Press Cuttings (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

One-third of Recruits Unfit

“Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery, C.I.G.S., yesterday said at the annual meeting of the Royal Eye Hospital, Southwark, of which he is president, that about 19 per cent. of the age group eligible for national service would be unfit for the post-war Regular Army. A further 15 per cent. would not be fit for full military duties.

” ‘There are many causes why a third of those eligible for service are suffering from such a degree of disability,’ he added. ‘They include housing, bad nutrition, and, not least, the preoccupation of the medical profession with disease rather than with the promotion of physical fitness’.” — (Daily Telegraph 10/10/47.)

#    #    #    #

Great Men

“Here are some of the things Sylvester, for 30 years Lloyd George’s personal assistant says about his master :

“He was often peevish and childish; strangely lacking in physical courage; no greater autocrat ever lived; a most unholy muddler, and just a spoiled child.”—(News of the World, 28/9/47.)

#    #    #    #

Labour Party and the House of Lords

“The Party stands, as heretofore . . . for the complete abolition of the House of Lords . . .”—(“Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.12.)

“Since our last report the following have been welcomed to our ranks: Lord Citrine (Sir Walter Citrine), Lord Dukeston (Mr. Charles Dukes), Viscount Hall (Mr. George Hall, M.P.), Lord Kershaw (Mr. Fred Kershaw), Lord Lucas (Mr. G. W. Lucas), Lord Shepherd (Mr. G. R. Shepherd), Lord Simon (Sir E. D. Simon), Lord Trefgarne (Mr. G. M. Garro-Jones), Lord Uvedale (Sir Ambrose Woodall) . . . Our total strength is 46.”—(From Labour Party Report on Labour Strength in the House of Lords. Conference Report, 1947, p.65.)

Editorial: Trade Union Congress re-affirms its Belief in Capitalism (1944)

Editorial from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

While re-iterating trade union demands for a higher standard of living and for changes in the structure and control of industry, the T.U.C. at Blackpool accepted the continuance of capitalist industry and trade and the exploitation of the workers through the wages system. Always the formula is the same, that of condemning particular abuses and coining vague phrases asking for sweeping changes, while at the same time voting for detailed schemes which accept the fundamentals of capitalism.

One resolution called on the Governments of the United Nations to insert in the peace settlement a statement of social principles and objectives as recommended by the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia (Daily Herald, October 20th, 1944). We only need to concern ourselves with two points in the “Declaration of Philadelphia” to see what a fraudulent document it is from the standpoint of working-class emancipation. The first clause is the short affirmation “Labour is not a commodity.” Technically, of course, this is true since the commodity the worker sells is not “labour” itself but “labour-power”; but no doubt those who drafted the clause were only being slipshod in using the wrong word. What they thought they were doing was giving an answer to the Socialist charge that under the wages system the worker is merely the seller of a commodity, his own mental and physical energies. They thought that if in some formal document signed by the capitalist governments it is affirmed that labour-power is not a commodity, then it ceases to be a commodity. Yet every observer who looks at things as they are, including the Labour representatives who endorsed it at the I.L.O. and the T.U.C., knows that labour-power is and remains what it has always been under capitalism a commodity bought in the market, just like the other commodities the capitalist buys. In effect, the I.L.O.’s reply to the question, “Will you abolish the wages system?” is the assurance that there is no wages system. Just as if a fireman, asked if he would or would not put out a fire that is consuming a house, replies “There is no fire.”

A later point in the precious Philadelphia Charter betrays the truth. Having declared that labour-power is not a commodity, the Charter goes on to define the conditions under which this allegedly non-existent commodity is to be sold, by demanding—

“Policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of such protection.”

Another T.U.C. resolution endorsed the General Council’s Report on Post-War Reconstruction. Although the Report attacks the existing organisation and control of industry it has nothing to offer but well-worn phrases about public ownership as a description of its proposed schemes of a slightly changed private ownership. Some industries are to be “publicly owned,” by which the Report means “taken over by a public corporation” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944). The present owners will give up their shareholdings in the existing concerns and receive in return Government bonds. “Basis for buying out the present owners, it is suggested, should be ‘reasonable net maintainable revenue’— that is, on the actual earnings over a period of years and on the probability of their continuance” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944).

Industries not ripe for the public corporation form of State capitalism are to be regulated by Industrial Boards set up by the Government. Workers and employers are to have equal representation on the Boards, but the chairman and a small number of other independent members are to be appointed by the Government. The chairman and his “independent” colleagues will be able to decide all issues on which employers and workers are equally divided, but in what way they will be independent the T.U.C. does not explain. They will, of course, be entirely dependent on the capitalist state, committed to trying to keep capitalist industry running smoothly.

This, by the way, is a familiar device by the Fascist countries. In the name of democracy, the workers, who outnumber the capitalists by, say, ten to one, are to have “equal” representation with them.

Congress decided by a 4 to 1 majority that the German people share the guilt of their Nazi rulers. Sir Walter Citrine, saying there has been too much mushy sentimentality about this business, told Congress that when the Allies march into Berlin “we shall find so many anti-Nazis full of assurances that they have always been against the Nazis that it will be difficult to know who has been carrying on the war in Germany” (News-Chronicle, October 19th, 1944).

