Editorial: The Budget (1948)

Editorial from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Budget time there is always a certain amount of excitement among the workers, rather like that about the result of the Oxford and Cambridge boat race—and with about as much justification. Always there is that mixture of hopes and fears—will beer and cigarettes go down? Will overtime be freed from income tax? Will purchase tax be reduced? Sir Stafford Cripps managed to please and displease nearly everyone, a bit on here, a bit off there. Beer and tobacco up a little, income tax down a little, purchase tax up on some things and down on others. The other principal features of the Budget were the capital levy which will raise about £100 millions from 140,000 of the very rich, the reiteration of the policy of freezing wages at their present level except where special factors justify an increase, and a refusal to freeze profits or to tax them more heavily. On this last point Cripps contented himself with a warning that if companies do increase their dividends to shareholders this year he will consider imposing a limit next year.

Speaking for the. Conservative opposition, Sir John Anderson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, criticised certain features of the Budget, particularly the special levy, but otherwise be welcomed Sir Stafford Cripps’ “realistic and honest approach.” The Manchester Guardian (April 7th, 1948) praised it as “a strong, honest, and radical Budget,” and remarked of the capital levy that it is “in fact a stiff individual profits tax winch falls where it should, on the large personal capital.” That newspaper’s City Editor (April 7th, 1948) went further and showed that it is not even very stiff:–

”The levy on capital will not be severe even for those holding very large amounts of capital. Assuming an investment yield of 5 per cent. the tax would amount to 2½ per cent. on a capital of over £100.000.”

We may sum up by saying that if the workers find that the Budget makes little difference to their position so do the capitalists, and this is true of all Budgets no matter whether the Government is Conservative, or Labour. It explains why the Socialist refuses to get excited about Budget prospects.

What the working class get out of the capitalist system is the wage or salary they receive for selling their energies to the employers (including the Government and the administrative Boards which are Ihe employers in nationalised undertakings), and wages follow fairly closely the rises and falls of the cost of living. This is not an automatic process of adjustment, but takes place through the pressure and counter pressure exerted by the employing class and the workers in strikes and lockouts. When prices are falling unemployment is usually heavy enough to enable the employers to force down wages. When unemployment is at a very low point, as at present, it is easier for the workers to struggle for higher wages and thus try to maintain their standard of living in face of recently rising prices. Those who urge the workers not to take advantage of the present low unemployment to press for higher wages may discover at no very distant date that the opportunity will have passed. Unemployment will be the order of the day; or, as the City Editor of the News Chronicle puts it (April 10th, 1948), ”with the country probably over the inflationary hump and perhaps set on the, road to deflation with the help of the recent Budget.” Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist secretary of the Miners’ Union, apparently is among the short-sighted. According to the Daily Worker (April 6th, 1948) he said at Leicester, “The miners had not taken full advantage of the law of supply and demand of labour. If they had wages would have been much higher.”

When Cabinet spokesmen oppose higher wages they do so because their immediate and predominant responsibility, by virtue of being the Government, is to keep the capitalist system functioning in the only way that capitalism can function, that is by enabling the capitalists to make profits. The Labour Party grew up on the mistaken belief that under Labour Government there would be great possibilities to raise wages by cutting into profits. Rather late in the day some of them, certainly Sir Stafford Cripps, have come up against the, harsh truth that those who administer the capitalist system have very limited freedom of action—on all important issues they can depart little from the practice of their Conservative predecessors. Official figures on the proportion of the national income which goes as salaries, wages and rent and profits, etc., bring this out clearly. In 1938 wages accounted for 39 per cent., salaries for 24 per cent., and profits, rent and interest for 37 per cent. In 1947 wages accounted for 44 per cent., salaries 20 per cent., and rent, profits, etc., 36 per cent. (See Economist, April 10th, 1948, p. 596.) In each case the figures are after meeting income tax.) It will be observed that the percentage going to wages and salaries together, i.e., 63 per cent. in 1938 and 64 per cent. in 1947 has hardly changed at all, likewise the percentage to rent, profit, etc.—37 per cent. in 1938 and 36 per cent. in 1947.

This is the dilemma of all Labour Governments, but no such dilemma faces Socialists. Socialism is not a scheme for redistributing wealth and income inside capitalism, but a system of society to replace the capitalist system

The Emerging World Scene (1946)

From the November 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is no doubt that things are on the move. Incessant activity on the part of politicians leads one to speculate as to what is pending. The Nuremberg Trial is now a thing of the past, the U.N. is proposing to take a breathing spell, the Conservative Party holds a conference, the U.S. takes decisive action in Europe; in short, what we see in our master’s press leads to the belief that the decks are being cleared for action : the capitalist class have, in the main, decided upon what they are going to do.

The American Presidential election takes place in two years’ time, and all those aspiring to office in the United States act, and speak, under the spell of that important fact. Eisenhower, who recently spoke at Edinburgh, Byrnes, the representative at the U.N., Wallace, the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and many others are thinking when they speak not so much of the subject in hand as of the American election of 1948.

Eisenhower said in his speech of October 3rd : “World neighbourliness must be achieved or else, we shall, in a twinkling, travel a backward route over mankind’s long and laborious progress from his ancient caves to the present.”—(Daily Telegraph, 4/10/46.)

Mr. Byrnes says that if other Powers will agree to the 40-year Treaty proposed by him, this treaty will bind “not merely the present American administration, but its successors.”

Commenting on this, the Daily Telegraph of October 4th says : —

“Of the four Powers consulted upon this proposal, Britain, France and the United States are favourable, and it, is only from Russia that a refusal has so far come. This refusal is no doubt partly based upon those divergencies of view between the wartime Allies to which Mr. Byrnes made discreet reference. The prospect of a democratic Germany as seen by the State Department and by the Kremlin is strikingly different. Yet it is difficult not to surmise that Marshal Stalin’s objection to the Four-Power Treaty is mainly based on the fear, not that the United States will disinterest herself from Europe, but on the contrary, that the Treaty would serve to maintain her influence there. Mr. Byrnes’s reference to the Yalta declaration and the continued American interest in the Balkans indicates that this influence will, none the less, persist.”

Mr. Byrnes has a good election cry for 1948 : his rival, Mr. Wallace, who recently was rapped over the knuckles by President Truman and, as a consequence, lost his job, is losing out in the race; the policy of isolationism is no longer in favour in capitalist circles. 

Mr. Baruch, United States representative on the Atomic Control Commission, has vigorously attacked Wallace, and stated that the latter was totally ignorant of the facts underlying atomic control. Wallace is now trimming his sails, and states, in excuse for his attack on Mr. Byrnes’ policy in regard to Russia, “that he had obviously not been fully posted as to the facts.” The deadlock over atomic control, according to Wallace, results from absence of mutual trust between U.S. and Russia. He faces both ways, like all politicians placed in similar circumstances, by concluding that “the United States is in a better position to assume leadership which will lead,” but he has no plan except that of stopping the manufacture of atomic bombs.

If we read between the lines the general conclusion arrived at is that a peace treaty is going to be patched up. Russia is compelled to accept the U.N. decision on Trieste, and her policy regarding the Danubian Waterway has been opposed so strenuously by Britain, France and the United States that she is compelled temporarily to give way to them.

There is little likelihood of a long or permanent peace; however, the nations will, in all probability, prepare for what, under capitalism, is inevitable with what speed they may. Britain is evidently not going to be caught napping. Look at this: —

£12,000,000 FOB ROCKET TESTS.

AUSTRALIAN PLANT.

“The British and Australian Governments may be involved in an expenditure of between £12,000,000 and £14,000,000 in the construction of rocket-bomb workshops and testing ranges in Australia. The annual maintenance cost is expected to be about £3,000,000.

It is understood the Australian Government has received advice from Britain setting out proposals for research and development and for testing grounds in the centre of Australia. These are based on the recommendations of a mission of experts and scientists which visited Australia early this year”.—(Daily Telegraph, 4/10/46.)

It is against the above background we must judge the speeches of Sir Stafford Cripps at the Empire Trade Conference on October 3rd.

The Tories have recently laid stress on Imperial Preference; the following is Stafford Cripps’ reply.—

“It was an obvious and sensible course for us to pursue to endeavour to extend and consolidate our inter-Commonwealth trade.

"But that trade alone cannot fully meet any of our needs, and it would defeat our object of full employment and prosperity for our own people if we were to concentrate on Commonwealth trade alone and neglect those wider fields of world trade which we must cultivate.”

You are plainly told the Empire is not enough for British Capitalism; the Government must go hunting elsewhere for markets. The system compels expansion; the world is the limit; the clash between nations cannot be avoided. Socialism is the only means of saving mankind from destruction, and, unfortunately, Socialism is not yet fully understood by those who are called upon by history to establish it.

