuddly-doll nicknames like “Sunny Jim” and “Supermac” to politicians, we show them as the holders of political power who administer the system against the workers’ interests. This is precisely what the asinine grin on the face of the Sun masks.

We don’t write for “intellectuals” but for working men and women who, in our opinion, are capable of understanding what we say. We are always open to constructive suggestions, and if you have any specific proposal for improving the SS it will be considered.

Editors.

Letter: Anxiety (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anxiety

Though I am in complete agreement with the assessments and aims expressed in your Declaration of Principles, I do wonder if you have ever considered the possible psychological effects of living in a new, Socialist society. We often read that a working-class pools winner chooses to continue in his wage-slavery (indeed can often become anxious at the thought of guaranteed security). So do you not think that similar undesired effects could result after a transition to Socialism?

Please don’t answer this question simply by referring to the incidence of mental illness in a capitalist society. I think the question is too vital for comparisons.

P. Dodd

London E3

Reply:

This raises the fundamental question of whether conduct and attitudes which may seem an obstruction to Socialism are human nature or human behaviour. Can we all cope with freedom and security?

Human nature is the collective phrase for man’s necessary drives. Basically they are self-preservation—getting food, protection against the elements—and sex. The other item to be added is that men cannot satisfy these demands and survive except in co-operation with other men: our nature is social. Its various manifestations depend on the forms which social organization takes, and the superstructures on the base of society produce complex patterns of behaviour which can be and are mistaken (for the time being, at any rate) for human nature.

A commodity-producing society-capitalism—leads to special emphasis being put on individuality. Thus, present-day consciousness focuses on each person’s self-appreciation : his problems, wants, how the world is through his eyes, and his capacities in comparison with other individuals. It has produced a science dealing with these matters. But, as Marx pointed out: "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”

Where does this lead us? It means that in viewing the reaction of the man who is frightened by winning the pools we must look not to human nature but to existing social relations for the reason. A class-divided society conditions everyone. Large numbers of people in the civilized world are convinced, because as members of the working class they have actually been trained along these lines, that they could not manage their lives without being given orders and that getting more than a limited amount of wealth would bring them some kind of distress. All this is human behaviour within capitalism, and there is no reason for projecting it into a classless society.

On the other hand, man’s social nature makes isolation something he fears. It is a fear played upon by a lot of advertizing, and is an obvious element in the pools-winner’s case: will he be alienated from his former associates, would he be able to fit in other surroundings and circles? Any proposed step away from known circumstances invokes the same fear.

Read Marx’s statement, and consider not hypothetical individual cases but the relations within which all individuals will exist in Socialist society. In particular, the ending of class division and the further divisions resulting from it will mean a community will exist. The individual won’t worry about security (his place in society) because that will be the common condition without the comparisons which cause anxiety. We all want to "get on well” with our fellow' men, but in a class society this urge is channelled into impressing them by position and possessions; in Socialism we shall be able to live harmoniously with one another as people.

Two other points. First, Socialists are not persons who have escaped being conditioned by the society we live in today. Class consciousness gives us awareness of it, and that provides the means to envisage a society without it. Second, a sometimes-heard objection to Socialism is that if everyone is secure we shall have a dull eventless world. On the contrary, imagine the flowering of individual abilities now suppressed, and the directing of social resources unfettered for the first time to transforming the world. Socialism means the beginning of history.

Editors.

Letter: A Case for Labour (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Case for Labour

Why do workers join and support the Labour Party of Britain? Do the workers expect the Labour Party to introduce socialism? Not really: they expect the Labour Party to bring them benefits under the existing political system (capitalism). Is this a worthwhile aspiration? The workers think it is—that’s why they join and support the Labour Party.

The next question is: Does the Labour Party actually bring benefits to the workers? Is it possible for the workers to improve their lot under the capitalist system? Yes, it is. They can struggle and get a greater amount and even a greater share of the values they produce—on the job through the trade-unions and in the political field through the Labour Party. This means that the capitalist class will get a smaller amount and even a smaller share of the values that the workers produce.

If this change in the sharing of the values produced by the workers puts the operation of the capitalist system in jeopardy, makes it unviable, so much the worse for the capitalists. The workers, at this time, simply will take over the government and the economy and install socialism. Socialism will give the workers 100 per cent of the values they create and. incidentally, eliminate the need for the Labour Party.

The SPGB sees only the negative aspects of the Labour Party (betrayal, sellouts, misleadership, no struggle and education for Socialism, etc.). The SPGB sees no positive aspects of the Labour Party (an organization that organizes the workers so that they can struggle for political benefits, etc.) The workers see both the negative and the positive aspects of the Labour Party. The workers see the Labour Party as the present vehicle which will bring them toward a better life. When this vehicle ceases to improve their lot, they will alter the vehicle or change to a new, better one.

