Notes by the Way: A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers

The Daily Worker (12/10/49) had an article on “Hire Purchase—New Style ” in Hungary. It appears that in “Socialist” Hungary “hire purchase . . . . is now organised as a State enterprise,” and is “no longer a means whereby manufacturers can sell expensive goods to poor people, but one designed to help the poorest and largest families.”

The Worker correspondent does not explain how it is that in “Socialist” Hungary there should be “poorest families” unable to get what they need without hire purchase, but he describes a feature that will make the financiers of hire purchase here and in U.S.A. turn green with envy. One of their bugbears is the worker who gets the goods and defaults on payments or manages to disappear before he has paid them off. If they would take a tip from Budapest it need never happen again, for in that blessed land “hire purchase payments are deducted from pay at work. If the purchaser changes his job the payments are transferred to the new job.”

* * *

Cupboard Love for the Trade Unions

The Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties are all, so they say, anxious to save the trade unions. In 1927 the Tories “saved” them by introducing the Trade Disputes Act which among other things made it more difficult for trade unions to provide funds for the Labour Party and compelled the Civil Service and Post Office unions to disaffiliate. The Act made it necessary for each member of a trade union to indicate his desire to pay the political contribution, thus reversing the clause of the 1913 Act which required those who objected to paying the political contribution to register their objection. It was designed, as everybody realised, to hit at Labour Party funds, and did so effectively. Labour Party trade union membership dropped in 1927 from 3,240,000 to 2,025,000, and income from affiliation fees dropped by £15,000.

In 1946 the Labour Government restored the pre-1927 position with a consequent big increase in trade union affiliated membership and funds. Trade union affiliated membership in 1947 showed an increase from 2,635,000 to 4,386,000, and trade union affiliation fees jumped by about £25,000 to £77,000.

Now the Tories are proposing if returned to power to reopen the question and Mr. Churchill claims— though on what evidence is not known—that about a third of the members of trade unions are Conservatives.

As the accumulated funds of the “registered” trade unions (representing about 85 per cent. of the total trade union membership) amount now to over £50 million, the interest taken in them by the three political parties is not surprising.

Even under the present arrangement of “ contracting out” of political contributions, a considerable proportion of trade unionists do not pay, as can be seen by the difference between total membership of the unions and the number of members who pay the political contribution, i.e.,‘ membership on which the unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. In 1947 the Agricultural Workers' Union, with 130,000 members, was affiliated to the Labour Party on a membership of 71,000. The Transport and General Workers' Union (membership 1,264,000) was affiliated on 800,000; and the A.E.U. (742,000) was affiliated on 609,000.

* * *

Whither India?

Nehru, Prime Minister of India, calls himself a Socialist and declared in 1946 that his party intended to set up a “Socialist Republic of India” (News Chronicle, 22/11/46). Like his friends and admirers, Attlee and Cripps, all he meant was that he would make use of socialist phrases as a bait to keep the Indian workers acquiescent while his government got on with the job of building up India into a first-class capitalist Power. India needs foreign capital which British investors under present conditions are unable to supply in anything like the amount needed; hence Nehru’s wooing of the U.S.A. capitalists, who in their turn are anxious to find a safe area for foreign investments. On October 13th Nehru addressed both Houses of Congress at Washington and had not a word to say about his proclaimed intention of establishing Socialism—that is only for home consumption before working class audiences. Instead he buttered up the Congressmen and Senators with the usual poppycock about how the Indian Constitution “had been greatly influenced by the principles and ideals enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence ” (Times 14/10/49.) The whole of his speech requires interpretation in this way, but his audience would certainly know how to “read between the lines.” What, in effect, he was saying was that his Government have the workers well in hand, will not line up with Russia, and will give security for American capital.

What he asked in return, and this of course was the real purpose of the visit, was in the concluding phrases—“But we . . . need much mechanical and technological aid,” and “we shall, therefore, gladly welcome such aid and co-operation on terms which are of mutual benefit.”

In short Nehru was assuring them that they need not take seriously anything he may have said about destroying Capitalism and putting Socialism in its place.

* * *

The Tito-Stalin Slanging Match

The root of the Tito-Stalin conflict is the desire of the Russian ruling clique to incorporate Yugoslavia economically and militarily into the Russian system and the counter efforts of Tito’s group to strike a better bargain with U.S.A. A fairly close parallel can be found in the way the Italian ruling class changed sides in both world wars; both countries are industrially weak and both occupy a strategically important position, but nevertheless one that is exposed to pressure from those who wield combined naval and air power in the Mediterranean.

The Yugoslav spokesmen have complained that the Russian Government tried to control the Yugoslav army, installed its own agents in the country; compelled Yugoslavia to export to the Russian market at prices below world level, and by setting up so-called joint industrial enterprises that are in fact controlled by Russia alone, sought to turn all the Balkan satellites into Russian colonies. This is the normal relationship that the stronger Powers try to impose on the weaker ones and it did not surprise socialists. The communists have been very much surprised because they have fallen into a trap set by their own tortuous propaganda. Having decided to pretend that Russian State Capitalism is Socialism they have ended by believing it, and have in consequence thought that the economic and class forces that push all capitalist states into rivalry and imperialism would cease to operate East of the “iron curtain." Forgetting their once-held view that international politics could only be explained by looking at the underlying economic forces the communists have been forced into the absurd “idealistic” explanation of the Yugoslav attitude that it is due to Tito and his colleagues having been got at, bribed and flattered by American agents.

An entertaining though tragic aspect of the conflict is the way both sides present their case under a cloud of Marxist phrases. In between blackguarding each other in the choicest invective the Stalinites accuse Tito of betraying Socialism—as if he ever had any to betray—while Tito smartly retorts with references to and quotations from Marx and Lenin. Telling the miners in Belgrade that Russia must not interfere in Yugoslav affairs, because Yugoslavia is one of the countries “which are building up Socialism,” Tito added: “ We must clear this matter up and say—as Lenin once said against Trotsky—it is possible to create Socialism in one country ” (Times 12/9/49).

A little later we find Tito working up the war spirit with talk about fighting to the death in defence “Marxist Leninism”—the enemy of course being the Russians who will be told they are fighting for the same principles. He was addressing high-ranking army officers after the manoeuvres:—

“It is better to die in battle honestly fighting for justice and truth than allow yourselves to be trampled on or bend your necks like slaves and sec the great principles of Marxist-Leninism destroyed without resistance.

"We have carried out these manoeuvres when attempts are being made to frighten our people, disrupt our unity, and render impossible the successful building of Socialism."