The Conservative Conference was held by men who observe the signs of the times, and are getting ready to deal with a situation they think will arise in the not far distant future.

The Labour Party is designated as the Socialist Party, but one statement made by Mr. Eden will be very interesting to the readers of the Socialist Standard.

“There is one principle underlying our approach to all these problems, a principle on which we stand in fundamental opposition to Socialism. The objective of Socialism is State ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange. Our objective is a nation-wide, property-owning democracy. (Cheers.)

These objectives are fundamentally opposed. Whereas the Socialist purpose is the concentration of ownership in the hands of the State, ours is the distribution of ownership over the widest practicable number of individuals. (Cheers.) Both parties believe in a form of capitalism, but whereas our opponents believe in State capitalism, we believe in the widest measure of individual capitalism.”—(Daily Telegraph, 4/10/46.)

Eden knows, and clearly shows, that the difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party is a difference in degree and not in kind.

The propaganda of the l.L.P. and kindred organisations have confounded Socialism with State Capitalism.

Mr. Eden is slated for the Premiership and the odds are in his favour.

Division in the Labour Party is probable, and the Communists may hasten it along. “For or against the Soviet Union” may arise as an issue out of the present political situation. The Cabinet will be up against it if they are forced to decide between Russia and the United States. The “Labour Progressives”, supported by Communists, will go wholeheartedly for Russia if such an issue develops, so will many of their followers in the Unions, and the question, is what will happen to the Labour Government in these circumstances?

Anthony Eden is the most likely man for the Premiership in the Coalition Government which it is anticipated would then spring into being as a matter of course.

The above is how the prophets have worked it out; they may be right, but, as Shaw says, “You never can tell.”

Meanwhile the wage slave plods his weary way. his meagre rations barely sufficient to enable him to carry on.

So Capitalism staggers along through the stages that precede its dissolution. It must live its life, but the end is drawing nearer every day.

Wherever you go nowadays you find working men not only discussing the political situation, but analysing it ably and well.

The war has not succeeded in blowing out the light within the brains of the members of our class; it has accelerated the growth of class consciousness, and increased the knowledge of the system that is its cause.

In the chain gang of wage slavery this knowledge is being passed from man to man and from woman to woman. The substance of Socialism is being absorbed by ever-increasing numbers.

The effects of this may be clearly revealed in the intelligence displayed by the workers in the strenuous conflicts that lie ahead.

The inherent antagonism between the exploited and their exploiters cannot be suppressed; it will become world wide; wherever Capitalism goes Socialist ideas cannot be prevented from appearing and playing their historic part.

The Capitalist class are bent on rejuvenating a system that is now senile. They cannot give it a new lease of life.

The working class will soon be forced to try and discover ways and means of ending it. We are with them because we are of them. There is no doubt as to the result. Society must establish Socialism or perish. The expropriation of the expropriators is the only way out.

Charles Lestor

The Taming of the T.U.C.(1948)

From the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What has happened to the trade unions, to their national platform the T.U.C., and to their political shadow the Labour Party? Where now is the trade union army that fought the general strike in 1926? In what dump have they parked their rusty weapon, the strike? Where are the Reds of yesteryear, and who are these men and women with their generous sprinkling of O.B.E.s, Knighthoods and Peerages who at Margate earned from the discerning observer of the Manchester Guardian (10/9/48) the tribute that “once again the T.U.C. has shown the moderate good sense that often seems to surprise its own leaders as much as the critics”?

How are we to account for the incontestable and remarkable fact that the workers—to whom the T.U.C. is supposed to give guidance and inspiration—got from it little but gloom, austerity, wage-freezing, and appeals to work harder; while the capitalist press and financial circles are congratulating themselves that it was a very successful congress from their point of view!

Easy answers are provided from different quarters but they are not the right answers as we shall see on examination.

New Tunes for Old

At one time it was taken for granted that Congress was a place where the Unions recorded their dissatisfaction with the effects of capitalism, made their protests about the home and foreign policies of the Government, discussed wage demands and strikes to enforce them, tried to smooth out inter-union disputes, passed well-intentioned, pious, resolutions in favour of peace and internationalism, and paid lip-service to what they assumed to be the Socialist objective of the Labour Party. Much of it was muddled and trivial but at least there was the sense of working class solidarity and of a forward-looking movement. But now the members are perplexed to find that all the old demands, good, bad and indifferent alike, are being dropped, modified or even reversed; and that all of this is being done out of deference to the Labour Government of which they expected so much and that they worked so long to raise to power. Now, strikes are looked on with disfavour and “unofficial” strikers condemned with a harshness that used to be directed only against the employers’ Wage claims have given place to a modified “wage-freezing.” The use of the Emergency Powers Act and of troops in strikes is no longer condemned since it is a Labour Government that is responsible. Non-contributory social insurance schemes were once demanded, now the workers are told that it is better for them to contribute. For years it was a cardinal principle of trade union and Labour Party programmes that there should be no taxation on the food arid other articles the workers buy, but only direct taxation like income tax arid surtax and death duties; now the opposite principle is preached and practised. Conscription, in peace time was always condemned, now it is accepted without protest. The list of abandoned claims could be greatly extended but it will suffice to look more closely at one of them.

Re-enter the Profit Motive

At one time it was argued that higher wages could come out of profit, and the leaders urged the rank and file to work for the abolition of the profit motive and look instead towards the principle of service to the whole community. This year the whole theory was thrown overboard. Sir Stafford Cripps, erstwhile denouncer of profit, addressed the delegates on the need for greater production and for the voluntary abstention from claims for higher wages. He backed up his case with the seemingly unanswerable argument that “even if corporation profits were reduced by a quarter – a very drastic cut – it would mean an average addition to wages and salaries of not more than 4d. in the pound.” (Manchester Guardian, 8/9/48.) Sir George Chester, speaking for the T.U.C. General Council in opposition to a resolution demanding statutory control of profits and dividends, dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s of Cripps’ statement by informing the perplexed delegates that you can’t do without profit —” Profit in the form of marginal surpluses was essential to the conduct of industry whether it be nationalised or in private hands, it is inescapable until we can alter the whole structure of industry and replace profit by some other incentive.” (Daily Herald, 10/9/48.) No wonder that the Financial Times, organ of the investors, drew substantial comfort from the ‘week’s proceedings. “Margate,” wrote the Financial Times Labour Correspondent (11/9/48) “has cleared the air. In future it is going to he much more difficult for attacks on profits or the profit motive – either particular or general – to be sustained. The hitherto despised ‘capitalist’ incentive has at last been officially recognised as – at least for the time being – socially necessary.”

Explanations that do not Explain

One plausible but fallacious explanation of the change in the trade unions is the Communist one, that the leaders have been corrupted or have sold out to American capitalism and that what is wanted is new leaders, Communist ones. Neither at present nor in the past have Communist leaders produced any better results than the others. Where they differ is only in the fact that their guiding principle is unscrupulous or misguided subservience to the policies of the Russian State Capitalist regime. True the Communists have sometimes been associated with sound action by the trade union rank and file, but only by accident and because at the moment it happened to serve some aim of Russian foreign policy, never by consistent loyalty to the interests of the working class.

A somewhat similar explanation is that the trade union and labour leaders have been sobered and undermined by office and responsibility and have, in consequence, imbibed new ideas in place of the old. Some who say this think the change is good because the new ideas are better, others think them worse; but the explanation is only a half-truth. Men who have both the will and the power to put their beliefs into practice do not become “sobered ” and “undermined” by the responsibilities of office. Capitalist office does not soften the capitalist convictions of a Winston Churchill. With the Labour leaders the position is different. They are the victims of their own wrong theories and self-deception. They thought that, without any mandate to abolish capitalism, they could tame the capitalist tiger ; instead of which they are finding, as Socialists always said they would, that it is the tiger that determines the route, the pace and the policy.

The official version offered by the Labour Party and expressed by their Secretary, Mr. Morgan Phillips, in a Labour Press Service article, “Three Years that Changed Britain,” is that July 1945, when the Labour Party took office, marked the beginning of “a peaceful revolution “which made the people of Britain” for the first time in history . . . masters in their own land.” July 6th, 1945, was, he claims, the “great day” that the Socialist pioneers worked and waited for. If what he claims were true it would indeed be understandable that the tactics suitable in a struggle by the working class against the capitalist class would now become pointless and obsolete; obviously there could no longer be strikes of the workers against the capitalists if capitalism were abolished and the classes themselves had vanished. But, of course, it is only a shadow of the truth, as was shown at the T.U.C. by the speeches of Cripps and Chester referred to earlier in this article, and by other events happening before our eyes.

