Editorial: The Greater War. The National Thrift Campaign and the Workers. (1915)

Editorial from the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

One notable feature of the campaign of thrift that is being curried on is that it is directed almost exclusively at the working class. A National Thrift Conference is held, but who are the invited ? Are they the society dames whose vanity and extravagance deprive of health and sunlight the wives and children of workers? Are they men of wealth and leisure whose harems have branches in the various fashionable resorts, whose town and country residences are filled with domestics and luxury, whose high-powered motors maim and kill the workers’ children, and whose whole wealth is a toll levied on the labour and happiness of wage workers ? These are not the invited. It is they who invite the trade union executives and officials to confer with ministers of State in order to farther the campaign of thrift among the have-nots !

Readers of the daily Press are treated to ridiculous stories of workers in one-room tenements who instal pianos therein, of workers who spend large sums on beer or jewellery ; and one journal, with unconscious humour, gives as evidence of the unprecedented prosperity of the labouring class, the great demand for second-hand clothing that is caused by thousands being able for the first time to purchase complete suits of cast-off clothes ! So grave does the Government profess to consider this extravagance that it is even proposed to make thrift among the working class compulsory.

All this, it should be noted, is because a number of war workers are toiling overtime, and undergoing thereby a wastage of muscle and brain and life that the increase in pay and total lack of leisure entirely fail to enable them to replace.

The increase in cost of necessities has been variously estimated by capitalist authorities at from 43 to 50 per cent., and they are careful not to over-estimate. In most cases during the same period wages have not increased at all ; in many cases they have seriously decreased ; while in those industries in which more wages are paid the average amount of the increase by no means equals the increase in the price of living.

In normal times the remuneration of the workers leaves not the slightest justifiable margin for either waste or saving. Theirs is a life-long training in economy. It is a profound truth that man cannot live by bread alone, yet too often the workers lack even this ; and we know that one-third of the population of these islands exists upon a remuneration that is insufficient to provide bare physical efficiency. As Mr. Chiozza Money states in his “Riches and Poverty,”

“When we realise that 38,000,000 out of our 43,000,000 are poor, the statistics of Booth and Rowntree cease to surprise us. In analysis, the United Kingdom is seen to contain a great multitude of poor people, veneered with a thin layer of the comfortable and the rich.”

How, then, can the workers be expected to save ? Why is there this attempt to get blood out of a stone ? Is there not the strongest presumption that it is to ascertain if possible the lowest limit upon which the workers can subsist, in order to adjust wages to the lower level in the masters’ interest ?

The campaign with regard to the well-to-do seems to take a different form. It is largely evidenced in the advertisements that fill the journals read by the comfortable class. Thus under the heading of “War Economies” there are displayed “war bargains” in fur cloaks and the like at 30 guineas upward, special bargains in mansions and new automobiles, war bargains in highly profitable investments, or there are announcements of luxurious and costly hotel and restaurant fare made still more palatable by the efforts of celebrated artistes and musicians.

But the indulgence of the workers in such “war economies” would be an utterly unheard-of thing. The bare possibility of it would shake the foundations of capitalist society.

Why is this ?

The ruling class cannot give the true answer without condemning their whole regime. Yet they, who enjoy all good things and produce none, brand as extravagant those who produce all but are not able to enjoy, and whose reason for not saving is simply that they cannot.

The capitalists, indeed, always have done and are still doing their utmost to make it totally impossible for the workers to save. Those who can are taking advantage of the war-time restriction of supply or increase in demand to realise, temporarily, at least, abnormal profits. A man could go stone blind, in fact, trying to see evidences of sacrifice on the part of the employing class.

The sudden expansion in the demand for house-room all around every munition area is taken full advantage of to extort more rent, and magistrates support the sacred principles of capitalist political economy by granting ejectment orders. So glaring has this “wide-spread brigandage” become that even an M.P., Mr. Alfred Yeo, says in the “Daily Chronicle” of Nov. 5th :

“The noblest of our sons are giving their life’s blood to defend from German horrors not only their own hearths and homes, their own wives and children, but the hearths and homes, the wives and children, even the sacred persons, of the landlords themselves.

And what thanks do they get ?

‘We are proud of you,’ is what in effect these landlords say. ‘You are fighting to keep a German invasion from us, and to show our appreciation of what you are doing at the front, we have decided in your absence to raise your rent one shilling a week or turn your dependents into the streets.’ ”

A Bill to deal with this is spoken of at the time of writing, and its provisions as now outlined entirely miss the tenements which are the chief source of complaint, while the nature of the Bill may be safely judged by the fact that the great London Property Owners Association has given it its blessing. As with other such Bills of recent memory, it can be little else than a legal sanction of the daylight robbery that is already going on.

So it is all round. Coal is still rising in price, yet we find an item like the following in the “Daily News and Leader” of Nov. 17th :

“MINERS’ WAGES REDUCED

A meeting of the South Wales Coal Conciliation Board was held at Cardiff yesterday, when Earl St. Aldwyn, independent chairman, presided, and the owners’ application for a five per cent. reduction in the general wage rate was granted.”

The profits of shipping companies are up on an average over 50 per cent. Factories connected in any way with war work are making admittedly large profits, though the true extent of these is hidden by the outlay on new machinery and improvements in the works, or other well-known dodges. The restriction of supply upsets the balance of the market price at, the labour cost of production, and enables dealers, for the time being, to raise prices wholesale. These give as their excuse in most cases (despite the greater employment of cheap woman and child labour) the lying statement that the higher price is due to the greater cost of labour. Flour millers and the like are also increasing their dividends—and their reserves—so that a decrease in the price of wheat has come to mean an increase in the price of bread !

The contrast between the position of the employers and that of the workmen is significant; and though the employees are full of patriotism, it may be noticed how clearly their patriotism has the accent on the pay !

That, in fact, is the essence of the whole position. The workers are called upon to sacrifice their remnants of liberty, their health, their limbs, their lives—for what ? They are threatened with starvation in order to make them save a voluntary system that is voluntary only to the idle class. Newspapers display notices that “in the national interest” advertisers must not give employment to workmen of military age. But though the worker has to sacrifice all he possesses, the capitalist only offers his wealth against the highest security and for a thumping interest! The worker’s sacrifice is dead loss to him : that of the wealthy is all profit. That is the difference.

These facts are incontrovertible. The class cleavage in society must, to use a common expression, hit every thinking man in the eye. Yet the workers in the main appear to be hypnotised into vacuous acquiescence in this class tyranny by the tireless mendacity of capitalist Press, platform, and pulpit. The workers have brains, though the fact might sometimes be doubted ; but they prostitute their brains to their masters’ interests. They run the industries, do the work—and get the kicks. Is it not, therefore, about time they started in dead earnest to use their brains on behalf of their own families, their own work-fellows, their own too humble selves ? The future of humanity depends upon their doing so, for it is a profoundly true saying that “militant, the workers’ cause is identical with class ; triumphant, with humanity.” In sober truth, indeed, despite the fearful European shambles, a true perspective will show that the greater war is the class war.

By The Way. (1915)

The By The Way Column from the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a result of the long and bloody struggle, which has now engaged the world’s attention for something like fifteen months, we find our masters and their agents taking a keen interest in the question of mother and baby. The “Daily Chronicle,” in large headlines, informs us that “Good Motherhood means bigger and stronger Armies of the future.” This is decidedly funny ! What need is there for large armies in the future ? Have we not been repeatedly told in the capitalist Press and on the platform that “this war is to end war.” Verily, verily, I say unto you: Liars need good memories.

Of course, our masters know that so long as their vile system of society lasts—this catch-as-catch-can do-my-neighbour form—so long will the germs of warfare exist, and hence their increased interest in a plentiful supply of healthy infants.

