Letter: Lifting a phrase (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lifting a phrase

Readers may be amused to know that at the beginning of an editorial in the Guardian (Feb. 24) there was a reference to “some people” talking about “the Footbill”. I suppose it was too much to expect that the paper would mention that the “some people” were the Socialist Standard (article on the Freedom of the Press, Feb.) but at least it is nice to know that they read the complimentary copy of the paper we sent them. At any rate we need not feel inhibited about sending them another copy. Who knows, one day they may even feel like dealing with our socialist criticism.

L. E. Weidberg 

London, N.W.3

Power pact (1981)

From the November 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

The political alliance between the Liberals and the ‘Social Democrats' pales into insignificance in comparison with the more sinister alliance between the SDP and the BBC. The media in recent months has outdone many of its previous efforts in paving the path of ‘moderation' as the TV, radio and newspaper journalists invent stories to prove that there is now a popular burst of opinion in favour of ‘centre politics'. What began as a Gang of Four has become a rabble of many: ex-Labour cabinet ministers, sixteen members of the ruling group on Islington council, some Liberals who look like they have just won the jackpot at Bingo, and even an inoffensive looking Tory from Norfolk. Names that once sent us searching for a copy of Who's Who (Had you heard of Bill Rodgers when he was a member of ‘our great movement’?) are paraded across our screens as the speakers of Truth; Liberals who used to write manifestos about saving whales and giving power to Wales (or was it the other way round?) are now adopting pompous airs and talking about ‘preparing for government'; even that undying enemy of labour and friend of Labour, The Daily Mirror, has opted for the alliance, with full-page photographs of semi-nude women saying The middle way is the best'.

In order to establish the mythical middle, mythical extremes are needed. One can imagine the editor of The Guardian issuing the order: ‘Go out and create us a couple of really awful extremes so that we can sell this new centre.' And so the caricatures came to be. First, there is the caricature of the wicked, thoughtless Thatcherite Tories who plan to increase unemployment and blow up the world with American weapons once they have succeeded in getting the whole working class standing in one long dole queue. Like the witch in a children’s book, Thatcher is painted as being wickedness personified. The other side of the caricature is the Marxist- dominated Benno-Trotyskyist Labour Party. Benn is portrayed as a modern Stalin, waiting patiently for his chance to grab power and destroy Western Civilisation (coming soon).

Like all myths, there are elements of truth. Thatcher and the Tories are viciously anti-working class. When have Tories not been? Their ignorant and unhistorical monetarist policies do fail to provide any solution whatsoever to the social problems of our time. They are impotent in the face of disaster and arrogant in the face of criticism. With increasing unemployment, increasing cuts in social services, increasing armaments production and increasing poverty, workers are right to regard the promises of Thatcher and her team as an insult to human intelligence. The memories of Labourites are as short as their alternative policies for getting society out of the mess it is in.

They attack the problems as if Thatcher caused them. As if unemployment did not double under the last Labour government; as if Labour Ministers were not in the forefront of cutting social services in order to balance the books; as if the last Labour government did not place armaments production as a top priority; as if the rich did not get richer during the period of the last Labour government. Who are these people trying to kid? But now they have an ‘alternative economic policy’ and the story goes that if we give Benn another chance (‘another' because he was in the last Labour government) he will run capitalism in the interests of the working class. This claim is a foolish and cruel con-trick. The next Labour government (if there is one) will not run capitalism; capitalism will run it. The portrait of Benn and Co. as a socialist alternative may attract a few people to the Labour party, it may scare some off, but in the long-run it will be seen as a waste of political energy.

And there they are, standing in the middle between the Wicked Witch and the Bogus Marxist Threat: the Liberal-SDP Alliance. Dead centre, dead honest, in fact they claim to be so innocuous that they might as well actually be dead. There is that nice young David Steel and that dear old Roy Jenkins . . . all terribly nice chaps with whom any self-respecting media hack would enjoy sharing a bottle of claret, but there is just one little thing: What the hell do they stand for? So far they have left the electorate in the dark about this minor aspect of their alliance. Like a well-rehearsed play for which there is not yet a script, the Alliance are selling plenty of tickets, but what will they do when their followers demand to see the performance? Not long ago a successful SDP candidate for a local council in the North East was interviewed on the local radio: “Now that people have voted for you, could you tell us exactly what policies you stand for?" asked the man from the media; “Well, we’ll be deciding our policy later this year and as soon as we have, the electors will be the first to know", replied the man from the media. So, there you have it; vote for the Alliance and ask what you are voting for later. History being made? It’s more like a mystery being made.

On one point the allies are definitely in agreement. Both are one hundred per cent committed to the maintenance of the capitalist social order. No need for a policy statement about that. Both the Liberals (who claim to stand for capitalism) and the SDP (who call themselves ‘democratic Socialists’) accept a way of running society in which goods are only produced if there is a prospect of selling them on the market for a profit. Both are opposed to any challenge to the class ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. In this vital respect the alliance is broader than it thinks, for it includes the Conservative and Labour parties. All of the Lefties with their ‘alternative economic strategies’ (for which read, ‘previously tried and failed Keynesian policies’ are as committed to the buying and selling system as any Liberal or SDPer.

As reported in a previous issue of the Socialist Standard, the SDP has refused a challenge from the SPGB to debate its views in public. Its leaders prefer to state their case from the secure distance of a BBC Any Questions studio rather than face real working class people with real problems arising from a real cause which the SDP will do nothing to remove. As the media continues to persuade us of the moderation and reasonableness of the new messiahs; as David Steel prepares to resume where Lloyd George left off; as political careerists from all parties point the accusing finger at one another and say that everyone is an extremist but themselves; as the word ‘socialism’ is tossed about the political arena like a football which changes shape each time it arrives at another team; as a Gang of Bores awaits its call to do for the working class what has never been done before and what can never be done, it is high time that we, the working class, took a good, hard look at those who want us to follow them, and when we have seen them for what they are we can tell them precisely where to go.

Steve Coleman

South Africa—chrome and cricket (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is the perennial cry of Socialists that as long as the capitalist system remains intact it will, by and large, dictate the course of events and politicians find they cannot implement promises and policies; and find themselves doing things different from or even utterly opposed to all they are supposed to stand for. The Labour Party, in common with most leftist types such as those represented by The Guardian, has for years been screaming about the iniquity of apartheid in South Africa. And quite right too. It is an abominable system.

So at times they try and do something that will make a big noise and at the same time do nothing to upset the real objective of all governments — to make the system work as efficiently and profitably as possible for the capitalist owners of the country. A convenient opportunity along these lines occurred to the last Wilson government in 1970. Wilson and his henchmen joined with the Hainites and The Guardian to strike a mortal blow at apartheid. They actually succeeded in stopping a cricket tour — and by all the sound and fury generated, one could have been forgiven for thinking that this blow had brought down apartheid, the racialist government of Vorster, and perhaps the whole evil capitalist system into the bargain. Of course apartheid has gone on just the same and as long as governments, Labour, Tory or east of the Curtain, were prepared to carry on trading and investing, Vorster and Co. would survive the loss of a cricket tour.

However, among the promises which Labour’s election manifesto poured out, was one about the iniquity of investing in South Africa. Fresh investments that is: there was no question of throwing away the vast sums already invested, or of ceasing to trade with Britain’s third biggest customer. That would worry Vorster and his apartheidists, but it would worry British capitalism even more, so such real gestures were out. The name of the game is to kid the leftists (such of them, that is, who believe their own claptrap). Not to hurt British capitalism. As though that lot isn’t in deep enough trouble already!