Is it a new Social Order?

The Capitalist Ministers who say that the old order has already passed away tell us that the reason we are prevented from reaping immediately the fruits of the “Socialist” triumph, is that Tory rule and the late war have left their aftermath of disorder and destruction that has yet to be cleared away. This is so reasonable an explanation that its inadequacy is not at first sight obvious, but the truth is that the minds and hands of the Labour Ministers are every day becoming less full with the heritage of the past war and more full with the problems and preparations for the new grouping of capitalism and the new wars that face us. The plans for Western Union and Marshall Aid are plans for a capitalist world in which capitalist Europe will try to save itself by union from being crushed between the American and Russian contestants for world dominance. It is not for the past war but for the coming war that, under Labour Government, the armed forces are greater than they were in 1938 and that for the first time in history we have peacetime conscription. During the week the T.U.C. met, the Government were considering extending compulsory military service from 12 to 18 months, and decided to delay demobilisation. The same week that saw War Minister Shinwell, author of When the Men Come Home, address Congress on the coming General Election, saw him also at Southampton seeing the Guards off to the fighting in Malaya; the troopships are once again outward bound. When Sir Stafford Cripps told Congress that production must be increased by greater output from each worker because it is not possible to increase the number of workers in production, it is capitalism, not Socialism, that demands that the hundreds of thousands of workers under arms and on munitions work shall be maintained and indeed increased. The Labour Government promised that it would bring about friendlier foreign relationships, particularly with Russia, and thus safeguard peace. The fact that the international situation goes from bad to worse is not because the Labour Government are incompetent or evilly disposed but because capitalism is in control.

Those who have eyes to see will realise that it is not the Labour Government and the T.U.C. that have changed capitalism, but capitalism under Labour rule that bids fair to change the trade union movement from an organ of working class struggle into little better than an instrument to aid the Government in the smooth running of capitalism and the campaign to get the workers to work harder and forego wage claims.

Facts for Trade Unionists

The great need in the trade union movement is for straight thinking and plain speaking. Sir Stafford Cripps and Sir George Chester are right when they say that you cannot have capitalism without profit; it is their conclusion that is wrong. Having told the workers that you cannot have the one without the other they say in effect that it is necessary now to put up with both. That is the fundamental error of the Labour Party’s theories, obvious to Socialists from the start but only now being shown up in practice in a way that all can see. The Socialist Party has always held that the working class cannot achieve power for Socialism, and cannot have Socialism in operation, until a majority have gained the understanding and will for Socialism. Without clearly seeing what they were doing the Labour Party worked on the quite different doctrine that a Labour Government lacking a mandate to establish Socialism could take capitalism in hand and administer it in accordance with Socialist principles. It cannot be done, and if seriously attempted, only chaos would be the result. As well put a pacifist in charge of the conduct of a war, or a conscientious teetotaller to build up a profitable brewery. Either the Labour Ministers had to keep their muddled good intentions and produce chaos, or they had to discard them and try to make a success of capitalism on the only principles possible, capitalist principles.

Trade unionists who are Labour Party supporters now find themselves face to face with a difficult decision. If they remain loyal to the Labour Government that is carrying on capitalism they weaken their struggle against capitalist exploitation on the industrial field and undermine their own unity, if they continue the struggle for which trade unions were formed they come into conflict with the Labour Government. It is a cruel dilemma but it has to be faced. The long years of muddled thinking have to be paid for and there is no easy way out. Backing the Government in running capitalism means stultifying the trade union movement and spreading apathy and despair; with the certainty that at the end of the road, even if the present production crisis is eased for a time, there will be new crises and new and larger wars. The alternative is the seemingly slow but in fact the only way, the way indicated by the Socialist Party at its formation, that of working for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. There are no short cuts and there is no other way.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Truth & Politics (1974)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Truth & Politics

Just to conclude the matter of the labour-time vouchers, I don’t see that Horatio’s remark in the May issue gets us any further. We are still stuck at the point that you can’t time a Shakespeare as you can a miner and you can’t get a Schubert to clock on when he jots down an inspired tune in the middle of the night. We must just leave it that now the Socialist position holds good — to each according to his need. Without measuring.

May I express a little surprise that in his otherwise most percipient article on Logic, Truth and Politics, R. Barltrop lapses into naivety when he says there are such things as honest politicians and he immediately proves the opposite by reference to some “thoroughly decent” C.P. leader — who nevertheless “told . . . whopping . . . lies”. But the example of another “honest liar”, Stafford Cripps, is even more odd. The suggestion that he really believed in ’49 that the pound would not be devalued when he swore this right until the day it happened is untenable. To say that the “government” did the devaluing is meaningless. As Chancellor, in this matter, for practical purposes he was the government and he lied because he had to (otherwise speculators would have reduced the pound to waste paper).

I am afraid your writer has rather misunderstood Churchill’s reference to Cripps (“There but for the grace of God goes God”). He did not mean that he thought Cripps was honest — merely a puritanical humbug. The proof is almost contained in the article which refers to the lies about the regime in Russia when Stalin became our glorious ally. Churchill needed as an ambassador someone who would be able to go there and see the atrocities which Stalin was committing against the Russian workers — and send enormous lies home which would be swallowed by the British workers. So the old cynic sent the most plausible leftist liar he could find. Cripps. I agree with Barltrop that the psalmist’s “All men are liars” is wrong. The correct position was stated by the late Crossman (who knew!) when he once wrote in The Guardian “all politicians tell lies” (my emphasis). Lying is one of the evils of capitalism which Socialism will render unnecessary along with greed, envy, etc.

S. Gamzu

Other letters and replies held over to next month through pressure on space.

Notes by the Way: Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford? (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford?

The opening words of “Let Us Face the Future,” the Labour Party's declaration on which the 1945 General Election was fought, were "Victory in War must be followed by a Prosperous Peace.” There was no must about it and the cessation of American lease-lend soon brought the Government face to face with the fact that capitalism has its own way of disposing of election hopes and promises. Since 1945 we have had to make the best of a series of “crises” all of which have been announced by the Government with an air of surprise as if they could not have been foreseen. The workers have been asked to put up with austerity and “work harder” campaigns on the plea that after all they would not last for ever. Now Sir Stafford Cripps has let the cat out of the bag. Speaking at a Press Conference in London on 11th November, he said:

“We are now and shall be henceforth for as long as we can see into the future, engaged in a competition in overseas markets which demands for our success every economy that efficiency and high productivity can give us. We shall not be able to relapse from this endeavour any more than our competitors in the world markets will. We require a universal and sustained effort . . ." (Italics ours.) 

(Times, 12/11/48.)

So it is as Socialists have always said it must be, an indefinite sentence. For the workers the capitalist treadmill will last for as long as the working class chooses to put up with capitalism.

The Football Slavery Business

“Janus” in the Spectator (5/11/48) comments on the recent troubles about football transfer fees:

“The protest of the Middlesbrough footballer, Wilfrid Mannion, against the price (£30,000) put on his head by his club focuses attention afresh on the extraordinary traffic in human beings which prevails in League football circles. The transfer fee system has, I suppose, grown up gradually because League football is now frankly a business in which it is essential to attract large 'gates,' large 'gates' will not be attracted unless the home team consistently puts up a reasonably good show, it will not put up a good show unless it has good players, and it cannot get good players except by buying them from another club or putting so high a price on them that another club cannot attract them away. Pages could be written about this. It is enough to say that what the player—whose normal wage is £12 a week—gets out of a transfer fee of £10,000 or £15,000 is £10 for himself. Professional football might take a lesson from professional cricket. A man, it should be added, who leaves the club with which he is registered against its will is barred from playing as a professional for any other club.”

The Edmonton By-Election

The Labour Party’s experience at Edmonton, where their candidate's majority was reduced from 19,000 in 1945 to 3,327, has encouraged the Tories and correspondingly troubled the Labour Party. The Local Labourites blame the turnover of votes on an “insidious doorstep campaign” alleged to have been conducted by the Tories, in which instead of dealing with major political issues and the record of the Labour Government, the canvassers are said to have raised issues of race-prejudice and to have exploited “our nation’s post-war difficulties.” (Daily Mail, 15/11/48.)

The Daily Mail suggests that the Labour vote fell because of “the sudden cut in the bacon ration,” while the Daily Worker says “ This is the fruit of Right Wing Labour policy, particularly its cuts in housing.” (15/11/48.)