Millions of German workers (but by no means all) have indeed supported the interests of their capitalist exploiters in the Nazi Party, but Sir W. Citrine and the majority of T.U.C. delegates are surely the least fitted to protest against people who support what they profess to oppose, for has not the T.U.C. for decades re-iterated its denunciations of capitalism while continually supporting capitalism, and on occasion (as at present) giving its backing to avowedly capitalist politicians and governments? Since capitalism is the cause of war, none who support capitalism can disclaim responsibility for war.

According to the Daily Mail (October 20th), one proposal accepted by Congress was that utility goods should be continued after the war. This very humble request just about typifies present relationship of the T.U.C. with the capitalist class “We are only poor workers,” the proposal says in effect “we don’t ask for the good things we make for the rich, but please see we have a regular supply of the second-rate, the substitute the cheap and nasty.”

With equal humility Congress passed about its 15th protest resolution against the 1927 Trades Dispute Act though at present it is only protesting because the Prime Minister has continued, like his predecessor in office the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, to withhold even the token concession asked for. The T.U.C. missed the bus by not getting something done four years ago. As it is they have waited until the capitalists— free from preoccupation with Germany—can give them undivided attention. They will no doubt get what they deserve.

It is sometimes instructive to take notice of what your opponents say about you. The T.U.C. is allegedly anti-capitalist, while Lord Beaverbrook’s Evening Standard is openly in favour of capitalism. What the T.U.C. does ought on this assumption to meet with the disapproval and apprehension of the capitalist press.. Instead, the Evening Standard assures its readers that the T.U.C. (despite its attack on non-union journalists sent as reporters) is quite harmless. Any who think the T.U.C. has moved “to the left,” says the Standard can be comforted. Congress accepted policies that are satisfactory to many people on the right. Congress for example, agreed that labour should continue to be directed— in other words conscripted— after the war. Congress steered steadily towards that Trade Union-Big Business collaboration which is anathema to the left.” (Evening Standard, October 20th, 1944).

The millionaire Press may be comforted, but present T.U.C. policy will bring no comfort to men and women trade unionists in the hard years before them.

Passing Comments: Unsolicited Testimonial to Mr. Gaitskell (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unsolicited Testimonial to Mr. Gaitskell

When 1 was reading in a public library, a lady next to me reading the Daily Telegraph approved so much of what she read that she had to unburden herself immediately; and 1 was the nearest person. I haven’t checked on all her facts, but the substance of what she said was this:

“Thank goodness someone’s talking sense at last—Mr. Gaitskell is saying they ought to give the workers bonus shares if the work is going well. Now that’s what I’ve always said—I had some shares in the South Metropolitan Gas Co. during the war and they used to give the workers bonus shares and it always kept them satisfied—they never had a strike all during the war! That’s just what I’ve always said—keep the workers contented and you won’t get any trouble. And I see Mr. Gaitskell has been saying we shouldn’t have any more taxation on the important people—the people with capital and the people who provide work. Because if you tax them they’re not going to stay in this country are they? And if they go how should we get on?—because they provide all the work.”

I feel sure that Mr. Gaitskell will be glad to know that, although he may not be very popular with the trade unions, his proposals have drawn forth the admiration of at least one shareholder.

* * *

State Capitalism

As the nationalised industries continue to publish each year their reports, showing how much interest has been paid to people who are called (for some reason unknown) “ex”-shareholders, it should become obvious to the most fervent nationalises that whatever nationalisation is or is not. it is not Socialism, and that the workers in nationalised industries cannot be said, by any stretch of the imagination, to be either the owners or the controllers of their industries. These facts, which the Socialist Party has been trying to propagate for the last half-century, have at fast reached the edges of that bastion of ignorance, the Labour Party. Among the first to make a public recantation is a Labour M.P., Fred Longden, who has just published a book of essays.

* * *

Lucrative Stockholding

In it he says that nationalisation “does not disturb the present social order.” It “does not dislocate the pyramid-like build of society. Its horizontal classes and perpendicular grades and castes remain intact with greater security than ever. Stockholding is sounder and more lucrative. Management rests in the hands of a Board that is more distant from the worker and consumer than ever. This is ’democracy’ with a very remote control. It is not Socialism.” (“The Proletarian Heritage,” quoted in Reynolds News, 12.8.51.)

With your last sentence, Mr. Longden, we couldn’t agree more. But what a pity it is that you have spent your political life in the Labour movement working to bring about that state of affairs you now so justly criticise. Still, we don’t want to harp too much on your past misdeeds. If you really want to bring about a Socialist society, you can still join with all the other people who want to do so. Apply at your nearest branch of the Socialist Party.

* * *

Never Say Die

Mr. Longden has at least been honest enough to admit that he was wrong, now that it is clear beyond any possibility of doubt that nationalisation is not Socialism. But there are others who are incorrigible —chief among them being the Stalinists. With them the evidence counts for nothing. Theoretical argument, practical demonstration, both leave them cold. Ignoring the experience of the coalminers, the gasworkers, the railwaymen, the Daily Worker continues to cheer on nationalisation projects wherever they appear. In Persia, a nationalisation demonstration evoked the approving comment, “Smallest hint of government weakness in face of imperialist pressure brings the crowds out to show the people’s determination to force oil nationalisation through” (11.7.51). And when the secretary of the “Northern Rhodesian African Congress” demands the nationalisation of the Northern Rhodesian copper mines, the Daily Worker headlines it “Africans want copper mines” (23.7.51). The Africans may want the copper mines. But if they do, they’re certainly going a queer way about it.