And so again, the needs of running the system fly in the face of all the leftists are supposed to stand for. I cannot do better than quote from a long and almost literate letter from a Labour MP called Kinnock (Guardian, July 31):

“Last October all Labour candidates fought in support of a manifesto which said that a Labour government would take urgent steps to reduce drastically British economic involvement in South Africa . . . End all financial links . . . Bring about the withdrawal of all or part of existing investment and establish machinery to prevent any further investment . . . Now, ten months later, the government permits the British Steel Corporation to invest heavily in a chrome plant in S. Africa”.

Well said, Kinnock! You have in fact exposed the Labour government as a bunch of hypocrites who would not tell a black man the time if it conflicted with the interests of the British capitalist class. Only one trouble: these people are your kith and Kinnock. You can’t accuse the government without accusing yourself at the same time. You are a Labour MP (masquerading as a socialist like all your swindling clan), and you keep that government in power for the privilege of riding to the cushy jobs at Westminster on the bandwagon. So what does that make you?

In the leading article on the same subject in The Guardian (July 29) the humbugs of Grays Inn Road give their own views: “Chrome: the only decision.” Unlike Kinnock, who denounces his own Fuehrer, the great leftist mouthpiece tells us that Wilson and his gang were quite right to rat on the manifesto. “The Labour Left may not like the idea of giving aid and comfort to South Africa”: it is “making an unnecessary fuss.” Among the reasons for this remark from the paper which made such a screaming fuss over a blasted game of cricket is:— “British Steel is among the companies with better reputations as employers of black labour. It claims it has gone to some lengths to make sure that the 184 black workers it will employ will be paid a reasonable wage, above the poverty datum line.”

Now isn’t that just ducky? It’s all right to break your word and give aid and comfort to the apartheidists if you “claim” to . . . do what? To pay the blacks good screws for working in the chrome mines? Equal to those earned by those who write hypocritical leading articles? Not quite: “Above the poverty datum line.” An extra handful of mealy, from the mealy mouths of our do-gooder Press.

But that’s only half of it. The editorial goes on to say: “It is hard to believe that what the British Steel Corporation does with its blocked funds is going to make any difference to apartheid.” So the same creeps who fooled the idiot wicket-sitters that they were striking a blow at apartheid, who endorsed the Labour manifesto without demur, now have the impudence to tell us that investment in chrome is neither here nor there as far as Vorster is concerned. They may be right. Maybe Vorster doesn’t give a monkey’s whatever Wilson and his capitalist lackeys do or do not do. But for The Guardian to say so beggars belief.

The main reason for Wilson’s decision is that South African chrome is cheaper than the rest. The editorial keeps to capitalist basics on this. If the chrome is dearer in South Africa it is right to honour your principles and buy elsewhere. But if it is cheaper, why, then you are right to say: Let the blacks go hang, we are buying in the cheapest market. There is a delightful bit at the end. In the case of another precious commodity, uranium, Tony Benn (the sanctimonious twit who wants to shed his name — but not the wealth that derives from it) wrote a letter to The Guardian in Sept. ’73 (when he was not yet in power and talk was therefore cheap) “pledging himself to end Britain’s contract to buy uranium from the Republic”. But when his lot came to power, they found: what? Why, that it would cost more to buy elsewhere. So they have not honoured this rat’s pledge to end the contract at all. Money talks louder than principles with Labour leaders — and with Guardian leader-writers.

Last, in the New Statesman, that other rag which stands for Labourite capitalism masquerading as socialism, around the same date there was a leading article on the same subject. But they objected to the betrayal of the blacks. How nice of them. The blacks will be very pleased to see them denounce the Labour Party at the next election. (A likely story.) But they actually say that something or other that Wedgbenn has done has “fastened the chains of slavery still tighter” round the victims of racialism in South Africa. I wonder what the sages of Great Turnstile will say about Benn at the next election? Workers beware? He is another twister who will sell the workers down the river (white ones as well as black)? Another likely story. One can only conclude by borrowing a pun from Marx. Es lebe der wurst! Es lebe der Hanwurst ! Long live the sausage! Long live the clown!

L E Weidberg

In other words (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Guardian is by and large (we are not saying they are consistent or that any capitalist rag can have such profitless burdens as principles) a paper that supports Labour. It is therefore the more significant to read the following passage in their leading article on the economy of July 17: "Whatever Mr. Healey may say in public, he is relying on rising unemployment to give a real bite to his anti-inflationary policy.” This is no doubt clear enough but perhaps we can put it into even simpler terms: “What the Labour government says to the working class who are stupid enough to follow their leadership is a pack of lies. What the government want is not cure unemployment, as they always say in their election addresses. They actually want to worsen unemployment as they find this necessary and desirable for the running of British capitalism (which is their job). And they want it for the purpose of giving a real bite. Out of what? Out of the living standards, of the working class.

We do not suggest The Guardian is aware of the force of what they write. But that only proves their own stupidity. What they said was true enough. Which makes a nice change.

Economical death (1983)

From the October 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

From The Guardian, 28 July, 1983:

“The most economical method of disposing of the dead in nuclear war, would be by mass burial", Mr. Alan Bullett, Kent’s deputy surveyor, told the Cremation Society conference at Harrogate yesterday. We should be planning them now. A mass grave of “manageable proportions" would be up to 50 metres long, 4 metres wide, and 2.5 metres deep, to accommodate five layers of 200 bodies — 1000 bodies in all . . . Mr. Bullett drew' some guidance from Ministry of Agriculture advice on the burning of animal carcasses after an outbreak of foot and mouth disease . . . Crematoriums could be used as radiation sickness took its toll. A member of the audience said that bodies needed a hard base for loading into a crematorium. If coffins were not available, a sheet of corrugated iron would do . . . Deaths occurring up to 3.3 miles from the burst would leave 200,000 bodies for disposal, with more to come from radiation sickness. The Government has given local authorities the task of disposal.

The Cynicism of Capitalism: 1. Come and exploit our Africans (1972)

From the October 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always made clear that nationalism, whether in Africa, Israel, Ireland or wherever, is a snare and a delusion for the working class of the country concerned. National independence may well be a good thing for the native capitalist class who are naturally concerned at seeing the fruits of the exploitation of the local working class going into the pockets of the British Imperialists or whoever the alien ruling class might be. But for workers to risk imprisonment or even death in a struggle for independence which will ensure for them nothing more than the joy of being exploited by their very own capitalists instead of foreign ones is clearly the height of folly.

A rather lurid light on this subject has recently been displayed in an advertisement in The Guardian by the Nigerian Government:

People are earning

HUGE PROFITS

in Nigeria


Huge domestic market of 55 millions


Abundant manpower is available at a rate
as low as 7 U.S. cents an hour.

You can get your investment back in
less than 3 years.

It should be pointed out that the words Huge Profits are printed in gigantic capitals in the advert, and are repeated at the end — People are earning huge profits in Nigeria: why don’t YOU ! The word “people” is itself a misleading term beloved of capitalist propagandists. It made nice capital, for example, when Nigeria was part of the British Empire, for the national capitalists to appeal to the Nigerian workers: People of Nigeria, fight to throw out the British Imperialist Exploiters. But nobody can be deceived by the present rallying-cry in the advert. The “people” who are “earning” these huge profits are not the African workers. They are earning something less. 7 cents an hour, in fact.

So the Nigerian government is setting out to get British capitalists to come and exploit African workers. Which means, of course, that a lot of these workers are going to find themselves in the ironical position of once again being exploited by the same white capitalists from whom they had fought and won their alleged independence. It is not sure, what with devaluations of the pound and revaluations of the dollar, exactly what 7 cents is worth these days but a tanner (two-and-a-half new pence to younger readers) would be somewhere near it. “In less than three years” gives an effective rate of exploitation to show a net return on capital of between 30 and 40 per cent, per annum. That’s really mouth-watering exploitation — far better than you would find in England or America. Or far worse, of course. Depending on whether you are a worker or a capitalist. That makes all the difference. Black or white clearly makes none.

