Merdeka in Malaya (1957)

From the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

On August 31st Malaya attained Merdeka (independence), after over a century of British colonial rule. The day is a memorable one for the people there, who celebrated amid scenes of wild rejoicing and shouts of “Merdeka.” In the capital, on the stroke of midnight, the new Prime Minister told the people:

“A new star rises in the eastern sky—a star of freedom for yet another Asian people. This is the greatest moment in the life of the Malayan people, for a new nation is born —a nation that will stand forth free and independent." 

Incidentally, this little speech recalls our article in last December's issue of the Socialist Standard entitled Happenings in Hungary, where it was pointed out that the battle cry of “Freedom ” was used to rally support to a budding capitalist class trying to seize power in Hungary. The last sentence in that article will probably prove as relevant to Malaya as to Hungary: “In other countries whenever the new ruling group is firmly in the saddle of government they lose no time in turning on the workers.” 

Miss Nancy Simmons, a Colonial Office was also present She had been invited as a representative of the British working-class by the Malayan Prime Minister. This point illustrates the usual procedure of the rising ruling-class when taking over governmental power, of attempting to give their cause a working-class flavour.

What Malaya is worth

The transfer of power has taken place with the blessing and co-operation of the British Government, who had despatched the Duke of Gloucester there to represent the Crown, and, as part of the ceremony, hand over the instrument of transfer. A glance at recent events may indicate the reason for this support, which, at first sight, might seem against their interests.

Foreign investment (mostly British) in Malaya was nearly £100 million in 1937, chiefly invested in rubber plantations and tin mines. Imports into Malaya amounted to £484.5 million in 1956, of which U.K. was one of the largest suppliers.

But for several years past profits have been reduced by internal strife—Chinese "communists” attempting to gain power by force. The Chinese population is important, being as numerous as the Malays. These Chinese miners and agricultural workers find that developing capitalism is no panacea for their problems, and so they give their support to the Communist Party under the mistaken impression that their policy will radically alter society. This Party is influenced to an extent by the regime in China, to whom it looks for moral support. British interests in Malaya, seeing that there is a real threat to their investments, called in the British Army. Many members of the British working-class have already lost their limbs, their health and some their lives, fighting for their masters’ interests in the steaming jungles of Malaya.

Besides the antagonism that all this may arouse in Britain how much better to let the native rulers take over the thankless task of tying to make exploitation popular in Malaya. Merdeka in Malaya is the answer.

Trade Union Movement

The beginnings of a working-class (in the present-day meaning of the term) occurred with the rapid development of that country at the turn of the century when rubber and tin became useful to industry and the development of the steamship and the Suez Canal made bulk cargoes from the East a proposition for industrial Europe. Tamil workers were imported into Malaya from India to work on the rubber plantations. There are 400,000 such workers now employed. Chinese were imported for the tin mines. As an indication of the growing trade union movement, in 1947 696,036 days were lost in strikes on rubber plantations. In Singapore in 1945 173,000 workers came out in a general strike.

In the first elections held in 1955 the union of the various nationalistic political parties won 51 of the 52 seats. The only opposition seat was won by the Islamic party. Many of tbs workers in Malaya believed that their troubles were due to the country being ruled by foreigners and, therefore, they supported their native capitalist class. Presumably these workers will find out that a change of administrative personnel will not alter their class position.

Women and Merdeka

One feature in the capitalist development in Malaya is the lack of status of the Malay woman, despite her influence in favour of Merdeka. At the elections the newspapers expressed astonishment at the voters. Some of them had trudged miles carrying babies to get to the booths. By tradition, Malays are allowed to divorce their wives with only three months' sustenance as alimony, and it is estimated that 60 per cent of Malay marriages end in divorce. As a result of all this there is widespread prostitution. Very little other employment is open to women, and destitution is the only alternative.

One thing of which we can be confident is that a modem capitalist welfare state will not stand for the expense of directly keeping large numbers of unproductive discarded women and their children. For the women of Malaya capitalism will no doubt in due course bring them an up-to-date capitalist marriage system. It is a useful spur to productivity for a worker to be burdened with the worry of providing for a wife and family. But it will be economic causes, the need for a larger labour supply educated to some degree, that will change the way of life and their bondage for many of Malay women. The “independence” of their country will play but a little part. 