* * *

It’s What Yon Wanted

Even when trade unionists see that nationalisation has left them exactly where they were before, any attacks they make on the new state-directors, any claims they bring forward for higher pay, are greeted with a reproachful “well, you wanted nationalisation yourself.” The head of the British Electricity Authority, Lord Citrine, went along to the annual conference of the Amalgamated Engineering Union recently, berated those delegates who had attacked the B.E.A. administration, and ended up by appealing to “the trade unions, which were really responsible for bringing about nationalisation, to ‘give us a little help occasionally, and perhaps a little more charity when public utterances are made’.” (Daily Herald, 22.6.51.) And the trade unions cannot deny the charge that they helped to bring about nationalisation.

* * *

Labour “ Socialism ” in Action

From the Daily Herald (2.8.51): “The fall in share values, following Mr. Gaitskell's announcement a week ago that dividends are to be limited, is only one-third of their rise during the past three and a half months. With that statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer torpedoed a half-hearted Tory attack in the Commons yesterday.” But what an interesting commentary it makes on Mr. Gaitskell’s claim to be a Socialist when he publicly boasts that he isn’t half as hard on the shareholders, on those who live on the labour of others, as his opponents make out. In fact the Stock Exchange, despite the loud cries of anguish which were heard in Lombard Street when the slight dividend restriction was first announced, soon came to see what a mild measure it was. Even the small drop in share values which actually took place was not long-lived. Two and a half weeks after the original announcement the Sunday Express (12.8.51) said: “All but one-tenth of the losses has been regained. And from the way things are going it won’t be long before the remaining tenth is made good.”

Which, in practice, amounts to another vote of confidence by the shareholders in the Labour Government.

* * *

Discovery

Another of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s remarks during the Commons debate on August 1st was this: “Figures of the distribution of property do not bear out any suggestion that ordinary shares are held in large quantities by the poorer section of the community.”

This must rank as the understatement of the month.

* * *

How to Fight Wars—1

From the Daily Graphic (24.7.51): “At Verdun in 1916 Petain flung back the German hordes with a scornful 'Ils ne passeront pas ’ (they shall not pass). Nor did they, although half a million men died round the shell-torn forts in five months.” Half a million men died, but not Petain, who became a General largely on the strength of that battle. (And if it was Petain who “flung back the German hordes,” what were all these other Frenchmen doing there?) Petain survived the men under his command for thirty-five years, dying at the age of ninety-five.

* * *

How to Fight Wars—2

General Kurt Student, formerly supreme commander of Hitler’s airborne troops, wrote an article in the Sunday Express last May 27th. He said: “ For me, as commander of the German airborne troops, the Battle of Crete in 1941 carries bitter memories. I miscalculated when I suggested this attack, which resulted in the loss of so many valuable parachutists that it meant the end of the German airborne landing forces, which I had created.” Many parachutists were lost. But modern war has its compensations. General Student is still with us. And ten years after his miscalculations at Crete, the General is still fit enough to write articles for the papers.

Alwyn Edgar

Rationalisation or Socialism. (1928)

From the October 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist system of society is based upon the private ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution, by a minority of the population. The majority of the population, being property-less, are compelled to offer their services for sale to the capitalists, and receive in return sufficient to enable them to live and keep on working. Only the working class engage in the work necessary to production, but the wealth that results from the workers’ labour-power belongs to the capitalists, and therefore the system is an excellent one—for the capitalists.

This being so, any proposals which have for their object the smoother working of the present system should be welcomed— by the capitalists.

The system is essentially a competitive one, and though the capitalists’ interests are identical as against working-class interests, they are not identical in the struggle to secure the greater proportion of the profit accruing from the workers’ labour-power. This results in a tremendous waste. In most industries there is more plant and machinery in being than is necessary to produce sufficient to supply the markets; consequently many works are on short time, not working to their full capacity, or are actually closed down.

Thoroughly up-to-date and efficient methods of production exist side by side with inefficient, almost obsolete, methods.

These facts are fairly obvious, and attempts are being made to meet the problem, but we are concerned about it being clearly understood whose problem it is.

To increase the difference between the total wealth the workers produce and the amount they receive in the form of wages has always been the object of the capitalists, and what is referred to as rationalisation is only a phase of that estimable object.

In an article in the Daily Herald (August 24th), Mr. Citrine attempts to justify the action of the T.U.C. in acting in conjunction with a group of employers to secure “the maximum efficiency of labour with the minimum of effort,” to avoid “waste of raw materials and power” and “unnecessary transport, burdensome financial charges, and the useless interposition of middlemen.” As the General Council of the T.U.C. is supposed to represent the interests of the wage workers, it was up to Mr. Citrine to demonstrate that the object of these proposals is not to increase the difference between total wages and total profits.

Instead of doing this he proceeds to ignore the class division in society and indulge in vague talk about the “community,” and increasing the standard of living of the “people.”

As the article was a reply to a previous one by Mr. Hicks, he brings forward evidence to show that his attitude is quite in accordance with Trade Union policy both here and abroad, instancing a report published by the T.U.C. and the Labour Party in 1924 on the Waste of Capitalism, which, as he says, “was, in effect, a demand for the rational organisation of industry.” He also points out that the German Trade Union movement took the initiative in demanding the institution of Rationalisation in 1926.

To be able to give evidence of other suicidal policies is regarded as sufficient justification of the present one. We have some indication of how Rationalisation works in Germany in an article in the Manchester Guardian Industrial Relations Supplement (30/11/27), by C. W. Guillebaud. One of the “concessions” to the workers is the institution of Works Councils, on which both workers and employers sit; and the writer points out that

“One most significant feature of the development of the Works Councils has been the great decline in the number of those willing to submit themselves for election or re-election. . . . The chief causes of this tendency are, first, the power of employers to get rid of Works Councillors, . . . despite the protective provisions of the Act.”