In passing, one must notice the difference that exists in the methods employed by our masters and those of the common or garden working men when meeting to discuss some item of importance. The former, as a preliminary canter, have “a dinner,” whilst the latter get immediately to business, and, if financially strong enough, after might adjourn to the sign of “—…..Old and Mild.”

However, this all important question of cannon fodder for the future was discussed at a dinner at the Lyceum Club, when Mrs. Philip, the chairman, referred to it as “The noble art of mothercraft,” and said, “What we want is a better chance for all children, and not merely those of the poorer classes.”

Dr. Newsholme, of the Local Government Board, gave some interesting figures and facts about this important population question. He pointed out that:

“We might have had many more potential soldiers if the birth-rate of 1914 had been equal to that of 1876. If it had kept up to the former level 50,000 more babies would have come into the world last year than the number recorded. This decrease has been going on for 38 years. We might have had a much larger number of fighting men if small families had not become so fashionable.”—”Daily Chronicle,” 26.10.15.

With the development of schools for mothers, meals, etc., for expectant mothers and sterilised milk depots for young children, our masters are hard put to it in their endeavour to raise and maintain an adequate number of slaves, who shall serve them in the industrial army or as a fighting force in days to come.

* * *

Mr. Will Crooks recently addressed a meeting in the People’s Palace, Mile End Road, with the object of securing recruits. In the course of his remarks he said: “Don’t some of you want to join ? What are you hanging back for ? Are you waiting for a safe job till somebody doesn’t come back for it ? I can imagine what will happen. The employer will ask where you were in 1915-16, and if he finds that you belonged to the ‘Stay-at-Home-Rangers,’ he will say to you, “Good morning; mind the step.’ ”

“It is a people’s war; a war for the people’s rights and liberties.’”

Doubtless it never occurs to the Woolwich gent, that some “hang back”’ to maintain their “rights and liberties” ; but, of course, here the small number of people have no “rights and liberties.” We are fighting on behalf of small nations ! The threat of the employer saying “Good morning” may be a good incentive to “voluntary enlistment” ! Finally we would suggest to our hon. friend that there are other places than Mile End where he might try his prentice hand, for has not that other great recruiting sergeant, Ben Tillett told us over and over again that “95 per cent. of our fighting forces are enlisted from the ranks of the working class.” Here, then, is a new field for the recruiting agent.

* * *

An Oxford undergraduate serving with the Royal Engineers in France gives the following account of a scene behind the British front :

“I went up as far as the entrance to the communication trenches and watched the wounded coming out. It was a sight I shall never forget. About one-fourth of the men coming out were Germans, wounded . . . the wounded and our wounded were straggling out, apparently the greatest friends. It was a fellowship bond of suffering, a brotherhood of pain.

Those who could walk were supporting those who could not. I saw two Germans, wounded, the one in the head, the other in the arm, supporting between them a Scottish soldier with a shrapnel wound in both thighs.”—”Daily Mail,” 13.10.15.

“Apparently the greatest friends. A fellowship bond of suffering.” Yes, possibly, until then they had never realised that they had had no quarrel, perhaps never met before ; but, alas, the trumpet-call had sounded, their masters had fallen out and were going to settle their differences by force of arms and they had been goaded to take sides in the dispute.

* * *

The increased rent campaign of a section of the masters serves a useful purpose in once again emphasizing the unique “oneness” of the nation in this its hour of suffering. In our perusal of the Press we notice that there is complete unanimity in this respect with the international master class. So strong is the pressure in some parts that we find the wives of the men who are fighting “our” battles so filled with righteous wrath and indignation that a deputation, accompanied by thousands of women, waited upon the Glasgow Corporation to protest against increases of rent. We are told that they carried a banner with the inscription :

“Our husbands, sons, and brothers are fighting the Prussians of Germany ; we are fighting the Prussians of Partick.”—”Daily Chronicle”,” 8.10.15.

Such pungent sarcasm as this was not allowed to go unnoticed and we find the matter raised in the House of Commons on the motion for adjournment, when a member stated that “this kind of thing (raising rent) is going to sow industrial discontent and unrest.”

* * *

A few days later in the columns of the same paper we find half-a-column devoted to the case of a woman in Germany, whose husband had been at the front since the beginning of the war, and who had received a letter from her landlord asking for the payment of the balance of her rent within 24 hours, otherwise steps would be taken. She had paid her rent regularly until two months ago, when bad health had overpowered her.

“Vorwaerts then points out to its readers that the woman’s husband has been fighting for more than a year to defend this landlord’s house, a man who is sitting at his ease in Berlin raking in his rents which have not been reduced by one pfennig. The shop-keepers also are charging the woman exorbitant prices for every necessary of life. Thanks to their skill in exploiting the poor and wretched, the woman got behind with her rent. She found it impossible to make both ends meet . . . and thereupon down comes this blood-sucker and threatens to throw her out of house and home. And all the time her husband, who was torn away from his work, is keeping the Watch on the Rhine and endangering his life for the Fatherland.—”Daily Chronicle,” 11.10.15.

We would once again reiterate the Marxian slogan: “Wage Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a World to win !

* * *

We have for months past received exhortations to economy from all quarters. Printing machines have been busily engaged turning out handbills and posters by the thousand adjuring us to eat less meat, to waste nothing, and be careful with our bread. Yet it is only about three years since that Lloyd George stated that: “You had got side by side with most extravagant wealth, multitudes of people who cannot consider ‘even a bare subsistence’ as assured to them. What do I mean by bare subsistence ? I don’t mean luxuries. I exclude even comforts. I mean that minimum of food, raiment, shelter, and practically the care which is essential to keep human life in its tenement of clay. The wolves of hunger prowl constantly round millions of doors in the land.”

Do our masters really imagine that the working class can do ought else than practise economy now, as ever, particularly bearing in mind that capitalist statisticians admit a 34 per cent. increase in the cost of living ? However, we have noticed during times past that things are vastly different with our bosses, as instance the following :

THE LORD MAYOR’S MENU

Turtle Clear Turtle

Fillets of Soles, Sauce Tartare

Mousses Lobster Casseroles of Partridge

Barons of Beef Capons Bechamel Smoked Tongues

Game Pies Orange Jellies Creams

Meringues

Maids of Honour Princess Pastry

Charlotte Russe

Ices Dessert

Wines.

“Daily Express,” 10.11.15.

We would suggest that practice is better than precept.

The Scout.

Our shifty paymasters. (1915)

From the November 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate on the Finance Bill in the House of Commons on October 13th was a typical expression of the shuffling methods of our masters. Those who call the tune were quarrelling over the payment of the piper.

The course of this debate exhibited, as usual, the truth of the Socialist’s contention that economic interests are the prime factors in all historical movements, no matter how much idealistic puff is put into the movements. The attitude of the international money-bags has shown the mercenary motives at the bottom of the present war, in spite of the “sanctity of small nations” twaddle.

Here, in this debate on the distribution of the expenses of the war, we have the clashing interests of all sections of the capitalist class.

The business was opened by a certain Mr. Lough, whose main bone of contention appeared to be the Excess Profits Tax, and he proceeded to set forth the views of our masters on business generally, which views are very enlightening ! “Profits in business,” says he, “seem to me the same thing as victories in war.” The noble gentleman was not far wide of the mark that time, and he evidently adheres to our position that the profits of the masters are made out of the blood of the workers. Further on he says : “It is a serious thing to plunge into the question of measuring too closely with a 12 inch rule the exact profits that have been made during the few months since the commencement of the war.” We should say not ! It might, perhaps, awaken some suspicion in the minds of those who are giving their blood—for what ? “Trading Companies are generally collections of poor people” ! ! Such as the Northcliffs, the Liptons, the Brunner Monds, etc., etc. !

