Editorial: Who would vote Labour? (1990)

Editorial from the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

This year's Labour Party Conference was an unashamed exercise in image-building. The whole affair was stage-managed by professionals from the world of advertising to project the Labour leaders as fit to govern.

We must admit to being convinced by the show. Yes, the present Labour leaders are quite fitted for running the affairs of British capitalism. They have convinced us that they will not waste government money on increasing pensions and other benefits and that they will restrain the unions and stamp on excessive wage demands. They have convinced us that they will maintain the armed forces at a sufficient level to further the overseas business and commercial interests of British capitalism — and that they will be prepared to go to war in the Gulf in pursuit of these interests. The City and Big Business need have no worries on these scores.

We only wonder whether the image-builders may not have gone a little too far. Most people, we suspect, will have gained the impression that the Labour leaders were ready to sacrifice everything — principles, policies, traditions, even their own dignity and self-respect — just to get their hands on the reins of office.

We wonder too why the delegates bothered to turn up. They must like being film extras. They certainly didn't go to Blackpool to make policy. That had already been decided by the leaders of the party in Parliament in the light of what market research had suggested would attract the floating voters.

The leaders stated in advance that they were not going to take the slightest notice of what the delegates might decide. And so it was. When the delegates voted to spend an extra £6 billion on pensions, the leaders explained that a future Labour government could not possibly be committed to such extravagance. When the delegates voted to cut military spending by the same amount, the leaders explained that a Labour government could not possibly be so irresponsible. There was a time — a long while ago now, it is true — when the Labour Party would have promised to cut military spending to increase pensions. Of course when they were elected they never did. But now they openly declare, even before they get into office, that they will put maintaining the military might of British capitalism before the needs of pensioners on the poverty line.

We don't want to exaggerate. It wasn't some great sea change that took place at this year's Labour Conference. The Labour Party has always supported capitalism. It always was the parliamentary leaders not the Conference who determined party policy. When in office Labour always has done what has been necessary to further the interests of British capitalism, not hesitating to break strikes, impose wage freezes, cut benefits and equip the armed forces with the most destructive weapons of war available. Nothing has changed in these respects.

What has changed is the image the Labour leaders want to convey. They now no longer wish to be seen as a party committed, however vaguely, to transforming society in the interest of workers. Instead they wish to be seen as prudent and efficient managers of capitalism.

"Don’t dream of what may be", Kinnock told the delegates, "Work for what can be." In other words, don't think of achieving some new system of society even by gradual means. Accept society as it is — a profit-governed market economy where a tiny handful own and control the means of production as their private property — and work within it, according to its criteria of what can be.

At least this clears the air. All workers, and not just socialists, now know exactly what to expect from the Labour Party.

Notes by the Way: Parliament as a Working Machine (1934)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Parliament as a Working Machine

Much ink and lung power is being wasted at the moment by half-baked critics of things as they are, who attribute our ills to the defects of the Parliamentary machine. Parliament, they say, is too slow, it creaks and obstructs, scrap it for a really fast-moving dictatorship or sub-committee of the Socialist League.

All this criticism misses the point. Parliament moves as fast or as slow as those who control it want it to move. If the present Conservative majority does not introduce social reforms desired by the opposition, that is not because Parliament won't let them, but because they do not want to introduce these particular reforms. But let capitalist interests require some fast work and then see what happens.

On June 14th, 1934, Germany announced its intention of defaulting on some bonds held by English investors. Six days later (June 20th) Parliament took the first, or purely formal reading, of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Bill, enabling the Government to seize monies due to Germans for goods sold in England.

The second reading was on June 25th; the Committee hearing and third reading on June 26th; the acceptance of a House of Lords’ amendment on June 28th; and the Royal assent on,the same day.

The Lords had dealt with the Bill in one day, June 27th.

Here we see a piece of legislation vitally affecting widespread interests of capitalist traders and investors, dealt with in three or four days of Parliamentary time. From Germany's announcement to the Royal assent took only fourteen days! Holland and Switzerland, with Parliamentary government, were equally prompt.

While we are on this subject, let us look at a piece of information published in The Times on July 21st. Fascist speakers have been heard to ask whether such an incident as the year-long hold-up of Waterloo Bridge could happen in Fascist Italy, where ”talking-shops” (i.e., democratically elected councils) are supposed to have been replaced by smart, one-man, dictatorial direction from above.

Milan, according to The Times correspondent, also has its traffic problems, and tube railways have been agreed as the solution. That scheme “has been under consideration for many years,” but, says the local dictator, ”it is not likely for many reasons to take practical shape for a long time yet.” So they have decided, ”for a long time yet,” to do without the tube railways, which they are agreed is the solution, and in their place to build the tunnels and run tramcars through them. Even so, the work on this temporary and partial solution will not begin until next year, and will take up to three years What price dictatorship ?

A Question to Mr. Attlee

Mr. Attlee, M.P. , wrote an article in the Daily Herald (August 14th) in which he tried to discuss what another Labour Government would do regarding wages, and in particular the wages of Post Office workers and other Government employees. His views are of some importance in the Labour Party, because he was P.M.G. under the last Labour Government, and is now Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. These qualifications help him to speak with authority, but they also no doubt account for his very guarded utterances.

First, he candidly admits that the “Post Office is not an example of Socialism but of State capitalism”—something the S.P.G.B. has been trying to ram into the thick heads of the “Mr. Attlees” for thirty years. Perhaps, too, it was not so candid as it appears to be. It may very well have been introduced here just to serve as a convenient excuse for the failure of Mr. Attlee and the Labour Government to do anything material for Post Office workers when in office. It is not a case of Mr. Attlee having dropped “Post Office-ism” in order to take up Socialism. What he did was to back up Mr. Morrison's “Public Utility ism,” and the one has as little to do with Socialism as the other.

Mr. Attlee observes that Post Office employees complain of “scandalously low rates of pay and other evils.” He does not say that the complaints are justified—that would provoke questions as to why the Labour Government did not do something about it—nor does he say that the complaints are not justified—that would annoy some of his readers—who happen to know the facts. Then he goes on to lay the blame on the hard-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose department, or so says Mr. Attlee, ”is to the Post Office just what the shareholders are to a private company.”

That is as good a defence as Mr. Attlee is likely to find; that is, it is no good at all. It breaks down because the Labour Government (or any Government) is just as much responsible for the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as for any other Department under its control. The fact is that many thousands of Post Office workers were and are paid at rates on which it is impossible to live in anything like decency and comfort. Mr. Attlee and his Labour predecessor at the Post Office, Mr. Lees-Smith, knew all about this but did nothing.

In spite of repeated protests they allowed Post Office and civil service pay to be reduced to the lowest level it has reached since the War. Now—in spite of a further fall in the cost of living since the Labour Government went out of office—the present Government has agreed to raise the level of pay slightly.

Will Mr. Attlee tell us why he consented to Post Office pay being reduced to this low level, seeing that the present P.M.G., Sir Kingsley Wood, has been able to get the Treasury dragons to allow some small improvement, and has, moreover, admitted publicly that hardship exists?

When They are In Office, and when They are Out

Mr. Attlee had a few words to say on the “national minimum wage” as a method a Labour Government would adopt to raise wages. The proposal (although, of course, useless as a remedy) looks so beautiful in its simplicity, can it be that nobody has thought of it before? And can there be people who, having accepted it, subsequently find reasons for not applying it? Mr. Attlee has to admit that there are these villainous people, but their “arguments against a national minimum wage must now be abandoned.”