What is really going on is the normal working out of capitalist politics, the old game of ins and outs. The Labour "ins” say "ask your Dad about pre-war unemployment under the Tories” and the Tories retort with "ask your Mum about pre-war food supplies, prices and no rationing.” Socialists say look around at capitalism and its effects and ask your Mum and Dad and your grandparents for evidence that capitalism was always useless and hopeless for the working class. Those who administer capitalism are rightly blamed for their responsibility in what capitalism produces, while the capitalist opposition naturally (and falsely) promises that if they get back again capitalism will be different.

The Labour Party got in on non-Socialist votes and when the voters find that things do not go as promised they turn round and vote for candidates who make better promises. A Socialist electorate could not be led away by race-prejudice or by propaganda about bacon rations.

The “Final Stage of Communism” in Russia

A Times correspondent in Budapest (Times, 13/11/48) quotes extensively from an article in the Cominform newspaper which sets out to describe what is meant by "the final stage of Communism” towards which Russia, according to Soviet propaganda, is moving. In the article Stalin is quoted as having said that development towards Communism depends on great increases of production (e.g., to 60 million tons of steel a year compared with 19 million tons in 1940 and rather more now), and that it will take from 15 to 20 years to achieve.

What is of more interest is the social structure of this “Communist” society. According to the Times correspondent the article abandons the Marxian principle that the State will wither away, and also the "free-and-easy” system “about which Engels dreamed,” and forecasts a disciplined society rather like present day Russia but with many more and much better consumer goods. Money will continue under this “Communism.”

The Times, which is interested in the struggle for world power between Russia and U.S.A., rather than in social theories, points out in its editorial that U.S.A. already produces more steel and coal than Russia plans to produce in 20 years’ time.

Solution of the Palestine Problem?

While the new state of Israel disputes for territory with the Arab states, and the Powers behind the scenes think of oil, pipe lines, Middle East strategy and the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, the “solution” of the problem of European Jewish refugees is now accompanied by the new problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine. A letter in the Times (13/11/48) from Mr. Marcus Shloimovitz, in which he appeals to the Israel Government to make a generous effort to help the new army of refugees, contains the following:

"A tragic situation is rapidly deteriorating into a tragedy of heartless abandonment of over 350,000 Arab refugees in Palestine to the ‘mercies’ of a winter without adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical supplies. A letter I received from a co-religionist in the Lebanon the other day says that they are existing under the most deplorable conditions of squalor and semi-starvation. The Israeli Government are in a position to solve the problem, as it should be solved, by allowing them to return to their former homes in Palestine without delay. I am convinced that this is the duty of the leaders of Israel to their faith. It would show that they are merciful and humanitarian, in accordance with the teachings of Judaism. Have human feelings been so dulled by the happenings of the past 10 years that a further 350,000 victims of war (two-thirds are under 18 years of age, nearly one-third are children under five, and one in 10 is either an expectant or nursing mother) are regarded as a minor and inevitable consequence of the Palestine troubles?”

Oil Millionaire

From the Evening Standard (10/11 / 48):

‘‘It will take months fully to unravel the financial affairs of Lord Bearsted. But there seems little doubt that when he died this week, aged 66, he left less than he inherited in 1927 from his father, first Viscount and founder of the Shell oil group.

“Lord Bearsted’s share of his father’s £4,000,000 estate was more than a million. He multiplied this fortune several times.

“But he gave away large sums to charities. In addition, during his last years, Lord Bearsted disposed of the bulk of his fortune by trusts settled on his three sons.”

Another Communist Rift

Alongside the acrimonious dispute between the Tito Communists and the Russian Controlled Cominform another storm has blown up, between the Australian Communist Party and the British Communists. We are indebted to an Australian Comrade for a copy of the ”Communist Review” (Australian Communist Party, September, 1948) in which appears a long article criticising British Communist Party policy, together with an answer by the Executive of the British Party. The articles are far from friendly for the British Party accuses its Australian comrades of attributing to them ”various policies which we have never put forward, without giving evidence to substantiate the statements made . . .”

The British Party is accused of the “blunder of advocating the continuance of the reactionary coalition government, headed by the arch-imperialist and warmonger, Churchill.” It also showed “lack of understanding of the role of the social-democratic government,” failed to foresee the Labour Party’s victory at the 1945 General Election, and "failed to estimate correctly the position in Britain and the mood of the masses.” It is also accused of betraying a "class collaborationist outlook” because even as late as April, 1947 it was boosting the greater production campaign and the export drive.

The British Party in its reply denies ever having wanted a continuance of the war-time coalition government after the war under Winston Churchill, though they admit having proposed the formation of a government of ” National Unity,” but not under Churchill.

As, in 1939, the British Communist Party took the initiative of writing to Churchill and the Labour and Liberal leaders inviting them to form a coalition to oppose Hitler it is rather surprising that they should be so anxious to deny having wanted him as Prime Minister in 1945.

One revealing passage in the Australian party’s reply is the following about the British Communist miners’ leader, Mr. Arthur Horner:

"The language of Comrade Horner, in rebuking striking miners, is as fierce as that customarily used by the extreme right wing in Australia, and is headlined in the capitalist press in order to help break down strikes in Australia.”

A quotation from Mr. H. Pollitt’s booklet, "Looking Ahead,” is used by the Australians with telling effect in a charge that the British Party does not understand what is happening. Pollitt wrote: "I have no hesitation in declaring that the essence of the period we are now in is that of a transition stage towards Socialism.” The British party’s denial that this was meant to refer to Britain, is met by the production of other similar statements and the Australian Communist Party declares that "there can be no doubt that these statements have specific application to Britain and not general application, as the British leaders claim.” Altogether it looks as if some Communist “purges” are on the. way as soon as the Russian Party decides which party is toeing the line suitable to the Russian Government.

Communist Tribute to Rqoeevelt

The Daily Worker (11/11/48) announced a Peace Rally and an ex-servicemen’s march from Trafalgar Square to lay a wreath on the Cenotaph. The Rally was "called jointly by the Daily Worker and nine major trade union organisations.” The announcement goes on as follows:

“A delegation will also go to the Roosevelt Memorial with a tribute from the people of London to the late President ‘lover of peace’ and all those Americans following in his tradition.”

As Mr. Truman was Roosevelt’s Vice-President, and is his successor as leader of the “New Deal” Democratic Party this tribute presumably includes him. And why no Communist Tribute to Mr. Churchill, who, after all, was their choice as Prime Minister of Britain in 1939 and was brother-in-arms of Roosevelt during the war?

Edgar Hardcastle

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labourite on Profits

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . I think that to be attacking the profits is to start at the wrong end; I think that we and the trade union movement ought to be gunning for the firms who are not making any profits. That is our problem in connection with prices, and one which arises out of our success at achieving full employment. We are protecting the inefficient. The big gap of prices is the one which has to be closed, and, therefore, we ought to gun for the fellow not making profits." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

And Another on Capitalism

Mr. Chamberlain (Labour, Norwood): ". . . Then the hon. Member said that the Government are pledged to destroy capitalism. So far from that, they have made it clear again and again that whereas a certain proportion of our economy is to be nationalised, yet the major part of it will remain the province of private capital enterprise, and surely nobody suggests that we should destroy that large part of our economy which is recognised as an essential and important section." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Income from Foreign Investments

Mr. Awbery asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of foreign investments and the income from them for the years 1913, 1920, 1938 and 1945.

Sir Stafford Cripps: “The figures are as follows: —In 1913, total value about £4,000 million, income £210 million. In 1920, total value £3,200 million to £3,700 million, income £200 million. In 1938 nominal value £3,692 million. These are all private estimates. Gross income from interest, profits and dividends in 1938 is estimated at £205 million and payments at £30 million making a net income of £175 million. No figures are available or the values of investments in 1945, but proceeds of sales during the war amounted to £1,118 million. Gross income in 1945 was £170 million payments £73 million and net income therefore £97 million. (Question Time, 8.11.49).

Nationalisation—A Tory Viewpoint 

Mr. Raikes (Conservative, Liverpool, Wavertree): “. . . Nationalisation is now a fact, and I say quite frankly, speaking from this side of the house, that it is the duty, of all sides to try to make the National Coal Board work, and to work effectively." (National Coal Board Debate, 10.11.49.)

It’s News to Us

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . The weakness of some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is that they do not realise that much of their propaganda—and it may be some of the legislation—springs from the time when we were dispossessed instead of being the ruling classes as we are at the present time." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Better Than Nothing!—The Standby of all Labour Governments

Mr. Younger (Under Secretary of State, Home Office): “. . . Reverting for a moment to high explosive defence, I believe that in broad terms it is the expert opinion that it is three times better to be in a house than to be in the open; and it is five time better to be in an ordinary brick surface shelter than to be in a house. That is to say, it is 15 times better to be in a shelter than in the street. It is not complete protection, but it is better than nothing . . ."