J. J. Sternbach,

New York

Reply:

Your letter is based on a number of misconceptions. All references to the Labour Party could equally apply to the Conservative Party. According to current opinion polls and recent by-election results, they have amassed more working-class support than the Labour Party, for just the reasons you give in your opening remarks. We get no further on when you assert that the Labour Party is "an organization that can and sometimes does, struggle for political benefits for the workers” when you singularly fail to give instances of any “benefits.” You will be aware that the present Labour Government’s message to British workers is that living standards must fall and wage claims are to be limited to less than 10 per cent. (they are running inflation at approximately 17 per cent.), while productivity should increase so as to encourage investment and profitability. Profits, you will note, belong to the capitalist class as do the means of wealth production and distribution and this fundamental relationship has never been seriously challenged by the Labour Party or its supporters. Your charitable view of them does not measure up to reality.

Your view of the workers gradually acquiring more and more of the share of the values they produce under capitalism is not to the point. What has not altered is the basic pattern of ownership of wealth, which has remained substantially the same since the formation of the Labour Party. While the position of the worker relative to, say, his grandfather has improved, so has that of the capitalist and his grandfather.

The reference to a "change in the sharing” of values does not take into account the capitalists’ economic considerations. While the owners have a trade and manufacturing boom they are more likely to concede wage demands; it is precisely when individual concerns are less ‘‘viable” because trade is in a depression that the capitalist will resist workers’ demands more keenly. Even before he is pushed to the limit, he will begin to lay-off men. Beyond this he may shut down altogether and wait for an improvement. Note the contrast between your view that workers will simply take over the economy and the real situation where trade-union leaders are agreeing to hold down wage demands while the Labour Government attempts to feel its way through the depression and reduce the massive unemployment figures.

It is simply not a question of the honourable (or otherwise) intentions of the Labour Party and its individual members. It is a political party committed to running a capitalist system of society. While workers can be persuaded that this is a worthwhile exercise they will be rewarded with the crumbs which fall from the capitalist’s table and told to be grateful for them. The workers are not stupid as you say; that is one good reason for continued work in putting the Socialist case.

Editors.

To All Readers (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we notified readers that from September the price of the Socialist Standard will be 15p. Following this, the yearly subscription rates have to be raised to £2.50 for the Socialist Standard (12 issues) and £3.25 for a joint subscription covering 4 issues of the Western Socialist as well. The figures include postage and packing.

The explanation of these increases is as follows. While trying to hold down the price, for the past two or three years the loss on the Socialist Standard has been about £2,700 a year, which has to be met from the funds of the SPGB. Two months ago printing costs went up 10 per cent. Each copy costs us 11p or 12p, depending on the numbers printed. Supplies to newsagents and other distributors have to be at an appreciable discount, and a number are sent free to public libraries.

The present subscription rate includes 7p postage, which means that subscribers receive their copies for 8p—2p below the normal retail price, and up to 4p below the cost to us. We do not think we need to labour the point that it is impossible for the Party to go on supporting losses at this rate; funds are wanted for elections, the publication of pamphlets, and our many other activities.

The new rates are still below the full price. At a retail price of 15p we can cover costs. However, we would also point out to members and supporters that the more Socialist Standards are sold, the larger the print order and the lower the cost per copy. Raising the circulation is a practical way of helping.

Strikes: An unchanging pattern (1977)

From the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many people seem to think that strikes and similar disturbances are caused by laziness, intransigence, stupidity, a willingness to be led, greed, resentment, a want of foresight—in short, for moral failings on the part of employers and their employees, chiefly the latter.

This is odd—because all sorts of people have been involved under different circumstances and at different times—miners, civil servants, policemen, bank clerks, doctors, school teachers, shop assistants. Have they all suffered from lack of fibre? It is even more odd that the pattern does not change, repeated again and again since the early days of capitalism, and well recorded. Recently Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South has been reprinted (Penguin 1976). Much of the central part of this book is concerned with the strike in a northern manufacturing town in the mid-1850s. Although it is not the main theme of the novel, and though Mrs. Gaskell was sympathetic to the workers both in her narrative and in real life, religious and individual issues were more important to her—as they usually were in nineteenth-century novels. Her account, though fictional, is clearly based on her own experience and closely observed.

She describes the—by now—familiar features — workers goaded to strike, the struggle to maintain a standard of living, union leaders trying to keep the issues clear and to hold the reins, some strikers —against their union’s advice — trying to force the issue by direct confrontation, collision with the police, broken heads, the threat of prison, attempts to make the closure total, employment of foreign labour (in this case, Irish).