What are the prospects?

Malaya is a heaven for big business. The two chief industries, rubber and tin, require vast capital outlay for efficient exploitation. The price of labour is comparatively low, but the demand for these raw materials is tremendous and constantly expanding. What more can a capitalist wish for—low wages and an expanding market. Furthermore, the development plan for the period 1956-60 envisages a capital expenditure of over £1,000 million. Merdeka will, they hope, mean a rich harvest to the foreign capitalists (who own much of the wealth of Malaya) without the headache of repressing a working- class continually growing more aggressive.

The following tip (straight from the horse’s mouth) sums up the position for the capitalist in Malaya, and, incidentally, for the worker too. This is an advert by the Malayan Government in Eastern World (August 1957): “INVEST IN MALAYA, THE LAND OF GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. BIGGEST RETURNS ON INVESTMENT, LOWEST TAX ON PROFITS. SECURITY ASSURED BY STABLE GOVERNMENT.” But riches at one end of the scale presupposes poverty at the other, and it will be poverty that will continue to be the lot of the workers in their promised land of Merdeka in Malaya.

Frank Offord

The Great Tin Crash (1987)

Book Review from the September 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Great Tin Crash. Bolivia and the World Tin Market by John Crabtree, Gavan Duffy,  Jenny Pearce.  (Latin American Bureau, London, 1987)

1985 saw the collapse of the world tin market with the price of tin falling from over £8.000 a tonne to less than £4,000 in October alone. A market surplus of tin had been occurring for some years but changes in dollar and sterling exchange rates exacerbated the market collapse. The repercussions were felt in areas as wide apart as Cornwall and Bolivia, where tin miners lost their jobs.

But capitalism takes no account of the human misery it causes as this book makes clear. It quotes Eduardo Galeano as saying that:

Bolivians die with rotten lungs so that the world may consume cheap tin. Tinplate is made from tin and the tin is worth nothing: a half dozen people fix its global price.

Seventy per cent of workers in Bolivia’s state mining company, Comibol, lost their jobs and this in a country where poverty is second only to that in Haiti in the Western hemisphere. Bolivia is a country in debt. It has been estimated that as many as 50 per cent of the population may be unemployed. It is also a country unable to compete effectively — a victim of new technology, of changes in consumption patterns and of economic recession. But the authors of this book also point out that Bolivia is a victim of capitalism, a "system [which] is fundamentally wasteful of the resource which lies at its very foundation: human beings".

But the human tragedies created by poverty are not the concern of the London Metal Exchange which dominates the world metal market. It ensures that consumers are not dependent on a single producer and guarantees a single price for metal of a given type and quality, regardless of source. But the metals market has been subject to the economic recession that has affected all aspects of the world economy. Demand for tin has fallen and so only low-cost tin producers could survive. The International Tin Association attempted to maintain the price of tin by the operation of a stockpile: during periods of shortage tin was released onto the market and during periods when demand was low tin was purchased for the stockpile.

Bolivia is a high cost tin producer and its position has been worsened by competition from Brazil — a major low cost producer — and a fall in the amount of tin sold on the world market due to substitution, technological change and the use of alternative materials for packaging. In addition. Bolivia was more vulnerable because of its dependence on tin production — in 1980 tin made up about 40 per cent of Bolivia's exports — and its generally weak economy. In 1985 the inflation rate was 8,163.5 per cent. The exchange rate fell from 25 peso to the dollar in 1980 to over one million peso in September 1985. In an attempt to stabilise the economy the government froze wages (but not those for members of parliament or the military). It is little wonder that many Bolivians turned to coca cultivation where money could be made preparing cocaine paste for export to USA. The tin miners' response to the wage freeze and the removal of subsidies on food was to organise mass underground hunger strikes. The response of the management at Comibol was to be grateful to be freed from their contractual responsibility to pay wages.