Naked and unashamed, the Nigerian capitalists are boasting to Guardian readers (those poor devils who are fed each day on a diet of anti-racialism as though that were the only cause that mattered and anti-South-Africanism as though the natives of that unhappy land were living on even less than a tanner an hour) about what shockingly low wages they are getting away with. These are the people that the other people, the Nigerian workers, have put in power. “Come and exploit our blacks. They are the cheapest wage-slaves you can get.” We are not saying that the wage-slaves were better off under British rule. It is clear that they could hardly have been worse off. Even the worst capitalists must pay wages sufficient to live on. And they could hardly live on less than 7 miserable U.S. cents. And it is doubtful if such brutally cynical advertising would have happened. British capitalists are a bit too sophisticated to advertise “Our workers are paid less than other wage-slaves”. It certainly adds insult to injury to know that your exploiters are actually boasting about your slavery in the columns of the world’s leading do-gooder paper, god help us.

One wonders what that old do-gooder, the Labour peer Lord Fenner Brockway, thinks of the result of his efforts on behalf of African nationalism. No-one was more scathing in days gone by about the Socialist Party’s contention that nationalism was nothing to do with Socialism and was a trap for the working class. Brockway and the other leading Labourites of those days were all great friends of people like Nkrumah, Banda and Kenyatta. All of whom, when in power, have treated the African workers to an adaptation of the Biblical phrase: the British rules you with whips, we will rule you with scorpions. Which of course did not stop Brockway and other lefties from supporting people like Nkrumah who could fairly be described as Black Hitlers in the making (and the last little phrase would be omitted by the victims of the Nkrumah dictatorship which Brockway upheld).

Only a couple of years ago, the Nigerian government which had achieved independence had a spot of bother. It seems that some of their fellow black capitalists who lived in a part of the country they called Biafra wanted independence from their own black capitalist brothers. There was a lot of oil in the Port Harcourt area where they came from and they didn’t see why they should share the swag with the other black capitalists in Lagos. So there was another little fracas which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Africans, Nigerians and Biafran workers and their wives and children, being caught in a most murderous bloodbath or starved to death. But it seems that this was independence that the Labourites didn’t approve of. You see, these were the days of the Wilson government, and the fake socialists who were then managing British capitalism preferred to pay ball with the Nigerian government because this was in the interests of British Business (as a searing article in, of all places, The Guardian made clear when it was all over). And now that Nigerian independence has been finally won and defended against black and white alike, the net result of all the suffering and carnage is that African workers get a tanner an hour.

L. E. Weidberg

The Real Issue in Czechoslovakia (1938)

From the September 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

All sorts of people who ought to be able to remember the way in which fine slogans in the last War were used to cover secret imperialist aims have walked into the same trap again. This time it is Czechoslovakia, the argument being that the way, and the only way, to help democracy is to prevent the Germans in Czechoslovakia from carrying out the desire of the majority of them to come under German rule. Those who hold this view about democracy are prepared to go to war if necessary in order to preserve Czechoslovakia. It is, therefore, interesting to see that the special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, who wrote up the whole question on August 20th, frankly admits that democracy is not the issue at all.

He shows how the capitalists of Germany are interested in the economic and the military penetration of South-Eastern Europe (the second as a means to the first), and how various countries are likely to act in the event of war, then he adds: —

. . . The true character of the struggle that is going on even now (though as yet without arms) is fully understood in the Balkan countries. It is not a struggle for democracy, but for national independence, an independence imperilled by German “peaceful penetration” and in danger of being destroyed altogether if Germany takes up arms against Czechoslovakia. If Czechoslovakia disappears there will, in time, be no genuinely independent countries left in Eastern or South-Eastern Europe.

It should be noticed that this statement appeared in the Manchester Guardian, which backs the policy of supporting Czechoslovakia against Germany at all costs. Mr. H. N. Brailsford, who takes the same line as the “Guardian," admitted in Reynolds Illustrated News (August 21st, 1938) that what we are witnessing is a clash between two imperialisms, the German trying to dominate Europe, and the French trying to prevent it.

The real issue is whether Hitler shall overthrow or the French retain this barrier that closes the road to the corn and oil of the Lower Danube. As always, since the Entente Cordiale of 1903, two armed Imperialisms are struggling for strategic posts.

Another factor which seriously occupies the minds of the French and British rulers is the possibility of Germany and Russia coming together again. As the Manchester Guardian correspondent says: —

Like the Franco-Soviet Pact, the alliance between Moscow and Prague is chiefly intended to counteract the chances of an alliance between Moscow and Berlin. (Manchester Guardian, August 20th, 1938.)

The Manchester Guardian and Mr. H. N. Brailsford are saying no more than the truth when they admit that democracy is not the issue dividing the rival imperialisms.

The argument, therefore that the British workers should be prepared to go to war for democracy, as represented by Czechoslovakia, needs to be amended to give due recognition to the fact that the British and French and German ruling class are not at all interested in democracy, but in world power as a means of safeguarding profits.

Still the advocates of war on behalf of Czechoslovakia, have a further argument. They say that, no matter what the motives of the ruling class may be, democracy will incidentally be preserved if we resist Germany. The answer to that is that it flies in the face of all experience. Another European war would be the signal instantly for the suppression of democracy in all the war making countries without the least likelihood that the end of the war would see democracy restored even to its present state. The last war was to make the world “safe for democracy." Instead it made the world safe for Mussolini, Hitler and all the other dictators, and in this country it paved the way for the 1927 Trade Union Act, which whittled away the powers of the Unions. '

It can be readily admitted that there is an evil side to the incorporation of independent small countries into large empires, as this invariably involves attempts to suppress local culture, language and customs, with consequent embitterment, but is it worth losing millions of lives to prevent this? If it were then we would be committed to the doctrine that war is worth while to secure the break-up of the British Empire (as the Communists used to argue), and the next step would be the policy of getting the assistance of rival empires in order to do this.

The Socialist answer to all such arguments is that the lesser evils cannot be remedied except by victory in the struggle for Socialism, and this victory is not helped but hindered by war. Our task is to go on preaching Socialism (which includes internationalism), and organising the workers of the world for the achievement of their emancipation. Only then will real democracy be gained, and local culture and language be safeguarded against persecution.

Edgar Hardcastle

What price reform (1958)

From the September 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many a social reform since embodied in legislation became law not because the ruling class or its political representatives were moved by the plight of certain sections of the population, but primarily because advantages accrued to capitalism. Not benevolence but the profit consideration was the motive.

A great deal of evidence is available to substantiate this view, and that it actually accumulates almost daily is evident from what follows. In two days’ issues of the Manchester Guardian were found the following three examples.

One: Speaking of the position of young widows with children and the inadequacy of their Widows' Allowances so that “ they simply had not enough money to live on ” and were being forced to put their children in nurseries and go out to work, Dr. J. C. Heenan, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, commented: “It need hardly be said that it costs the country more to maintain nurseries than it would do to give widows adequate allowances.” (March 27th, 1958.)

Two: On the 25th of March the Maintenance Orders Bill was before the House of Commons. Now, this Bill is ostensibly designed to ensure that any man who deserts his wife and has had a Court Order for maintenance made out against him will not be able to bilk payment by simply moving about from place to place. The method by which it is hoped to ensure this is by an attachment of the man’s earnings, a form of P.A.Y.E. The essential point here is not the advantage that there may be for the women, but again the L.S.D. motive. Mr. Renton, Joint Under-Secretary to the Home Office, moving the third reading of the Bill, stated that the Bill dealt with the problem of a woman who could not get maintenance and a man who drifted into prison because he had failed to keep up regular payments more by incompetence than by malice. Continuing, he said: “More than 3,000 prisoners were now sleeping three in a cell. Prisoners are costing us (sic) nearly £6 per week per head and we ought to try and avoid sending thousands of men a year to prison for defaulting payment.” (March 26th, 1958.)