“. .. The suggestion that the fact of a person being in a shelter would make no difference at all is contrary to the advice I am given. I am advised that there is a radius from an atomic explosion at which these shelters could be helpful, and they are better than nothing."

“. . . I should not want it to be thought that anything I am saying is to be taken as suggesting that the expert view of the Government is that the 1945 standard of protection is either adequate against the atomic bomb or against what could be expected in the matter of high explosives. All I do say is that, pending further provision on a tremendously increased scale to meet the country’s requirements, it is very much better to have what we have got than nothing at all." (Demolition of Air-Raid Shelters, 28.10.49.) 

Stan Hampson

A call to bolster capitalism: Cripps appeals to the workers (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The problem that affects the working-class is one of poverty. It is not one of trade, good or bad. Poverty presses upon them almost as relentlessly in times of good trade as in times of trade depression. Times of prosperity are never enjoyed by workers although they read of them. What is the cause of poverty ? The private ownership of the means of wealth production. Those who own can compel workers to accept wages so low that they are barely able to restore their energies and rear families. The surplus produced by the workers above their wages is the source of the vast incomes of the capitalist class; this surplus is unpaid labour. The total product of society is divided between the workers who produce it and the capitalists who own it. There is no other participant in the division of wealth. Nothing stands between the workers and the abundance they produce but capitalist ownership. Poverty can be ended when wealth is produced solely for use and freely distributed. That 'means that we have to end production for sale and profit; in short we have to end capitalism.

There are some who give other reasons for working-class poverty and offer other plans for dealing with it. Either they have no understanding of capitalism or they have an interest in maintaining it. Sir Stafford Cripps falls into one of these two camps Before the election he stated, for the Labour Party, "the comfort of the people is the A.1 priority." Now he intends to set up a triple alliance — Trade Unions Employers and Government. — who will plan to bring "British competitive industries to the highest pitch of efficiency."—Daily Herald, September 10th, 1945. For "comfort”? No, the priority is the export trade. In his speech outlining the plan Cripps suggested that it will be difficult for people to realise that by going short now "they are in fact making sure of better and far more stable standards for the future.” What a stale feeble doctrine.' We will paraphrase it, "Put up with your poverty a little longer and shortly. —The Kingdom of Heaven." Really, Sir Stafford ought to be ashamed of himself. Isn’t he able to do better than this? Of course, this ruse has been used very successfully for decades. In 1931 the National Government used it and they obtained 14,000,000 votes. A slight variation in Germany was known as “guns before butter.' How amazing that a famous Labour leader should formulate "markets before butter,” or, what amounts to the same thing.

It is interesting to see how we are to reach this paradise; "there will be an obligation upon the workers to give of their best,” and should some agitating socialist murmur, "oh—big profits,”—that scalawag is already answered, "not for the sake of the owner's profits but for the sake of our national economic survival and prosperity." The thinking worker will realise by now that as he has to go short in the national interest and we have already shown that there are only two classes in the nation, that "national survival or prosperity” is synonymous with capitalist prosperity.

In fact, it is quite easy to see this if we examine another part of this great cali. Cripps says that the Trade Union movement "must also take in the question of markets and consumer interests.” Who is this consumer whose interest is of equal or perhaps of more importance, than the workers' wages and conditions? In the first part of this article we showed that wealth is shared by two classes only. The consumers in society are the working class and the capitalist class. If workers forego their own interests in favour of someone else, that someone else is the capitalist class, however high-sounding the words that mask their sordid interest.

Let us look more closely at the matter. We know from experience that high or low prices matter little to workers in the long run; but what of the capitalist? They are not only private consumers., but as industrialists they buy the means of production. They have to build factories, buy plant, tools and the raw materials necessary to the production of other commodities. The value of the plant and the raw materials is transferred piecemeal into the new products. The only additional value is the new labour that has been put into production. But they cannot obtain this additional value—the source of their profits—until the goods are sold. They are forced therefore to cheapen their products in order to compete in the market. This they achieve by making workers work harder, by using labour-saving machinery and by obtaining cheaper raw materials. We will give an example. Behind the agitation for more efficient coal production lies the hard economic fact that its cost as a raw material is embodied in the cost of the new or finished products. Mr. R. Summers, Chairman of J. Summers, Ltd., stated at their annual general meeting that critics of the steel industry did not fully appreciate that as the price of coal was more than double that of 1939 it had a serious adverse effect on the price of steel. —Economist, June' 9th, 1945. He was aware of the need for lower prices, “to compete in the export markets of the world,” but he emphasised,, “that everything possible must be done to lower the cost of vital raw materials.” The capitalist aim behind the struggle for lower prices is quite clear; it enables a quicker sale of products and a quicker realisation of profits.

But does Cripps' aim differ in any way from this? His aim also is to obtain lower prices and capture markets. He calls upon workers to. “give of their best.” To whom? To those who exploit them. Where will the working-class come in during the process of labour-saving? Some will clock in at the factory gates to work harder than ever before while the displaced and unnecessary workers will show their cards at the Labour Exchange. All will remain in poverty.

Cripps made one or two statements that should be noted. He warned the trade unions that; “the whole reputation of the Trade Union movement will be at stake.” and that the Government will be advised by the three party group (Triple Alliance) as to what, “ compulsions are required to see that the minimum plan is implemented.” The compulsion will be required for, “a few recalcitrant and non-co-operative members.” What does he mean by this? This is funny language from a leader of the party that only seven weeks before (July 26th) was hailing the “dawn of a new day.” This is the language of capitalism in extremity. Does Cripps intend to resemble Dr. Ley? Certainly this plan bears no resemblance to Socialism. Incidentally, it is an indication of the childish imbecility of the I.L.P. that their comment on the plan was “The Stafford Cripps plan to establish committees representing Government, employers and the workmen .... must be judged on how far the Government is really putting through a socialist plan.”—New Leader, September 15th, 1945.

The Daily Herald, described this speech of Cripps as a “great call” to the Unions. True, a cull to bolster capitalism. Three years ago Cripps visited India with proposals which were rejected. Nehru’s comment was biting; “ From our side there are going to be no approaches to the British Government, for we know that whoever comes from there speaks the same accent as of old: and treats us the same way”—Reuter, April 15th, 1942. Quoted in Forward May 2nd, 1942 (our italics).

Consider the truth of those last few words: "treats us. the same way.” . The ideas of Sir Stafford Cripps, by virtue of his position in the Labour Party,, command respect among many workers. They should examine him as critically as Nehru did. It may be claimed that he is sincere, but that is of no avail. In his pose as a Socialist he is hindering the Socialist movement by cluttering up the path of Socialist propaganda with his misconceptions and delusions.

We have always known that he is not a Socialist and now we will give him this advice. Drop your pose as a defender of working-class interests. Your job is to patch up capitalism; stick to your last.

L. J.

The Importance of Mr. Profumo (1963)

From the July 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

it was the Daily Express which pointed out, quickly, cruelly, that profumo is the Italian word meaning perfume. But the famous scandal sticks in a way undreamt of in the philosophies of big newspapers.

Now Profumo’s “sin,” for the Tories, was not just that he was running a mistress. That was bad enough, but there have been some famous precedents who have got away with the same thing. It was not even that the girl was being shared with a Russian intelligence agent and at least a couple of others, although that was enough to wilt the flowers on the starchiest of hats at a Conservative women’s fete. What really put Profumo beyond the pale was that he admitted to telling a lie. Not a lie to just anyone, but to the House of Commons, which is supposed to be an assembly of gentlemen and where it is the tradition not to question nor debate personal statements like Profumo’s original assertion of his innocence, this was what Robert McKenzie called a kick in the stomach for the Tories, who have always liked to think of themselves as the party of better people, of Christian gentlemen.

It was the lie which gave Lord Hailsham the excuse for his fireworks in his TV interview with McKenzie, when he blasted Profumo as a man who has “ lied and lied and lied ” and insisted that the whole affair was a moral issue. Hailsham is well known as a Tory moralist, a strict Christian who professes unshakeable principles. So is another central figure in the drama surrounding the government crisis—Enoch Powell. The hullabaloo over Profumo has served to make these men— and others like them—heroes of integrity. The inference we are invited to draw is that generally capitalism administered by the sort of men who would never tell a lie and that Profumo was just the inevitable bad apple.