It should be obvious that a worker with orthodox views will be a useful man for the employers, but one who realises the direct cleavage of interests between the two sides, and says so, will be given his cards and shown the gate.

Although the Trade Unions arose from the antagonism of interests between the property-owning employers and the property-less wage workers, they frequently function in the interests of the capitalists. The railway workers’ unions have recently successfully negotiated a 2½ per cent. reduction in their members’ wages, without the trouble and expense of a lock-out. While having a clear idea of the purpose of “rationalisation,” it is necessary to point out to the self-styled “left-wingers” that it is not something to be fought separately. At the annual conference of the National Minority Movement, Mr. Harry Pollitt moved a resolution which declared that “the chief issue before the working class was to fight Rationalisation” (Daily Herald, August 27).

Certain phrases seem to knock these shallow pates off their balance; “Mondism” and “Imperialism” are manifestations of capitalism. One is reminded of 1914, when the counterparts of the present left-wingers considered it “progressive” to fight against Prussianism.

The opening paragraph of this article being correct, the only problem the workers need concern themselves about is their non-possession of the means of wealth production, the solution of which is in their own hands, by organising as a class, politically, to take possession of them. The Socialist Party is the only organisation which concentrates the workers’ attention on that problem. Labour right-wingers, who urge the workers to take an interest in their masters’ problems, and left-wingers, who urge them to attack separate features of capitalism, are equally side-tracking them from the thing that matters.

J. L.

About Books (1954)

Book Reviews from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Trade Unions can be divided, briefly into three categories: unions that cater for workers in one trade only, like the United Society of Boilermakers; unions that embrace all the workers in an industry, like the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Railwaymen; and unions that enrol members from a wide variety of trades, jobs and industries, such as the Transport and General Workers’ Union and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers.

The tendency during the past few decades has been for federations and amalgamations to thin out the ranks of the smaller craft unions and to create, by a merging process, the large organisations that we know today.

This process has created problems of organisation. Unions with hundreds of thousands of members, many of them engaged in different trades and spread all over the country, have had to devise some complicated machinery for the management of their affairs, the formulating and carrying out of national policies. Most of them have constitutions that provide for control of policy by the membership, but in practice, this democratic control does not work out. The majority of trade unionists take no part in the formulation of their union’s policy. Of those that are active the larger number have little, if any, understanding of the society in which their organisation functions and, in consequence, have their ideas moulded by their trade union officials. Thus, the officials are able to impose a policy on the unions.

A book entitled Power in Trade Unions, A Study of their Organisation in Great Britain, by V. L. Allen, has recently been published by Longmans, Green and Co., at 25/-. Mr. Allen examines the constitutions of 127 unions and shows the policy-making process, the power of trade union executives and permanent officers and the disciplinary measures used to ensure obedience from the members.

A similar work was published, in 1952 by George Allen and Unwin, entitled The Government of British Trade Unions, by Joseph Goldstein. Mt. Goldstein limited his study almost exclusively to the Transport and General Workers’ Union and revealed how apathy destroys the application of democratic principles.

Both these authors have collected masses of figures and have compiled many charts to illustrate their revelations. For the student of Trade Unionism both books are worth reading, but if one had to be selected we would recommend Mr. Allen’s.

The History of Trade Unionism, by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, although it does not bring the picture right up to date, is still the classic history of the subject A useful little book that brings the subject right up to 1952, is British Trade Unionism, a Short History, by Allen Hutt, published by Lawrence and Wishart. for 12/6. Mr. Hutt’s political sentiments peep through in places, but his book is a good, interesting, short history.

A less useful, though very interesting book, is an illustrated volume in the Britain in Pictures series, published by William Collins. It is British Trade Unions, by Sir Walter Citrine.

Two books, useful to students, covering a wide study of Trade Unions in a limited number of pages are Trade Unions Today, by Henry Collins (Frederick Muller Ltd., 6/-), and British Trade Unions, by N. Barou. (Gollancz. Left Book Club).

This small collection of books should give a student a satisfactory grounding in the subject and should make him realise the limitations of trade union action in improving the lot of the working class. Capitalism sets the limits and the trade unions, products of that system cannot break outside it. Only by social revolution can the working class escape from the ills which they seek to palliate through trade union action.

W. Waters.

Notes by the Way: The Archbishop’s Very Slender Means (1942)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Archbishop’s Very Slender Means

On the resignation of the 77-years-old Archbishop of Canterbury the Daily Mail comments as follows: 

“Dr. Lang renounces a salary of £15,000 a year for a pension unlikely to exceed £1,500—or. as he put it, ‘to face the restraints and inconveniences of very slender means.'”—(“Daily Mail,” January 22nd, 1942.)

* * *

Sir W. Citrine on the Labour Party’s Attitude in the War

While the following candid statement by Sir Walter Citrine contains nothing not already widely appreciated, it deserves to be placed on record against the time when those who are less candid may want to give a different version. The statement was made in a speech at Maidstone on Saturday, January 24th, 1942.