Further on he says, tearfully: “It has been suggested that the bloated people in the trading concerns of the country are not doing their duty in the war. I repudiate the suggestion altogether. As far as I know, every one of the great trading concerns has its Roll of Honour. A large percentage of their men have gone to the front, and many of them have paid the penalty.” How truly blind the trading community really is. They have sent their men (their wage-slaves) out to die.

Here is another gem: “Profits are the wages of our class and wages are the dividends of another class.” There is one difference—wages are on an average the smallest sum that will suffice to keep together the body and soul of a worker and reproduce the necessary working-power, while dividends are anything up to millions of pounds. One is the price of a worker’s labour-power, and often of his life ; the other is the idler’s revenue.

“Do not take a weapon that will damage interests of the greatest importance,” he wailed, but not a word of regret as to the damaging of human flesh and blood.

The sycophantic Philip Snowden then rose and delivered a long address, taking great care not to tread on anybody’s corns; in fact, he comported himself as a “thorough gentleman.” In the course of his remarks this professional toady said: “I am very glad to be able to join in what is the universal testimony and tribute of this country to the sacrifice of life which both the middle and aristocratic classes have made, but in the matter of wealth they are not paying their fair share of the cost of the war.” Fancy thanking our masters for the paltry few who have risked anything in their war in comparison with the myriads of wage slaves ! This is the man deluded workers once called a “Socialist” !

Sir G. Younger also objected to the Excess Profits Tax on the ground that it would put English firms who are now on war work in a disadvantageous position with American firms at the end of the war.

T. M. Healy, in the course of his remarks, made the following enlightening statement with reference to the Income Tax: “You are charging those unfortunate professional men, clerks and others, with incomes of £2 and £3 per week. The Government are going to call upon them for £2, £3, and £5, out of their incomes, and all in connection with a war from which they gain no practical benefit, and these people in Ireland belong to the very classes who have given their sons and brothers to fight.” Tim had better be careful as he is sailing very close to the wind in his excitement. Healy makes use of the above to appeal for a fair share of munition work on behalf of the Irish manufacturers, who, he is afraid, are likely to lose in competition with the English. What he is really out for, of course, is cheap labour, being of opinion that increased taxation will mean higher wages.

Sir Alexander Henderson let out a wail of woe on behalf of the poor devil who, through the proposed tax, would be compelled to exist on the paltry sum of £1,800 per year ! Listen, O ye slaves, to this tale of woe ! “The man that has £4,812 a year would find it, and does find it, very difficult to reduce his expenditure down to the reduced amount of £3,600. If he is only to spend half of that and his expenditure, which was £4,812, is to be reduced to £1,800, take the figure of £5,000 as an example to us how impossible is the suggestion. All a man’s plans in life are more or less made up and fixed according to the income he has had for many years, and to suggest that an expenditure of £4,800 can be reduced to £1,800 is a practical impossibility.” Of course it is ! The idea is simply absurd. Now you starvelings of the workshop and factory who are only called upon to give your life blood in the business, surely you will have pity on the noble lord in his dilemma ! £3,000 a year to be chucked overboard ! Why, it’s preposterous.

After Sir Arthur Markham (shareholder in mines) had suggested that all working men ought to be taxed during the war (their lives are not enough !) in accordance with their ability to pay, urging that “there are many working men earning very high wages who can well afford to make a contribution towards the expenses of the war,” (think of the poor, poverty-stricken £1,800 a year merchant, and weep !) our old friend, Mr. Samuel Samuel, rose on behalf of the trading section. “We are the wealthiest country in the world,” says he, and a little further on, “I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate that the wealth of the nation is in the main the wealth of the individuals who make up the nation,” (what marvellous insight and subtlety !) “those people who spend their lives in business (Lipton, Rothschild, Duke of Devonshire, Duke of Sutherland, etc.) and who by their industry give employment to the millions of working people..” Dear, kind, benevolent souls ! Further on he says: “If you take away not only the surplus profits during the period of the war, but impose large taxes besides, then, when the time comes and we have to enter the markets of the world in competition with other countries, the industrial and commercial classes will be unable to meet that competition with any prospect of success.”

It is strange what things leak out when the thieves are squabbling. Lough pointed out that the Cabinet were not taxing themselves under the excess profits tax, and Sir Alfred Mond drew attention to the “fact that a deputation of a certain number of English motor-car manufacturers waited upon the officials at the Treasury in order to press for a Protective Tariff,” and asks if the new motor tax is the result. Lough also said: “We know that motor-cars are being taxed because of a certain motor-car which is imported into this country from America, with which at the present time English motor-car manufacturers are not able to compete, and consequently British manufacturers require protection against that import until the time comes that they will once more be able to compete with it.” (What is the difference between Free Traders and Protectionists ?) He also pointed out that the “Evening News” had vigorously defended the tax on films imported into this country and pointed out that one of the Directors of the Association that owns the “Evening News”—Mr. Tod Anderson has 3,000 shares in Regal Films Ltd. This is letting the cat out of the bag with a vengeance.

(All the above quotations are taken from “Parliamentary Debates.” Vol. 74, No. 101.)

Thus the debate went on. Each interest squabbling sordidly as to who shall bear the least part of the expenses of the war—each trying to shift the burden on to other shoulders. If space would permit and the patience of the readers held out I could quote enough to fill columns showing the cold-blooded, mercenary spirit of the masters throughout this debate. While they are spending hours shifting the burden of payment, the latest returns show, according to Mr. Outhwaite (Parliamentary De­bates. Vol. 74, No. 103, p. 1571) that British casualties up to 10th Oct. in the Dardenelles alone amount to 96,899 !

Such are the men who run “our” Empire; and such are the exalted views that guide them !

Now, fellow slaves, what are you fighting for ? Think !

M. G.

By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the June 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nearly three years ago now, when the present international slaughter of the world’s workers commenced, we were informed that this was the “war to end war.” From that time onwards many have iterated the same silly phrase. Many have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the capitalist class and gone out of their way to inform the unwary that this war is different in its origin to past wars, that this time it is in order to put down “Prussianism” that they are called upon to give their services and, if necessary, their lives.

Slowly but surely numbers of our class are beginning to open their eyes and to realise that they have been deceived, and in order to facilitate this larger outlook I propose giving one or two quotations which possibly may help them in their search for truth and knowledge.

From a German source, quoted in a paper the proprietor of which is a keen supporter of the Lloyd Georgian (English-Prussian) Government, we read that General von Stein, Minister of War, said:

“I do not entertain the hope that the war will be followed by international peace. So long as the interests of nations conflict there will be wars. The prospects of an eternal peace are not very brilliant just now when two great peoples which hitherto did not think of maintaining large armies are beginning to create them. Consequently after the war it will be our duty to safeguard ourselves and preserve for our descendants what we have fought for.”—”Weekly Dispatch,” May 6th, 1917.

In order to obviate the retort that might be put forward by some, that the previous spokesman was a German, and, therefore, what he says does not count, let me adduce the evidence of an Englishman who is a Liberal M.P., and as such must necessarily be possessed of all the virtues. Addressing the Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders in the British Westinghouse Co., Ltd., Mr. J. Annan Bryce said :

“It seems to be assumed by some well-meaning people that when peace is declared there will be an end of economic war also, and they deprecate any measures tending to perpetuate it. It is forgotten that this war is as much a war for commercial and industrials for military domination, and that there were no more enthusiastic advocates of it than the heads of the great German industries and financial establishments. It is forgotten that the military war is only the complement of the economic war which started half a century ago.”