The Army, he said, would defend Yugoslavia “until the last breath and regardless when the attack came."— (Daily Mail, October 10th, 1949.)

It only remains now for the British and American Governments to “discover” that Tito is defending democracy. Already Mr. Bevin has dug out the old phrases about a small nation bullied by a big one (at the United Nations), and various articles and speeches have been made on the theme that Tito is really a very fine fellow.

* * *

Ship-owners and Shipyard Workers

Workers in the shipyards are worried. During October many hundreds were stood off, and we are told that “shipyards all over Britain are expected in the next few weeks to declare thousands of workers redundant” (People, 9/10/49). Most of them are skilled workers.

"They have been kept busy ever since the war ended on reconversion of liners and freighters back to peace-time requirements. Now that work is coming to an end. The rush is over. Demand for new ships is also slackening off and there is only enough work in sight in the shipyards to keep occupied the regular peace-time ship workers.” 

Among the factors disturbing the owners and workers is “growing foreign competition.” The Daily Telegraph (4/10/49) quotes an official of the Confederation of Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Operatives as saying that with the re-entry of Japan and Germany into the shipbuilding market, “there is no saying what might happen in the future.” And according to the Liverpool Dai Post (3/10/49, quoted in Daily Worker, 8/10/49) shipowners are also worried about the threatened undercutting of Atlantic fares by big, fast Russian liners and on 5th October the first Russian ship to dock at Montreal for years “undercut British and Canadian freight rates and secured a cargo of cereals for Britain” (Herald, 6/10/49).

There are problems here for both owners and workers. The sacked workers are assured by the Herald (14/10/49) that they have not much to be worried about, for they “will be quickly absorbed in other jobs,” the industries named being engineering and the building trades. They may be absorbed in these industries for a time, but the Herald does not take into account either the likely restriction of building or what will happen to these and all industries when Capitalism develops a major crisis. For the building trade there is already talk of curtailing of building plans as part of the plans the Government is considering in order to enforce concentration on the export trades.

The shipowners are also thinking ahead. On October 13th, when Mr. Attlee attended the annual dinner of the Chamber of Shipping at the Dorchester Hotel, Mr. Colin Anderson, the President, let fall a delicate hint that when they are in serious difficulties the shipowners will turn to the Government for some kind of assistance.

“We face a cold decade—we are already feeling the first frosts. Where shall we stand when the winter is really upon us? Rather than be slowly frozen even we may be forced to contemplate applying for the shelter of some form of counter-action—a garment which, in this case, perhaps only the State would be able to provide."— (Daily Telegraph, October 10th, 1949.)

Mr. Anderson (who by the way made his remarks in the course of a speech “ proposing the toast of the Government”) said that the shipowners are trying to work out a sensible way of retaining the valuable aspects of private enterprise, but doubtless “if winter comes” they won’t much mind the Labour Government buying them out with State-guaranteed bonds which will save them from the icy blast that will send the shipyard workers to the Labour Exchange and the dole.

* * *

The Co-operatives and the Sugar Industry

The Daily Express (16/9/49) suggested that the Co-operative societies may not be enthusiastic about the suggested nationalisation of the sugar industry by the Labour Government. It was pointed out that the Co-operative Wholesale Society was not represented at the meeting of Tate & Lyle shareholders when nationalisation was discussed and opposed. And there is a curious item of information in the same issue of the Daily Express, to the effect that the C.W.S., in addition to being Tate & Lyle's biggest customers are also “ the largest single shareholder in Tate & Lyle.”

* * *

Herald Editors Slip Up

On October 6th the Daily Herald editorial described the frigid reception Sir Stafford Cripps received at the Guildhall. Their comment was: —

”We might say that if the bankers and merchants of the City of London received with enthusiasm a pronouncement by a Socialist Chancellor, that would be sensational news. It would also be sinister news.”

But on the same page of the Herald we read the following about a meeting of Wall Street stockbrokers in New York addressed by Mr. Maurice Webb, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party: —

”. . . Webb was asked to explain Labour policy to the 24 most important stockbrokers on Wall Street. He was surprised when his only critic turned out to be an Englishman who had emigrated to the States years ago.”

* * *

Another Cotton Revolution on the Way

The industrial revolution made the cotton industry largely a woman’s industry and at present about two- thirds of the workers in the weaving section are women. Now as a result of technical changes recommended by the Cotton Manufacturing Commission it is forecast that men will replace women.

”Thirteen men sitting as the Cotton Manufacturing Commission have come to the conclusion that married women weavers—the bulk of the labour force in the industry—cannot adapt themselves as well as men to redeployment.”—(News-Chronicle, October 5th, 1949.) 

Another report (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49) says: “The industry must ‘redeploy' or perish. Redeployment—the rearrangement of machines giving highly- skilled operatives more looms, and increasing output and wages by up to 25 per cent.—was the essential part of the Commission’s recommendations.”

The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, K.C., told a Press Conference that “he wanted the industry to pay a wage sufficient for a married man to keep a family without his wife going out to work. He visualised the industry becoming predominantly
male instead of female” (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49).


* * *

A Scientist on Scientists

Professor J. D. Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, London, caused a stir by a speech in Moscow in which he said that science outside Russia and her satellites is under the direction of war makers. He subsequently explained in a letter to the Times (8/10/49) that when he spoke of “capitalist countries” he meant mainly America and not “Socialist Britain.”

The controversy produced a useful admission about the limitations of some scientists when they wander out of their own field, from Sir Edward V. Appleton, Principal of Edinburgh University. Speaking in Edinburgh on October 3rd, Sir Edward Appleton, who was formerly Professor of Physics and is Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, said: —

‘‘The statement by Professor Bernal is a striking illustration of the fact that the reliability of the scientist does not always extend beyond his own laboratory, and one often finds a scientist who, while not ready to accept any scientific result until it is fully tested, is quite ready to voice wholly untested opinions about other matters in the most prejudicial and dogmatic manner.”—(Manchester Guardian, October 4th, 1949.)

If any other evidence is required that the above criticism fits Professor Bernal we have the latter’s own letter to the Times; for without any evidence at all— all the evidence is against it—and obviously without any serious thought, he describes Capitalist Britain as “ Socialist.”

Edgar Hardcastle

The Jarrow March (1996)

From the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Criticising the Jarrow March of the 1930s is considered almost a crime amongst left-wingers yet the facts are that working class men tramped hundreds of miles simply to beg with the political representatives of the capitalist class that something be done about unemployment in a particular area (an impossibility anyway) only to be treated with contempt by them

The economic slump that plunged Britain and many other countries into depression in the 1930s was felt in few places harder than in Jarrow', where unemployment soared above 80 percent, where people lived in overcrowded and vermin-infested houses and where poverty was unimaginable.