Who were they? Why, none other than Mr. Attlee’s party, when they were last in office. For years they had preached the need for a national minimum wage. Then, in November, 1930, when in office, they were asked by Mr. Kirkwood if they would introduce a bill to make wage reductions illegal. The Labour Prime Minister replied as follows (Hansard, November 26th, 1930; col. 1338): —

Wages, either real or nominal, cannot be fixed by legislation for the wage-earners generally. The Government’s policy is to maintain standards of living and secure as equitable a distribution of wealth as is possible.

This will not prevent Mr. Attlee’s party from playing the same trick once more if they ever get into office again.

Not Interested in the Last War

On August 16th one of these lucky employees of the Post Office, a temporary postman, aged 47, was imprisoned for stealing postal orders. His wage was 34s. a week. The Chairman of the Bench, a Capt. A. Eve, when told that the prisoner had a good character, "served in the War and was discharged after being wounded and gassed,” said: “We don’t want to hear that. It is ancient history.” (Daily Herald, August 17th,)

Of course, it is ancient history to talk about the victims of the last war at a time when our rulers’ attention is fully occupied with the possibility of another.

Labour “ Socialism ”

Before leaving Mr. Attlee, it is worth while placing on record his quaint notions about Socialism. It will at least serve to prevent Labour Party readers of this journal from writing to us telling us that this time the Labour Party really does mean by Socialism what Socialists mean.

Mr. Attlee discusses what a future Labour Government would do about wages. First, in the "transition period,” it would determine in relation to the national wealth “what wages should be paid to the workers in industry.” Then civil servants and industrial workers “must stand together in their demand for a higher standard of life.” (Mr. Attlee forgets to say what the workers are to do if a future Labour Government, like the last one, hears the workers "demanding” these things, but answers "No!”)

Then, after the "transition period,” a beginning is to be made with "socialisation” (Mr. Herbert Morrison’s name for Public Utility Corporations). Then, says Mr. Attlee, the "problem of fixing remuneration will become acute,” and the remedy is that "Socialists must aim at equalitarianism, although it may not be completely attainable for a considerable time.”

Our progress, so far, may be summarised thus: First, a Labour Government, then an inquiry into how much wages the workers can be given, then "a considerable time” during which efforts will be made in the direction of equalitarianism, and of diminishing property incomes.

After this we might hope that Mr. Attlee will expect to have arrived at the desired goal, but what we find instead is that there will still be a wages system, and still, apparently, property incomes, albeit "diminished.”

Mr. Attlee’s followers, who have spent the past twenty or thirty years chasing after Post Office "Socialism” only to discover that it is "State capitalism,” will spend another considerable span of life chasing after "socialisation,” only to discover that it is Public Utility Corporations, and that the wages system and capitalism in general are still there.

It is a sure thing, if the workers allow this to happen, that when that further stage is reached, Mr. Attlee will be writing articles in the Daily Herald of that day, discovering new variations on the old theme.

The Hard-Faced “Daily Herald”

Labour propagandists are fond of saying that the incursion of the publishing firm of Odhams into the Labour world (was it an incursion or an annexation?) has revolutionised propaganda. It is certainly possible that the Daily Herald's rise to the position of the world's largest circulation, over two million copies a day, will help the Labour Party to round-up votes as never before, but there is a thorn to every rose, and one little thorn in the side of Labour Party propagandists is the fifteen per cent. dividend paid by Odhams. In the past the Labour Party has been able to denounce wicked bankers and hard-faced business-men for making an “unreasonable" profit. What will they say now? When the Daily Herald was from a profit-making point of view a flop it was all very well to throw stones, but fifteen per cent. is well above the average rate of profit of industrial and commercial concerns. It is more than most of the banks pay, and far higher than many of them.

Incidentally, Labour Party adherents of Major Douglas, who believe that the banks have it in their power to pay dividends of hundreds per cent., might explain how it is that most of them pay far less than Odhams.

A Penny Bun for a Good Wage-Slave.

It is when our bosses are kind to us that we see what sort of cattle they think we are. On Saturday, August 18th, some charabancs were to be seen passing along the Thames embankment draped with huge posters, from which we learned that the animals inside were the salesmen of a certain textile firm who had come out top in a "trip-to-the-mills" contest. A present for white-collared Clarence Dubb for being a good boy, to go and inspect his strong-armed brother, Henry, in the mills. Then each group will be expected to derive satisfaction from not having to do the work done by the other, and both will return more contented to the task of making profits for the shareholders.

Five, Ten, Fifteen, Twenty.

Somebody ought to make an inquiry into the methods by which the rulers in the various countries keep the workers more or less contented while giving them little else but promises of post-dated blessings. In particular, what is the merit of the five-year period that it should have found favour in so many countries? First, there are the five-year Parliaments in Great Britain, it being found that five years is about the longest period a British worker will tolerate the non-fulfilment of a promise of prosperity by any given gang of politicians—after five years he insists that it shall be unfulfilled by a different gang. Then there is little Father Stalin, whose great contribution to civilisation was the discovery that, if it is put over in a lot of pseudo-Socialist jargon, the five years can be extended to two five-years, and the patient Russian can be kept docile with the promise of carrots, not after the first, but after the second five-year plan. If Professor Laski (an admirer of the Bolsheviks who has just visited Russia) is to be believed, the trick works with large numbers of the workers there. He writes (Nation, New York,’ July 18th): —

I doubt whether an unemployed English worker on the dole has a standard of life as low as lower-paid categories of Russian workmen in full employment. On the other hand, I was assured not only by Russians themselves, but by newspapermen who had lived in Russia for many years, that conditions are definitely better than at any time since 1917. . . .

Russia is a land of hope. The masses have no doubt that the sacrifices of to-day will be justified by the achievements of to-morrow. The mental climate is one of intense exhilaration, of a buoyant and optimistic faith I have never before encountered . . .

Hitler looked across the frontier and is now going one better than Stalin. My German oxen, he says, are even more patient than your Russian ones. In the early days, before and just after the. conquest of power, he promised to introduce Socialism almost immediately, and was asking to be crucified if he did not deliver the goods in five years. A year later, having seen that quite a lot of people are already asking for tangible results and may want to crucify him, he puts forward a plea in his election speech of August 17th for fifteen years in which to justify himself. After all, as Hitler says, the Social Democrats and other parties which shared in the Government of Germany since 1919 got away with it for fifteen years between them, why shouldn't he?

Mussolini appears to have worked on a different theory of kidding the workers. Having discovered in the Italian "left-wing" Labour movements how attractive to the average violent reformist are speeches about “ACTION," he worked out a formula which, so far, has never let him down. He proclaimed the dethronement of talk about theory, and enthroned in its place talk about action. After twelve years, a decreasing but still very large number of Italian workers are contented with it.

But black as it is, the outlook might be worse. We have not yet found a politician able to win an election on a programme of "Prosperity for Posterity: The Millennium in 150 years."

Mr. Selfridge on Myths.