And, three: In 1955 a Committee was appointed by the Minister of Labour to investigate “industrial health.” The Report of this Committee’s first survey was published on the 26th of March, and it was given some prominence by the Manchester Guardian devoting an editorial to it, headed, “ Keeping Well at Work.” Among other things, the editorial informed us that in over one in four of nearly 800 workplaces visited in Halifax (employing some 7,700 people) washing facilities and general cleanliness were considered unsatisfactory. And Halifax was chosen not because its regarded as particularly unhealthy in any way but because it is “a concise industrial town with a fair diversity of industries.” The editorial’s summing-up paragraph is a little masterpiece of simple, lucid Guardian language. “ It is both more profitable and more sensible to spend money on keeping people well than to grant sick leave; and the best work is usually done in the best-kept places.” (March 26th, 1958.)

And there you have the Holiest of all Holy Trinitys— Church, State, and Press—lamenting the plight of young widows, deserted wives, and the working-class in general; yet withal their reforming zeal and burning fervour against injustices never leaving out monetary calculations, but all the time carefully weighing the price of one reform against another.

Chris Walsh

News of Party Activity (1975)

Party News from the July 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two more successful debates have taken place recently, and we give short reports of both below.

Labour Party

A good-sized audience attended Ealing Town Hall on 6th June for our debate with the Labour MP Sydney Bidwell. The subject “Labour Party and Socialism — is there a connection?” was chosen by Bidwell himself; he also asked for last-minute changes in the speaking arrangements. After he had thus called the tune, it turned out to be an atrociously flat one.

Bidwell spent more than half his opening twenty minutes on the positions he held and the importance of the work he did. In the remaining time he spoke of the Labour Party as a loose movement not bound by principles and of its being supported by trade unionists. No attempt was made to explain “socialism”, or the political purposes of the Labour Party.

Our representative, Comrade Barltrop, defined Socialism and gave an analysis of capitalism. Being a loose movement without principles meant simply that Labour existed on the support of non-Socialists. Labour’s history was of reform legislation and — on the quoted evidence of many Labourites themselves — this left capitalism and the situation of the working class unchanged. The Labour Party was an anti-socialist, anti-working-class party.

A period of questions to both speakers showed unmistakably what the audience thought. Bidwell responded to every instance of the perniciousness of Labour policies by saying that the Tribune group, of which he was chairman, disowned all the disagreeable things. His closing speech was received silently, while our speaker’s summing-up of the Socialist case was enthusiastically received. Literature sales for the evening were excellent.

Common Market

In a debate arranged by the Philippa Fawcett College on 30th May on the Common Market Referendum issue William Shelton (Tory MP for Streatham) spoke in favour; John Fraser (Labour MP for Norwood) urged a “No” vote; Sue Slipman (NUS Executive) also said “No”; and C. May (SPGB) put the Socialist position.

Shelton argued the benefits of staying in. He spoke of the greater opportunities for capital investment which would give more jobs; the military advantages; and the myths put out by the anti-Marketeers to frighten the electorate. Fraser’s case was that membership had not brought the promised benefits and would create difficulties for the Labour Party in carrying out its programme. Sue Slipman’s remarks can be summed-up as “student nationalism”; her concern was that European influence would dictate how our colleges and universities would operate.

Comrade May challenged the other speakers on the poverty of their contributions. He analyzed the EEC’s capitalism and pointed out that the problems of unemployment, housing, poverty etc. were features of capitalism everywhere. All the other contributors had to offer the working class was work (and that only if things went to plan).

The SPGB would vote neither “Yes” nor “No” but register votes for Common Ownership: a world system to deal with world problems. Socialism would organize production solely for use and abolish all markets. Such a society could solve the major problems. When the majority understood and wanted it they would take political action to build a world where, in the words of Oscar Wilde, “Man will be known not for what he has, but for what he is” — a refreshing thought compared with the abysmal standard of contribution on the Referendum issue.

There was an audience of about 70.

The Guardian Doesn't Apologize

On 1st June we held a rally at Trafalgar Square on the theme “Common Ownership not Common Market”. The Guardian published a photograph of part of the audience, with a caption describing the meeting as an “anti-EEC” rally. Two letters of correction, one from a regular contributor to this journal and the other from a speaker at the rally, produced only the reply that The Guardian would try to print a clarification of our position at some time. A further letter to the Editor, saying that printing one of the letters now was the only useful way of rectifying the matter, received no answer. Presumably The Guardian has varied its old slogan to: “Comment is sacred, but facts are free.”

A Silly Weekend

We were recently in touch with London Weekend Television over the possibility of a Party speaker taking part in a discussion of London rates. At their request, we sent a three-minute script outlining the Socialist case on this question. London Weekend’s reply was that this was not appropriate to their programme because: “You have no particular proposal to make other than that an unspecified form of socialism would wipe out the need to pay taxes and rates.”

Well, it isn’t much of a proposal when you think of it, is it? All these people want to do is abolish capitalism and change the whole of society, and get rid of money and have free access instead. What’s special about doing that?

What the reply reveals is that TV discussion programmes want only trivia, of course. If our script had proposed replacing rates with a Tax on Amorous Glances, or putting comic hats on parking meters, we should have been invited to send a speaker to sit facing an interviewer with corrugated brow asking "But is it viable ?” — and, no doubt, a couple of economists saying earnestly “What about the cost- push and demand-pull?”

Interesting Figures

One feature of the Common Market Referendum voting was the large number of ballot papers recorded as “spoiled”, i.e. marked otherwise than as required. The total over Britain was nearly 55,000, and there were 6,874 in Greater London.

At every election we urge people (except where there is a Socialist candidate) to write “Socialism” across the ballot papers as a means of registering what they want. How many did so on this occasion?

Trafalgar Square

A successful 2½-hour meeting was held with an attentive audience of around 500 on a fine but occasionally chilly afternoon. A total of £14.60 literature was sold from the two literature tables, in addition to sales by members; the final total was probably in the region of £18. Two collections realized £21.06.

58 members were present and the three speakers dealt with the subject of the Common Market extremely well. Several members of the audience took advantage of the roving microphone to ask the platform questions, and it was a most successful propaganda meeting.

Classes, but not class antagonism. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Manchester Guardian” (January 11th) has a delightfully phrased hope about class relationships. The Socialist points out that under Capitalism there is an owning class which lives by owning, and a non-owning class which has to work for the owners. The remedy for the resulting class conflict is to abolish private ownership and the class division. The “Manchester Guardian” has a brighter idea :—

“We have got to eliminate from the industrial state that rancour between the privileged and the disinherited, of which the heated controversies about the ‘dole’ are the latest form.”

A really choice piece of Liberal impudence. Let us keep the privileged and the disinherited, but let us find out how to induce the latter not to harbour hard thoughts about the former !

S.

Editorial: The Printing Dispute (1959)

Editorial from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the ordinary trade union point of view of a struggle to enforce more pay and shorter hours, the printers' strike seems to have been well conceived and executed and well timed.

The claim was for a 10 per cent. increase of pay and a reduction of 3½ hours, from 43½ to 40. After lengthy negotiations the employers offered 2½ per cent. and 1 hour, but tied up the offer with a long list of demands for the reorganisation of the industry to increase production. The Unions rejected this offer and rejected also the employers manoeuvre of trying to get them to take the claim to arbitration. Having taken a ballot of their members the printing unions came out on strike on June 17th, over 100,000 men and women being involved. The dispute affected the Newspaper Society and the British Federation of Master Printers, but not the Newspaper Proprietors' Association or the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, so while the Provincial newspapers, the magazines and periodicals and general printers were brought to a standstill the national and Sunday papers and London evening papers carried on, as did a certain number of firms which accepted the Unions' demands. A second dispute affecting printing ink threatened to stop the other papers, but this was avoided.