In 1933 J. B. Priestley, having visited Jarrow, wrote about the town in his book English Journey.

"Wherever we went there were men hanging about, not scores of them but hundreds and thousands of them. The whole town looked as if it had entered a perpetual penniless bleak sabbath. The men wore the masks of prisoners of war. A stranger from a distant civilisation, observing the condition of the place and its people, would have arrived at once at the conclusion that Jarrow had deeply offended some celestial emperor of the island and was now being punished. He would never believe us if we told him that in theory this town was as good as any other and that its inhabitants were not criminals, but citizens with a vote. ”

Not long after the publication of English Journey, in January 1934, a delegation of 300 people from Jarrow, Hebburn and Felling travelled to Seaham to argue their case with the town’s MP and leader of a largely Conservative National government, Ramsay MacDonald.

Leading the delegation was “Red” Ellen Wilkinson, Labour MP for Jarrow, hoping to impress upon the PM the plight of the people along the Tyne and their desperation for work.

No doubt MacDonald was all too aware of the pathos of the situation and the inevitability of the 1930s’ slump and capitalism’s inability to solve it. The advice he gave the member from Jarrow was later described by her as “sham sympathy”:

"Ellen, why don't you go and preach socialism, which is the only remedy for this?”

This reply from a supporter of capitalism was as cold and smacked of the same indifference as a similar delegation received when they visited Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, regarding the opening of a steelworks in Jarrow. Said Runciman: “Jarrow must work out its own problems”.

Jarrow, it seemed, was indeed left to sort out its own problems. To a town whose ship industry had closed down and whose much-anticipated steelworks had failed to materialise, Runciman’s words were received as icily as they had been uttered and sent a shiver down the collective spine of the borough.

Distressed area

At a time when the entire country seemed to be taking part in hunger marches and protest rallies, Councillor David Riley’s suggestion in July 1936 that the unemployed of Jarrow should march to London hardly seemed original or serious in light of the fact that many previous marches had been dismissed as “communist demonstrations”.

However, the idea was discussed at length with the town’s MP and the Jarrow Labour Party executive. Eventually it was decided that any march should be the town’s march, only to go ahead with the full support of the citizens. The town council sanctioned the march and above the signature of the mayor went appeals for support. This was followed by the sending-out of letters requesting the use of services and halls in towns along the proposed route to London. As the pace of events hotted up the organisation of the march was done from the town hall and under the supervision of the town clerk. At the same time, men were also marching to London from South Wales, Cumberland, Durham and Yorkshire, all bent on expressing their grievances against the means test and the Unemployment Assistance Board regulations, which was for the Jarrow men "a welcome sign that other men felt the same as they did and were kicking, too” (Wilkinson, The Town that was Murdered, 1939).

So on a cold morning, Monday 5 October 1936, 200 marchers set out from Jarrow, ahead of them representatives from the Labour and Conservative parties to arrange meetings en route to London. Even the Inter-Hospital Socialist Society came to their assistance, sending out relays of helpers performing dentistry and medical necessities.

The marchers had hardly time to get blistered feet when their organisers were condemned by a Labour Party meeting in Edinburgh for “sending hungry' and ill-clad men across the country on a march to London”. Incensed, Ellen Wilkinson left the marchers and travelled to the Conference in Edinburgh in an attempt to rally support. Her efforts were in vain for the conference had more important matters to discuss, such as their attitude to the Spanish question and the re-armament issue—a time-honoured and typical response from the Labour Party to requests for help from the working class. Neither was support to be found with the TUC, who similarly blacked the march and advised trade councils against giving help. Wilkinson had this to say: “I went from the warm comradeship of the road to an atmosphere of official disapproval . . . Had the Labour Party put its power behind the marchers, sent out the call for solidarity with them, then by the time these men reached London, not only from Jarrow, but from all parts of the country', the support that would have been aroused . . . would have been enough to shake the complacency of the Baldwin government” (The Town that was Murdered, p. 204-5). There was, however, no shortage of support for and working-class approval, of the march After all, 47 percent of the industrial population of the country at that time resided in areas scheduled as “distressed” or in need

of being so scheduled.

The brainwashed Trades and Labour Council at Chesterfield might have obeyed the TUC circular denouncing the march, but this did not stop the local Conservative Party from rallying to the aid of the marchers, providing hot meals and a place to sleep. The Labour Party rationalised their apathy by asserting that if they gave support to one march, then support would have been demanded of them all. This from an allegedly working-class party!

Along the route to London, members of the working class, and indeed the capitalist class, were all too ready to support the march. By the time the marchers reached Leicester their boots were falling apart. In response, the Co-operative Society’s own cobblers took it upon themselves to work all through the night without pay to repair the boots of the Jarrow men, the Co-op donating the necessary material free.

One cobbler almost anticipated socialism, saying:

“It seems sort of queer, doing your own job just because you want to do it, and for something you want to help, instead of doing it because you’d starve if you didn't. ” (p. 207).

Elsewhere, at Leeds, a newspaper proprietor laid on free food and beer (no doubt providing his own newspaper with a story) and at Barnsley, Joe Jones, a miners’ leader had the municipal baths specially opened and heated in time for the arrival of the marchers. A group of journalists, following the march, even clubbed together and purchased a dozen mouth organs in an attempt to boost the morale of the marchers.

The march continued and gained support and sympathy the entire 291 miles of its journey. The men marched between 10 and 21 miles every' day and held meetings every night. After three-and-a-half weeks on the road, they reached Marble Arch tired and rain-soaked, perturbed that only a small crowd had braved the October weather to greet them.

The following day they were given permission to hold a meeting at Hyde Park. The Communist Party was already there, holding a mass demonstration to protest against unemployment. Realising the Jarrow men were in the area, they suspended their rally for an hour and asked their audience to swell the Jarrow Crusade meeting.

Humble petitioners

When Parliament re-assembled two days later, the men marched to the Houses of Parliament and handed in two petitions, one containing 68,500 signatures from towns along the Tyne. The petition presented the case for Jarrow in simple language, pointing out how Jarrow was experiencing a stage of industrial depression unprecedented in the town’s history. Shipyards had closed and the steelworks had been denied a lifeline. Once 8,000 workers were in employment. Now the figure stood at 100 with others on temporary schemes. The petition continued:

“The Town cannot be left derelict, and therefore your petitioners humbly pray that His Majesty's Government and this honourable House will realise the urgent need that work should be provided without delay. ”

But there was no debate. As Wilkinson points out: “A few questions were asked .. . and the house passed on to consideration of other things.”