“In this war no workman, particularly no trade unionist, should have the slightest hesitation in throwing all into the war effort. For years we have been shouting “Stand up to Hitler.” We wanted the Government to stand up to him over Austria, over Spain, and at Munich. No one can say we did not enter this war with our eyes open. Now, we are in it, it does not become us to find any means of excusing any lack of enthusiasm”—(“Times,” January 26th, 1942.)

A somewhat different report was given in the People (January 25th, 1942): —

“We can be charged by other sections of the community as being one of the organised sections that demanded war. No one can say we did not enter this war with our eyes open.”

* * *

No Communism in Russia

Now that the British and Russian Governments are Allies and the “International” is being played here on ceremonial occasions as a mark of honour to the Russian Government, the idea has occurred to several newspapers that it is desirable to remove the impression that Bolshevism is a danger to capitalism. Hence the publication of information which hitherto has been ignored. Sir Bernard Pares, the authority on Russian questions, who has in recent years been favourably regarded by the Communists and has been a strong advocate of the Anglo-Russia Alliance, lectured at Manchester on January 10th on the Bogey of Communism. The Manchester Guardian (January 12th, 1942) reported him as follows: 

“There was only one period in Russian history when the Marxist doctrine was practised, and that was for the three years after the Revolution—1918 to 1921. That was a perversion of the big, warm family idea, and it was given up as hopelessly ridiculous. The doctrine ruling at present was exactly the same as here: ‘From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to his his work.” So it had been as long as Stalin had been in power. “Communism” was a thing which Russia might try to better to realise in the future, when the world was a better place.”

Then the Daily Mail (January 24th, 1942) had an article by Negley Farson on life in Russia, telegraphed from Moscow two days previously. Among the interesting points made by Parson are the following: —

“The Soviets have not changed Russian life so much as many outsiders think—nor did they ever intend to.

There are still beggars, although you will find them standing outside the churches. And that many churches are still open is proved by the fact that 25,000 people worshipped in Moscow on the day when an appeal was made for every Russian—Christian or atheist—to repel the German invaders.

Inequalities in earnings still exist in Russia. A man who cleans the streets gets about 100 to 200 roubles a month—an actor like Moskvin gets possibly 1,000 roubles for one special performance.

Soviet writers like Sholokhov, who wrote “And Quiet Flows the Don,” receive royalties just like any English or American best-sellers—only Sholokhov’s books probably sell in millions, for Russians are avid readers.

Waiters take tips, but on three occasions since I have been in Russia this time they have actually refused them from me. Yesterday two husky girls who carried my bags up to my room at the Hotel Metropole in Moscow (where I lived in 1915) handed me back part of my tip with a smile, saying I had given them too much.

Russians may also invest money in War Loans or Five Year Plan Loans, which formerly paid interest as high as six per cent. They may leave money to their children just like any Westerner. But the “crippling” power of money has been shackled by the fact that no man may use it to exploit another.”

On the education system he says: —

“Education is free and compulsory—and no amount of money can buy a better education for one child than for another in the First Grade—say, up to the age of 13 or 14. But after that age money may, strangely enough, provide additional knowledge. For example, for the teaching of music, languages, art or any special subject that a child might be interested in, special tutors may be paid for.

Also, although education is free up to the ages already mentioned, after that the pupil’s parent must pay a definite sum both for high school and university education.”

* * *

Death of the People’s Convention

According to the Daily Herald (January 7th, 1912) the National Committee of the People’s Convention decided on January 3rd “to suspend activity as a separate organisation,” thus failing by nine days to reach its first anniversary. It will be recalled that at its first convention held on January 12th, 1941, the Convention wanted a “People’s Government and a People’s Peace.” One of their main criticisms of the Labour Party then was that it ought not to be in the Churchill Government, a policy denounced by Mr. Pritt as “the linking up of its leaders with their class enemies.” Now the promoters of the Convention are all for the war and their criticism is no longer directed against Mr. Churchill.

* * *

British and Russian Foreign Policy

The Evening Standard (January 22nd, 1942) published statements which originated from Swedish sources about points discussed by Stalin and Eden during the latter’s visit to Moscow. Whether the statements are correct it is impossible to say, though evidently the Evening Standard attaches some weight to them. Some of the points seem likely enough in the light of past relationship between Britain and the Czarist Governments. Russia is alleged to want to keep the three Baltic States, and to secure territory from Rumania and Finland. Echoes of former Russian aims appear in the demand that “The Soviet Union must have guarantees that at no time in future can Iran (Persia) serve as a springboard for eventual invasion against the U.S.S.R.”

The same point is referred to by Madame Tabouis from New York as follows: —

“The demand for an outlet upon the Persian Gulf, which would create a new Russian “lung” seems to be uncontested.”—(“Sunday Dispatch,” January 4th, 1942.)

Other points in the Evening Standard statement are : —

“Russia has no interests in Africa; Britain’s bid for a dominant position in the Mediterranean is acknowledged as legitimate.

Russia welcomes British policy which seeks to ensure that never again will North Africa or Northern France serve as a jumping-off place for attack against the British Isles or the British Empire.”

According to Madame Tabouis the Moscow negotiations have left the position that “Britain’s voice will be all important in the matter of decisions regarding Northern and Western Europe, while the Soviets will retain an influential role in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.”

* * *

Who Should be in the War Cabinet ?

Mr. Hannen Swaffer, who is a loyal supporter of the Labour Party, suggests, in the People (January 25th, 1942), what should be the composition of the War Cabinet. His list is: Churchill, Beaverbrook, Bevin, Shinwell, Lloyd George and Anthony Eden. One significant feature of this list seems to have escaped Swaffer’s notice—at any rate, he makes no remark about it—the fact that three of the six are Conservatives, one is a Liberal, and only two are Labour M.P.s.