Every day in The Times and certain other papers there is a half-column of great thoughts inserted by Selfridge & Co., Ltd., and written by "Callisthenes." On August 16th "Callisthenes" discussed "The Great Equality Myth," and regretted that the doctrine of the equality of men is not declining as it ought to be. It would be unfair to hold "Callisthenes" responsible for all the views expressed; doubtless he has to write what he thinks will please his employers. May we, first of all, however, disabuse him of the notion that the basis of the Socialist case is a belief that “all men are equal," and that “all people should work the same number of hours per week and get the same amount of money in return, the same amount of honour, the same number of the constituents of 'happiness' ” Strange as it may seem to “Callisthenes,” if he listened to a member of the Socialist Party for a month he would hear never a word about any of these doctrines. Socialists are occupied with a very different matter, that is, the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, including, of course, the stores, vehicles, plant and stock of Messrs. Selfridge & Co. What we want and are determined to get, not one day later than need be, is the abolition of the private ownership and control of these things, and their conversion into the common property of society. We shall then be as little concerned as “Callisthenes” as to whether A and B are each 5ft. 9ins. and measure 34ins, round the waist. When “Callisthenes” puts forward his employer’s view about the nature of existing society, these ideas are as remote from reality as are his ideas of Socialism. There is, he tells us, a fundamental quality about men which gives each one “the capacity for earning money .... in different degree.” It is this, we are told, which accounts for economic inequality. This is, of course, not an original view. It is, on the contrary, very old, and it can be shown to be absurd by one simple feature of capitalism that may be observed every day. If Mr. Selfridge’s wealth is due to his superior capacity for earning money (and not to his participation in the capitalist-class ownership of the means of life which compels propertyless workers to submit to exploitation at his hands), why is it that he and every other capitalist hangs on like grim death to his property and will never on any account risk his alleged superior capacity in competition with the workers? Why, in other words, does not Mr. Selfridge come out from behind the rampart of property which protects him and gives him privilege, and pit his brains against those of the lesser men?

The answer (not for publication in The Times) is that Mr. Selfridge is not such a damned fool as all that. He knows full well that a capitalist deprived of his property, even though allowed to keep his “superior brains,” would be a shorn lamb defenceless against the cruel winds that assail the worker looking for work. Mr. Selfridge knows how much pleasanter it is to stick in the ranks of the privileged, where he never has to come into direct and brutal contact with the bread-struggle he finds so bracing for others, where he is flattered, guarded and coddled by servants and secretaries, every one of whom has to smile and jump to it because he or she will otherwise get the sack. If Mr. Selfridge should some day meet his dear fellow members of the great firm on an equal footing, he might hear one or two blistering remarks about his canting “Callisthenes” and his playboy bugler who toots his wage-slaves on and off work morning and evening.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

For more background on Harry Gordon Selfridge and "Callisthenes", check out this article.

Political Notes: Bad language (1982)

The Political Notes Column from the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bad language

Of course, Willie Whitelaw has been under a strain lately, what with a representative of the common people sitting harmlessly on the Queen’s bed and the discovery that the royal person has been guarded devotedly by a sacrificed homosexual. But there is no excuse for him saying: “I should have thought than many people in the House and in the country would have believed that . . .", when what he really means is “Yes".

Whitelaw watchers will recognise his words as a typical piece of parliamentary language, in the coils of which MPs have an apparent need to entangle almost everything they say. But behind this oblique urbanity is a steely core. The job of Members of Parliament is to legalise and oversee the exploitation, repression and killing of tens of millions of useful people in the world. To describe this process clearly and directly would result in a charge of using unparliamentary language.

There is no greater offence an MP can commit. No Member is allowed to call a person who supports capitalism's exploitation of the majority a thief; it would be out of order to describe an MP who supported war a murderer. No matter what deceit they may practise, they are always honourable members; none of them may be denounced as a liar. Yet the social system which every MP stands for rests on legalised robbery; it is sustained by acts of socially organised killing and justified by a persistent deception.

When socialist delegates arrive at the scats of power they will not obscure their actions and principles in misleading verbiage. They will be too indignant at the degradations of capitalism and too impatient to abolish the system to have time for urbanity.

Life after death?

People who narrowly escape death have been known to say that the crucial moments were enlivened for them by the rapid flashbaek of their past life, which is supposed to work wonders by way of remorse for their misdeeds. Well, Lord George Brown is not dead (although he has joined the Social Democrats) but recently he must have wondered if the end had come because it seemed just like a flashback for him.

It was all the fault of Michael Foot (Labour Party) and Len Murray (TUC) who presented, for the scrutiny of critical media hacks, the latest thoughts of the Labour Party on how to end the slump and get back to the days of full exploitation, sorry full employment. These thoughts were in a report grandly entitled Economic Planning and Industrial Democracy—the Framework for Full Employment. As might be inferred from this, the report's dominant theme is planning. If there ever is another Labour government they will set up a national planning council; a national planning college; they will plan investment, prices, wages. They will erect, from the bureaucratic reserves of Whitehall, a new ministry for economic and industrial planning.

Now what might well have troubled George was the memory of the time when all this was tried before, with himself as king planner. As the man in charge at the Department of Economic Affairs (no relation) he excitedly produced his National Plan (no relation either) for the rebirth of British industry and the birth of a new prosperity for everyone. But the DEA disappeared over the storm-wracked horizon when British capitalism was, in Prime Minister Wilson's words, ‘blown off course'. It perished in the reality that the Labour Party could not control the economic weather—although that was exactly what George Brown and his plans were supposed to be able to do.

As capitalism spirals into slump, the best the Labour Party can offer is this tawdry attempt to raise the dead. They offer us a corpse of a policy, which has already been exposed as a lifeless futility. This is an apt comment on their impotence and cynicism; they learn nothing and, even worse, forget everything except the technique of uttering worthless verbiage.

George Brown is himself now little more than a ghost. It would be more humane if his old comrades were to leave him in peace, untroubled by memories of those days of despair.

The Passing Show: Our way of life (1953)

The Passing Show Column from the September 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our way of life

Mr. Blundell, leader of the European elected members of the Kenya legislature, has been devoting deep thought to the cause of the Mau Mau trouble. He has reached his conclusion: the disturbances stem from the fact that one section of the people in Kenya is trying to impose its rule on all the rest. Does this mean that Mr. Blundell is now an opponent of the rule of a small white upper class over all the original inhabitants of the country? Not a bit of it. This is what Mr. Blundell had to say:

The problem is one we have had since 1916. Since we brought British administration to this country, for more than fifty per cent. of that time we have had reluctance by the Kikuyu to accept the benefits of law and order and our way of life, with the prosperity which can stem from it, except on their own terms. This is a challenge by the Kikuyu people—whether actively or passively sustained—to impose their rule on all the other people this country. (Times, 25/7/53).

This accusation by a member of a ruling class which has recently come into Kenya and stolen the best land there, that some of the original inhabitants are trying to do what Mr. Blundell and his class have already done themselves, would be merely funny if its implications were not so serious. In fact the speech, by showing the attitude of mind of the whites in Kenya, goes far towards explaining the outbreak of violence on the part of the Kikuyu.

 

* * *

 

Reservation of amenities

 

While Mr. Blundell upholds the cause of white supremacy in Kenya, Dr. Malan upholds it in South Africa. The latter's policy of apartheid, when presented by a skilled exponent, can be made to sound almost harmless. All it means, it is said, is that the white people and the black people of South Africa are to keep themselves to themselves, and are to develop along their own lines in their own areas. No superiority is implied of one race over another, it is alleged. But recently some courts in South Africa have been taking this kind of propaganda at its face value, and have been refusing to convict Negroes of offences against the apartheid laws unless it was shown that amenities of equal comfort have been reserved for them in railway stations, trains, post offices, etc. Dr. Malan has now given his answer. His Minister of Justice (sic) has introduced a Bill which rules that “reservation of amenities for a particular race or class of people cannot be invalidated merely because no similar amenities have been reserved for any other race or class’’ (The Times, 4-8-53). This reveals the apartheid policy for what it is. The South African ruling class has the same feeling towards the working class it oppresses and exploits as any other ruling class has: it fears them, because they are in a numerical majority. But this fear has been developed to a higher pitch in South Africa because the workers there have a different racial origin, and a different colour of skin; and because, for historical reasons, the workers of South Africa have not yet achieved the level of education and the standard of living which the workers of Western Europe and America have gained. The desire of the South African ruling class to keep the workers in subjection, and to maintain inviolate the present class-structure of South

African society, bears fruit in the racial superiority theories, and the apartheid policy, of Dr. Malan.