The marchers took it all in their stride. Wilkinson describes them as being “rather sporting about it” and how they were afterwards entertained to tea in the House. Demoralised to the point that they could not care less would have been a more fitting description of the marchers’ sentiments—men pushed and crushed until they could only accept their lot.

When the marchers arrived home they did so to a hero’s welcome. Tens of thousands turned out to greet them and bonfires burned long into the night. For many they had achieved something, even if it meant no change to their meagre existence.

Wilkinson writes of the marchers: “Many were politically educated men, who through the long, bitter struggles, knew who and what was the real enemy.” But to be honest, and not to disparage such a monumental event in working-class history', did they? Were they so educated as to think marching could better their lot and did they really think it possible that capitalism can be bargained with? Did they realise that, in truth, they were marching for the right to be exploited by a system that cared not a jot had the marchers perished to a man en route to London?

Three years later, work did come to Jarrow (more would follow as the capitalist war machine revved up) in the form of a new rolling mill. Walking through the site when the men were laying the concrete foundations, Wilkinson was greeted with: “This is what we marched to get.”

Wilkinson could only find a strange pathos in the statement. She commented:

“The grim thing is that the workers have no share in these mills. When the works are built they will still be subject to the toll of profit, the exigencies of a system where they can be closed at the will of people far away to suit a financial policy. "

Seemingly, as with the cobbler at Leicester, the stark reality of the madness, the insane logic of capitalism, had become apparent to the future Labour Cabinet Minister. But did she actually realise that the internal mechanisms of capitalism run on with a will of their own, oblivious of logic and men with Geordie accents and sore feet?

John Bissett

Babies on the Assembly Line (1943)

From the July 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is from the Daily Mirror, April 29th, 1943:

“New York, Wednesday.

“Babies on the assembly line—washed, given a clean nappie, dressed, doctored, and fed at speed as they pass in an ever-moving, never-ending procession through a £250,000 streamlined nursery—this is the newest plan of Henry J. Kaiser, record-breaking shipbuilder.

Kaiser and his lieutenants were to-day poring over blueprints of this gigantic “Kaiser Victory Nursery,” which is being built to care for the babies of the mothers employed in his shipyards at Portland, Oregon.

He expects that the nursery will be completed within fifty-nine days and ready for occupation by 1,500 babies.”

“In addition to being the biggest nursery in the world,” Kaiser said to-day, “it will be run as efficiently as my ship-assembly centres.”

Pass Along, Please !

“A mother will dump her baby in the reception hall on the way to work. Baby will then be wheeled past a line of experts, who will examine his mouth and eyes, wash, him, change his napkin and so on, without a moment’s interruption. Baby will then pass into the restaurant for feeding, on to a room for play, and then into a cot for his nap.”

Kaiser visualises babies passing through the departments in an endless stream day and night, for the nursery will care also for the children of many women night workers.”

At last ! after everything else has been successfully mechanised; only domestic industry remained in the same position it has been for a thousand years.

Now the children of the workers (not those of the capitalists), tiny tots, are placed on the conveyor belt for highspeed “attention.” This is the sort of “security” and “improvement” offered by those who hold that capitalism can be reformed into something better. Where are those Conservative speakers of yesteryear who brought tears to the eyes of their hearers by their mournful dirges on the break-up of family life under Socialism?

Horatio.

News in Review: Budget for Defence (1963)

The News in Review column from the April 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Budget for Defence

One of the big debates which British capitalism is currently having with itself is over what it likes to call Defence.

Independent, or American controlled, missiles? Airborne, or carried in submarines? Conventional, or nuclear forces? Big or small?

The latest government White Paper on these questions, the Statement on Defence, 1963 shows what capitalism in this country wants in the way of armed forces during the next twelve months.

The Royal Navy is to get some Polaris submarines, nuclear powered, to stay submerged for weeks on end and armed with deadly missiles which they can fire from under the water.

The Air Force is to get a new nuclear weapon to give its bombers more hitting power (although some correspondents doubted the existence of a really new weapon).

The guns of the army are to have greater fire power.

Fine. All the Forces, in other words, will be able to knock down more buildings, make bigger holes, and kill more people, in the future than they could in the past. Fine.

Perhaps this is value for money; £ 1,837,700,000 will be spent on the Armed Forces and their weapons during the nest year, which is £116,640,000 up on last year.

We can all think of things which, even under capitalism, could avoid some of their problems if they had a bit more money. Some charitable appeals, for example, often tell us of the surprisingly long time they can feed somebody like a hungry refugee child for a pitifully small sum.

But these arc only human beings— definitely not priority for capitalism’s expenditure.

Never mind. Aren't you glad they’re making so many big, busting weapons to defend you with? Aren’t you glad so much of society's wealth and brains and talent is being poured into things which can only harm society?

Don't you think it’s time you called a halt to this madness and organised a sane world, which will not have the conflicts which need armed forces to settle them?

Two things are needed for a “defence” budget—weapons and money. The world would be a better place without both of them.

Labour and Nationalisation

With the crown barely settled upon his head, Mr. Harold Wilson has found himself under heavy fire from the Conservative propaganda machine.

Tory M.P. Gerald Nabarro inveigled Wilson into confirming, with the House of Commons for an audience, that Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution — the bit about standing for ". . . the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" is in fact still the policy of the entire Party.

Perhaps it was coincidence that at that very moment the Conservative Ccntral Office had just got ready a new pamphlet, Entitled to Know, which suggests on the flimsiest evidence that the Labour Party has its nationalising eye upon no fewer than 104 firms in this country. Naturally, Wilson's affirmation of Clause Four was rushed into the front page of the pamphlet.

No sane person can really believe that the Labour Party wants to nationalise firms like Boots and the Prudential. Some of the other companies in the Tory pamphlet—aircraft firms, for example—are already deep in the government's pocket anyway. Nationalisation, as an attempted solution for some of British capitalism's difficulties, was never designed to go as far as the Tories make out.

So Wilson could comfortably dismiss the charge as “childish” and, more bluntly, The Economist could accuse the Conservative Party of ". . . telling lies in its propaganda. . ." Altogether, the scare fell very flat, not like the 1959 campaign about the famous 600 firms.

But wait a minute. Why do the Labour Party agree on the one hand that they stand for wholesale nationalisation which is what Clause Four means—and yet deny it when their opponents bring them face to face with it?