Here we have supporters of the holy trinity of Rent, Interest, and Profit, or in other words, defenders of capitalist society, coolly admitting that this war is the result of an antagonism of capitalist interests.

The only war that will end war is the class war. Join, then, with us and assist in waging war for the abolition of classes and winning “The World for the Workers.”

* * *

An announcement recently appeared in the Press informing the public that “last year the British Board of Films Censors passed for universal exhibition 4,430 subjects and 904 for public exhibition.” It was further stated that among the grounds for the rejection of over 500 films were:

Impersonation of the King.

Irreverent treatment of death.

Nude figures.

Excessively passionate love scenes.

Scenes purporting to illustrate “night life.”

References to controversial or international politics.

Antagonistic relations of capital and labour.

Scenes tending to disparage public characters and to create public alarm.

Vampire women ; the drug habit ; white slave traffic.

Materialisation of the conventional figure of Christ.

Scenes depicting the realistic horrors of warfare.

Incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy.

Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies or to disturb friendly relations wkh them.

Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule.

Propaganda films of German origin.

—”Daily Chronicle,” April 3rd, 1917.

How carefully the agents of our masters choose what subjects their slaves shall see when they journey to the picture palace. The references to the “antagonistic relations of capital and labour” and the “realistic horrors of war” are distinctly good.

* * *

A study in directive ability ! Engineer for the cows. Mr. J. A. Morris Bew told the Westhampnett Tribunal at Chichester of the case of a farmer who applied to the military authorities for help.

“A man was sent to the farm on Friday night, but he left on Saturday morning.

“He was sent as a cowman, stockman, and milker, and turned out to be an electrical engineer who had never worked on a farm.”—”Star,” April 10th, 1917. Who said Business as usual?

* * *

In aid of soldiers blinded in the war a bazaar was a short time ago held at the Royal Albert Hall. Now functions of this order are not arranged for we wage slaves. No, indeed not ! Were we to absent ourselves from work, even on such an occasion as this when royalty were in attendance, doubtless we should be confronted with a notice informing us that in this time of crisis and national emergency it is highly unpatriotic to leave our masters’ business and that such a serious dereliction of duty was punishable under the D.O.R.A. And so it came to pass on the appointed day that many of the parasites of society did foregather in order to raise the wind for “our heroes blinded in the war” and whom a grateful country will ne’er forget (?) 

Now let me quote :

“Many Royal ladies are to assist in the selling. Princess Victoria has valuable lace and a wonderful fan worth £30 to offer, Princess Louise will sell Peking loot, coloured glass, a Chinese shawl, and an inlaid escritoire, Princess Beatrice presides over children’s garments, while the Princess Royal and her daughter, Princess Maud, will sell lingerie of the most lovely description. The great attraction at the Duchess of Somerset’s stall is potatoes.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” May 7th, 1917.

“Loot,” Ikey, my boy, “Loot” ! Now “loot,” according to the lexicographers is: “booty; plunder ; especially such as is taken in a sacked city.” If the purveyor of this said “loot” had been the Crown Prince, whose thieving activities we have heard so much about of late, one could understand this reference; but one shudders at the mention of Princess Louise.

* * *

The “Daily Chronicle” (8.5.17) had an editorial article on Food Rationing, and towards the close it dealt with the subject of the destruction of the house sparrow, advocated by the Board of Agriculture. By deleting the words “house sparrow” from the sentence and substituting the word “capitalist” we obtain a fine definition of that type of individual. It would then read as follows :

“The capitalist is undoubtedly a pest; he has few virtues ; he is virtually a parasite on man ; like a true parasite, he purloins much and serves us little; and all the characteristics which he has developed in the course of his denaturalised existence—his harsh voice, his quarrelsome manners, his filthy and untidy nest—mark his degeneration from the standards of true social (text wild-bird) life.”

We Socialists claim that the capitalist is unnecessary. To-day we have social production with individual ownership of the means of producing wealth and the product of our toil resulting therefrom. We suggest, therefore, the elimination of this parasite by an intelligent working class understanding its position in society, and working for the complete overthrow of the existing order of things through the conquest of political power, and the conversion of these individually owned means of wealth production into socially owned for the well being of all. Then we can commence the era of peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

* * *

The “glories of war” : Potatoe queues ; sugar queues ; margarine queues. The question of sugar is an interesting theme and affords a good object lesson of the methods of our “Business Government.” From the Northcliffe organ I cull the following :

“In certain shops—”The Evening News” has the name of one where it occurred last night—no sugar fit to eat is sold to any customer who does not buy tea.

A quantity of evil-looking sugar, full of black lumps and not without dirt and straw, is offered to customers who do not want tea.”

—”Evening News,” April 28th, 1917.

One is inclined to ask : Have all the public analysts and local medical officers of health gone to the war? Or is it a case of “one good turn deserves another” ?

* * *

An event of great importance to the workers, recently took place. Bearing in mind the scriptural injunction : “Ye cannot serve both God and Mammon,” I observed that that highly-democratic organ of the international working class, the “Weekly Dispatch” (29.4.17) vouchsafed the information that a little family gathering took place at Windsor. The touching story is thus told:

“Our Labour Ministers have had an opportunity during the week of seeing the King at Windsor Castle en famille, and it is gathered that they were delighted at the air of informality which characterised their reception.”

It is further added that Mr. George Barnes was also in the company of the elect, and “it is to be regretted that Mr. and Mrs. Henderson were unavoidably prevented from accepting his Majesty s invitation.” Strange, is it not, that these gentry who rejoice in the fact that one crowned head (the “Little Father,” better known as Bloody Nick) has received the “order of the boot,” are overjoyed at being the guests of another monarch. “By their fruits ye shall; know them” is the standard for measuring their value to the workers struggling to be free.

The “Dispatch” writer sums up this dust-throwing incident by adding :

“To be quite frank, everyone likes to see the King and Queen moving in an informal circle that includes honest, outspoken John Hodge and straight-­forward, plain-speaking George Barnes.”

* * *

The antics of these labour fakirs are excruciatingly funny. In the case of the engineers’ strike Hodge refers to “the irresponsible people of about 25” who, tiring of the dilatory methods of the accredited representatives of the union and the Ministry of Munitions, take matters into their own hands in order to force the pace, and he deplores their action, while on the other hand I read:

“Typists who earn 20s. a week in Government offices and the National Union of Clerks are grateful to Mr. John Hodge, Labour Minister, for complaining of the low wage.

If all the girls were to decline to work any longer for 20s. a week, said Mr. Hodge at Sheffield, what a powerful lever he would have. It would give him the bludgeon necessary to go to the Treasury.

“I am very glad,” said Mr. Herbert H. Elvin, general secretary of the National Union of Clerks, “that Mr. Hodge, as a Minister, has advocated a general strike on the part of women.”

—”Evening News,” April 28th, 1917.

Here we see John Hodge advocating for the women what he condemns in the case of the men. Will Hodge be proceeded against under some regulation of the Defence of the Realm Act, or is such distinction reserved for “people of about twenty-five,” and whose earnings do not yet suffice to support a triple, hodge-podge chin?

* * *

The Government have to blame themselves entirely for the chaotic conditions which they have brought into being in the engineering trades. With the deliberate suppression of news from the storm centres, the cutting off from communication of one section of men with those in other parts of the country, the one sided and meagre reports such as were allowed to be published, all tended to exasperate those concerned. The Munitions Act (Amendment) Bill still before the House, with its purposely ambiguous wording (a common feature of all Bills), also intensified the trouble that was brewing. So complex and incomprehensible is this Bill that the powers that be went to the length of issuing an explanatory poster to reassure the workers that the Bill was not designed to trespass on their hard-won rights as trade unionists, and so on ad nauseam.