 

* * *

 

Public ownership à la Morgan Phillips

 

In those industries which were taken over by the Labour Governments from 1945 to 1951, some changes were made, but the basic capitalist structure was preserved intact. Since the 1951 defeat and the loss of ground at subsequent bye-elections, the Labour Party have had to face the fact that the workers, having experienced what the Labour Party called “Socialism” —that is, nationalisation—are for the present less prepared to support them at the polls in sufficient numbers to return them to power. So they have been casting round for new ideas. And their new proposals show that they contemplate making even fewer changes in industries they take over in future. Instead of making (for example) the mining machinery and machine tools industries wholly state-capitalist, Morgan Phillips proposes that a future Labour Government should merely acquire a fifty-one per cent. shareholding in certain key firms within these industries (in an article m the August issue of the Labour Party magazine, “Fact”). Mr. Phillips continues to use the term “public ownership” to describe the projected organisation of such industries, but at least he is now more chary of calling such plans “Socialist.” And so he should be; the Labour Party is more and more revealing itself as merely another capitalist party.

 

* * *

 

The work-insiders

 

Incidentally, what of all those people who have told us in the past that they disagreed with us, but that they were going to join the Labour Party in order to “work from within,” and change it into a Socialist party? They are clearly failing to do this, as could have been forecasted (and was). There is only one party for Socialists, and that is the Socialist Party.

Alwyn Edgar

Beating Thatcherism (1985)

From the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

How do the Labour Party propose to unseat Thatcher and her abominable crew? They tell us that this is a priority, that life in Britain will not be worth living again until this thing called Thatcherism is dead. By Thatcherism they mean a mixture of hard-faced indifference to the people's suffering and a mission to intensify that suffering — and all at the whim, or to solidify the dogmatism, of that woman in Number Ten. The existence of Thatcherism, say members of the Labour Party, is to be seen in the unprecedented dole queues, depressed wages and living standards, ruthless cuts in government spending on housing, hospitals, social services. education . . . The conclusion which we are invited to draw, before we go to the polling stations, is that when the Labour Party have slain Thatcherism and have got themselves installed into power things will be very much better.

But is it true that political parties behave as the Labour Party says the Tories are? Capitalist parties are, after all, concerned to get power and they can hardly hope to do that by upsetting too many of the voters. At times — in fact for much of the time — they carry out policies which should not be popular. like sending workers to die in the wars of their ruling class or imposing cuts in workers' living standards. But they can manage to do this without incurring too much electoral damage if they seem to be in control of the situation and provided they can persuade the voters that all the suffering and restrictions are a necessary preliminary to a bounteous future. So the Tories can get away with a Falklands war and with a Nigel Lawson and a Norman Tebbit.

It is, then, nonsense to say that a government deliberately creates unemployment; indeed if they had the power to do this, perhaps at the whim of a Thatcher, on any significant scale, they would also be able at whim to stop creating it — to abolish unemployment. But so far that trick has evaded every government faced with the problem. The same facts apply to workers' pay. No doubt, if British capitalism could run profitably and competitively while allowing free rein to pay claims the government would not be inclined to intervene. Wages would rise on demand, while the government looked benevolently on, waiting to reap the electoral harvest. It is not any politician's evil intentions which are responsible for expenditure cuts or for wage restraint; these things are part of a government's desperate. futile efforts to manage the uncontrollable capitalist system.

The Labour case against the Tories, with which they hope to destroy Thatcherism, now rests on a promise to organise the British economy to such effect that unemployment falls, production expands, medical and social services and education blossom and wages rise smoothly and predictably. They make it sound all so easy that it is fair to ask why their predecessors, many of whose memories are honoured in the Party, found such triumphs so far beyond their ability. Implicit in these promises is the assumption that capitalism can be controlled and that Labour will succeed in that, while the Tories fail, because their motivation is more humane. This claim, however, does not line up with historical fact. One thing which was abundantly clear whenever Labour has been in government before, in 1929. 1945. 1964 and 1974, was that they were not in control, whatever their motivation. In fact they continually whined that their good intentions were being undermined by events outside their influence — economic storms, currency crises and the like.

There is no evidence that things will be any different if there is another Labour government. They have learned nothing from their experiences, they still aim at running British capitalism, which means that their programme is simply a rehash of the plans and policies which were exposed as failures when they were tried before. To begin with, the Labour Party are again feeling out the prospects for some sort of pact with the unions which will provide for voluntary wage restraint. Labour now say that they have rejected the concept of statutory restraint, just as they did in the past before they went ahead and tried to impose it. This sort of voluntary policy used to be called the National Plan or the Social Contract; the latest version is called the National Economic Summit. Just as George Brown in 1964 called the union leaders and the employers' representatives round the table to sign a Declaration of Intent to ignore the realities of capitalism, so a future Labour Chancellor will get the same people into something called the New Economic Assessment. Whatever comes out of it will sound very grand and make some good copy for the reporters but it will completely avoid the basic cause of our economic problems — the essential anarchy of commodity production, the essential class rivalry between employers and employed.

In the past such arrangements may have succeeded in holding back wages for a while but in the end a government have been forced to intervene — unless, as is happening now, a slump is in operation helping to do this for them. The Labour Party's latest policy statement A New Partnership — A New Britain promises ". . . an immediate and substantial programme of public investment and repair. It is true that expenditure cuts have affected workers badly; for example in the case of hospitals the Observer of 4 August 1985 reported that many urgent operations are being postponed through a lack of hospital beds (‘nothing short of mental cruelty" said one eminent cancer specialist); that patients are sometimes being left to recover from operations in corridors; that wards are closing despite a long waiting list for beds. We are all familiar with these disgraceful situations but no one should be under the impression that all of this is happening at the malevolent design of wicked Tories. In the past Labour governments have acted in the same way. Richard Crossman, who was a Cabinet minister in the Wilson government of 1964/70, recorded in his diaries that the Labour Chancellor. James Callaghan, was in 1964 "committed to a huge cut back not only of consumption but also of public expenditure, on the social services in particular" and that in January 1967 Callaghan "proposed a cut of £500 million during this period, concentrating on housing and health".

It suits the Labour Party now to try to gloss over the memories of the times when they were "concentrating" on attacking at the most sensitive points of working-class poverty. Now, apart from their more specific promises, Labour is busily putting it about that they will build a better Britain because they are simply more humane, cleverer and calmer than the Tories. When Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson recently made his desperate effort to rally Tory morale with assurances that brighter times are in the offing. Labour's Shadow Chancellor Roy Hattersley warned that this was a case when "panic is accompanied by predictable and increasing ineptitude". Well Hattersley may be right; perhaps the government are in a panic but, if Crossman is anything to go by, the Wilson government was not free of the same problems. Crossman recorded the paralysing effect the financial and economic crises of the 1960s had on James Callaghan: “As Chancellor Jim was for some months psychologically out, clearly exhausted, nearly physically broken . . . " (which was. perhaps, why the Labour Party went on to elect him leader and so made him Prime Minister). Callaghan. of course, resigned as Chancellor when, in spite of their repeated assurances that they would not devalue the pound because of the depressing effect this would have on our living standards, the Labour government found themselves compelled to do so — which again shows how out of control the situation was. Crossman was also scathing about some of the other people who, when he stood up to sing The Red Flag with them at Labour conferences, were supposed to be his comrades in the struggle to introduce "socialism" to Britain. Michael Stewart was ". . . a bit of a nightmare . . . bureaucratic, vain and enormously sensitive about his own status”; Roy Jenkins was "conspiratorial"; Tony Benn "a complete flop". A lot of the other ministers were "a terrible collection of old lags who should be got rid of'.