* * *

Communist Arguments for Lifting the Ban on the “Daily Worker”

When the Daily Worker was suppressed a year ago the Communists were opposing the war. Now their principle argument for the removal of the ban is that they could help the Government to increase production in a way that official propaganda fails to do. The Manchester Guardian (January 21st, 1942) reported speeches made by Daily Worker supporters at a lunch on the previous day: —

“Both the editor of the paper, Mr. Rust, and an unnamed shop steward from a London factory dwelt on the bad effect which its suppression had, they said, on the workers and therefore on production. Mr. Rust said that they wondered what was behind the unexplained suppression of the “Daily Worker,” and both speakers were sure that the removal of the prohibition on it would hearten the workers, increase their confidence in the Government, and raise production.”

The New Statesman (November 29th, 1941) published the following by one of their regular contributors : —

“A Communist friend put the matter like this. “The Government,” he said, “take for granted that the ‘Left’ must support the war as long as Russia’s in it. We must urge all possible production, and so we do.” We are pledged to support Mr. Churchill—and so we are; even to the point of supporting Conservative candidates at by-elections when other candidates put up specifically as all-aid-to-Russia candidates. They think they have no reason to worry about the Left any more; why go to the bother of allowing the “Daily Worker” to appear? They are making a mistake.They are quite right about us. Communists will do all they can. But there are other Left groups who take a different line, who find it very difficult to support Mr. Churchill and who may turn, if left alone, and run after all sorts of Trotskyites’ hares and I.L.P. red herrings. Such people take no notice of official propaganda. We are the only paper who.can influence those who think the whole war “hooey” anyway, or who are against fighting for the capitalist and so on. It’s our job to convince them, but we cannot possibly cover the field without the “Daily Worker.”

Edgar Hardcastle

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

Editorial from the March 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Will Happen After the War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industrial Peace: The Capitalist Utopia. (1928)

From the February 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again we are being regaled in the Press and from the platform with unctuous rubbish concerning the desirability of “peace” in industry. The overwhelming fascination which the topic appears to possess for capitalist representatives and labour leaders alike only speaks for their mental bankruptcy and the fatal readiness of the workers to be deceived by promises.

Fifteen to twenty years ago Sir Christopher Furness, with his co-partnership scheme, stood in the limelight of publicity much as Sir Alfred Mond does at the present day. The only novel feature of the situation is the fact that there is now in existence a body which is supposed to stand for the interests of the bulk of the trade unionists in the country, i.e., the General Council of the Trade Union Congress. The contempt which this body has for its supporters, and its utter disregard for their interests, was forcibly illustrated less than two years ago by its conduct of the so-called General Strike. Thanks to the treachery of this body, hundreds of thousands of the workers were victimised for their actions in response to their “leaders'” orders, without any serious attempt having been made to support the miners.

No wonder, then, that these champions of ignominious defeat and surrender, swollen-headed with all the self-importance of ignorance, should fall rapturously into the outspread arms of their class foes. What else can they do? They have neglected the great essential of working-class education, i.e., Socialist propaganda; and have thus climbed to office by exploiting the support of followers who lack the understanding necessary to the prosecution of an intelligent and courageous conflict with the exploiting class. They therefore enter into conference like whipped curs, hoping for conciliatory pats on their heads and a few bones to induce them to go quietly to their kennels.

What is to be the outcome of this hobnobbing of Trade Union officials with the representatives of capital? Can the workers expect to gain anything therefrom?

A few ideas in answer to these questions may be gathered from the “Manchester Guardian” supplement of November 30th, 1927, entitled “Industrial Relations.” It consists of a symposium of the views of a number of prominent members of the master class, such as Sir J. Stamp and Sir A. Mond, and notorious Labour “leaders,” such as MacDonald, Henderson, Clynes, Bevin, Citrine, Cramp, etc.

Sir Alfred Mond having taken the initiative in the recent conference, his views are of considerable interest. Dealing with what is termed the “rationalisation” of industry, he says :

  The growth of larger industrial units does, however, bring immense problems in its train. For instance, if complete economy is to be effected, it may entail the shutting down of obsolete or unprofitable plant, the scrapping of redundant agencies and departments. Obviously, unless there is an immediate expansion of production, temporary unemployment must follow from this.

Of course, he goes on to lay stress on the word “temporary.” Improved methods mean an increase in trade, we are told, and that in turn means more employment. The workers were told exactly the same tale over a century ago, when machinery was first introduced, but the nightmare of unemployment still haunts an ever-increasing proportion of workers.

It is obvious that, in order to smother the growing discontent of the workers under such conditions, some form of bluff is necessary, so Brunner, Mond & Co. instituted Works Councils, which have since been elaborated with the growth of the combine. This is supposed to secure the representation of the views and interests of the workers ; but another article in the supplement dealing with Works Councils in Germany throws an interesting light on what actually happens under this arrangement.

Theoretically, the Councils are supposed to be able to appeal to the courts to prevent dismissals “on the grounds of victimisation, injustice, or undue hardship,” but in practice, “the Councils cannot protect the employees against dismissal on the ground of trade depression or lack of work.”