The timing was favourable for the workers because trade was recovering from the depression, unemployment was falling and the imminence of a general election made the employers, the Government and the big political parties worried lest a long-drawn out strike should hold up the very big volume of literature of various kinds needed for the election.

In the third week of the strike, discussions started under the chairmanship of Lord Birkett. Towards the end of July, at our time of going to press, the employers made an improved offer, of 3½ per cent. increase of pay, and a reduction of 1½ hours. The unions rejected this. They considered that the substantial concessions they were prepared to make to make to increase productivity justified more than 3½ per cent. on pay and at least an undertaking of a further reduction of hours at a later date. Settlement was then Expected at 4½ per cent. proposed by Lord Birkett.

The Sanctimonious “Guardian”

The dispute produced several surprising, diverting and instructive incidents. As was to be expected the Manchester Guardian led the Press in its sanctimonious comment of June 13th, laying down the usual employers' line that everyone believes in the right of the workers to strike so long as they never exercise the right:

The right to strike is a fundamental human freedom, but its exercise ought to be justified by some great cause. There is no great cause in the printing dispute—it is a piece of market bargaining over money.

Can anyone remember the Manchester Guardian ever supporting a strike (except a strike of foreign workers)? The Guardian editor’s further remark was equally hypocritical.

In the nineteenth century, when Britain had few industrial rivals, and when the main domestic industries had well-hedged fields to themselves, a strike or lock-out did not matter much, except in terms of personal suffering.

If some diligent student were to study the Guardian’s attitude to strikes in the nineteenth century, we do not doubt that he would find that the Guardian always managed to find overwhelming reasons for condemning those strikers too.

Lord Sourgrapes

It might have been expected that the newspapers that continued to be published would have solidly defended the employers, though Labour Party supporters doubtless hoped that their two mouthpieces, the official Daily Herald and the unofficial Daily Mirror, would line up with the workers against the employers. It turned out otherwise and some of the liveliest abuse during the strike was to be found in a fierce battle between the Daily Express and the other two. Beaverbrook’s Daily Express roundly accused the big magazine combines of having precipitated an unnecessary strike by their "tough and unaccommodating attitude," and said (4th July) that the provincial newspapers were the “victims of the tycoons of the magazine trade. They are paying a heavy price for their association with these richer more powerful and more belligerent allies." The biggest printing union, NATSOPA, promptly endorsed the charge. The Mirror and. Odhams (the latter owns the People and the Herald) are the “magazine tycoons" referred to, and they angrily denied the accusation. The Mirror of July 6th, in a slashing leader headed “ Lord Sourgrapes—and the drop of poison," explained that Beaverbrook has no magazines except “a couple of inconspicuous comics," called it a “smear campaign,” and passed the buck to the smaller printing firms and smaller newspapers who feared that the Unions' demands would put them out of business. The People (July 5th) blamed the Unions for not having let the claim go to arbitration in the first place. The Herald itself tried to ride both horses. It held that the men have a good case for their original demands, but that the employers “think they have a good case for insisting on increased productivity as a condition of any wage rise" (June 19th). It tried to escape its dilemma by blaming the Government for not immediately setting up a court of inquiry, which, of course, the Unions did not want, anyway.

The “Principle” of Shorter Hours

A weakness of the trade union position (to be found in many other industries as well) is the ambiguous attitude to shorter hours. Mr. Willis, one of the Union leaders and Chairman of the T.U.C., declared at the conference of the Miners' Union that the printers were striking “in support of the principle for which every trade unionist would fight, the shorter week." (News Chronicle, July 8th.) But what are the facts? Though the standard hours are now about four less than in 1938 the actual hours worked in industry are no lower than they were then. The claims for shorter hours have turned into claims for more overtime pay. In 1946 printing hours were reduced by 1½ to 43½, but within a few years the actual average hours of male workers in the paper and printing trade were higher than they were before, and in 1957 were 47 a week.

Confusion about Arbitration and Impartiality

The trade unions are in a muddle about arbitration. The printing unions consistently opposed it on the ground that it would not be “impartial,” but later in the dispute they were asking that Lord Monckton be invited—though he declined the invitation—to preside over the negotiations “to advise, guide and control” the discussions, but not to have power to be final arbiter. Lord Monckton was for four years Tory Minister of Labour (described by the General Secretary of the railwaymen in 1955 as “a very able friend of the N.U.R.! ”) and is now chairman of the Midland Bank, which refuse; to recognise the union of bank employees! Arbitration is established by the Government to settle industrial disputes and it cannot be impartial in the sense of deciding the merits of a case on some abstract principle of humanity. No such principles are laid down for the present court or the one abolished last year. The job of the arbitrators is to find a basis on which the workers can be persuaded to carry on working and the employers can keep in business—with, as an inescapable background, the continuation of Capitalism.

To illustrate the general confusion in the trade union movement it has only to be recalled that last year the T.U.C. and many trade union leaders were deriding the Government for abolishing the arbitration tribunal, which other unions declare they will not have anyway. The Daily Herald then (October 24h, 1958) called it a move to help the employers by abolishing the “referee to see fair play.”

And in the present dispute Mr. Willis, in the matter of strike pickets, was calling on the Government to observe “strict impartiality” (Times, June 26th), as if a government committed to keeping Capitalism going (as all governments must be that take on the administration of Capitalism) could “impartially” stand aside and not defend the property rights of the propertied class.

The International Aspect

The fact is that the trade union movement still broadly accepts Capitalism though prepared to strike against the Capitalists. This was clearly shown by the attitude of the printing unions. They belong to the printing workers Trade Union International, the International Graphical Federation, and some at least of the continental unions acceded to the request that they should advise their members not to do “black” work sent abroad during the strike. But in the middle of the strike NATSOPA released a plan it had drawn up suggesting a deal between the British unions and the British employers. If the latter would concede the demands on hours and wages, in return the unions would cooperate on a joint productivity council: “ The essence of the plan is that the prosperous big groups with stable and profitable home markets will help the small and medium printers, and particularly the printing concerns working on export printing. The plan should make British printers highly competitive in markets abroad.” (News Chronicle, June 23rd, 1959.)

So the unions, while fighting the employers, are quite prepared to collaborate with them to capture foreign markets—where, of course, they will clash with foreign printers who. again with the collaboration of the workers, will be resisting the invasion and trying to counter attack. This, of course, makes nonsense of the object of the printers' trade union international: “To safeguard the economic, occupational and general interests of graphical workers in all countries and to promote their solidarity.” (Our italics.)

In the nineteenth century Socialist critics of the trade union movement used to ridicule the illogicality of workers fighting the employers in the industrial field and electing the same people to Parliament and supporting them nationally. The present outlook of the trade unions shows that they have still a long way to go before they realise that the workers’ interest demands real international working class solidarity against the employers—and for Socialism.

Editorial: The Proposition They Will Not Consider (1957)

Editorial from the July 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over a century ago the famous pamphlet, “The Communist Manifesto," was published, beginning with the words: “A spectre is haunting Europe —the spectre of Communism." It went on to describe the terror that the Communist movement inspired among the rulers of Austria, France, Germany, Russia, etc.

Almost any journalist picking up that pamphlet today would be likely to write about the way these words apply to the world in 1957—but he would be entirely wrong! It is not history repeating itself, but a word being distorted into an opposite meaning.