So what this all means is that, by any standards, the Labour Party offer no real alternative to the Tories. Perhaps, through a mixture of plausibility, an apparent confidence in their own talents and a desperate hope that the voters have short memories, they will indeed unseat Thatcher and her crew. It will make no difference, to the capitalist system or to the problems endured by the working class. So who cares? Only those who are aware of the pressing need for a real alternative and for a genuine, permanent, fundamental change in society.

Ivan

Editorial: The Labour Party's Pension Plan (1937)

Editorial from the October 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the collapse of the Labour Government in the crisis of 1931 the Labour leaders lost their heads and their control of many of their followers and for a time the traditional social reform policy of the Labour Party gave place to a variety of wildcat ideas and schemes. Among them was the idea that capitalism had collapsed finally and could never again afford reforms. At the same time many workers who had not until then questioned the theory of gradually improving capitalism until it was improved out of existence, began to see that perhaps Socialists are right, and there is no way of escaping the evils of capitalism except by its complete abolition. Six years in the political wilderness and the spectacle of capitalism making its inevitable temporary recovery from the depression has restored the nerve of the Labour leaders, and they are back now to where they started, seeking power on what they consider to be a sound plan for improving the State pension scheme. In brief, the plan (“Labour’s Pension Plan,” price 2d.) proposes that the pension at age 65 should be increased from 10s. to £1 a week per person (35s. for married couples) on condition of retirement from wage-earning employment, except such subsidiary employment as is permitted under the Unemployment Insurance Acts (i.e., up to about £1 a week). A number of other proposals are included in the scheme, including the increase of orphans' allowances to 10s. a week.

It is claimed that the plan would remove 300,000 persons from industry, and thus make way for young people now unemployed.

The estimated cost is £85 million a year, and this is to be met by contributions from workers, employers and the State. The workers' contribution will be not more than 1s. a week, probably only 9d. This contribution will be in addition to existing contributions.

Is it a good plan? No doubt many workers will be glad of an opportunity of getting some additional security in old age, moderate though the amount is, and even though they have to pay heavily for it—9d. or 1s. a week out of wages already insufficient to raise millions above the level of undernourishment. Ought the workers to support the Labour Party on the strength of this plan? Here the Socialist case and the reformist case come to grips.

The Labour Party asks the workers to resign themselves to capitalism for a further period—“we shall not be living under Socialism during the period of office of the next Labour Government" (page 29)—sacrifice some of their present consumption in order to pay extra pension contributions; and then in old age enjoy a modest improvement on the existing miserable pensions.

Obviously—and the pamphlet confesses as much—nobody who has begun to see through capitalism would look at such a pettifogging scheme except for the claim that it is merely the first step in a series which will lead to Socialism. The pamphlet promises that the Labour Party’s ”immediate programme will lay the foundations of a planned economy, on the basis of sound and ordered finance.” Capitalism makes nonsense of this.

If the Labour Party succeeds after a few years' propaganda in making the scheme popular the Tories will appropriate it in some form or other and claim any credit there may be attached to it. On the other hand, it will always be unpopular with large sections of the workers on account of the heavy contribution.

As for the ideas of planned economy and sound finance, the next crisis—as certain as the rising of the sun so long as capitalism remains—will blow plans and financial estimates sky high, and if the Labour Government is in office at that time it will go up in the general explosion. That would matter little to the workers or to Socialism but for the fact that the Labour Party claims that this plan and the rest of its immediate programme is part of the advance towards Socialism.

Against this  uninspiring and unprogressive policy masquerading as practical politics the Socialist asks some simple questions, the self-evident answers to which expose the emptiness of Labourism. Are poverty, unemployment, insecurity, the danger of war and the certainty of crises inseparable from capitalism? Are the powers of production great enough if socially controlled to provide comfort and security for all? Is there anything holding back Socialism except the dearth of Socialists among the working class? Is it not obvious that the preaching of social reforms befogs the workers’ minds to the urgent necessity of Socialism ?

The human race needs Socialism now. The Labour Party, lacking faith in the intelligence and capacity of the working class, thinks to lead them slowly on the road by dangling the carrot of £1 a week at 65, largely paid for in advance by weekly sacrifice of necessities. In the meantime, capitalism goes on its callous way, mocking the puny efforts of the social reformers.

‘In office Labour made cuts – in opposition they oppose them’ (2026)

From the Brixton Buzz website

LAMBETH COUNCIL / NEWS

‘In office Labour made cuts – in opposition they oppose them’: SPGB takes aim at Labour and Greens ahead of Myatt’s Fields by-election

Sun 4th October, 2026 - by Phil Ross 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain’s Anya Krycek is standing in the Myatt’s Fields by-election on 8th October – not to win office, but to platform the case for socialism and challenge what the party calls the shared failure of Labour and the Greens to offer an alternative to austerity.

In an election statement, the SPGB argues that neither party can deliver on promises to reverse cuts because “austerity is not a political choice – it’s an economic necessity under the profit-driven capitalist system.”

[Socialist Party of Great Britain office, Clapham, 31.08.26]

 

The party, the world’s oldest socialist party, founded in 1904 and based on Clapham High Street, calls for common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, arguing that “it makes no real difference whether the Greens or Labour win” because “both will manage capitalism in Lambeth, and capitalism means cuts.”

 

Krycek, who also stood in the Clapham Park by-election in July, is hosting drop-in sessions at the SPGB headquarters every Tuesday and Thursday until polling day.

Anya Krycek’s full election statement is reproduced below.

More Info

• Myatt’s Fields by-election: Thursday 8th October 2026
• Socialist Party of Great Britain: 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 7UN

The Candidates

• Sonia Winifred – Green Party. Former Knight’s Hill Labour councillor who crossed to the Greens after being suspended for refusing to vote against a ceasefire motion on Gaza. A former librarian who served as Lambeth’s Cabinet Member for Equalities and Culture.
• Chris French – Liberal Democrats. A local resident who stood in Oval in May and previously as a parliamentary candidate in Vauxhall.
• Molly Hartill – Labour and Co-operative. Hartill stood in Myatt’s Fields in May, finishing fourth with 1,108 votes. Hartill is Head of Office for Dartford MP Jim Dickson, the former long-serving Lambeth Labour councillor for Herne Hill.
• John Hindson – Conservative and Unionist Party
• Yemi Awolola – Christian Peoples Alliance

Anya Krycek’s Full Statement

The Greens and Labour can’t reverse austerity. The only hope is socialism

In the elections in May the Green Party said they wanted to ‘reverse austerity’. They didn’t say how but this promise brought them enough votes to take control of Lambeth council.

It was an empty promise. No local council has the power to do this, neither legally nor economically. Once in office, the promise became just ‘to campaign to restore funding from central government and reverse austerity.’ Not the same.

Anybody can say they ‘stand against’ austerity. And that they will lobby for more money from the government (all councils and the parties running them are doing this). But austerity is not a political choice that can be reversed.

It’s an economic necessity under the profit-driven capitalist system. Governments have no choice but to limit their spending so as not to cut into profits or worsen the conditions for profit-making. Campaigning to change this has no chance of success. The Green Party campaign will fail.

The Labour Party is no different. Labour ran Lambeth council for years and did the same thing. In opposition, Labour councillors voted against cuts and protested against them. In office, they made the cuts.