Dealing with the question of improved security and higher status (things we hear a lot about nowadays), Sir A. Mond goes on to say,

  By inaugurating a Workers’ Staff Grade … up to 50 per cent. of all workers of over five years’ service will be eligible for election to the Staff, and once promoted they will enjoy rights similar to those enjoyed by the office staffs, including weekly instead of hourly rates of wages and the right to a month’s termination of employment. The healthy rivalry for promotion . . . should mean greater efficiency.

A typical capitalist dodge to intensify the competition between the workers, and thus wring more out of them.

Then, for the information of the workers, a monthly magazine is to be issued. In Germany, however, things are further advanced.

  The Councils are empowered by the Act to nominate one or two of their members with full voting rights, on to the control boards of all companies, and, in the larger firms, to have submitted to them a balance sheet and profit and loss account for the establishment for which they are elected. The Councils may also demand verbal explanations from the employer as to the significance and composition of any of the items so submitted.

  In practice these provisions of the Act have largely remained on paper. Even if the usual education and the experience of the Works Councillors were sufficiently good to enable them to understand the information which they are entitled to receive—they would have derived little benefit owing to the effective methods taken by most employers to prevent the Works Councils from using their rights to obtain any information that might be regarded as confidential. It is notorious that balance sheets are rarely self-explanatory, and it is usually impossible for the members of the Councils to check the accuracy of any additional data supplied.

The above is an illuminating reply to both Mond and the Trade Union officials who talk large about increased control of industry by the workers.

MacDonald opposes any application of what he calls book logic to capitalism. He criticises any attempt to apply the lessons of history to this notion of industrial peace.

He pays “unqualified tribute” to the railway companies’ conciliatory attitude; and is only worried about the coalfields because some of his political supporters have been boycotted by the managers.

Citrine is all for the unions

  actively participating in a concerted effort to raise industry to its highest efficiency by developing the most scientific methods of production, eliminating waste and harmful restrictions, removing causes of friction and avoidable conflict, and promoting the largest possible output so as to provide a rising standard of life and continuously improving conditions of employment.

His objection to such systems as “Taylorism” is not the effects of the system, but the fact that they are “automatically introduced without consultation with the workers’ representatives.” He is quite prepared to support the exploitation of labour-power so long as he and his ilk supervise the sale thereof.

The other workers’ (?) “representatives” follow in similar strain. So long as the trade unions officials are recognised and allowed to bold place and honour in the councils of the thieves, they are all in favour of peace. The testimonies of numerous capitalist apologists, statisticians and politicians, that the workers are relatively poorer than ever before, in spite of the accumulated powers of production, highly-developed efficiency, and all the rest of it, is simply ignored. Years ago, Seebohm Rowntree, Sir Charles Booth and others compiled the evidence showing the downward trend of the workers’ conditions of living. Political hacks like Lloyd George and Chamberlain broadcast it to gain votes for their policies of reform.

Yet these alleged leaders of labour, these misleaders, can think of nothing more original as a solution of the evils that afflict the class that carries them on their backs than to support the employers’ cry for “peace” and increased output.

The subject of the industrial conflict is the exact amount of blood, nerve and sinew that shall be sucked dry of energy in order that a small class of idlers may feast and frolic. The cause of the conflict is the fact that the idlers own the means by which alone the blood, nerve and sinew of the workers can be re-energised. Every increase in efficiency in the blood, nerve and sinew, every corresponding increase in its output, only heaps higher the wealth that the idlers waste. The sooner their maws are glutted, the sooner their wardrobes are crammed, the sooner their “ladies” are surfeited with cocktails and jewels — the sooner will the workers be “transferred” to the labour exchange or the Relieving Officer to feel the pinch of want.

Never has any capitalist, never has any labour leader produced a shred of evidence to conflict with this simple obvious fact. Similarly, not one of them dare deal with the only remedy. If the workers are to enjoy the fruits of their labour, they must own and control the means by which they produce them. The land, factories, railways, etc., must be made the common property of all to meet the needs of all.

That is what we mean by Socialism. It is to accomplish that which has led us to organise a Socialist Party. Forsake your masters and leaders and study the history and condition of your class for yourselves. You will then see that there has been no industrial peace since capitalism has existed—that your class has been compelled, from the day of its origin, to struggle for its existence, and that the struggle will go on until you discover the way to end it—by throwing the wealthy idlers from your backs—by using the political power which is yours whenever you choose to organise with us for Socialism.

Eric Boden

Socialism and World Unity (1945)

Book Review from the January 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists hold that the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race. They also hold that international warfare is the outcome of capitalism, the various national States being nothing more than political agents necessary for the protection of capitalist property.

At the Trade Union Congress recently held, a resolution was passed supporting the report of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Union Committee, which contained a clause singling cut the German people as being responsible for the war. No mention, appears to have been made of the responsibility of the peoples of other countries in this connection.

The report was presented to Congress by Sir Walter Citrine, and it is interesting and instructive to recall that this same gentleman published a small book, little more than four years ago, entitled “My Finnish Diary,” a Penguin Special, price 6d.