Bolivia's future looks bleak. It will perhaps be able to weather the present crisis because of the informal economy — one estimate suggests that the production of coca has risen to 160.000 tonnes in 1985, enough to produce 437 tonnes of cocaine. But, as with other exports, it is the American sellers who make the profits. Nevertheless it does provide employment, with as many as one in six families engaged in coca production. Meanwhile the Bolivian miners' union. FSTMB. still argues that losses at Comibol have been exaggerated by the government and they reject "the closure of any mine without a prior technical and economic survey", a rearguard campaign not unlike that waged by the NUM in Britain over pit closures. But increasingly the role of the FSTMB has been one of negotiating compensation for redundant miners.

The precarious situation of tin miners in Bolivia is typical of workers in any industrial nation. The FSTMB has long been a thorn in the flesh of the Bolivian government and the present administration of Paz Estenssoro has been happy to see a weakening of the miners' influence. At the same time the competition for employment has turned miner against miner within Bolivia and. internationally, the insecure future of tin mining divides workers between countries.

This book claims that the failure of the rich nations to maintain stable exchange rates and to support the International Tin Council means that they must "bear the considerable responsibility for this hardship". The use of tin is undergoing a profound change and the management of that change is harsh because capitalism permits change to occur regardless of human cost.

 Under capitalism, however, not only are the benefits not shared but the very process of change itself generates losses and hardships to its victims. National agreements in the third world do not have the resources to compensate their citizens for changes in the international division of labour. The tin crash has shown the importance of sharing the costs of a crisis of this dimension equitably, with wealthy consumer nations assuming more of the burden.

Benevolent capitalism, as suggested here, is a pious hope. The authors call for "a more humane and democratic world order" and "a genuine transfer of economic power and wealth". Neither are possible without the abolition of the capitalist system which, they recognise, takes no account of the needs of human beings.

Philip Bentley

Pay As You Learn (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

It must be obvious to most that in the world today the Western and Eastern powers are antagonistic toward one another. The gymnastics of the Four- Power deputy Foreign Ministers in trying to arrange an agenda in Paris recently, both side striving to get that which is most favourable to themselves, is an example of this.

Since the end of the hot war in 1945 there have been many conferences. But under the lofty tones of Peace, Freedom and Democracy that leader writers love to tag on them, the points under discussion have been the old ones of access to markets and sources of raw materials.

At the same time however, the business of Capitalism continues. Despite the recognition by the government that Russia may in the future be an enemy of war, trade still exists between the two countries.

In point of fact the good old “Allies” themselves whilst trying to re-arm and run “business as usual ” come into conflict. On March 3rd, 1951, Mr. Strauss, Minister of Supply, and Mr. Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, journeyed to Eastbourne to speak to some 500 or 600 industrialists at the Dollar Convention, organised by the Dollar Export Board. In their speeches they were both concerned with the supply of raw materials.

  "Mr. Strauss denied that the Government had failed to guard against scarcity of raw materials.
  Long term agreements with Rhodesia and other Commonwealth countries had assured British imports of copper, aluminium, and nickel for ‘a long time ahead.'"
   "Mr. Wilson agreed that ‘the raw materials problem constitutes far and away the gravest of all the economic problems we have to face in 1951.'
    He said that upon the outcome of the current Washington talks on international allocation of raw materials very largely depended the ability of this country and its partners in the North Atlantic community to maintain industrial production and the defence effort. Anxiety over future supplies of raw materials to industry, rather than the state of the country’s balance of payments with America, has unquestionably dominated all the discussions." (Observer 4/3/1951).

The Observer's correspondent Nora Beloff reporting on the Washington talks referred to by Mr. Wilson says

   “British officials are highly sceptical of the outcome of the commodity talks now starting in Washington. They believe there is little chance that an assortment of technical committees can reconcile the split between the British and American views on the remedies.”