Alright. Let us have a look at this business of lies. And if we do, the first thing to hit us is that political history is crammed with examples of men who, as a matter of course, have told enormous lies yet have never been accused of being liars. Some of them, in fact, have died as respected pillars of capitalist society. Stafford Cripps, for example, was the very caricature of an ascetic moralist. Strict vegetarian. Fervent Christian. Like Enoch Powell, he was supposed to be a man who stood for principle before everything. Did Cripps, then, never tell a lie? We need nudge our memories only a little to recall that in 1949 he protested for weeks that he had no intention of devaluing sterling, while all the time his plans for devaluation were cut and dried. There are plenty of other examples of Cripps’ flexible reverence for the truth.

The Tories are not, of course, untarred by this brush. Hailsham and Powell are only two of those who were unprotesting members of the Eden government which embarked on the Suez fiasco. They apparently held their consciences in check when their government broke its word to the United Nations and justified the invasion by what were quickly revealed as blatant lies. More recently the same, government has been what we can politely call less than frank over, the deportation of Doctor Soblen and of Chief Eriahoro. In fact, in a more subtle way, Christine Keeler is not the only matter on which Profumo has been dishonest, although on these issues his ex-colleagues in the government would never dream of calling him rude names. As Minister of War, Profumo bore the ultimate responsibility for the big publicity campaign to persuade people to join the Army. The advertisements used in this campaign showed such a one-sided view of Army life that even some newspapers felt moved to protest. Profumo’s ads. showed clean-living young men playing rugby, climbing mountains, patrolling romantic deserts. They did not hint that military discipline, in its dreary stupidities, is designed to degrade and brutalise men. They did not mention the unpleasant places a soldier may be sent to, nor the dirty jobs he may have to do there. They ignored the fact that soldiers often die especially horrible deaths, looking not at all like clean living Soldiers of the Queen as they do so. The advertisements told lies, but nobody in the government got upset with Profumo because of that.

Neither have they been upset by the lies about, say, the effects of testing nuclear weapons. The government assure us that the danger from these exercises is negligible and that another little test will not do us any harm. Yet they know perfectly well that every test adds to the atmosphere’s load of radioactivity and that this means that a lot of people, especially children, will die who would otherwise have lived. Overseas, as well, lies are told on this matter. President Kennedy has recently announced that his government will suspend all tests, unless some other country starts them up again. This may well be followed, as it was in 1958, by a similar announcement from Moscow. Both sides will pose as the guardians of peace and human safety. Yet both sides know that a suspension of tests does not mean that the development of nuclear weapons has been suspended. They know that they are all working on -their bombs and that when they think it is to their advantage to do so they will think up some reason to start testing them again. Are Kennedy and Khruschev, then, champions of truth?

It would, indeed, be surprising if men in their position were, for they administer a social system which is full of lies, and not only those told by politicians. Were the makers of thalidomide telling the truth when they asserted that the drug could safely be taken by pregnant women? What sort of principle were they upholding, when they protested that the delay in the American Food and Drug Administration approving thalidomide was costing them their chance of exploiting a Christmas market? Do the mass-production tailors believe their own advertisements, which show aristocratic young men being admired by glamorous girls for the cheap off-the-peg outfit they are wearing? Are the estate agents who advertise a cramped, poky apology for a house as “ neat and compact ” and a garden with knee-high weeds as “mature” keen churchgoers who regularly say their prayers?

We know what grounds these lies are excused on. We know that capitalism claims that strategic and commercial reasons justify telling lies. As R. A. Butler said about the Cripps lie, “. . . I know that if you talked about devaluing the currency well ahead of time, you would do indefinite damage to your own currency. . . .” But they cannot have it both ways. Capitalism professes to work on a basis of morality; workers are taught from the very beginning that the road to Heaven is paved with honesty and high principles. Yet capitalism admits that its own interests force it to deny these principles. And since when have the sort of morals propounded so often by capitalism's leaders been relative, adaptable, matters of expediency? A lie, after all, is a lie under any circumstances. No, they cannot have it both ways, although over Profumo that is how they have tried to have it.

Imagine a politician who told the truth! A Minister of Housing who admitted that he could not solve the housing problem! A Foreign Secretary who blew the gaff on every double-crossing international carve up as soon as he had made it! A Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced his Budget with the admission that it was just a rehash of a lot of ideas which had flopped in the past! If that happened nobody would get involved in a scandal. There would be a dignified resignation, surrounded by sorrowful stories of tiredness, strain and mental breakdown.

Profumo told a rather foolish and, for him, a risky lie. But at least it was a lie about his personal life, a lie which involved only a very few people. In contrast, day after day capitalism goes on turning out lies which affect the welfare and in many cases the very lives of millions of people. What is more, those lies play their part in bolstering the social system which degrades and depresses the majority—the only socially useful people—the working class.

No minister gets worked up about that. There are no top level inquiries, no resignations, nothing on television. In cases like the Profumo scandal the working class are supposed to be content with a mixed diet of salacity and hypocritical moralising. The same newspapers which got indignant over Profumo's lie saw nothing wrong in paying thousands of pounds for Christine Keeler's story, nor in publishing photographs of her which we will describe—and not for want of a better word—as arresting.

It will be tragic if in among this smoke screen of hypocrisy and scandal the essential fact is lost sight of. Let us state it here, quickly and simply.

Lies are essential to capitalism and super moralists like Lord Hailsham know it. And capitalism itself is the biggest lie of all.

Ivan

Editorial: War—But With Whom? (1950)

Editorial from the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a popular theme with writers on war to discuss after the event how each war could have been avoided if only the government had taken action to stop the aggressor in time. Thus Sir Duff Cooper in an article in the Daily Mail (16/5/50) tells the British people that “had they been willing to listen to Lord Roberts before 1914 or Mr. Churchill before 1939, it is possible that two world wars might have been avoided.” His present theme is that Russia is not the only danger to world peace for within a short time Germany may again have recovered sufficiently to become an equal or greater menace. The fact that he recognises the existence of more than one potential enemy reveals the fallacy of the whole of his case for stopping war by timely action; for it must be obvious that a government cannot take a decision unless it knows with which Power it may be at war and with which Power it may then be in alliance. Sir Duff Cooper's list of warning voices is not complete; to it should be added those who expected war with Russia in 1919, or with France in 1923, or with America at various times of tension. Where all such arguments go astray is that they fail to see that while the world remains capitalist all Powers are potential enemies. From which it follows that the capitalists and the capitalist politicians are always divided in their judgment about which rival Power is the greatest menace. Before 1914 there were influential British groups which favoured an alliance, or at least a “deal,” with expansionist German capitalism and it was a similar division of opinion that produced the Chamberlain policy towards Hitler.

At the present moment most British and American Statesmen see Russia as "the only militaristic and aggressive Power in the world,” but others, like Sir Duff Cooper, taking a longer view, see a renascent Germany as “the enemy,” and in truth nobody can be certain that these discords may not be overshadowed by others in the course of a few years. Under the Russian threat France, Britain and Holland now welcome American Military Aid to hold colonies in Asia, and the investment of American capital in colonies in Africa but if and when the Russian threat diminishes the encroachment of American capitalism may appear as the more dangerous menace.

Each school of thought can produce supporting arguments. While the People (7/5/50) featured the threat to British exports from “the growing menace of cheap goods made in Germany and Japan” the Sunday Empire News of the same date was warning its readers that “countries behind the Iron Curtain are flooding world markets" with all sorts of goods at cut-throat prices.”

The British Government, through the Foreign Under-Secretary, Mr. E. Davies, declares its view that at present German exports do not constitute a serious menace to British export trade (Daily Telegraph 16/5/50); but Mr. Davies' further statement that German exports would have to be increased many times before they represented “a threat equivalent to the German pre-war export rate” shows that he has not forgotten the alarm British exporters felt in the years immediately before the second world war. What happened then may happen again as German production increases.

A more understanding view used to be expressed by Sir Stafford Cripps who told an audience of co- operators at Ilkeston, Derby, on 17 September, 1944: “A return to open competition between the nations will inevitably lead to another and even more disastrous war” (Daily Express 18/9/44). Having now forgotten what he once knew Sir Stafford Cripps has in recent years been the Minister primarily responsible for the drive to flood world markets with British exports at prices below those of foreign competitors. He was responsible for the devaluation of the pound in September, 1949, with the specific object of lowering British export prices but now he cannot see that in the eyes of foreign capitalists this is “economic aggression" which will in due course produce its harvest of international enmity, retaliatory action and eventual threats of war.

The former Sir Stafford had a better grasp of the relationship between capitalism and war but at that time he was not finally committed to the effort of the Labour Government to put British capitalism on its feet again. He still cherished the utopian notion of a world capitalism pruned of aggression through the now moribund United Nations.