From newspaper reports it first appears that Dr. Addison refused to recognise the Shop Stewards Committee, which obviously understands the local conditions better than the Central Executive, but afterwards changes his mind and agrees to see the Shop Stewards’ Committee if they agree to “act in unison with the trade union Executives.” Later we are informed that the Ministry of Munitions replied to the engineers’ delegates, who were in session at Walworth, that: “We shall be glad, if asked to do so by your Executives, to meet them accompanied by yourselves or by any other body your Executives may desire to bring with them, but we cannot receive you under other circumstances.” Then comes the arrest of certain men on a charge of promoting strikes. Commenting on this the “Daily News“ of Saturday (19.5.1917) says :

“A number of the leaders in the engineers’ strike have been arrested, and one more step has been taken by that action on the perilous path down which the Government are being driven. We have never defended this strike. But no one acquainted at all with the circumstances which have led to this dispute, and the real history of how it has been allowed to grow to its present proportions, can doubt where the real responsibility lies for the gloomy prospect with which the whole nation finds itself to-day confronted.

“In respect of most of the men,” says the “Morning Post,” “they have been irritated and worried by the authorities. The fact is, the Ministry of Munitions have made a sad business of it ; and the sooner the Government recognise the fact the better.”

Evidently “the fact” has been recognised by the Government at last, and a meeting has taken place at which Lld. George attended and at which what appears to be a temporary peace was arranged.

* * *

The Archbishop of Canterbury has authorised special prayers for “God’s blessing on the crops and the fruits of the earth in this time of sowing,” runs an announcement in the Press. Then follows a passage from the prayer telling the All-knowing that we have some Allies and some ships which the Archbishop wants protected. It is to be hoped that the recording angel has duly noted this petition.

* * *

The King has been on tour and at one of the works he visited we are informed in all seriousness that he “clocked on” as if he were an ordinary employee. Doubtless after seeing other people work he “clocked off,” and was duly thankful that his lot had been cast in smoother places.

* * *

“One of the liveliest and noisiest meetings in Glasgow for many years was that held last night when Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P., Pensions Minister, met with a distinctly hostile reception on the occasion of his addressing his constituents in the Blackfriars Division.” (“Daily News,” 12.4.17.) The storm in the tea-cup was over this gent’s reference to “veritable weeds” in the House on the Pensions problem. He now regretted having used the phrase as it seemed to indicate a lack of sympathy on his part.

Mr. Barnes need not worry his guts into fiddle-strings over this matter. Far from indicating a lack of sympathy on his part, his whole handling of the Pensions problem has shown him to be a very sympathetic man—but his sympathy is reserved, not for disabled soldiers, broken in the war, but for those who pay him for it—the blood-reeking masters.

* * *

The War Office recently announced its intention of opening two new groups for attestation, the age limit being from 41 to 50 years. A kind of Derby Scheme is thus once again in operation, with the promise of an armlet slightly different in design from that issued in the earlier campaign, for those who hurry along and volunteer. According to figures given in the Press there is quite a large amount of recruitable material. This card waits to see how many respond to the call. What a fine opportunity is now presented to those who a short time ago were dying to enlist were they within the age limit. Having urged the younger men to hasten forth to battle for King and Country, it is now up to them to honour the obligation they were prepared to impose upon others.

* * *

“Nine British soldiers are dying every hour.”—Gen. Baden-Powell. But, “There are worse things than bloodshed.”—Windy Churchill.

The Scout.

By the Way: Unfaithful Wives of Soldiers (1945)

The By The Way Column from the March 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unfaithful Wives of Soldiers

Dr. Percy Herbert, the Bishop of Norwich, is very worried about unfaithful wives of soldiers.

He says unfaithful wives “are very widespread” (News-Chronicle, January 4th)—(presumably this means there are a lot of ’em, not that they are broad in the beam)—as high as one in ten, in some units in the Mediterranean.

The chaplain who gives him this information adds : “It is impossible to describe the mental and moral devastation caused to a husband when he hears of his wife’s infidelity.”

The Bishop is very concerned about the men who are engaged in “tearing the guts out” of the Germans (Mr. Churchill’s elegant phrase) being “morally devastated.” It really is difficult for a man to be “a combination of gangster, poacher, cat-burgler and footpad,” as Lord Wavell has defined a modern soldier, if he’s worrying about his wife’s fidelity.

Wives should remember that soldier husbands will stab, shoot, roast, blast and throttle the enemy much more efficiently if they are not “morally devastated.”

* * *

Medals and Principles

Mr. Jos. Shelley has refused to accept the M.B.E. awarded him, saying:—

“I am an active member of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, in which I serve on two of its important committees. If I accepted it questions regarding my principles might be raised and a false interpretation drawn. Principles matter; medals don’t.” —(Daily Herald, January 11th.)

Good for you, Joe!—this is only the beginning of the end of Sir Walter Citrine. Sir Mark Hodgson, Lord Ammon, Lord Latham, etc.

* * *

Privates, Infantry, Discharged : for the Information of :

“In Sunny Bahamas.—Opportunity to acquire Land and Building Sites now being developed in the most beautiful part of the Bahamas Islands, near Nassau. Suitable either for retirement or investment. Ideal climate, fishing, bathing, golf, etc. Low taxation and living costs. Regular air and shipping services after the war. . . .”—(Advert. in Evening Standard, January 13th. 1945.)

* * *

Paris—and London

The Daily Herald sent a British housewife, Mrs. Barker, to Paris to find out how the housewives are faring there after the liberation.

She tells a harrowing story of the terrible privations now being suffered by the population as a result of an artificial famine created by the war, and concludes: —

“Till then, it means unhappily that the larger your purse, the better you fare. The poor are often hungry. The middle class get by. The rich do very well indeed.”—(Daily Herald, January 12th, 1945.)

The same issue of the Herald (January 12th) carries a special Black Market story on how Inspector Yandell is cleaning up the Black Market—(Yes! Again!)—by Gordon Cummings, which states that: —

“Trafficking in coupons is a serious problem. On top of actual private deals, some retailers are getting supplies to cover their ‘off-the-coupon’ sales at fancy prices.”

And who, dear Mrs. Barker, are the people in London, as well as Paris, who can pay “fancy” (read high) prices? Who will always outbid the poor man?—i.e., the working man ! The question has only to be asked to be answered. Rationing has little or no significance for the rich. There are always plenty of really good substitutes, or rather alternatives, to be had.

If you can’t run a car. you can always take a cab or engage a private car. If there are no oranges—there are hot-house grapes and peaches. No cloth coats?—always one or two fur ones, at a price. Always grouse in season, or venison for a change—if you can afford it. No central heating at home? There are always good hotels for the best (richest) people.

In London, as in Paris, Berlin as New York or Moscow. “The poor are often hungry. . . . The rich do very well indeed”–in peace or war time. That’s capitalism, Mrs Barker. The only way out is Socialism.

* * *

Tailpiece

Racket No. 3—Coupons.

“Clothes coupon traffickers are getting bold. They are now openly offering coupons to strangers in public houses, night clubs, hotels, and even in the streets. 

“Their supplies are stolen, forged or ‘traded’ coupons. 

“Large numbers of the ‘traded’ coupons are bought from people who cannot use their quotas.”—(Daily Herald, January 16th.)

* * *

Wrong to Kill

Private George E. Smith, US. soldier, was on trial for murder of Diplomat Sir Eric Teichman by shooting him in his own grounds on December 3rd.

Three psychiatrists, two American Army officers and one British civilian, testified about the mental state of the prisoner.