They had no choice — a council, like a government, has to balance its books within capitalism, and under capitalism that means squeezing spending on services that don’t make a profit. Labour’s answer today is no more realistic than the Greens’: tax the corporations and the rich, spend more, grow the economy.

But the profits of the corporations are the economy, as far as capitalism is concerned. Tax them heavily and investment dries up, jobs disappear, and the money to spend on public services disappears with it. Labour knows this, which is why in office it always rows back. Every Labour government and every Labour council ends up administering capitalism on capitalism’s terms — that means austerity too.

So it makes no real difference whether the Greens or Labour win the Myatts Field by-election on 8 October. Both will manage capitalism in Lambeth, and capitalism means cuts.

Making ends meet is a permanent problem for those who work for wages. That’s because the wages system itself is the problem. Workers are paid less than the value of what we produce — that difference is surplus value, the source of profit. Whether wages go up or down, whether benefits are generous or mean, the working class as a whole can never get more out of capitalism than what it takes to keep us producing for the employers.

Meanwhile technology that could lighten everyone’s load is instead used to shed jobs and speed up those who remain. Overproduction sits side by side with unmet needs — food is destroyed while people go hungry, houses stand empty while people sleep on the streets — because production is geared not to meeting human needs but to making profit and accumulating capital.

Crises, unemployment, war, poverty and environmental destruction are not accidents or bad management. They are the inevitable outcomes of a system where the means of living are owned by a minority and used to serve their interests.

What is socialism? Socialism is not nationalisation, state control, higher taxes on the rich, or what the Labour Party or the Greens call ‘socialism’. It is something fundamentally different: a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production — the land, factories, offices, transport, and all the resources used to produce and distribute wealth.

With no owners, employers or profit, there would be no wages, no money and no buying and selling. Instead, people would freely contribute according to their ability and take from the common store according to their needs.

Production would be organised democratically, by all of us, to directly meet human needs and to live in balance with the planet — not to feed the never-ending drive for profit and growth.

Such a society cannot be handed down from above, and it cannot be voted in by one party alone while the majority still accepts capitalism. It requires a majority of workers worldwide understanding socialism and organising democratically to take over the means of production. That is why the Socialist Party of Great Britain is contesting the Myatts Field by-election — not to manage capitalism, but to use the opportunity to argue the socialist case.

If you agree, don’t waste your vote on parties promising to patch up a system that can’t be patched. Vote Anya Krycek of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on 8 October, and join us in the movement to replace capitalism with a world of free access, democratic control and production for use, not profit.

Promoted by Adam Buick on behalf of Anya Krycek, at the Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High St., London SW4 7UN. Printed by same.

Sting in the Tail: Discontented Capitalists (1994)

The Sting in the Tail column from the September 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Discontented Capitalists

At present Lord Palumbo is facing a fierce legal battle with his son and daughter over his management of a £70 million trust fund. They reckon he should be replaced as trustee as they don't like some of the things he is doing with the money.

This wrangling over the loot produced by the working class amongst the families of the capitalists is no new thing, but what makes it interesting is some of the expenditure by Lord Palumbo that is revealed by the dispute.

"Among the transactions being questioned by the children are the purchase of a Scottish island and two houses in France worth £4.5 million; £9.5 m in directors' payments; charitable donations of £4.9m; and donations to Tory party funds of £263,000.

They also allege that £13m has been spent on works of art, £2.5m on wine and about £2m on assorted properties and vintage cars. Lord and Lady Palumbo deny any misuse of the trust fund."

(The Independent 6th August).

Managing a £70 million trust fund must be quite demanding, doing so while allegedly consuming about £7,000 a week, since 1987, on booze is mind blowing!

Would-be capitalists

Workers are forever dreaming of winning the football pools. Living, as they do, in poor housing and fearing the prospect of unemployment it is not difficult to see why.

If you live in a large city like Manchester or Glasgow, statistically you have a better chance of being murdered than winning a large prize on the pools.

Even if you should be one of the very lucky few it does not mean security for life as shown by a report in the Sunday Times (31 July)

"Stockbroker Peter Creegan, who advises Littlewoods winners, advises: no pools winner should give up work unless he is at least 40."

Certainly, if like Lord Palumbo, your wine bill is £7,000 a week, you should consider keeping on your day job.

Contented capitalists

Under the heading "City Warms to Tony Blair’s Labour", The Independent (6 August) in their View from City Road column recalled how pleasing past Labour governments have been to all those drones, hangers-on and speculators collectively known as "the City."

"During the first Wilson government of 1963 to 1970, shareholders saw a 100 percent return on shares, or 13 percent a year, and in the second period of Labour rule returns were nearly 200 per cent, or 40 per cent a year, according to figures prepared by BZW.

Gilt markets did not do so well in the first phase, returning only 5 per cent over the seven year period, but returns were over 100 per cent, or 20 per cent a year, under Labour in the seventies."

Remembering that the source of all rent, interest and profit is the unpaid labour of the working class, you can see that while some sections of the British capitalist class may rejoice at the return of a Labour government no member of the working class should.

Odious comparison

Some other shareholders are also upset. These are managers in British Telecom who are faced with redundancy. BT wants to get rid of 6,500 of them this year even if this means by compulsion.

As is usual in such cases, those faced with the sack argued that savings could be made elsewhere and pointed to the huge sums paid to BTs Board of Directors.

BTs Chairman, Sir Iain Vallance, had a predictable answer to that one:

". . . board decisions were more far-reaching in their impact and deserved a higher bonus level, while board salaries also had to reflect the level of pay at other top companies."

(Guardian 29 July)

That last bit is sheer humbug. What if BTs unions demanded a pay rise because "other top companies" were paying more than BT workers were getting? Vallance's answer to that would be equally predictable — that what other companies pay their employees in no business of BT.

Wrong union

In July we drew attention to some Buddhist monks in Japan who formed a trade union. Now we learn that the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union (MSF) has recruited a dozen Anglican clergy and hopes to enrol thousands more in a special clergy section.

Falling congregations and the loss of millions of pounds on the property market have forced the church into a major economy drive. "Livings" have been lost as parishes amalgamated and there is a proposal to abolish "the parson’s freehold" which has guaranteed free housing and job security until 70.

Faced with this twin threat, one union recruit said:

"On the whole, my background would not be particularly pro-union, but I'm in the process of being re-educated. We are being told bishops are man-managers, that they are adopting management structures. The logic is, if they want to adopt a more managerial stance, those at the coalface must adopt a more ’worker' stance."

(Guardian 3 August)

That clergymen should join a trade union is appropriate enough. What is not is joining one which has some connection with science.

God in retreat

Thirty-one years ago the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich's book, Honest to God, put the cat among the theological pigeons. In it he denied the existence of a supernatural God. Instead, God was love, tolerance and all that was best in mankind.

Now comes Anthony Freeman, the Sussex Gear, who has been sacked by the C of E for saying much the same. And he is not alone. He has the support of 22 vicars, non-conformist ministers and a Roman Catholic priest.

One of his supporters said: " . . . to hold to a traditional view of an external deity does not make sense" (Guardian 4 August), while Freeman claimed on TV that "a substantial number" of priests shared his views but are afraid to speak out in case they share his fate.

Islamic fundamentalism and crackpot evangelism may be temporarily on the rise elsewhere, but in this part of the world religious superstition is undeniably in headlong retreat.

Blogger's Note:

The August 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard carried an article - written by Pieter Lawrence - which discussed the controversy surrounding the Bishop of Woolwich's book, Honest to God.