Labour once told us that nationalisation was the answer to our problems, that it was the quick road to Socialism; they can hardly drop it entirely now. But the working class have become dubious enough about nationalisation to make it a vote loser. This is what forces the Labour Party into their double act, so that Wilson must actually be trapped into admitting that it might be his policy.

If nationalisation were the road to Socialism the Labour Party should be proud to stand up for it whatever the consequences. But in fact it is only another makeshift of capitalism.

The chances are that the Labour Party will fight off the latest Tory stunt. They may even win the next election and give us a bit more of their brand of state capitalism.

One thing, though, they will not be able to give us. That is Socialism.

Prices

One of the favourite tricks of Labour M.P.s is to get up in the House and ask, innocently, to be told the present purchasing power of the pound compared to what it was in October, 1951, when the Conservatives came back to power.

They get some illuminating replies.

The latest of these, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, shows that the pound of 1951 is now, in the same terms, worth only 13s. 11d. Presumably these figures were carefully recorded by Labour members and have by now been used in countless speeches up and down the country.

To be sure, it was a big Tory promise in 1951 that they would stop prices rising and so maintain the buying power of the pound. At the time, because the working class had seen so many wage increases wither under the heat of rising prices, the whole thing was something of an election issue. The Tory boast went down well.

But like so many other issues, this one is a great illusion. Workers are too easily misled into thinking that their fortunes are permanently affected by things like price levels. They rarely take the trouble to remember the history of prices and wages, which teaches exactly the opposite. Whatever they may earn, and whatever the level of prices, workers always have the same old struggle to balance their budget.

Perhaps this is too much like hard thinking. Perhaps the workers find it easier to moan about the latest price rise or—in other times, maybe—the latest wage cut.

Prices are for the moment a dead issue as far as vote catching goes, but they could come to life again.

If they do, the working class will do well to remember that voting for the parly which promises to put wages up or bring prices down—or both—can bring them no benefits.

Russia and the Oil Business

Oil is one of the commodities which Russia is anxious to export. This has been an expanding business; according to a United States House of Representatives report, the Soviet Union was overall an importer of oil in 1950, but by 1951 was exporting the stuff at the rate of 40 million tons a year.

This has worried some of the established oil interests in the Western world; Russia has a surplus of oil and in the recent past has gone out to capture some of their cherished markets.

So the recent “oil for ships” offer which Moscow seemed to be making was bound to ripple the surface of international trade.

The Americans and the other international oil companies were worried because the Russians were likely to upset the market by selling their oil at about twelve per cent. below the current price. On the other side of the deal, Washington does not favour its allies exporting to the Eastern bloc things like ships, which they classify as being of strategic value.

These reactions we might have expected. One capitalist power will always squeal when another pinches one of its markets.

So might we have expected the British shipyards, hungry for orders, to press for the acceptance of the deal. No business willingly passes up the chance of selling its products, especially when it is as depressed as shipbuilding is at the moment. So three yards on the Clyde combined to put in a tender for six fish-meal factory ships for export to Russia.

Unusual allies for the shipyards were the shipbuilding unions. And a strange ally for the Americans was the National Union of Mineworkers, which took up its customary hostile attitude at the very mention of the word oil.

This muddle is typical of those which crop up when deals like this are in the air. Capitalism is a mass of different groups of investment, with intricately opposed interests. We should leave these interests to fight out their deals themselves.

Workers usually think that they have a stake in the outcome of such situations But experience says that they do not. Whoever gets the ships and the oil will make not enough difference to working class lives to worry about.

The same old story (1971)

From the May 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

Baltic shipyard workers, who have been demanding more money, were told by Poland’s new leadership that wages cannot be put up because economic plans it inherited provided no funds for this purpose. (Morning Star, 29 January).

Sting in the Tail: Unity is Strength (1993)

The Sting in the Tail column from the March 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unity is Strength

We have all seen the ad. on TV in which demure Asian air hostesses pour champagne for businessmen on a Cathay Pacific flight.

This idyllic scene has been interrupted because those very same hostesses are on strike. Cathay, like every other airline in a dog-eat-dog industry, want to cut costs and have demanded that cabin attendants also perform more menial tasks.

Although the union made "significant concessions” this wasn't enough for Cathay's macho management which said it would discipline strike activists.

Now other trade unions in Hong Kong are backing the strike because: 

   "If Cathay Pacific is allowed to go ahead and dismiss people who are taking strike action, it could set a dangerous precedent for any other trade union", said Lee Chukyan, leader of the Confederation of Trade Unions.

The Guardian 26 January 

It's good to see trade unionists looking beyond their own narrow, sectional interest by giving mutual aid, but they must eventually realise that their real interest lies in helping to establish socialism rather than forever fighting their employers.

Perfect Timing

Another example of sound trade union action has been seen on Clydeside where the workers in Yarrow's shipyard have come out on strike over pay and against their union's wishes.

But what is sound about striking during a recession? The fact is that during the boom years orders for the naval ships which Yarrow's builds were scarce, so instead of making gains the workers had little option but to let management walk all over them.

Now, despite the recession, the yard's order book is full until 1997 so the workers are taking the opportunity to get some of their own back. As the yard convener said on Scottish Television on 5 February - "It's our turn now".

All too often workers hit the street when they haven't a hope of winning, but here their timing — and their chance of success — is much, much better.

True Confessions

We haven’t looked at Tribune, "Labour's Independent Weekly”, for some time because it is so boring but the issue for 8 January was very interesting.

For example, Robin Cook confesses that Labour's membership is down to "around 250,000 and declining". This is after a national recruiting drive, so mugs are obviously harder to come by these days.

But the juiciest item was the editorial’s confession about the quality of the debate now raging in Labour's ranks over which way the party should go — 

  It is impossible to dismiss out of hand the possibility that the columnists who are crowing about Labour's intellectual bankruptcy are absolutely right.

Could any Tory rag have been more damning than that? Must make a note to read Tribune more often.

Mods and Trads

That battle between Labour’s "modernisers" and "traditionalists” is really hotting up.

Clare Short MP is a trad and has made a bitter attack on the mods. She thinks their obsession with changing Labour’s image means — 

  People no longer know what Labour stands for. Many feel they cannot trust a party that appears to have dumped everything it used to believe in, and seems not to have a way forward that is different from the mess the Tories have created.

Tribune 15 January 

Of course when Labour dumped nationalisation it lost whatever distinct policy it ever had, but what is Clare Short's "way forward"7 Only the usual left-wing ideas for improving British capitalism's performance.