Questioned about Smith’s mental age being only nine, Dr. Alexander, Colonel in the American Army and chief neuro-psychiatrist for this part of Britain (Norfolk), replied to the question, “Does Smith know it is wrong to kill?“—”Yes, he does.”—(Daily Express, January 12th, 1945.)

Poor George, if he could only have waited another month or two, till he got to the European mainland, he might have been given a medal. It’s the first time we’ve heard that it’s wrong for a soldier to kill; we thought it was his trade.

* * *

Fraternising with the ” Enemy “

“U.S. Troops Seek Kin in Europe. 

The American soldier, when not fighting, is anxious to find relatives who may be in Europe, reports Associated Press from Paris. At least 2,000 requests for help in tracing kith and kin have been received by the Red Cross in the last ten weeks. 

Doughboys whose roots may be French, Dutch, Polish—and in many cases German—are getting every possible help in their quest”.—(Evening Standard, December 30th, 1944.)

This sheds a little more light on the £15 fine on Allied troops for fraternising with Germans.

It must be rather difficult to inspire hatred and ferocity for “the enemy” when they are not only “class-brothers,” but sometimes even blood-brothers, as with many German-Americans.

Horatio

Editorial: News about millionaires (1954)

Editorial from the October 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The number of very wealthy people in Britain, including millionaires, is well below what it was before the war but it appears to be picking up again now. This, at least, is the conclusion of Mr. Marshall Pugh writing in the Sunday Chronicle (5/9/54). He has provided himself—at a cost of ten guineas—with a published list giving an estimate of the present number of millionaires and he finds it to be 50. A list similarly compiled in 1946 gave only 28. Mr. Pugh concludes that “Britain is slowly recovering from her post-par shortage of millionaires.” He doubts if the list is complete and adds a few likely names. This doubt about the exact number is not surprising because there is no record of millionaires published by the Inland Revenue authorities, though they must certainly have a good idea how many there are.

There is, however, official information in Inland Revenue Reports about the numbers of people in various ranges of income. In 1938-9 there were 99 people, each with an income (before being taxed) of over £100,000 a year. By 1950-51 the number had fallen to 38; and the number of persons who had more than £6,000 left to spend, after paying tax, had fallen from 6,600 in 1938-9 to about 500 in 1950-51. The fall in the number and size of very big incomes is exactly what was to be expected. Contrary to the muddled view held by those who have never understood what capitalism is and how it works capitalism’s wars are paid for by the only class that can pay—the capitalists. The destruction of capitalist property and loss of overseas investments fell on the British capitalists, but now that war-time destruction has been made good accumulation is going ahead once more and we may expect to see a change some way towards the pre-war pattern again.

This will surprise those who have swallowed the nonsense about poverty having been abolished under the so-called Welfare State. Apart from an unusually long period with unemployment at a very low figure nothing has happened since the war to change materially the structure of capitalism. Neither the Labour Government’s social reforms nor its Nationalisation schemes have touched the permanent capitalist inequalities of income and capital. It is still true, as it was in 1918, when the Labour Party plugged it in its election address that about 90 per cent, of the accumulated wealth of the country is owned by a 10th of the population. Yet we have the fatuous organ of Mr. Bevan, Tribune, in its issue for 2 July, 1954, publishing some figures about "the flagrant contrast between poverty and wealth in Britain,” and calling them “discoveries!” Tribune’s comment is that these “appalling facts” “will shock those who believe that the welfare state has eliminated poverty in Britain—or that there is no case for a drastic redistribution of wealth.”

Of course outstanding among those who deceived the workers into believing that the welfare state would abolish or had abolished poverty are the people who run Tribune.

And now that Tribune—about a century and a half late—has discovered that under capitalism there is flagrant contrast between poverty and wealth in Britain, their remedy is to seek redistribution of wealth. Socialists, of course, are not seeking anything of the kind. Trying to seek redistribution of wealth under capitalism merely perpetuates the notion that capitalism would be all right if there were fewer millionaires and more capitalists with investments of a moderate size. But this, assuming for the sake of argument that it could be achieved, would not at all remove the evils of capitalism. It is a matter of no concern at all to the cow whether she is milked to make profit for a farmer, a co-operative society or a millionaire dairy combine. The worker, if he understood his own interest, would perceive that capitalism is a system that functions by milking him for the benefit of the capitalist class and it is not his worry if some capitals swallow up others and produce millionaires. Their multiplication or their elimination will make no difference to him. It is not the redistribution of the property of the capitalists that will solve the workers' problems but the abolition of capitalism.

Tribune, however, knows of other “solutions” of the poverty problem for in September a contributor, Mr. Ian Mikardo, went to Hungary and made the discovery that "there's very little real poverty in Red Hungary.” But there must be a catch in that word “real" for he also discovered that the Hungarian workers' living standards 

"are about 30 per cent. below ours, even when one allows for a very much higher ‘social wage’ than we have in Great Britain." (Tribune 17th September 1954.)

It is all rather confusing. The poverty in Britain, says the Tribune is appalling in spite of the “welfare state and in Hungary living standards are 30 per cent. lower than in Britain in spite of having an even better welfare state (“social wage”); but nevertheless they are not “really” poor.

In the meantime here is a comforting thought about millionaires and the way they spend their money, from Noel Barber’s column in the Daily Mail (11 Sept., 1954).

“Being—like all millionaires—a true lover of the arts. Onassis, the uncrowned king, Monte Carlo recently commissioned the French artist Verges to do four big murals for the spacious saloon of his big new yacht."

Is Increased Production the Solution? (1944)

From the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under the heading “Britain is Old-fashioned in Industry,” the Evening Standard (October 11th, 1944) reports speeches made at a Conference of the National Council of Women of Great Britain.

“Miss Barbara Ward, assistant editor of The Economist, said Britain must produce more goods and means of production must be more efficient.

Increase in a nation’s wealth depends on the amount of machine power behind each pair of hands.

We have fallen behind in industrial development, she declared. ‘We are old-fashioned.’

Thorough inquiry should be made into each industry—for instance, the steel industry—to discover why our costs were higher than those of other nations.

We should use our utmost enterprise and labour to increase our standards of living, she said.”

Miss Ward has failed to draw the logical conclusion in regard to what would happen if her suggestion were followed. If all nations become more efficient, and competition will force them to do so. then we shall be where we were—before the war.

“Increase in a nation’s wealth depends on the amount of machine power behind each pair of hands.”

Is not this also the cause of a nation’s poverty ? The amount of machine power behind each pair of hands in the United States before the war was greater than in any other country, and so was the amount of relative unemployment and poverty.

The assistant editor of The Economist is apparently unaware of the fact that the aim and object of capitalist production is not the production of wealth, but the production of profit.

Profit is something for nothing.

It is impossible to make something out of nothing, but the capitalist class give nothing and obtain abundant wealth for themselves as a result of playing a flim-flam game.

Labour applied to the natural resources of the earth produces all exchange values. The capitalist class do not labour, therefore they do not produce any wealth. They live by ownership. They own what is essential to the existence of the rest of us.

They allow us to produce exchange values for them in the shape of commodities under certain conditions. Before we are allowed to work we must agree to sell our wealth-producing material, our mental and physical energy, to them at its cost of production—that means, roughly, what we can live and work upon.

When we are working our energy is the property of those who have bought it, and what our energy produces the capitalist claims as his. Wages consist of the food, clothing and shelter the money will buy. The food, clothing and shelter the worker obtains as wages are all produced by those who labour, not by the capitalist class.

Consider the mighty effort of the working class during the war, and what they have lived upon, while doing it.

“Never in the history of human endeavour” has so much been produced on so little.