In 1847 when Marx and Engels wrote about the governments and the ruling class being afraid of Communism, they meant by Communism a movement springing from the workers, having for its aim the overthrow of capitalism and establishment of Socialism. And they meant by Socialism what the S.P.G.B. means today, a system of society in which all people would co-operate in producing articles and services freely for the benefit of all.

It is true that for many years now the governments of half the world, and, above all, the American Government, have been scared by the spectre of Russia and that they call it the spectre of "Communism": which just goes to show how the politicians can hypnotise themselves with words.

Communist Party the enemy of Communism

The Russian Government is controlled by the Russian Communist Party, but the Russian social system is not Communism (or Socialism), and the Russian Government is no more interested in achieving such a social system than is General Eisenhower or General Franco. If the Russian Government were interested in spreading Communism in the world, it would, of course, show its interest by starting at home and introducing Communism into Russia; but this would mean abolishing the very comfortable privileged position occupied in Russian state capitalism by governmental and managerial circles of the population. Why should they seek to destroy the capitalism that gives them power and privilege and wealth?

Why not be friends with the Russian Government?

Are we saying then that the American Government’s fears of, and hostility towards, the Russian Government is based on pure illusion? By no means. American and Russian capitalism have just the same kinds of reasons for mutual hostility and fear as British and American capitalism had in relation to Germany in 1914 and 1939.

Back in the 19th century West European governments feared the Russian dictatorship under the Czars because Russia’s ruling class had ambitions to expand into the Middle East and the Mediterranean and into India and the Far East; in all of which regions they clashed with the similar expansionist ambitions of other Powers. Exactly the same rivalries exist today, the main difference being that nowadays the Western politicians say (and seemingly many individuals actually believe) that their clash with Russia has to do with "Communism." What it has to do with is the economic rivalry that capitalism gives rise to between the separate capitalist Powers, of which Russia is now in the top rank, surpassed in power only by America.

If Communism (or Socialism) in the sense of the Communist Manifesto were the issue dividing the world today, the Russian Government would be lined up with the ruling class of America, Britain, Japan, India, etc., to crush it

They never consider Socialism

The Western politicians and Press will give thousands of words and acres of space to the Western case against the Russian bloc and give less but quite a lot of space to those who defend the Russian point of view or argue in favour of seeking compromise with it. But they never on any account give space to considering the case for Socialism (or Communism) in the sense in which the pioneers of Socialism used it and meant it

But, after all, why should they? Why should the Press take the trouble to answer the Socialist case since nobody (except the S.P.G.B. and its companion parties) ever puts it? When do Gaitskell or Bevan or Bulganin ever put the case for Socialism? Probably all three would (privately) feel embarrassed at trying to prove that society can look to a hopeful future inside capitalism, with its production for sale and profit, the wages system, the continuance of property incomes, investment, competition for markets, etc. But when do they ever say in public that Socialism necessarily means abolishing that capitalist social system?

And as they don’t ever say it, the capitalist Press falls into line and happily ignores the case for Socialism.

Labour Party comforters of Capitalism

Mr. George Schwartz, in the Sunday Times (9/6/57), picked on the latest Labour Party pension plan as an example of this. He pointed out that the capitalist Press gave much and sympathetic notice to the plan.

“Cos why? Because it is in essence a straightforward exercise in capitalist reasoning based almost wholly on capitalistic methods of calculation and reckoning. Bless you, I have met stockbrokers who couldn’t spell the word dialectic, who have read it with interest and understanding.

". . . There is no talk about the annihilating that disreputable trio, rent, interest and profits. There is no nonsense about egalitarianism. On the contrary, the main thesis and principle is that the more you put in the more you take out. In short, chums, it is a stem lecture on the virtues of capitalist attitudes and behaviour."

And the H-Bomb Controversy

It is a far cry from the Labour Party’s new scheme for contributory old age pensions to the rights and wrongs of the H-bomb (though there is a certain relationship: if “the bomb must fall,” it doesn't seem to matter what pension you might otherwise have been going to get!) In this field, too, the Press will consider every aspect except the Socialist point of view. The Manchester Guardian in a frank editorial (3/6/57) tried to face up to the implications of the Bishop of Manchester’s demand that the British Government should renounce the H-bomb—whatever the consequences. The editor of the Guardian thought that the chances of such an example being followed by general disarmament could be put at about one in ten. the far higher probability would, he thought, be the more or less speedy Russian overrunning of Western Europe and Britain. To the advocates of giving up the H-bomb he put the question:

"Are they prepared to face the agony of living under  a Communist system?” Recoiling from this himself, he prefers to rely on the deterrent value of having the bomb.

"The deterrent theory is that on the contrary their use by either side has become less likely. Six big bombs, as has been said before, would be enough to destroy central government in the Soviet empire."

It is not our purpose here to follow the Guardian into these muddy depths, but to put a question and a challenge. The challenge is to the Guardian to give its evidence for its utterly fantastic statement that the Russian Government behaves as it does because its objective “is a Communist world.”

Where does the Guardian so hide itself from the facts of capitalist life that it cannot see that the Russian Government behaves like any other expanding Capitalist Power because it is an expanding capitalist Power?

Our question is to ask the Guardian why, when it is actually trying to be frank and objective, it can only see the choice between capitalism with the H-bomb and capitalism without the H-bomb: why does the Guardian steadfastly turn away from even considering that perhaps after all there really is a case for destroying war at its source in the capitalist foundations of the social system on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Which means considering the case for Socialism, and that the Guardian cannot bring itself to do.

Editorial: No Socialism After the War. Reassuring America. (1941)

Editorial from the March 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who are in control of United States foreign policy, and who are deciding whether and to what extent munitions of war should be advanced to aid the British forces against the Germans, are naturally interested in the question what social changes are likely to occur in Great Britain after the war. They are behaving in just the same way as did the British propertied class during the Spanish civil war. It was all very well for the Duchess of Atholl and the Labour leaders to tell them that a Franco victory achieved by German and Italian arms would endanger British imperial interests, they still wanted to be assured that the Republican Government was not controlled by groups hostile to capitalism. They had and have their own very definite ideas about the greater and the lesser evil and it is only very naive Labourites and Communists who imagine that the way to secure support from the propertied class is to proclaim encroachments on propertied interests as a war aim. 

It is, therefore, not surprising that American politicians have been asking questions and have been given comforting—and as it happens, quite truthful—answers.

When Mr. Joseph Kennedy, former United States Ambassador in London, went back to U.S.A. he was questioned by a committee of Congress in connection with Roosevelt’s “Lease or Lend” Bill to aid Great Britain, and one of the questions put to him was, “Is England rapidly going Socialist?” Mr. Kennedy does not think it is. He said, however : —

“If you mean is the Labour Party becoming more effective in Government, that is so”.—(Daily Herald, January 22nd, 1941.)

Then there is the well-known American writer, Mr. Mark Sullivan, who is much disturbed by reports of the coming of Socialism to Great Britain. The Manchester Guardian (February 19th, 1941) reports him as follows : —

“Since our Congress is, in effect, about to underwrite British victory, it is reasonable our Congress should know any commitments that may have been made by responsible persons in Britain, to take effect in the event of victory; whether there are war aims which include Socialism for Britain.”

The Manchester Guardian, commenting on this, professes not to know the answer—”we are afraid that not even a Senate Committee will be able to help him. Indeed, we shall have to admit him to the secret that we are just as much in the dark about what Britain (and the United States) will be like after the war as he is himself.”