She wants "an industrial strategy based on . . . Japan's success in fostering long-term investment in the economy", "cuts in defence spending to restore our industrial base", etc.

And what will the workers get out of all this? "the chance to work and train and a right to decent pensions", "real equality of opportunity” for women, and so on. Can you see stuff like this having them storming the polls to vote Labour?

Merchant of Death

With the demise of the Bolshevik dictatorship and the break up of its empire Western politicians talked glowingly about a "new world order”. We were promised such goodies as a "peace dividend".

Unfortunately capitalism doesn't work that way. The hostilities in the Gulf, "ethnic cleansing" in Croatia, conflict in Palestine. It is business as usual.

Mr Major may have talked about a "peace dividend" but he has delivered a much more welcome dividend to the share holders of British Aerospace. A staggering £4-£5 billion order for bombers for Saudi Arabia.

The outcry about arms sales to Iraq seems to have subsided and anyway as a spokesman for British capitalism "nice Mr Major” must ensure that the highest sales possible come into British coffers. Profit today and to hell with the death and destruction that may follow tomorrow. It was ever thus. Whether its "nice Mr Major” or "the iron lady" Thatcher business always comes first.

Another Leak

To the Editor,

The Daily Wail,

Sir, are you aware of the many lunatics at large today? For example, those loonies who insist there is a worldwide conspiracy to install John Major as controller of the planet.

These maniacs are everywhere. There is David Icke, none of whose fearful predictions for 1992 came true, thank God, and those South Koreans who abandoned their homes, jobs and even families because they thought the world would end last November.

And I recall the Americans who some years ago fled up a mountain to escape Armageddon or some such. Still up there I shouldn’t wonder.

All this is bad enough but now I have learned of the Socialist Party. They apparently believe that society as we know it cannot last forever; that at some future date there will be no place for rulers, employers, the military or even money and everyone will actually co-operate with one another!

You, Sir, may agree with me that, compared to this Socialist Party, all the others I have mentioned are as sane as you or I.

Disgusted, 

Tunbridge Wells

Sting in the Tail: Telling porkies (1993)

The Sting in the Tail column from the July 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Telling porkies

Clive Soley, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, has really got upset with the government—he believes they may be telling lies about the unemployment figures. Gosh, shock, horror!

In his local paper the Hammersmith Gazette (7 May), Mr Soley is quoted as saying:

  The Tories can't fiddle or fix the Census figures like they fiddle the unemployment figures. They used 27 statistical changes and all sorts of other schemes to get the unemployment figures down. The Census shows that you can't trust the Tories.

He was referring to a 13.5 percent higher figure revealed by the Census than admitted by government figures for Hammersmith. A defence of the government figures was made by officials in the same issue of the paper:

  Not so, the Department of Employment responded. It is simply an easily explained difference between people who are unemployed and people who think they are unemployed. “There is always going to he a difference", said a Government spokesman.

Well, that's alright then. There's a lot of people walking about Hammersmith—some of them are unemployed and some of them only think they are unemployed. Got it?

All right for some

Ever wondered how top executives get those fabulous pay rises we read about?

The Independent business section (2 May) provides “10 arguments commonly put before remuneration committees to justify large pay increases for the chief executive”.

What they all boil down to is contained in argument Number 10:

“You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". Mr B, the chairman of the remuneration committee, is keen to be generous to the chief executive, Mr A, because he has something to gain. Mr B, after all, is the chief executive of a company whose remuneration committee includes Mr A . . . Mr B hopes that if he raises Mr As pay, Mr A will return the favour by raising his pay when the time comes.

Just imagine if the trade unions decided one another's pay claims in this way, and just imagine the howls this would produce from those same top executives.

It’s a carve-up

A consortium of two shipyards, one on Clydeside and the other in Barrow-in-Furness, has won a £170 million contract to build a naval helicopter assault ship.

They undercut Swan Hunter on Tyneside by more than £50 million. This is an amazing amount and there have been furious claims on Tyneside that the successful bid must have been made below cost and with the aim of driving a competitor out of business.

If Swan Hunter does close then the Clydeside and Barrow yards will have the British warship market all to themselves, and this, despite what they all say about “welcoming competition”, is what every company dreams about.

Trained Youth

One of the nuttier ideas about at present is that crime, especially amongst the young, is caused by indiscipline. Anyone who has that idea should read about an extremely well-disciplined group of young workers— the British army's pride and joy: the Paras.

In the Independent on Sunday (16 May) we learn about one young man in the Parachute Regiment:

  He had his moments, nevertheless, and describes hard-drinking, brawling evenings, interspersed with elaborate rituals involving the consumption of vomit, urine and excrement. Such evenings would usually end with heart-felt renditions of "Lorelei” (“Tomorrow Belongs to Me”), “The Eullschirmjager Song", and “When We March on England”.

So there you have it. Singing Nazi storm-trooper songs, these well-disciplined hooligans are better organised than ill-disciplined hooligans anyday.

More confusion

A visitor to the SWP May Day rally at Alexandra Palace told the Independent (4 May):

  Last year I came for the first time, and I was just overwhelmed: so many people in the same room with the same ideas to talk and argue with. Really exciting.

Come again? Here is a party which recruits on the basis of single issues— troops out of Ulster, the right to work, national independence struggles, any strike, etc. In fact everything except the abolition of the wages system and its replacement by production for use, so it is hard to imagine that there could be “many people” at any SWP function “with the same ideas".

Proof? Ask any ten SWPers for a definition of socialism and you'll get ten different answers—and each will be more ridiculous than the last.

Putting the boot in

It was inevitable that many employers would use the recession to attack workers' wages and conditions, “Lucky To Have A Job” (BBC1, 17 May) showed just how far some of them have gone. Many workers must accept longer hours and less pay or be sacked. There are Essex milkmen who have to work a 70-hour week for no extra pay; full-time workers who are forced to go part-time; part-time workers put on “zero hour” contracts, which mean they only get any work when it suits their employer: and more.

The milkmen's boss justified the 70-hour week by claiming “they choose to do it for the social contact they enjoy”, while the boss of some zero hour workers said they could now “develop their hobbies and pastimes”.

Watching the smirking cynicism of the employers' spokesmen was galling enough for socialists, but what was worse was the meekness and resignation with which the workers involved accepted their lot.

News in Review: Cunarder on the Clyde (1965)

The News in Review column from the February 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cunarder on the Clyde

Both the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth were built in the Clydeside shipyard of John Brown.