When scientists find in circumstances which are varying a constant pattern they assume an underlying cause. In this case we do not have to carry out research to discover what it is. Discord is at the base of capitalism. A worker will try to sell his labour-power for the best price and in the best possible market. His standard of living depends on it, and with his standards his way of life itself. He cannot live out of society. There are always blandishments to induce him to spend his money—even, in fact to owe it. The capitalist, on the other hand, his employer, seeks to buy labour-power as cheaply as possible—profits depend on it. These are the seeds of struggle. There is bound to be contention. When it leads to strikes or other conflict then—since capitalism hasn’t changed—they are likely to run to type. It has nothing to do with moral dereliction. It has everything to do with the economic and unavoidable nature of capitalism.

C. Devereaux

So They Say: Dodging the issue (1977)

The So They Say Column from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dodging the issue

A good number of people have been led to believe that the Labour Party has the interests of the working class at heart and its representatives have been careful to cultivate the idea. When this belief is questioned by pointing to the government’s failure to deal with social problems and hardship, the Labour Party explains—or more accurately, explains this away—by saying that they are bedevilled with other matters which in their estimation have to be seen to first.

In the face of growing discontent over wage levels, the government has chosen to associate the level of wages with the level of inflation as if the two were virtually the same thing and that the former will determine the latter. It is not a new ploy from them, two years ago they were placing announcements in the press urging “moderation” in wage claims under the headline “Inflation — we can beat it together." Perhaps wary of reminding workers of the earlier campaign, the current one takes the form of government ministers making speeches.

  The message is gradually getting across that moderate wage increases are the way to improve our standard of living . . .  In fact, we can now predict with confidence that for the next six months inflation will be brought increasingly under control. Whether or not it continues into 1978 is wholly dependent on the pattern of wage settlements during the next year.

Mr. Hattersley. The Times 13th August 77

The one new feature to note here, unlike all the previous and inaccurate predictions by the government on inflation, is that this one is made “with confidence.” The illogicality however is the same; inflation is caused by an excess issue of paper money and the note issue has risen by well over 50 per cent. under Labour. Contrary to the impression (the “message”) from Mr. Hattersley, the note issue is not under the control of the working class, or increased at their bidding. The note issue is determined by the government through the Bank of England.


Gold and silver linings

High unemployment figures give one indication that capitalism is passing through one of its periodic depressions. If we were to take the pronouncements of politicians at face-value, the only salvation lies apparently in “getting business back on its feet.” This impression of a down-and-out capitalism has led some “left-wing” groups, like the Oxford Street sandwich board man, to issue stern warnings that the end is at hand. Ironically, while awaiting the “end” they busy themselves by calling for the right to be employed. Even on their own analysis they do not see the contradiction. However, newspapers publish relatively believable items as well as political speeches: The depression may be serious, but the collapse of capitalism is not upon us.

  The net profits before tax of 229 British companies, whose annual reports are included in the Exchange Telegraph’s statistics service, reached a total of £1,444.1m during the month of July. This compares with £1,015.5m using the same companies for the previous year. The net profits before tax of 1,527 British companies in the seven months to July 31, aggregated £12,403.6m as against £8,953.3m for the same period, using the same companies.

The Times, 2nd August 77

The Times calculates “Company profits up by 42 per cent in July” and using the same calculation, this would put the increase in profit for the 1527 companies up by an average of approximately 38 per cent, over the seven months’ figure for last year. These companies at least have something to show for the Labour Party’s “socialism”.


Great expectations

British workers have a new group of friends, or at least it appeared so at first. The German news magazine Der Spiegel of 1st August says that British workers are a much maligned lot and cannot be blamed for the country’s woes. The magazine draws its conclusion after interviewing a number of German businessmen who are operating in Britain. The German director of a London lighting company had this to say:

  It is more important to (British) people to be treated right than paid properly. If you approach a British worker roughly he will down tools.

Daily Telegraph, 1st August 77

Only a cynic would suggest that treating people “right” is a good bit cheaper than paying them “properly.” The praise rolled on; the head of Klippon Electricals, a sister company of the Weilemuller Company, denied that German workers are better than British. In his own company for example

  Our profitability is so high that it’s the sort of thing others dream about.

No doubt the “others” he refers to are members of the British capitalist class. The workers’ rôle in all this, be they British or German, is simply to make the dream come true.


Still at large

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has an odd sense of humour. When he was talking about the government plans to restrict wage claims to no more than 10 per cent. per annum, he was asked whether negotiations on productivity deals would be permitted to go above this figure. Yes, he thought.

Provided they are genuinely self-financing.

The Times, 11th August 77

This recalled the dreadful beast sighted by Harold Wilson two years ago—“the recalcitrant employer, a rogue elephant” (we think he meant unicorn)—who was causing all manner of difficulty by happily agreeing to over-pay his workers. Sounds as if he must still be at large but we are not entirely surprised to learn that the Labour Party has so far failed to track him down.

Alan D'Arcy