Editorial: A budget secret revealed (1949)

Editorial from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tories praised Sir Stafford Cripps for his “honest and courageous" budget. Loyal Labour M.P.’s rallied round but sadly thought of the awkward questions they would have to answer when next they addressed their constituents. Some blamed him and his budget for causing the Labour Party to lose control of Middlesex and London in the County Council elections. Other aggrieved Trade Union M.P’s, and of course the Communists, raged against Sir Stafford and demanded what they call a "Socialist” budget. Practically everyone assumed that Cripps is the man solely responsible for what the budget contained and it falls to us to reveal that this is far from the truth. But before we divulge our secret and lay the blame where it justly belongs let us glance at what the Cripps budget did. and at the critics who demand a “Socialist” one in its place.

The principal budget changes are the increased prices the workers will have to pay for butter, meat, cheese and margarine because the government will not increase the subsidies on these articles; a reduction of 1d. a pint on beer that the workers drink, and of 2s. a bottle on light wines that the workers don’t drink; an increase of telephone charges; an increase of death duties on the estates of the wealthy; a concession to companies that allows them an increase of the initial tax free amount they may set aside for the depreciation of plant and machinery. .

What particularly shocked the Labour Party rank and hie was that "their own government," while insisting still that workers ought to refrain from wage claims except on special grounds, should itself raise the cost of food by £70 million a year and add insult to injury by the 1d. a pint oil beer and by various concessions to companies in the matter of taxation; and all of this in face of the urgent pre-budget plea by the trade unions for the cost of living to be lowered by abolition of some of the purchase taxes.

Guns before butter.

Now why did the budget contain these things, and not others more to the liking of Sir Stafford Cripps’ critics in his own Party? His own explanation ran on familiar lines. The government, he says, has to meet increased expenditure on the social services (the National Health scheme, etc.), and on expanding armaments to meet the new threats to world peace, and it cannot do this if at the same time it reduces the workers’ cost of living. Or to put it another way, you cannot devote more men and materials to the production of food, and of exports to buy food, if you have decided to take more men and materials for the armed forces and the manufacture of armaments (as a deceased foreign politician once said, "Guns before butter”). Cripps forestalled another line of attack by insisting that it is not possible for his government to go any further in the direction of soaking the rich to help the poor. The rich must be left more or less with what they have and the poor must be patient until such time as they have greatly increased the amount of wealth produced and then some of it will come to them.

This argument fails to satisfy the critics;.they feel there is a catch in it Arithmetically considered, the critics obviously have an unanswerable case. If the rich were brought down to a common level the poor could have more. If armies and armaments were reduced or abolished more food, clothing and houses could be produced. If rent, interest and profits were reduced or eliminated wages could be raised. But we are not dealing with an arithmetical problem. What we are dealing with is the working of a social system—capitalism—and nobody has yet done these things with capitalism or shown how they can be. done.

There have been many Labour governments in different parts of the world but not one of them has ever done these things. They have all put forward the same excuses as Sir Stafford Cripps for not doing them.

Cant from the Communists.

The clearest example of all is that of Russia where a Communist government has had power uninterruptedly for over thirty years. Lenin promised that immediately they got power all managers, officials, etc., would be brought to approximately the workers’ wage. It has never been done. Instead there is the greatest inequality between the masses and the wealthy minority. The British Communists demand of the Labour government in Britain something that the Russian communist government has not done and has no intention of doing. Let the Communists explain why there are rich and poor in Russia—why not soak the Russian millionaires to help the Russian poor? And why not abolish the turnover tax (like the British purchase tax) so that prices paid by the Russian workers could be reduced? Russian State concerns have to make a profit and pay over part of it to the government; and the State concerns and the government pay out vast sums as interest to the bondholders. Why then does not the Russian government abolish profit and bondholding and use the proceeds to raise wages or reduce prices?

The answer to all these questions is that where you have production of commodities for sale and profit-making, where you have the wages system and property incomes, you have capitalism, and those who administer capitalism are forced within very narrow limits to do those things that capitalism requires, those things and no others. Where you have capitalism you nave rich and poor. Where you have capitalist competition for markets you have international tension and must maintain armaments.

It is not our purpose in this article to argue the practicability of Socialism but merely to hammer home the lesson that at present we (and the Russian and all other workers) live under capitalism and from that all else flows. Budgets are the financial arrangements made for the conduct of the Capitalist State and it is childish muddle-headedness to ask that they be transformed in “Socialist” budgets. It is equally unreal to ask that the British Labour government or the Russian Communist government should transform their respective forms of capitalism into Socialism. The great majority of the workers so far do not understand and therefore do not want Socialism and it cannot be imposed upon them against their will and understanding. 

Now we can reveal why the budget is as it is. Sir Stafford Cripps it was who put pen to paper after studying the problems before him, but capitalism and its forces dictated to him what the problems were and the shape his budget had to take. Beside him and backing him stand his fellow ministers, and behind them and sharing the responsibility are all those Labour Party propagandists, delegates and rank and file members who thought that they could run capitalism in a non-capitalist way. They are learning the hard way that they can’t, and are wasting precious years to do it. Any member of the S.P.G.B. could have told them what would happen to their attempt to run capitalism, as indeed we shall remind them again when eventually a disgruntled working class rejects them and they retire to hold a sad and angry inquest into the causes of their failure. They will probably blame Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps as last time they blamed MacDonald and Snowden but the blame and responsibility will equally be their own.

Socialism? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.P.G.B. have always maintained that the Labour Party has nothing in common with Socialism, in spite of many claims and statements by other political parties to the contrary.

It would seem we have a champion in Sir Stafford Cripps judging by the following extracts from his speech (reported in The Star 11th January):—

“. . . profits were not immoral provided they were not excessive. They were a necessary and essential factor in capitalist industry and must be made and suitably taxed."

It should be noted that Sir Stafford omits to state what are considered "excessive profits.”

Sir Stafford also praises the great efforts made by the workers in this country, saying that voluntarily exercised restraint in respect of personal incomes was still necessary. The same old story. Surely the workers have experienced sufficient of Labour Government to realise that their position remains the same.

It is evident that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find markets for our exports and inevitably will come the time when these markets become glutted and full employment programmes will sadly fail. The Labour Government can no more save the situation than any other party advocating the continuance of Capitalism.

The General Election is once more upon us are; you again going to support one or other of the capitalist parties and consequently your own exploitation, or are you going to examine the position and come to the conclusion, as we have, that the only hope for the working class is Socialism?

Only when the majority realise the need for Socialism will it be established. When this stage is reached there will be no need for personal incomes with or without restraint.

Phyllis Rogers.

Notes by the Way: Cock-eyed Trade Unionism (1950)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cock-eyed Trade Unionism

Before the Labour Party became the Government, when Labour propaganda was more exuberant and unrestrained, trade unionists were always told that a Labour Government would push up wages at the expense of profits.

But Labour in power is very different from Labour in opposition, and now the Government devotes its principal efforts to persuading the workers not to make wage claims. This turnabout reached the peak of the fantastic late in December, 1949, when the Government held parallel meetings, with the T.U.C. on the one side and with the British Employers’ Confederation on the other.

The purpose was first to persuade the T.U.C. to accept wage-freezing and recommend it to its constituent unions. The T.U.C. agreed. The Government then appealed to the employers and we are told that they also pledged their support to Government policy on wages, production and profits. Here are some Press reports of the pledge given by the employers' spokesman to Mr. Bevin:—

“The Foreign Secretary gave a review of the present national situation, and asked for the co-operation of employers in the necessary efforts to secure stabilisation and increased production.

“Sir Greville Maginess (president), on behalf of the Confederation, gave the assurance that the employers would co-operate fully in the national interest.” (Daily Herald 22/12/49).

The Herald went on to explain:—

“The mention of “stabilisation” is believed to refer to the continued need for restraint on personal incomes, including wage rates, profits and dividends.”

The Times (22/12/49) added a few points, under the charming heading

"Employers promise support for wage stabilisation.”

Lastly, Mr. Ernest Bevin appealed to representatives of 50 employers' federations for their help in securing stabilisation and increased production. The last meeting was remarkable in that it found Mr. Bevin, the old trade union leader, appealing, among other things, to employers for their co-operation in stabilizing wages. . . . Sir Greville Maginess, on behalf of the confederation assured him of the employers* support.” (Times 22/12/49).

So we have reached the ironical position that the Labour Government (which promised higher wages) asks for and receives the backing of the T.U.C. (which exists to press for higher wages) for a policy of wage-freezing; and as if that isn't funny enough, the Government then appeals to the employers (whose interest it is to resist wage claims anyway) to promise in effect that they will go on resisting them.