The working class have brought into being all the airplanes, guns, ships, etc., that were necessary to the carrying on of the war. What is to be their reward? The brutal truth is that capitalism cannot give them anything to compensate them for their efforts. The capitalist class will, however, continue to obtain their surplus values, rent, interest and profit.

The workers, however, expect to be placed in a better position after the war than they ever were before. The interesting point is how are Ihe ruling class going to devise ways and means of continuing the exploiting process. As a result of their experiences on the batlefleld in various parts of the world, many of the wage slaves are beginning to realise that there is something fundamentally wrong in capitalist society.

They will not be easily handled in the piping times of peace and will be harder to deceive.

Bevin says, “There will be unemployment but victory is worth it” (see Star, October 11th). The victory is the victory of the capitalist class, although the fighting, etc., has been done by the working class. If there is nothing for the workers after the war, what have the workers won? The capitalist class still remain in secure possession of the means of life; the land, railways, mines and tools of industry still remain in their possession.

The workers are where they were. Unemployment can be depended upon to keep wages down to that low level that is strictly in accord with capitalist interests, and then the same old grind.

Those who have acquired wealth during the war out of Army contracts, black markets, etc., will return when peace is proclaimed and disport themselves in the charmed circles of society. Many of the workers, however, who have endured the agonies of the struggle and lost their loved ones in the process, will line up at the Labour Exchange or apply for the sweet charity of the Public Assistance Committee. The means test will continue to be applied—to the working class. Homes are to be built—by whom? The landlord class are anticipating pickings when they receive compensation for the property that has been bombed. The financier will come into his own when deflation occurs—some time after the cessation of hostilities. The capitalist will have the wage slaves controlled for him by the Government, assisted by the labour leader. All sections of the ruling class will be compensated—at the expense of the wage slaves.

Everything in the garden will be lovely, as usual, for those who neither toil nor spin.

How long, fellow workers, how long? Can you not see that until the means of life are made common property there is no security for you ? Can you not see that you are doomed to the eternal treadmill of wage slavery and misery so long as the capitalist system shall last? We must do away with production for profit.

We must no longer allow the exploiter to continue to live by obtaining something for nothing. Production for use must be made to take the place of production for sale.

We are the vast majority.

      Let us stand together,

           All we have to do is to will it.

      And the world is ours.

Let us get hold of the State, the public power of coercion, and use it to make the ruling class let go their hold on our bread and life. Those only are Socialists who stand for Socialism; those who stand for less are the allies of our enemies.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands exclusively for Socialism; no other party in this country has the courage to do so—at election times.

We propose to run candidates for Parliament on the issue. Socialism or Capitalism—which?

We want you to help us. If you are with us, let us know of your existence. The fight is on.

The useful portion of human society have one common enemy—the exploiting system under which we live. Miss Barbara Ward suggests that by increasing the productive power of the slave-exploiting mechanism the slave would benefit. She fails to perceive that the worker is not paid for what he produces, but for what it costs to produce him. Her remarks enable us to realise, how weak the defenders of capital have become. Against the united advance of those who live by selling their labour power, the capitalist class are absolutely helpless. The interests of the workers are identical on the class field. The class issue is ownership.

The enemies of our class will discuss anything but the real issue. It is never raised in Parliament. It will never be prominent in the capitalist press. The very thought of a revolutionary Socialist Party fills the exploiter with fear and foreboding.

Although we hold the largest meeting in Hyde Park, we are rarely mentioned in the public press.

Has word gone round that attention must not be drawn to our existence? Capitalist politicians read the Socialist Standard and listen to our speakers, but all are faithful members of the conspiracy of silence.

The Labour Party is now always referred to as The Socialist Party, although not one of its members stands for Socialism or has been elected on the Socialist ticket.

Why the silence and deception?

The reason is that the ruling class know what we are out for, and they do not want the bulk of the workers to become interested in the issue.

Working class emancipation is, however, on the order of the day.

Line up and do your bit—

The freedom of humanity is at stake.

When the wage slaves free themselves from capitalist bondage, they free mankind for ever from economic servitude and the fear of war.

Society can then assume a higher form. There can be no such thing as freedom for the individual so long as some people own that upon which all people depend.

Socialism will give man the opportunity to express the noblest and best that is in him.

In capitalist society the bias is on the wrong side. The worst man has the best chance.

To change capitalist society into a newer and better social order is the job of the common people; it is a working class proposition.

Moving circumstance is slowly but surely removing the web of lies which the henchmen of our masters have been spinning for generations. Take your place, comrade. You should know by now what you are called upon to do. Demand Socialism now. Support only those who do the same.

Charles Lestor

By The Way: Concern for Workers (1944)

The By The Way Column from the October 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Concern for Workers

As everyone knows, there is a most terrible housing crisis in London now. The newspapers are full of appeals to the authorities to get something done about it. The Government has brought thousands of building workers from the provinces and arranged for them to work a 65-hour week, Mr. J. J. Mallon, the Warden of Toynbee Hall, has written to the Times pointing out that long hours under modern conditions do not make for greater production.

Let Mr. Mallon speak for himself: —

HOURS OF WORK. 

To the Editor of the Times, 

Sir,—It is disquieting to learn that building operatives are to work 65 hours a week on first-aid repairs to houses in the London area. Even though the arrangement is to apply only for three weeks, it is deplorable and against the teaching of all industrial experience. The Regional Joint Committee for London express the view that the Government is “ill advised to propose such hours,” and suggest “that the maximum hours of work should not exceed 60.” Sixty hours are also too many. If 55 or even fewer hours are worked more will be done.

For nearly 40 years as a member of innumerable trade boards and other industrial bodies I have had to do with hours of employment. When these hours are excessive they tend to lessen rather than increase production, to add to illness, accidents, and absenteeism, and so to fatigue the worker as to do him cumulative injury. The reduction of excessive hours always leads to greater production. Surely the example of America, where miracles of war production have been achieved, should not be disregarded. Early in their associated war efforts the relevant American Government departments decided in favour of an eight-hour day and a 18-hour week “as the best working schedule for sustained efficiency in most industrial operations.” The results of their decision fully justify it. The Government should reconsider the 65 hours proposal.

Yours sincerely, J. J. Mallon, 

Toynbee Hall, 

28, Commercial Street, E.I. July 26.”

—(Times, July 28, 1944.)

Mr. H. C. Harland, the President of the Master Builders’ Association, has written to the Times to confirm Mr. Mallon’s verdict. The point that Socialists are concerned with is that Mr. Mallon and his apparently kindly well-meaning fellow Lib.-Labourals are not really worried about the worker, as such, at all. They reduce hours and give medical treatment, holidays, music while you work, etc., in the same way as one puts expensive oil into a motor engine—to make it run better.

They are not the first or the only ones to realise that the old big stick methods of treating the workers are out of date.

Even King Farouk of Egypt is busily running round telling the tale to the workers—a very good reference for Egyptian workers, incidentally. The Times for July 31st records his “visit to the M.I.S.R. Co.’s spinning and weaving (cotton) works, where he had an enthusiastic reception from 26,000 employees.” “In an address to the board of directors he emphasised the importance of the Egyptian worker, and impressed upon them the necessity of providing better living and working conditions. He invited representatives of the workers to the royal table and made a gift of £1,000 to their benevolent society.” “King Farouk is missing no opportunity of establishing closer and more personal relations with the humbler classes of his subjects.” (Times, July 31st.)

Naturally, British capitalists don’t call representatives of their workers to their table to present them with £1,000. They get Sir William Beveridge to do it. The idea is always the same—to get the workers to work better. “All that glitters is not gold.” Working men who allow this talk about concern for them, by capitalist Lib.-Lab. politicians, to delude them into supporting reforms of capitalism will get improved capitalism, not Socialism—that is, increased exploitation and relative poverty.