(Observer, 4/3/51)

These highly competent, clever types, have come to the conclusion, that, when allies are re-arming against a common enemy (guess who) it is perhaps, just a little foolish to scramble against each other for raw materials, and thus send prices bomb-high. Both Britain and America claim that they are prepared to accept controls on prices and distribution. At the same time, however, both claim that the other is responsible for the situation today. For example, America is "niggly" at the price of Malayan rubber and tin, and Australian wool The British reply is that to control prices, America would have to contract to bulk-purchase from these countries over a period of years. To this the Americans say, that Congress, which has only two years to run, could not accept anything that might tie the hands of its successors. The British representatives in pressing for long term agreements recognise that the boom period of to-day in these countries and commodities will not last for ever.

A report of the Preparedness Sub-committee U.S.A. Senate analysing domestic and world tin supplies says

  “That control of most of the world’s tin reserves was held by a relatively few British. Dutch. Belgian and Bolivian corporations with interlocking connections across national boundaries!
   The report alleges that for the past 30 years these producers had joined to restrict production so as to ensure a satisfactory price, and that frantic speculation had driven the price of tin from 75 cents just before the Korean war to nearly two dollars a pound.”

(Observer, 4/3/1951)

The report concluded, “We are no longer in a position where we must buy tin at any price." The truth of this statement appeared four days later when the City Editor of the News Chronicle (8.3.51) reported that tin had fallen by £125 to £1325 per ton.

Whilst at home the present meat ration forces vegetarianism upon us, the Australian Meat Board have just published figures for the half year ending December, 1950, showing that, compared with 1949, the exports of lamb to Britain fell from 2375,000 carcasses to 521,000. The reason of course being the high price of wool. So even the Tories and Empire wallahs (must help the mother country of our great commonwealth you know) when faced with the economic realities contained within capitalism dive in and make a kill, though not the lamb of course.

At home almost daily the Government announces further restriction and shortages, everything being subjugated to the demands of the re-armament programme. It must be a very naive person who does not comprehend that ultimately these highly costly arms will be used in another world war—whether you call yourself an aggressor or defender.

Of course as usual, “we" must all play “out” part in paying for this Defence programme. As Mr. Gaitskell like his predecessor is never tired of telling us. Trade Unions are asked not to ask for wage increases, not withstanding the increase in the cost-of- living.

If you acquiesce in the continuance of capitalism, and accept the possibility of a third world war, then some of you will pay with your lives.

Ray Guy

News From Wales (1958)

From the November 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The principality once again, after a lapse of years, has been given a Prince of its own, though the traditional investiture is yet to come. This recognition of Wales’ historic status has been welcomed by some, deplored— though in a genteel way—by others, especially the Nationalists. But on the whole the news has been met with an indifference by the majority. The fact is that Wales, despite a certain air of “glamour" that has enveloped it during the past months, is rather depressed.

Unemployment is high especially among the steel and tinplate workers of Glamorgan, due to the recent concentration of the industry into fewer factories where Automation, and other streamlined techniques, have resulted in the need for less personnel. Trade Unions and local Government bodies are now exerting as much pressure as they can to bring the Government along to the idea of building another, and the biggest ever, Strip Steel Mill, on a site in South Wales. No one, it seems, can see that even if they built a dozen mills, the evils of Capitalism would remain.

The situation in the agricultural areas is also far from bright. Attempts are to be made to “revitalise” the country-side and “stop the drift” by afforestation and other schemes.

Perhaps the biggest shock of all has been the recent exposure of the danger of radiation due to “fall-out.” It is said that Wales has the highest rate of “fall-out” in Britain; that the Strontium 90 content in the bones of Welsh children is higher than elsewhere in the British Isles. This, it is claimed, is due to a combination of high rainfall and high ground. Of course, here again no one has said that it is really due to Capitalism, and that it would be far easier to remove Capitalism than to level the mountain ranges or shift the direction of the prevailing winds. Speaking in such vein may seem ridiculously futile, but it is a fact that a serious suggestion has been made that Wales should be covered with LIME in order to offset the radiation effects! We presume this is an attempt by Capitalism to whitewash its activities!

We, for our part, can only continue to point out the remedy, in the meantime hoping that we won’t be recruited into a lime-spreading Brigade or spend the coming winter preparing the bleak Welsh mountains for pine forests.