When it was confirmed, on the eve of Hogmanay, that the same shipyard had won the contract to make the replacement for the Queen Mary, both God and Commercial Television celebrated.

Church bells rang out in the Clydebank parish of Kilbowie. Scottish Television look huge press adverts, which crowed that the right yard had won the contract. Perhaps they are hoping that their blatant appeal to ignorance and patriotism will persuade some of the five thousand who will be employed on the new Cunarder to spend some of their wages on television sets.

No bells rang on the Tyne and in Belfast, homes of the other two firms competing for the contract, Swan, Hunter, Vickers-Armstrong and Harland and Wolff are probably hoping that John Brown’s preoccupation with the new Cunarder over the next three years or so will leave a more open market for them.

But this is by no means certain, British ship-building is still struggling, pushed hard by the Japanese and the Swedes and some Continental yards. The Cunard affair underlines the fact that in such competition there can be only one winner. There could be gloomy times ahead for the shipyard workers in Belfast and on Tyneside. Perhaps Scottish Television will make a small donation to their soup kitchens.

The profitability of the new Cunarder is doubtful. More and more people are crossing the Atlantic by air, and fewer and fewer by sea. The shipping lines have largely given up the struggle to compete in cheap travel, and now concentrate on selling the sea voyage as a more gracious and rejuvenating way of travelling than a clamourous jet flight.

The new liner is designed to accept these conditions. It will be a flexible ship, with accommodation which can be rearranged into two classes and a draught shallow enough to permit cruising, if this seems more profitable. Meanwhile the ageing Queens have to face competition from more modern, faster ships; next year Sweden and Italy enter the race.

This uncertain world, into which the new liner will be launched, does not resemble the leisured and gracious image which Cunard once built for themselves.

The reality of capitalism is grim, and never grimmer than when a proud example of craftsmanship and ingenuity is pushed out into the rough seas of commercial anarchy.

Agin' the Guinea

Next month, at Largs in Scotland, the Labour women will hold their annual national conference.

There they will discuss the customary sheaf of meaningless and hypocritical resolutions.

Consider, for example, the motion which condemns the practice of pricing goods in guineas and which calls on the government to abolish the guinea system.

On the face of it, this may seem a genuine expression of a desire to protect the consumer interests of the working class. But let us look at it a little deeper.

We are all familiar with the ruse of pricing in guineas. Perhaps some people are actually taken in by it, and think that a suit costing fifteen guineas is no more expensive than one costing fifteen pounds.

But such people are obviously beyond the help of pious resolutions. They would be just as easily deceived by another, equally transparent, trick if the Labour women got their way over the guinea.

So what will the conference be worrying about? Do the Labour women think that abolishing the guinea will do something to stop prices rising? Are they looking for an excuse for their government’s failure to keep that part of their election programme?

Let us get down to basic facts. The Labour Party supports capitalism, which is a system of production of goods for sale and therefore a system in which there are buyers and sellers and prices at which they buy and sell.

The interests of buyer and seller are directly opposed. One wants the price to be as low as possible, the other wants it as high as possible. These opposing interests are mostly asserted in ways which are within capitalism’s laws.

Sometimes they are asserted by illegal methods. And sometimes they are asserted by methods which, while not illegal, are not exactly honest. These methods include monopoly control and such diddles as pricing something worth half a crown at two shillings elevenpence halfpenny and the use of guineas instead of pounds.

Whatever method is used, it must be the forces of the market which finally control the fluctuations of a price, however it is expressed. All of this is very proper and necessary to capitalism, even if it sometimes means that prices rise sharply, or come crashing down in a slump.

Sly ruses, by buyer or seller, have no effect upon that. They are only a part of capitalism's competitive scramble. Individual members of the Labour Party may not like some of the effects of the scramble, but they ardently support the social system which produces it.

It is that basic issue, and nothing else, that they should be discussing at Largs.

Prices: up, up, up

“We was robbed!” has always been a favourite complaint of the Labour Party when contemplating the frustrations and the failures of their governments.

In 1931, they said they were beaten by a Bankers’ Ramp. After the war it was the unmanageable dollar gap. Last November the Gnomes of Zurich were said to be busily undermining the finances of Labour Britain. Now the grocers are on the rampage.

Rising prices are proving to be one of the government's big problems, especially in the grocery trade, where items like frozen foods, biscuits and sausages have recently gone up. This is not the end of it: during four weeks spanning the turn of the year, nearly one thousand retail prices were increased.

All of this makes Labour's promises in their election programme, New Britain, to introduce “ . . . new and more relevant policies to check the persistent rise in prices” look pretty sick. So the squeal —"We was robbed!” can be heard" again.

This time it is Mr. Frank Cousins, at one of his Nuneaton by-election meetings, who squealed:

  The 15 per cent surcharge does not apply to foodstuffs, so there is no excuse there (for price increases). . . to pretend that an extra 6d on fuel justifies an extra 1d or 2d on a particular tin, packet, or bcttle . . . is just plain nonsense.

Now what does this amount to? Mr. Cousins also complained; ”. . . some of the firms . . . are already making record profits.” What that means is that the Labour government are being given the run-around by the grocers; it means that they cannot control the mechanisms of capitalist society.

In the same way, if we accept the excuse that there was a Bankers’ Ramp in 1931, it follows that Labour could not control the international financiers. On the same argument the Attlee government could not control its financial crises and now Mr. Wilson’s lot cannot control its own retailers.

But the Labour party, like every other capitalist party, has always claimed that they can control capitalism. Hence their optimistic election talk of plans, control, priorities, all of which evaporates in face of reality.

The reality of prices is that they do not depend on the level of import duty and taxes. In the short run, the fluctuations of a price are governed by the forces of supply and demand, which means that the seller will charge as much as the market allows.

This is exactly what the grocery trade is doing, and what Mr. Cousins is complaining about. But nobody who supports capitalism can complain when the system takes its logical course.

Mr. Cousins cannot complain and the Labour government cannot complain. Neither can the millions of people who put them into power.

African turmoil

“Malawi,” said Dr. Hastings Banda recently, “is at war.” He is not the first of the leaders of the new States on the African continent to-make such a declaration.

Egypt, we have been told, is at war. So is Zambia. Nigeria and the Congo are immersed in internal conflicts of varying intensity. And so on.

There have been, of course, no formal declarations of war. But that is not what Dr. Banda and his counterparts mean when they use the word.

The new states are struggling to establish themselves against pressures both external and internal. One of their governments’ problems is to break down the old tribal allegiances and substitute a wider ranging patriotism.