The supporters of Labour Government, of course, defend themselves by saying that circumstances compel the Government to act in this way.

We agree up to the hilt; with, however, the slight amplification that the “circumstances" referred to are that the Labour Government has taken on the job of keeping Capitalism going.

Mr. Horner and the “Daily Worker”

In its issue for 30th December. 1949, the Communist Daily Worker reported that the miners’ national delegate conference had voted in favour of “wage-freezing” by passing a resolution endorsing the policy of the Trades Union Congress General Council. The resolution read: —

“Having regard to the serious economic situation of the country, we approve the terms of the report of the General Council in relation to T.U.C. wages policy.”

The Daily Worker condemned the resolution and urged the miners to reject it; and described the “wage-freezing” policy as one "foisted on the Trades Union Congress by the Government.” The Daily Worker reporter, Mr. George Sinfield, stated that "several leaders” of the miners told him that if the policy of withdrawal of wage-claims is pursued there will be serious repercussions in the pits.

It will be noticed that Mr. Sinfield talked about the matter with several miners’ leaders, but one of them he does not mention. That one is Mr. Arthur Horner who is General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and is a year-long member of the Communist Party. The Daily Worker said nothing at all about their esteemed Communist Party colleague, but the omission is made good by the Manchester Guardian. The latter, on the same day, reported that the resolution which the Daily Worker found so obnoxious and which was presented to the delegate meeting by the Union's Executive, was “moved by Mr. Arthur Homer," secretary of the Union.

Ask the Basutos to come and help us

The following are recent news items: —

“Professor G. I. Jones, lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, has been sent to South Africa by the Colonial Office in an attempt to trace to its psychological source the wave of ritual murders which is sweeping Basutoland” (E. Standard 26/11/49).

The other items refer not to Basutoland, but to crime in Britain:—

”Except for the year 1946 there has been an annual increase since 1938 in the number of indictable offences. The 1938 figure of 283,220 rose to 522,634 in 10 years.

The 1948 figure of 40 murders was the highest in the 10-year period. The lowest was 20 in 1944.” (D. Telegraph 6/1/1950).

“Number in gaol, highest for 38 years.” (D. Telegraph 29/9/49).

The Professor seems to be travelling in the wrong direction.

The Catch in the "Welfare State"

The Labour Government claims credit for having introduced or extended various social services, and tries to give the impression that they represent a clear gain for the workers. This is only half the story. In the first place part of the expenditure on unemployment pay, sickness benefits, etc., is met from the workers’ own national insurance contributions.

Secondly, as was pointed out by the S.P.G.B. when the Labour Party campaign for social reforms was in its infancy, when the workers are relieved of the need to pay for certain necessities, they have to struggle against pressure by the employers to reduce wages correspondingly.

Bodies responsible for arbitrating on wage claims, even when they do not put it down in black and white, take these factors into account in their awards.

And to put the matter beyond any possibility of dispute we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, stating the position in set terms in Parliament.

He was explaining the Government’s insistence that there should be no departures from the wage-freezing policy except in the case of very low wages, and he made it clear that when you are considering whether a wage comes under this heading it is necessary not only to consider the wage itself but also the benefits provided under the social service schemes.

“The White Paper must, therefore, be observed strictly, and it is only in the exceptional and genuine cases where some wage survives which, together with all the subsidies and social services, is insufficient to provide a family with a minimum reasonable standard of living, that there can be any possible excuse for going forward with a claim for an increase.” (Cripps, Hansard, 27/9/49. Col. 26).

Old Age Pensions in the U.S.A.

The same issue is arising in U.S.A. in a slightly different form. There is an old-age pension scheme covering 35 million workers, the fund being financed by equal contributions from employers and workers, supplemented by additional income raised by taxation. The old-age pension is 26 dollars a month for a single man and 41 dollars for a married couple.

But in recent months workers in some big industries have, by strikes, forced the employers to agree to pay a non-contributory old-age pension in addition to the Government old-age pension. According to the Manchester Guardian, from which the above details are taken, the steel employers and the Ford Motor Co. have agreed to pay whatever amount is required to make up the old-age pension to 100 dollars a month. Workers in other industries are threatening strikes for similar agreements, and “it is likely that this system of industrial pensions, to which the employees do not contribute, will spread widely through American industry.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/1/50.)

Just at this moment the Truman Government, with its eye on forthcoming elections, is proposing to extend the Government old-age pension scheme both by bringing in millions of workers now outside and by increasing the amount of the pension, which at present is small by American standards.

The cost of the scheme will of course go up but the interesting point is that the American employers have an obvious financial motive for supporting the increase in the amount of Government old age pensions because the larger the Government pension the smaller will be the amount the steel and other employers will need to bring the total up to 100 dollars a month.

“Industrialists have therefore a strong motive for supporting, or at least accepting, a liberalisation of the Federal scheme. It will put some additional weight on their shoulders, both in taxes and in levies on wages; but it will relieve them of the threat of a much greater weight" (M. Guardian 5/1/1950).

It will be seen that capitalism works in much the same way whether it be called a Labour “Welfare State” or a Truman “New Deal ”.

No Wage-freeze here

The Government's attempts to get the workers voluntarily to refrain from demanding wage increases to compensate for the rising cost of living are meeting with more resistance and there is no doubt that one of the reasons is that trade unionists note and resent the way in which lucky individuals vastly improve their own position by being appointed to highly paid jobs on the Boards of nationalised industries.

In the issue of the House of Commons Hansard for 8 December, 1949, the Prime Minister gave a complete list of all the members of the Boards and all their salaries and allowances. The full-time posts range up to £8,500 (plus allowances), which is the amount paid to Viscount Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, to Lord Citrine, Chairman of British Electricity Authority, and to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

Other full-time members mostly receive £3,100 or £5,000, and part-time members £500, £750 or £1,000.

Many are former trade union officials and the large difference between what they were paid for that job and what they get on the Boards sufficiently explains the competition for appointments. The Labour Correspondent of The Times (31/12/49) points out that about a quarter of the members of the T.U.C. General Council in 1945-6 are now on State Boards. He writes:— 

“In addition to Lord Citrine, then T.U.C. general secretary, the list includes seven general secretaries of important unions—Mr. Ebby Edwards, of the miners; Mr. Jack Benstead, of the railwaymen; Sir Joseph Hallsworth, of the distributive workers; Mr. E. W. Bussey, of the electrical workers; Mr. W. P. Allen, of the locomotive engineers and firemen; Mr. George Gibson, of the mental hospital workers (who later resigned), and Mr. C. N. Gallie, of the railway clerks, who has a part-time appointment."

Apart from these ex-members of the T.U.C. General Council many other T.U. officials have been appointed to National and Regional Boards.

The Times Labour Correspondent also, for comparison, summarises the position in the trade union world:—

“One striking feature is the difference in the salary levels of members of boards and of trade union officials, who have often increased their earnings by four or five times by the change. Salaries of trade union officials probably average less than £800 a year. They vary from £400 or £500 a year up to about £1,500, or in one or two cases may be as high as £2,000. There are still chief officers who earn less than £1,000, though actual salaries are often augmented by such things as a free house and expenses arrangements." (Times 31/12/49).

Wisdom from Nigeria

To protect themselves and their dependants against destitution in old age people who can afford it take out life assurance policies and do so voluntarily. The Labour Government boasts that its national insurance and old age pension schemes are a very good thing, yet so little do the workers want to be compelled to contribute that the Government has to threaten them with legal penalties if they fail to do so. The purpose behind it is to even out the poverty of the working-class by taking contributions from the young to be returned when they are old; and from the more healthy to be paid out to the less healthy; and from those who are working to those who are unemployed. Some individuals can say that they gain out of this and welcome it, but in the final analysis the capitalist class anticipate that it is cheaper for them than was the old arrangement when the sick, unemployed and aged had to be given State relief and charity.

It appears from evidence given to the official inquiry into the troubles at the Nigerian mines that the miners have seen that there is a catch in the social reform argument. The following is from a report in The Times (19/1/50):—

"Mr. L. P. Ojukwu, one of the three I.B.O. members of the colliery board . . . told the Commission that steps had been taken to induce the workers to resume normal work when information of the go-slow strike had been received. On each occasion that he spoke to the men the reply was always that they wanted money. When he explained proposals for the extension of housing schemes, hospitals, and maternity homes and for the provision of other amenities he had been met with the argument: ‘Give us more money and we will provide these things ourselves.' "

They have something there and it is a pity we do not know what kind of answer they were given. It is an aspect on which our Labour Party defenders of reformed capitalism are always silent or obscure. 

Edgar Hardcastle