As if it were not enough that the workers should be haunted by the fore-runners of things to come; as well as the difficulties of the moment, the scene is made ridiculously nauseating by a violent quarrel over religion, reminding one of the Religious Persecutions of the past (though in those times people did not have to contend with the added evils of Capitalism).

Recently, a young Swansea soldier died a hero’s death (according to some) in Morriston Hospital. He had been present at a bomb test on Christmas Island and was sent home with Blood Leukemia, brought about, says the British Legion and others, direct participation in the tests. This has created quite a stir. It seems that in future it will be a waste of time sending boys abroad for a radiation “dose.” It will be delivered in larger and larger doses every morning with the milk on our doorsteps.

The report as a whole makes gloomy reading we admit, but it is really difficult to brighten it up in any way unless we add the following:—

The National Eisteddfod was a thumping success; reams of poetry; days of singing: culture writ large across the face of Wales. The British Commonwealth Games held in Cardiff (now given the dignity of a Capital City) paid off well. Welsh footballers brought fame and glory to “Yr Hen Wlad ” (The Old Country) by virtue of their performance during the World Cup Series. The Welsh Nationalists have turned out another pamphlet and the miners have been offered a couple of bob more (if they agree to work on Saturdays).

We must add that in our estimation the overall picture as reported above is a grim one, especially exasperating to Socialists in Wales who are eager to end it all.

This, then, concludes our report from Wales—Land of Festivals and “ Fall-Out.” We are hoping that more of our fellow workers will decide to “fall in” in the near future—not to spread lime, but to spread Socialism, not to kick footballs, but to kick the system out of existence. We feel that the future will then enable us to create monuments of culture such as will dwarf those grim old sentinels—the Cambrian Hills. Wales, will, for the first time, be in the position to give a real welcome to the world’s visitors—with no charge made!

W. Brain

How To Attract Workers . . . By a Steel Magnate (1957)

From the May 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Steel and tinplate manufacturing in S. Wales has travelled a long way from those early times when the densely wooded valleys resounded with the blow of the hammering forges busily flattening iron into plates to the continuous strip rolling mill of today. Then the industry was in the hands of small private owners, today it has emerged into a mammoth combine employing tens of thousands of workers. Through it all, the role of the worker has remained the same. Despite changes in processes—from charcoal to coke; Bessemer to Semens; hammer to rolls; dipping to electrolytic tinning —the workers status is still that of one who owns no part in this enterprise; remaining, as of old, a seller of labour power.

On the outskirts of Llanelli there is to be seen an old school house—1850—built by the owners of a local tinplate works for the tuition of employees' children. We can well imagine that the curriculum was “well laced” with admonitions, such as submissiveness and respect for the “master” and, of course, the parson. Today, of course, as in industry, education has been centralized and otherwise "nationalized" so that both the old school and the old steel and tinplate works have had their day.

Nowadays, Llanelli boasts the most modern tinplate strip mill in Europe, if not in the world; built by the Steel Co. of Wales, an amalgamation of a number of smaller companies. The circle, it seems, is now complete. Beginning with the introduction of the tinning process brought to this country by Yarranton, who spied on the German method; having a second great phase with the laying of the foundations of the Margam Works in 1915 (this time with the aid of German prisoners of war—forced labour?). Today, the Steel Company of Wales is a giant of the tinplate world.

Nevertheless, the worker has still to be reckoned with and so we find that the Steel Company of Wales is as keen to educate the working class as were its predecessors in the little school house not five miles away from where the present magnificent factory now stands.

A typical example has come our way recently.

Sir Ernest Lever, Chairman of the mammoth Steel Co. of Wales, some time ago, delivered a speech to the Cardiff branch of the Institute of Industrial Administration, which was considered (presumably by Sir Ernest and his fellow executives) to be so good, that copies were distributed free to employees of the Company. We have read the document and feel that it deserves to be answered.

Sir Ernest, in a text of 10 pages, does not mention “Capitalism” or "Capitalists," though he does state that individuals “should . . .  be able to make a little financial profit for themselves." This appears to be a masterly understatement to say the least, from a man whose undertaking has assets of £99 million, with a profit of £14.3 millions.