Editorial: Two budgets (1952)

Editorial from the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Budgets are the concern of the capitalists, not of the working class, though it suits the Labour Party, like the other reformist parties, to pretend otherwise. The workers are not poor because of the Budget, but because the capitalist class own society’s means of production and distribution. It was admitted by the Economist (25th December, 1943) that:—

"1,800,000 persons, who are 7 per cent. of the adult persons in the country, own 85 per cent. of the private property and draw 28 per cent. of the individual incomes of the country."

The Economist said that their readers would be surprised to team this. Why they should be surprised was not explained; this inequality has been a feature of social life in Britain and the rest of the world throughout the capitalist era, and is equally true now despite all the talk of redistribution.

The capitalist State has to meet the cost of its civil service, armed forces and re-armament programmes and all the rest of the organisation necessary to the capitalist system. It does this through taxation the burden of which falls on the shoulders of those who alone can bear it, the propertied class. The wealth the workers produce belongs to the capitalist class and what the workers receive as wages and salaries is far below the value of what they, the workers, produce. That is how the workers are legally robbed and why they are poor. Rises or falls of prices, rises or falls of taxation and changes from one form to another, do not affect the fundamental position of the working class—at most they have temporary effects. White capitalism continues, the only sound policy for the working class is to struggle at all times to the fullest extent that conditions permit, to raise their wages and resist downward pressure.

During and since the war, under the abnormal conditions then existing, and with unemployment at a very low level, successive governments used the system of food subsidies in order to discourage the trade unions from pressing for higher wages. It was linked with high taxation on drink and tobacco, and, from 1946, the grant of children’s allowances to level the condition of the workers. The whole scheme was a device to lessen the movement for a general rise of wages and to divide the married workers against the unmarried. With it went the incessant demand of the Labour Government that the workers should refrain from "unreasonable” wage claims. Now that the fierce struggle against foreign competitors is hotting up again in the markets of the world, the policy is being modified because it has served its purpose. It was merely a wartime interlude in the running of capitalism, which is now getting back to normal pre-war conditions.

Against this background it will be seen how nonsensical is the Labour Party case against the Butler budget. They call is a “rich man’s budget,” as if any budget could be anything else. Mr. Douglas Jay, Labour M.P., speaking in the House of Commons on 17th March, accused Mr. Butler of "robbing the poor to pay the rich”—as if the details of any particular budget were of any importance by comparison with the ceaseless exploitation of the working class \\hich went on unchanged during six years of Labour government.

They charge the Tories with raising the cost of living, forgetting that while they were in power it went up about 40 per cent. They say that he is against wage increases, as of course he is, but forgetting the years in which they also preached "wage-restraint.” They denounce him for reducing food subsidies, but forget that it was Sir Stafford Cripps who decided not to permit any increase in the subsidies even though that meant a rise of the cost of living; a flat departure from the statement of his predecessor, Mr. Dalton, who in 1945 said:—

“I have decided to hold the present cost of living steady until further notice, even if this means an increase in the necessary Exchequer subsidies." (Hansard, 23rd October, 1945. Col. 1877.)

It was on that occasion that Mr. Dalton admitted the purpose of the subsidies as being "to restrain any disproportionate increase in wage rates,” and paid tribute to the "steadiness and good sense which the trade unions and their leaders have shown during the war in this regard.”

In April, 1951, when Mr. Gaitskell, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, repeated the decision not to increase the food subsidies, he admitted that this decision would mean a further rise of food prices and indeed the official food index figure rose from 131 in April, 1951, to 143 in October.

Other Labour Party critics charge the Tories with tenderness towards high profits, and one misguided Labour journal Forward, in its issue for 23rd February, 1952, chides the Tories on the ground that company profits repented during January, 1952, were up by £10,000,000. What it overlooked was that the company reports issued in January, 1952, related to profits made under the Labour Government in 1951!

Now that the Labour Party is in Opposition it will wage the sham fight about the details of running the capitalist system, but there was every justification for the jibe of the Liberal leader, Mr. Clement Davies, that if Mr. Gaitskell had been in Mr. Butler's place his Budget would have been "much of a muchness.” All budgets, no matter who introduces them, are designed to promote capitalism, not to undermine or abolish it.

Mr. Butler’s budget of 11th March had been preceded on 6th March by the budget report of the Russian Finance Minister, Mr. Zverev. They differed by five days, and little more.

The Russian Budget

The Russian Finance Minister’s budget report was reproduced in full in Soviet News (12th March, 1952) published by the Russian Embassy in London. It makes interesting reading particularly as evidence of the similarity of capitalism's problems and their treatment in the two countries.

They both have their re-armament problems; naturally both offered as instruments of “ defence,” not of "aggression.”

In 1952 the Russian Government plans to spend "for the defence of the country” 113,800 million roubles (£10,346,000,000 at the Russian official rate of exchange of 11 roubles to the £).

The amount of money to be raised from State loans in 1952 is set at £3,864 millions, and the estimated expenditure on the lottery prizes and interest to bondholders (“to pay out winnings to the population and interest on loans”) is estimated at £800 million. This latter figure relates, of course, to the interest, etc., on the total amount of loans outstanding, not merely to the additional loans to be raised during the year; at the average rate of 4 per cent. it implies that the total amount of bonds outstanding in 1952 will be about £20,000 million.

Turnover Tax (similar to the British purchase tax) brought into Budget revenues in 1951 the amount of £22,500 millions, an increase of 4.9 per cent. over 1950. It is to be increased this year by another 4.9 per cent. 

Mr Butler stepped up the taxes on profits by means of the Excess Profits Levy. His opposite number in Russia, Mr. Zverev, is going to do the same.

“Total profits in the branches of the national economy will amount to 88,100 million roubles in the current year as against 74,700 million roubles in 1951. The rise in profits makes it possible to leave a substantial part of them at the disposal of enterprises and Ministries for expanding production. At the same time, the profits tax paid into the State Budget will be increased and the share of this tax in the State Budget revenue will rise from 10.2 per cent. in 1951 to 12.2 per cent. in 1952.”

“The profits tax paid by State enterprises will be increased by 14,000 million roubles, or 29.2 per cent. more than last year. . ."

Conservative and Labour Party speakers are always urging the workers to produce more and lower the cost of production. Mr. Zverev’s report contained numerous remarks of the same kind. He reported that in 1951 “the labour productivity of workers in industry rose, by 10 per cent. compared with 1950.” But he was not satisfied with this and asked for more. His report also contained many complaints about industries which had failed to keep down their wages bill and operate sufficiently profitably:—

"It should be said that certain Ministries, enterprises and economic organisations are for from making full use of available potentialities for the further reduction of production costs, cutting trade outlays and making the work of economic organisations more profitable.”

“One of the main requisites for the further reduction of production costs is also the improvement of the organisation of labour at enterprises and the frugal expenditure of wage funds. Not all enterprises, however, live up to those requirements.”

For example, he complained that the Ministry of Paper and Woodworking Industry “permitted the mills to cover the over-expenditure of the wage fund,” and the Leningrad engineering plant of the Central Textile Machinery Administration of the Ministry of Machine and Instrument-making Industry “did not fulfil its production plans last year and overspent 13,500,000 roubles on wages.”

Time and time again he came back to this theme of not spending too much on wages, improving the control of “labour per unit of output,” and watching over “the expenditure of wage funds” and of “the timely and complete receipt of payments into the Budget.” Numerous branches of industry were named as being among those which illegally “overdraw the wage funds.” Others were charged with allowing expensive machinery “to stand idle a great deal,” thus adding to production costs, and many State farms were criticised because they “do not yet have a sufficiently high productivity of labour.”