It is very modest on the part of the Guardian to disclaim knowledge, but not convincing. The Guardian knows as well as anybody that Mr. Churchill and the Tory Party have not entered into a secret pact with Mr. Bevin and Mr. Attlee to dispossess the capitalist class on the day the war ends. The confusion only arises because the Guardian, like other newspapers, has the habit of talking of Socialism when it means something else. This is clearly brought out in the words that come after those quoted above: “But we might guess . . . that both countries will have gone a good deal further on the New Deal road.” It appears that Mr. Mark Sullivan does not like Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programme of reforms of capitalism, and because he is himself ignorant or because he writes down to the ignorance of his readers he chooses to call this “Socialism.” The Manchester Guardian is certainly correct in its guess that the post-war difficulties will bring a new crop of social reforms; but that is not Socialism.

Sir Walter Citrine has been lecturing in U.S.A. and, according to the Daily Telegraph, he has been answering similar questions. Not being a man given to vagueness and hot air he has been able to reply in similar vein : —

“The tour (of Sir Walter Citrine) has been a great success and has proved very popular with American Federation leaders. In particular, it has had a reassuring effect on those who feared Britain was turning, or would turn, into a Socialistic State, which would prove as difficult for a democratic country like the United States to get on with after the war as Russia or Germany.”—(Daily Telegraph, January 29th, 1941.)

If it is true that Britain and America will not go over to Socialism at the end of the war, what will happen and what can Socialists usefully do? Is there indeed any point in carrying on with Socialist propaganda ?

What Will Happen After the War?

When it comes down to questions of detail Socialists are no better able than the Manchester Guardian to guess what particular forms the post-war aches and pains will take and what remedies will be prescribed by the rival political medicine men. Certain conditions can, however, be discerned fairly clearly. When peace comes there will at once be acute political controversy about the abolition of war-time restrictions and controls and State regulation of industry. Those industrial, commercial and financial concerns with sufficient resources to weather industrial depression will want a free hand to get back to the normal business of profit-making. They will make the most of a widespread popular reaction against restrictions and will exploit to the full any instances of civil service “red-tape” and inefficiency. The weaker firms and industries will, no doubt, look to Government subsidies to save them from bankruptcy at the hands of their bigger competitors, and will be prepared to support a continuance of Government control as the price that has to be paid. They will find themselves campaigning alongside the Labour Party, which will try to use increased State control as a means of extracting social reforms and of stabilising the position of the trade unions. The compromises resulting from this struggle will certainly contain legislation on such matters as pensions, workmen’s compensation, hours of work, health and unemployment insurance, school-leaving age, the trade unions, etc.; no Government will dare to face the workers entirely empty-handed.

An interesting forecast of the post-war world as it will affect one industry, cotton, has been sketched out by Mr. Raymond Streat, Chairman of the Cotton Board. The following summary from the News Chronicle is worth pondering over: —

“Mr. Streat starts from the assumption that the Lancashire cotton industry must export or die. Without a sufficient export trade added to the home trade the industry cannot retain the volume and variety of production necessary for efficiency and thus ultimately for survival. But can this sufficient volume of export trade be established in the face of foreign competition, which must be expected after the war to be even more formidable than before? Mr. Streat thinks it can be—within a period of five years, if the Cotton Board’s policy is adopted. This policy is a campaign on six fronts, or, as I would rather call it, a Britannia’s trident with six prong’s.

The first prong is Government assistance in the form of international trade agreements (“with a front seat for cotton goods every time”), export credits, etc. The second and sharpest is price control within the industry. “Managed prices,” says Mr. Streat, “confer enormous benefits on the producers,” but in return for these benefits they must sacrifice part of their former liberty : they must agree to tackle their own redundancy problems and must co-operate with labour and in technical advancement, “not defensively for the sake of their individual balance-sheets, but aggressively for the good of the industry.”

The third prong is commercial policy—a reform of Lancashire’s merchanting organisation and a selling price policy based on the principle of “what the traffic will bear.” The fourth prong is technical progress, the fifth a rational wages system—higher wage rates, but a sweeping away of obsolete operational practices and agreements—and the sixth is propaganda, sales promotion and market research.”— (News-Chronicle, February 3rd, 1941.)

Here is a programme on which the employers, the trade unions and the Labour Party will certainly be able to come together, but notice one very important feature to which the City Editor of the News Chronicle draws attention: —

“Such, very briefly, is Mr. Streat’s programme. Underlying it is his conviction that post-war international commercial relations will be based on the same nationalistic, protectionist principles as obtained before the war. International trade will be a matter of hard bargaining between Governments on import quotas : exchange control will persist as a permanent phenomenon, and with it barter and bilateralism. So the cotton trade must discipline, itself and arm itself with every offensive weapon known to modern trade warfare. Mr. Streat does not use quite this language, but this is really what it amounts to.”

So it is not going to be a very nice new world after all: and this is where Socialist propaganda comes in. Mr. Streat’s kind of programme means ; the danger of new and bigger wars if it is allowed to remain the basis of the social system for another 10 or 20 years after this war is ended. It is for Socialists to determine that that shall not happen. It is our task to explain to the workers why a seemingly “safe and sane” policy of seeking reforms and wage regulation is a policy surrounded by the same risks as existed before 1914 and before 1939. Probably people with Mr. Streat’s ideas will have their way, but the only safeguard for the future will be a large and growing number of workers who can get below the surface and see what are the limitations and dangers of such ideas.

Above all, Socialists alone can do the invaluable work of persuading the workers to give up their weakness for meaningless abstractions. They befog the clarity of thought without which there can be no correct action. Beware of vague appeals and promises about “justice,” “fair play for everybody,” “economic democracy,” etc. Insist always on explicit and concrete statements from the parties and politicians who promise to re-shape the world. Make sure that you understand precisely which way emancipation lies. If you are still convinced that capitalism can be made to work if only there are sufficient laws restricting the freedom of action of the capitalist, then be honest with yourself and declare that you are for capitalism and against Socialism. At the same time remember that it is your own responsibility to understand what Socialism is before you reject it; no leader can take that responsibility off your shoulders without the penalty of your neglect some day falling on you.

News in Review: Unemployment figures (1963)

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

Unemployment figures

The unemployment figures keep on rising and the government assure us that we have not seen the last of them yet.

Mr. Hare, the Minister of Labour, has blamed the weather for some of the unemployment and pleads that that is something which he cannot be expected to have foreseen.

The economic experts have sharpened their pencils and have swamped the government with their advice. The government, of course, has already plenty of its own experts with their schemes and advice; unemployment increases despite them.

Are the experts, then, so useless? Many of them have had a long and expensive education. They have access to all sorts of information which is supposed to help them in their planning to control capitalism.

It is fair to expect them to come up with something special when the problem demands it, as unemployment does.

Well, have they?

Consider, for one, the experts employed by The Guardian. We might have expected that newspaper, with its tradition of sometimes saying the unusual, to have some startling proposals on the out of work problem. And in a way that is what they did have. Here is what The Guardian's first leader proposed, among other similar suggestions, on January 25th:

Lastly, could the schools not be asked to take back all those pre-Christmas school-leavers who have still not found jobs? To lay on proper teaching might not be easy; but better that they should be in classrooms than waiting idly at home or on the street corners.

Read that again, slowly. Ask yourself whether sending back to school the youngsters who have only just left, whose parents are probably relying upon them to help the housekeeping budget, and for whom you know there are not enough teachers, is a solution to the unemployment problem—or even a sensible suggestion.

Then ask yourself if the experts can do anything about capitalism’s shortcomings. And wonder why you do not do something about them yourself.

The expense of cold weather

Most of us have had our grumble about the Arctic conditions which have had us in the grip since the end of last year. The weather itself is beyond anyone's control, but is there nothing that can be done about the effects of it?

Some of the electricity failures in the Big Freeze Up were caused by frozen insulators on the power lines. This problem could be avoided—and incidentally some lovely landscapes preserved—if the lines were carried underground. But the Central Electricity Generating Board claims that this would cost up to eighteen times more than hitching the lines up to pylons and would, therefore, not be worthwhile.