Africans who once thought of themselves as belonging to this or that tribe, under this or that chief, must now be persuaded that it is better to belong to a developing capitalist nation, under this or that leader or dictator.

And how is this achieved? The techniques are wearyingly familiar. There are the patriotic declarations, the empty mysticism over the new flag, the dark warnings of impending danger from outside, the calls to arms. There is also the synthetic worship of the new nation’s leader—the personality cults of men like Nkrumah and Banda.

Part of this process is the “discovery” of alleged plots against the security of the state. Dr. Banda said that his former Foreign Minister, Mr. Chiume, is combining with the Zanzibar rebel Mr. Okello in a scheme to invade Malawi. Neighbouring Zambia is to spend £7 million on “defence and internal security,” double its border posts and step up its naval forces on the boundary rivers and lakes.

Dr. Banda appealed to the Malawi people to arrest any strangers and report them to the Congress Party; “ Investigate every strange face,” he said.

This is like a small-scale re-enactment of Europe in the Thirties. It is also reminiscent of the spy-scares which helped to keep war fever up to pitch during the two world wars.

But the African nationalists always claimed, when they were struggling for power, that they would be above the tricks and subterfuges of the old colonialist powers.

There need be no surprise that they have turned out to be different. Tricks and lies are always used in the fights between capitalist powers. As the new, African states enter these fights, it is inevitable that they should use the time honoured methods.

Perhaps Dr. Banda is right; perhaps Malawi is at war, for in war the first casualty has always been the truth.

Observations: Turning the screw (1982)

The Observations Column from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Turning the screw

Among the more eager practitioners of the Falklands-style militancy in industrial relations are the management of British Rail. The determination with which they stood their ground in the battle with the NUR and then with ASLEF was an inspiration to all employers who are seeking, in slumping capitalism, to degrade workers’ wages and conditions.

Even more notable has been the policy of the associated sea ferry service Sealink. Faced with declining traffic and mounting competition, they have simply imposed wage cuts and threatened to close their services down if the unions resist.

This worked for Sealink in the case of the ships running from Newhaven, where the seamen accepted the cuts. But in other ports there has been resistance. Sealink assert that their aim is to reduce wages by some £28 a week in Harwich (which is bad enough, when prices are still climbing week by week) but, according to the Guardian of 9 July, the cuts are more like £40, or even £80. a week. A Sealink spokesman has spelled out the situation: ". . . this is the only way we can make the service pay. If the NUS do not accept it, there will be no service”.

It is doubtful that there will be cries of anguish in the media about the suffering caused to passengers by the closing of the service by the management — the kind of protests they make when a service is disrupted by a strike. Cuts made in the interests of defending profitability are regarded as common sense while those stemming from workers’ defence of their standards are put down to bloody- mindedness.

There is an equally enduring lesson for workers to learn in this episode. This militancy is being displayed by the management of a nationalised industry; and all in the interests of economic operation — of working in such a way as to make profit, or at least not to make a loss.

This is exactly the kind of situation which the advocates of nationalisation assumed would be eliminated by a state take-over. Real experience has exposed the fallacy of those hopes. State owned industries have to be run in basically the same way as their private predecessors. The profit priorities of capitalism continue; the interests of the wealth-producing workers are low in the order of concern; the privileges of the non-producing owning minority are paramount.

For the ruling class, nationalisation can be a good deal. For the workers it is a fraud.


Pats and kicks

After all their hard work preparing the ships for the Falklands Task Force, the dockyard workers at Chatham and Portsmouth thought they deserved a pat on the back from the government. They were very upset when in fact they got a kick in the teeth.

Before the war in the Falklands. the government had decided to reduce Portsmouth drastically and close Chatham. As the first ships left Portsmouth for the South Atlantic, they were waved away by 180 workers who had already had their redundancy notices. In all, about 13,000 were to be sacked. But during the war, the yards were working night and day to prepare and convert other ships for the fighting. Some people did literally work night and day; perhaps it was overtiredness which led them to think that the government would be so impressed with the speed and quality of their work that they would be rewarded for a job well done by changing the planned cut-backs.

Now the Falklands war is supposed to have proved that this is a government of inflexible resolve, that Margaret Thatcher is always right, always eye to eye with reality. The post-Falklands “Defence” Estimates revealed that there was to be no change of plan, although John Nott subsequently promised some slight adjustments in the case of the yards at Portsmouth. Chatham will close, as planned. So the dockyard workers were very angry, sick, rejected — and jealous of the workers at the Devonport yards where, they grumbled, they don’t make the killing machines half as efficiently.

Any workers who think they arc employed as a favour, or as a reward, are gravely misunderstanding the facts of capitalist life. Labour power is a commodity — something to be sold — wherever and however it is expended. If it is not economical to buy it, workers will be laid off; factories, mines, dockyards will close.

The armaments industry has an economy with some distinctive, even peculiar, features but these do not allow it to evade the basic laws of capitalism. The very fact that they expected a pat on the back means that the dockyard workers deserved the kick in the teeth.


Charity is cold — official

In case anyone ever had doubts on the matter, it has now been officially announced that charities are completely helpless to ease the problems of capitalist society.

Amnesty International recently took the Charity Commissioners to the High Court after they had refused to register AI as a charity. Amnesty International, of course, busy themselves with battles against what they call injustice; they sponsor prisoners of conscience, they struggle for “prisoners' rights’, whatever they may be. But Justice Slade was not impressed. “The elimination of injustice", he droned, “has not ever been held to be a purpose which qualifies for the privileges accorded to charities by English law.”

Following their victory, the Commissioners issued some “guidelines", presumably hoping to deter any well-meaning bunch who think they are doing something about some of the world’s ailments and that this deserves to make them a charity. But the Commissioners are quite clear on the point. They will not register any organisation which:

  tries to influence any causes of poverty which are lying in the social, economic and political structures of a state;
brings pressure to bear on governments to change their policies on issues like land reform, trade union rights;
tries to abolish social, political or economic injustices.

What this means is that charities have to exist in a society in which there is is poverty and "injustice" of all kinds and which imposes repression on organisations like trade unions.

Now the fact is that there is only one way in which to rid the world of problems like these and that is to organise for a democratic revolution to abolish the social system which causes them. That aim is far beyond the scope of any charity. The tragedy is that its achievement is hampered by many obstacles, one of them being the delusion that capitalism can be transformed by charitable acts. Well, now we know. Let alone abolishing the problems, charities can not even claim to protest about them. There has always been a hollow note to the rattle of the collecting box; it is the note of futility.