We are told by Communists that in Russia the trade unions have control over the fixing of wages. What they do have (a very different matter) is the right to discuss the way the “wages fund” is allocated to different grades of workers; but of course the real control resides with those who fix the total amount of the wage fund for each enterprise, that is the Government and its agencies. How true this is can be seen from the Finance Minister’s report. Not once does he even mention as a possibility that the workers or the unions might have pressed for a bigger expenditure on wages. In each of the dozen cases that he refers to he tells the managements firmly that once the Government has fixed the wage fund they have got to stick to it and devote their energies to cutting down production costs and increasing the workers’ output.

British capitalism’s financial wizards and productivity experts would feel very much at home if transplanted to Mr. Zverev’s department.

It is only necessary to add that the Budget Report was unanimously approved. The session ended as follows, according to the Soviet News account:—

“Stormy, prolonged applause. All rise. A prolonged ovation in honour of Comrade J. V. Stalin resounds in the Kremlin Palace.”

It seems to have been like the Tory cheers for Mr. Butler.

The Socialist comment on British and Russian budgets is simplicity itself. The aim of the working class should be to end private and State capitalism and bring the means of production and distribution into ownership by the whole community as the basis of Socialism. While the workers continue to neglect this real issue and devote their attention instead to capitalism’s budgets and taxation they will remain a poverty-stricken exploited class and the exploiters will continue to be safe in the enjoyment of the privileged position that capitalism bestows on them.

Labour, Tory . . . Same Old Story (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Can you spot the difference? Which is the party of Law and Order, Family Values, Prudent Public Spending, the Market Economy: Labour or the Tories? Such is the public confusion over this that even the Tories have thought of exploiting it:

“Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, and other key members of the Cabinet favoured attacking Mr Blair as a pale copy of the Tory party. This is called ‘the Coke option’ by researchers who say the Tories represent ‘the real thing'” (Independent, 26 July).

Since Blair became Leader in July Labour’s strategy has been to criticise the Tories on their terms –as incompetent managers of the economy and unable to implement tough policies against criminals, single mothers and other scroungers. Guided by their marketing advisers, Labour politicians don’t attack the Tories’ policies but only the incompetent and ineffective way in which they are carried out. Vote for us, Blair is saying, and we’ll carry out these policies better than the Tories. The aim is to attract enough ex-Tory voters for him to be able to enter Number Ten as Britain’s next prime minister.

Labour being the vote-catching party it always has been, it had to come to this sooner or later: the end of Labour as a party of radical reform of capitalism. Labour never was a socialist party but it did once see its role as trying to shift the balance of power and wealth under capitalism in favour of working people. They never did do this of course nor, given the nature of capitalism, could they have done so. But this was what they said and this at least showed that they thought capitalism was far from being the acceptable economic system they now think it is.

Incredible as it might seem today, Denis (now Lord, of course) Healey told a cheering Labour Conference in 1973 that he was going to squeeze the rich till the pips squeaked:

“Our job is to get power, and we join battle armed with the most radical and comprehensive programme we have had since 1945. Its aim is honestly stated, to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families . . . We are going to introduce a tax on wealth. We are going to turn the estate duty into a real tax… I warn you, there are going to be howls of anguish from the 80,000 rich people. “

Labour got to power, but it was working people who ended up getting squeezed till the pips squeaked. The result was a massive wave of strikes in the public sector over the winter of 1978/9 – and the election of the Tories under Thatcher pledged, as she openly boasted, to undo everything Labour claimed to champion. Which, as demanded by capitalism’s worsened economic conditions, she did and, spiteful woman that she was, with glee. State industries were privatised, council houses sold off, local services axed, welfare payments slashed and the health service subjected to market forces.

Power for what?

Today all that Labour has retained of Healey’s rhetoric are the first six words: “our job is to get power”. Since radical phrases, indeed any definite policies, are now perceived to be a drag on this drive to get power they have been ruthlessly abandoned. Just attack the Tories as incompetent and clapped out, the marketing team advise, and, anxious for power, the Labour politicians oblige.

But power for what? In the end, since they are only projecting themselves as better and more competent managers of the status quo, it amounts to power for its own sake. The Labour leaders want power because they are professional politicians and the ambition of every professional politician is to become a government minister.

Is this being too cynical? Can they be that bad? Perhaps not, but it doesn’t really matter since even if they were sincere (and, on the law of averages, some of them must be) they still wouldn’t be able to make the capitalist market economy work other than as a system that puts profits first and so as a problem-ridden system incapable of meeting human needs properly.

In so far as they might have a theory of what they would do if they get power it will be no different from that behind the failed policies of ail previous Labour governments : trying to redistribute profits towards socially desirable projects such as a better health service, better education and better housing.

This involves accepting the profit system – not a problem of course for Blair and company – and allowing firms to make the maximum profits, justified on the grounds that this also supposedly maximises the resources available for social spending.

The trouble is this makes what a reformist government can do depend on the profitability of capitalist industry. As Richard Crossman, a Labour politician who was to become a senior Cabinet Minister in the 1964 Wilson Labour government, wrote following Labour’s defeat in the 1959 election on such a classic reformist programme:

“A Socialist Government, it is often argued, would be able to finance the huge extension of welfare, education and other pubic services by encouraging a much faster rate of development in the private sector of industry and then taxing away a sufficient amount of the profits. This was the policy put forward by the Labour Party at the last election and in the short run any Labour Government would to attempt it. But experience should have taught us that the run might be very short indeed. In the Affluent Society no Government is able to give orders to Big Business. After one budget a Labour Chancellor who tried to squeeze private industry too hard would soon discover that he was not master in his own house and that there is a relatively low level above which taxation rates, whether on the individual or the company, are only raised at the cost of provoking tax evasion and avoidance so widespread that revenue is actually reduced. If the motive of your economy is the profit-making of large-scale modem private enterprise, a Labour Government must be prepared to allow very large profits indeed and to admit that the number of golden eggs he can remove is extremely limited. ” (Labour in the Affluent Society, 1960)

His answer was that Labour should therefore seek to establish an enlarged state sector so as to give a Labour government more room to manoeuvre. The present Labour leaders would recoil in horror at such as suggestion, not that anyway it would have worked to protect a Labour government from the economic pressures of capitalism to keep costs down and profits up. Nor that the Labour governments of which Crossman was subsequently a member made any real attempt to do it.

Profits first

In fact Labour ministers ended up making speeches accepting that profits should be encouraged. Here is how one of them (Harold Lever who, like Healey was later ennobled) put it:

“Labour’s economic plans are not in any way geared to more nationalisation; they are directed towards increased production on the basis of the continued existence of a large private sector. Within the terms of the profit system it is not possible, in the long run, to achieve sustained increases in output without an adequate flow of profit to promote and finance them. The Labour leadership know as well as any businessman that an engine which runs on profit cannot be made to move faster without extra fuel.” (Observer, 3 April 1966).

This could be Blair or Gordon Brown or any of the other Labour leaders speaking and well sums up what will be the only economic policy that a future Labour government will be able to pursue. Profits First, that’s the economic law of the capitalist system, which all governments of capitalism have to accept and apply.

If you accept the profit system, then you have to accept that profits have to be made and all that this implies, including opposing strikes, restraining wages and keeping taxes on Big Business low. Labour does accept the profit system, much more openly than they have done in the past, to the extent that today they are even prepared to advocate these things while still in opposition.

Nobody who is against the profit system has any place in Tony Blair’s bland new Labour Party. If you want more Law and Order, more Family Values, more blurred nothingness you might as well join Labour as the Tories or Liberals. But if you are a Socialist and want to get rid of the profit system you should be in a democratically-organised socialist party campaigning for socialism and nothing else.

Adam Buick