* * *

“How U.S. Airmen are Taught New Technique"

Under this heading a London evening paper reports that mobile training units, miniature technical schools on wheels, are now following U.S. airmen as bases move deeply into France. “Though airmen are fully trained before coming to Europe, continual aircraft modifications due to experience in battle make it necessary for mechanics to study constantly.” The training has speeded up aircraft repair so much that the director of the training units has sent mobile units to every war theatre in which U.S. aircraft are fighting.

What is happening to-day on the battlefields happens yesterday and to-morrow in industry. The complex nature of the productive methods developed by capitalism force mechanics to “study constantly.”

When mechanics are studying constantly nothing on earth can prevent them eventually contacting and completely grasping the Socialist idea—which is the application of study to problems of society. The reply to those who claim that “the workers will never learn,” is “look around you”—the workers are learning at aeronautical speed, every day, at their work.

* * *

Last Days of the Barricades

A great deal has been written and said about the insurrection in Warsaw. That the plight of the insurgents is rather pitiable can hardly be disputed.

Most ironical of all, the high-priests of insurrection, at all times, in any places, during the past twenty-five years, the Moscow politicians, are supporting their own special Committee of Liberation as against the British sponsored Council of National Unity of the Polish Government in London. Incidentally, the London Council of National Unity is more “radical” than the Committee of Liberation, making play with the phrase “socialisation of industry.”

For this reason, Pravda says that “the Red Army has always warned people against such risings. Handfuls of men armed only with fiery sentiments and cold steel have no chance against modern weapons in battles for large cities.” (Our emphasis.) (The Observer, August 20th.)

To this the Poles reply that the Soviet radio had, in fact, on several occasions shortly before the rising, called on the Polish people, and especially the people of Warsaw, to rise against the Germans.

Apart from this, such statements from the Bolshevik leaders of to-day are the clearest confirmation of the Socialist Party’s repeatedly expressed view on insurrection. Years were spent proving how the Russian Communists were distorting the writings of Engels—for example, in his well-known preface to “The Class Struggles in France”—to try and justify their unprincipled attempts to embarrass foreign governments by riots and street fights.

As if the Soviet’s statement on the futility of insurrection in Warsaw were not enough, further confirmation is to hand from Paris : —

“The Patriots had a very had time, but they recovered and managed to form a defence line in the streets near the building with the aid of barricades built of anything they could lay their hands on.

The barricades were not strong enough, backed by our small arms, to hold the tanks. The German armour smashed them down, then went through the Patriots, firing right and left and affecting shocking slaughter. We had not the weapons to prevent them. . . . All Paris is waiting for the Allies to enter the city and clear out the German tyrants.” (Star, August 25th, 1944; our italics.)

It may be added that in Paris, as in Warsaw, practically the entire population was in support of the revolt; arms had been freely distributed by parachute by the Allied Air Forces. Yet both failed completely, though the circumstances could not have been more favourable.

The Editors of Pravda are quite right. “Handfuls of men with fiery sentiments and cold steel have no chance against modern weapons in battles for large cities.”

In other words, without the all-powerful State machine, with its complex armed forces, revolts are doomed to disaster. And yet there are still “direct action” maniacs in public places urging the workers to commit suicide in barricade revolts.

The statement of Pravda will be chalked up for those post-war C.P. and “Unemployed” fire-brands who will once again urge workers to bash their heads against the State machine.

The Socialist Party urges the workers to think before they act, and then vote intelligently for Socialism, thus giving incidentally an infallible indication of the progress of the Socialist idea and the intellectual development of the working class.

With a Parliamentary majority it is the capitalists who will be faced with the prospect of illegal barricades, which the Socialist controlled army and air force will go through like cardboard, if they ever get put up.

To those who claim that the capitalists will close down Parliament before the Socialists can attain the majority, the reply is that’s their funeral—if they are ever stupid enough to do so.

* * *

Easier for Lord Latham

The evening papers (The Star, September 7th, 1944) inform us that one man whose task has been easier by the relaxation of the black-out is Lord Latham, who since 1940 has been mainly responsible for Civil Defence in the L.C.C. area. He is Chairman of the L.C.C.

By the queerest coincidence, in addition to being Chairman of the L.C.C. and in charge of Civil Defence in London, Lord Latham happens to be Chairman of the London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves, Ltd. Lord Latham, as Chairman of the L.C.C., is very concerned in the re-planning of London. According to the Evening Standard (August 29th), Lord Latham is also very interested in the port of Havre. The Company of which he is Chairman owns about (about) £1,000,000 of property there. “It is the largest shareholder in an oil installation, a hotel, and wharves. Now the shares, like those of other concerns with interests in Occupied Europe, are on the rise.”

Following is the City Editor’s report on the Company (Evening Standard, August 28, 1944) : —

London and Thames Haven 

Feature in the market recently has been the further rise in the shares of London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves. These 4s. shares are now up to 15s. 6d., which compares with a low of 1s. 1d. in 1941. This price gives the Ordinary shares a market valuation of around £3,100,000, which compares with a market valuation of around £5,700,000 in the years when the company was paying tax-free dividend of 10 per cent, plus a less tax bonus of four. Since then the capital has been written down to provide for losses.

The company has paid no dividends for six years, but secured earnings last year of 3.8 per cent. tax free. The prospect is that the company will shortly recover the property which it owns at Le Havre. It has been improving its position steadily and has reduced its bank overdraft to £331,000. The directors are considering issuing more capital to pay off the bank overdraft, and no doubt, once the French position is more clearly seen, some action may be taken along these lines.

Mr. Churchill has a word for this. He said the war “as it progresses becomes less ideological.” In this case about £1,000,000 less.

* * *

Lend to the End (of What?)

Peace Savings Soon.—Sir Harold Mackintosh, Chairman of the National Savings Committee, said last night at the jubilee dinner of Birmingham Municipal Bank that the time would soon come when the war-savings campaign would become a peace-savings campaign.”— (Manchester Guardian, September 2nd, 1944.)

* * *

“Out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings”

The New York Times Magazine, April 30th, carried an article by a young British evacuee, Anselm Acker, describing his impressions of American life, in the course of which this schoolboy says of New York: “The sight in the subways, when the people are returning from work, sitting and standing like sodden bales of hay with their mentality apparently all drained from them,” displeased him. Good for you, young Anselm, you are a perspicacious youth, whose keen eye will assist him much in penetrating the surface to see the real nature of the things beneath.

No wonder American magazines carry ads. for “No-Dozies,” guaranteed to keep you awake. And the comic strip of the Philadelphia Tribune shows a small child asking its mother : “Mom, what do these candies do to me ? Nothing, Son. What, don’t make me regular? No, Son. Don’t make my complexion clear? No, Son. Don’t make my breath sweet? No, Son. What! you mean I can eat ’em because I like ’em? ”

All the most simple elementary things of life are utterly commercialised and distorted. Everything is “packed,” “processed.” American troops are issued “Energy” crackers. Ham becomes Spam. Life is in a packet or carton.

If you would like to turn up the writings of a man who never went to New York, Anselm, by the name of Karl Marx, who wrote over sixty years ago, you will find that he said :—.

"Within the capitalist system all methods of raising the social productiveness of labour are bought at the cost of the individual labourer . . . they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work, and turn it into hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process, in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power : they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital: as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his pay high or low, must grow worse."—(“Capital,” Vol. I., chapter 23.)

Nowhere is this clearer in the world to-day than New York.

Horatio.