Sir Ernest begins by expounding the necessity for good management and illustrates it by giving homely examples such as that of the housewife. In this way he discusses the subject on familiar grounds with the reader as a preliminary to leading him along to a more ‘‘academic” plane. Having, he hopes, achieved some measure of agreement first he goes on to say that though Administration is not an "occult art” managers are "born and not made” (page 1). Throughout the pamphlet he plugs the necessity for leadership and the glorious rewards that lie in store for those who, like himself presumably, are born to lead (not forgetting the implication that you, too, the reader, may possess these hidden qualities).

It appears that Capitalist Administration, together with its attendant industrial methods such as "speed ups,” etc., have been grossly maligned by workers and the well known "Time and Motion” study is really nothing more than what the dear old lady meant when she referred to "using her head to save her legs.” We, of course, know that whereas the old lady meant her head, and her legs. Sir .Ernest means your head and legs and the Steel Co.'s profits.

He then dips into history and refers to the Craft Guild System to show the rewards won by the apprentice by obeying implicitly his master’s wishes and instructions and bemoans the fact that the modern worker has lost such humility (p. 10 and 11). Sir Ernest should be told that under the Guild System the apprentice hoped—and usually did—become a Master Craftsman himself; that the Master did indeed command some respect by being a "Master of his Craft" from whom one learned; that today the worker, by and large, does not and cannot hope to became the master: that masters are not masters in the sense that they are “master craftsmen” or are otherwise imbued with extraordinary talents—occult or otherwise: that they exist as masters simply by their control over the means of life with power to employ members of the working class in the laboratory, office, and workshop as happens in his, and every other industrial concern.

Perhaps the biggest “whopper” in a speech that is full of them is the statement that once a worker becomes a charge-hand or foreman, he is on his way to becoming a member of the Capitalist Class! "If you ask me when the employee becomes an employer . . .  I suppose the answer is when he reaches the top grade in the employee scale” (page 4). We notice that such a staggering statement demands a careful "suppose" from an otherwise authoritative spokesman of Capitalism. For our part, we are staggered to think that the "rags to riches” view is still held to be true together with the view that an employee—even a highly paid one—is tantamount to being a Capitalist.

Sir Ernest, drawing to the end of his speech, goes on to say that “in a properly conducted industry there should be no antagonism between workers and employer” (page 6). Of course this is the situation earnestly desired by the Capitalist Class and if the workers follow Sir Ernest’s advice this is the situation they will find themselves in (providing that in the meantime they lose their sanity, self respect and sense of logic). We, of course, cannot see it happening because in a system of society where there exists an antagonism of interests—on the one hand exploitation for profit and on the other the sale of labour power, strife is inevitable and willy-nilly, the Capitalist Class must wield the big stick now as they have always done if they are to remain in business even though Sir Ernest implies that though Capitalists were once bad. they are no longer so (page 6).

As we said at the beginning, Sir Ernest nowhere mentions "Capitalists" or "Capitalism." so we have had to do it for him. He confines the whole of his argument to "workers” and "management” His great aim appears to be to prove the necessity for “Leadership."

We know that the time has come when men can conduct their lives—socially and economically—without boards of directors. We know because we see the Capitalist Class running industry by purchasing the brains and muscle of the working class. When Sir Ernest says "our survival is at stake" he means, of course, the survival of the Capitalist System. We are not in the least interested in its survival, rather the opposite. Under his system our survival is always "at stake.” He cannot point out any period when it was not so.

We suggest that Sir Ernest or any other spokesman for Capitalism, when next they decide to write "homilies for homely working men" really get down to it and tell us what, in their view, are the benefits of Capitalism for the working class.

And we don’t want to be told that the answer lies in the steel company’s recent offer of shares on special terms for their workers. This, an editorial in the Western Mail, says, is intended to give them the idea that they "will have a real stake in the company” (4/3/57). The real purpose—and cheap at the price—is to make the workers more docile wage slaves.

W. Brain