Some of the breakdowns and delays on the railways were the result of frozen points. This is something which could have been solved easily, in a number of ways long ago, but the railways were reluctant to invest in something which they might not want to use very often.

The efforts at clearing snowbound roads were simply pitiful. But the government reasons that there is no sense in keeping a lot of expensive snow clearing equipment which will probably lie idle for about eight years in every ten. And that seems to clinch the argument against having it.

Over here, in short, capitalism gambles on the weather; something it cannot do in other countries where extreme conditions happen more regularly. From the point of view of the British capitalist there is no sense in spending money preparing for something which is likely to come along very occasionally. That is why Britain is so often caught napping by severe cold or floods or some other vagary of the weather.

Anyway, it is only the working class who bear the brunt of the weather. It is only their houses which become draughty hell-holes in the winter. It is poor, working class pensioners who silently die of cold in their unheated rooms, cut off from the hurrying world outside,

It is the working class who have to face the added torture of the rush hour, on rail or road, in the icy spells.

Capitalism has always shown a ruthless concern for its own economic priorities. So can we expect it to spend money uneconomically to prevent such suffering? Not likely, we can't.

The Common Market

Well, it didn't come off.

Mr. Heath and his men came back defeated from Brussels and presented the British public with another bogy man who was yesterday’s friend. President de Gaulle is now the evil man of British capitalism.

The Beaverbrook press took a somewhat different view, implying hopefully that the British government had seen the light from the Express building and had themselves broken off the negotiations.

“And Now—Forward,” screamed the Express headlines. Forward, we may ask, to what? Whatever the Express, or the Government, or anyone else, has to offer can only be another of capitalism’s gambles.

When the British government decided, several years ago, against joining the European Common Market, they were gambling. When they decided that that gamble had failed they put their money on another—on the application to join Europe. They made it quite clear that that was a gamble, that they were not sure whether membership of the EEC would benefit them or not.

So it is with all capitalism's attempts to defeat its own problems.

President de Gaulle is gambling, now that Europe can unite as an independent capitalist power dominated by a Franco-German axis. But there have been plenty of other such gambles and plenty of other such pacts and many of them have failed even by capitalism's standards. There is no reason to assume that France and Germany, whatever their pact says, will not end up fighting one. another again.

Capitalism, in fact, is one big gamble. Since its fortunes hang on the tail of its unpredictable market, it can never be sure of what to do to secure its own interests.

The great tragedy is that the gambles are always paid off in working class lives and security.

Civil Disobedience

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as it breaks up into its opposing factions, is displaying some typical symptoms of the dying reformist organisation.

One of the unilateralists’ arguments has been—and this applies especially to the Committee of 100—that nuclear weapons were such a threat to human society that anything was justified which helped to get rid of them.

Demonstrations and marches were justified. So was civil disobedience, like sitting down in the roadway. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, we were told, would be justified in forgetting about Socialism to campaign against the bomb. Recently, stirring up and exploiting social unrest at places like the LCC accommodation centres was justified on the same grounds.

This must have convinced many people that the unilateralists were prepared to go to any lengths to save us from nuclear annihilation.

It certainly seems to have convinced those soldiers who want to form an active CND group in the Services.

But the unilateralists will not touch this one with a barge-pole. Because what the soldiers are trying to do amounts to inciting troops to disaffection, and for that you can find yourself in jail for seven years.

That is too much for the campaigners, even for the reckless Committee of 100. So they have all officially disassociated themselves from any move which can be interpreted as stirring up disaffection in the Forces.

It was, of course, the unilateralists who first said that people should be prepared to face imprisonment in the cause of banning the bomb. But having urged this futile action on their followers, what sort of consistency is it which then shrinks from seven years in jail?

We know that the unilateralists are breaking up. Are they at the same time cooling down? Are they, as we said they might, becoming respectable?

Arms Budget

There are no surprises in the United States Budget for the coming year.

The American capitalist class expects to be spending a total of $98.8 billions during the twelve months up to June 30th, 1964, and of this well over half—$55.4 billions—will be spent on the armed forces and their weapons. In addition, $4.2 billions will go to space research and technology where, we fear, the weapons of the future will be conceived and designed.

This sort of expenditure has been rising steadily over the past few years; the USA now has an impressive nuclear arsenal to show for the money it has spent.

There are about 650 American bombers on a fifteen minute ground alert and more than 200 missiles ready to be fired from the ground. Apart from these, 114 missiles are in Polaris submarines, prowling beneath the seas.

Arms expenditure, then, is the first preoccupation of the Washington Budget just as it must be for any capitalist government which knows that its international interests are threatened by a rival.

Other things must take their place, lower down the queue. The USA will spend $0.3 billion on housing next year—less than in the current year—$5.6 billions on health, labour and welfare and $1.5 billion on education.

It is no coincidence that the very things which could make human life a little easier are the least likely to get any money spent on them, while the things which are meant to kill and destroy are lavished with funds.

Capitalism works that way.

Editorial: The Misreporters of the Capitalist Press. (1945)

Editorial from the June 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our January issue we drew attention to the way in which the “Daily Express" under the guise of reporting textually the words used by Mr. Eden in a speech, carefully doctored it by altering “Labour" to “Socialist." This is an old custom of the Beaverbrook Press and shortly afterwards they were caught doing it again in an alleged report of a speech by Mr. Bevin. This time the Manchester Guardian took it up. In an editorial “Hard of Hearing" the Guardian (April 10th), pointed out how the Sunday Express (and also the Daily Telegraph), altered the words, so that where Mr. Bevin actually said “Labour" they altered it to “Socialism." Doubting whether the reporters were to blame the Guardian said one must suspect “the existence of some of those 'directives' of which our ‘press Lords' are fond. . . . It would be a pity to have to conclude that we have lost that old principle in journalism of reporting what was said, not what the newspaper owners would like to have had said."

The Daily Express, on April 12th, published what was supposed to be a reply to the Guardian’s charge of deliberate faking. This is how they did it. Carefully refraining from mentioning what the charge was, the Express lightly and obscurely referred to it as "a mistake in one of the provincial editions of the “Sunday Express."

Of course it was astute—and characteristic—of the Express not to let its readers know the nature of the charge; the way is thus left open for the “mistake" to go on being made without the readers suspecting it.

We are entitled to wonder how much other falsification goes on in the columns of the Express and Telegraph under the guise of reporting.

In a rather different category is the habit of most newspapers of using the terms Socialist Party and Socialism to describe the Labour Party and its programme, but without actually falsifying reports of speeches. On April 11th, 1945, “Candidus" in the Daily Sketch devoted the whole of his column to the claim made by the S.P.G.B. that the Labour Party is not a Socialist Party. He admitted that he habitually refers to the Labour Party as the Socialist Party and to its spokesmen as Socialists and put forward the naive (or was it disingenous?) explanation that he “thought it was correct.”

As the Labour Party has existed for 40 years under that title it can hardly have escaped the notice of “Candidus," so his explanation is as unconvincing as it would be if we said we “thought we were correct" in describing him as “Uncandidus."

Although he wrote at considerable length he made no attempt to justify his belief that the hotch-potch and ever-changing Labour Party programme of reforms, and its state capitalist schemes for regulating capitalism can be correctly described as socialism. Perhaps it would be uncharitable to say that busy journalists whose job it is to promote the circulation (and profits) of their employers' papers while at the same time keeping the readers’ minds away from dangerous thoughts about the evils of capitalism have no need and little time to find out what Socialism is all about. 

We can, however, place it on record that the Daily Sketch (May 3rd), published a reply sent by the S.P.G.B.