After describing the damage done by Russian bombers in Finland during the winter of 1939-40, Sir Walter observes on page 43: “I thought bitterly to myself,’ what a curious mentality it is which seeks to justify the wanton destruction of the homes of these .poor people, under the hypocritical guise of liberating them and opening up the vista of Soviet Socialism.' Socialism! It is a vile insult to associate the excesses of the imperialist Stalin and his coterie of despots with a word which has provided the inspiration and hope of millions of mankind.” Did Sir Walter hold the Russian people responsible? Turn to page 63: “It was awful to think that men could be hurled into slaughtering one another without having the least opportunity to control the governments who made the decision they had to obey.” The “responsibility” of the German workers for the war is on a par with that of the workers of other countries. Seeking relief from the pressure of their poverty, they supported the clamour of certain political groups for power, not realising the eventual outcome of their own act. Like the workers of other countries, they have already paid an appalling price for their political ignorance. The workers of this country returned a Conservative Government to power under the delusion that by so doing they were helping to keep the peace. Mr. Baldwin admitted later that he dared not let them know that he contemplated a programme of re-armament! Ironically enough, this same programme was instrumental in reducing the numbers of the unemployed, resembling in this respect the armament programmes of Russia and Germany; and, in spite of a lot of tall talk, not even Sir William Beveridge is able to show how to maintain “full employment” without armaments! But to return to the Trade Union Congress.

The reference back of the above mentioned clause was moved by Mr. Walter Padley, who has recently published a little volume—viz., “The Economic Problem of the Peace” (Gollancz, price 6s.). This has the merit of throwing considerable light on the historical and economic background of the present struggle for world supremacy. Mr. Padley squarely places the responsibility upon capitalism as a system, and in spite of various illusions of his concerning the nature of Socialism, does endeavour to show that Socialism is the only solution to the problem presented to his readers.

Most children of school-leaving age, who have paid any attention to their history books, know that Britain, in the course of its commercial struggle, has fought all the principal European powers in turn. Mr. Padley reminds us of the conflicts with Spain in Elizabeth’s time, with the Dutch in the time of Cromwell and Charles II., and finally with the French from the time of Queen Anne to the early nineteenth century. Control of Canada and India was wrested from the French in 1703 during the Seven Years War. In the course of this particular campaign Frederick the Great established Prussia as a power equal to any on the Continent. While British armies dealt with France in America and Asia, and the Navy followed suit upon the high seas, the German monarch of these islands gave useful help to Frederick both in money and in men. Having interests of his own to protect in Hanover, this is not surprising. So far from being regarded as the eternal enemies of mankind, Prussians were welcomed as convenient allies. The same thing occurred half a century later in the Napoleonic Wars. Blucher and the Prussians were in at the death with Wellington at Waterloo. Incidentally, in this final battle, Wellington’s army consisted mainly of foreigners, only 5 per cent, at most being British. This campaign settled for the time being the question which power was to dominate the world. The map of the world showed ever larger chunks of red as trade and the flag marched hand in hand.

Russia’s bid for .power in the Near East caused Britain and France to unite in the Crimean War in the middle of the nineteenth century, and it was not until a decade later that Prussia began to show political symptoms of the increasing industrial development of Germany. This is shown by Mr. Padley to have outstripped that of France by the close of the nineteenth century and to be threatening that of Great Britain. Lacking an overseas empire, Germany found scope for expansion on the European Continent. Sir J. M. Keynes (now Lord Keynes), in his “Economic Consequences of the Peace” (pp. 14-15), showed that “the statistics of the economic inter-dependence of Germany and her neighbours are overwhelming.” The present-day pleaders for the smashing-up of Germany as a preventive of war may as well advocate the destruction of Europe and be done with it.

These overgrown children, rotten with wealth, want all the advantages of capitalism and none of its disadvantages. They profess to believe in competition and squeal like rabbits whenever they meet a competitor capable of giving them a dose of their own medicine. Their invective, however, will probably know no bounds when their allies in this war follow in the footsteps of their allies in the last war.

The accumulation of capital in America seeking investment overseas reminds one of the words of Marx: “Face to face with the old queen of the seas rises, threatening and more; threatening, the young giant republic” (“Capital.” Vol. I., p. 735, Swan Sonnenschein edition.). In Mr. Padley’s opinion the future holds for Britain no brighter prospect than that of a junior partner to Uncle Sam in return for acting as policeman in Europe. Be that as it may, those who take the uproar against Germany seriously would do well to reflect upon Mr. Padley’s quotations from a couple of military historians. Major-General J. F. C. Fuller, who can hardly be suspected of anti-British tendencies, in his “War and Western Civilisation,” tells us that: “Between 1870 and 1900 Great Britain acquired 4,754,000 square miles of territory . . . between 1884 and 1900 France acquired 3,583,000 square miles . . . and in these same years Germany, a bad last, gained 1,026,220 square miles.” Captain de S. O. C. Stephens, in “A Century of War, 1815-1915,” tells us that in that period Britain waged 38 wars, lasting 64 years in all, while her peace-loving partner, France, spent 58 years in 17 wars. Russia occupied 28 years in 13 wars, while Germany, by some unaccountable oversight, only scraped up a total of 6 wars of 10 years' total duration.

“This, of course,” says Mr. Padley, “has nothing to do with innate vice. British or German, but arises from the later industrial development of Germany” (p. 116).

The present scribe cannot pretend to follow Mr. Padley in his speculations concerning his proposed “Socialist United States of Europe.” On page 106 Mr. Padley postulates that under a “Socialist economic system” a financial system will be necessary to secure the distribution of goods. He appears to have overlooked the fact that during the past five years millions of members of the working class have been fed, clothed and housed by their rulers' governments, after a rough and ready fashion, without cash payments on their part. It is up to Mr. Padley and those who share his views to let us know what are the obstacles which will prevent a Socialist administration providing for the wants of every man, woman and child without the aid of money. When the means of producing wealth are owned in common, the products will become a common store from which all may draw. This will involve organisation, not money, which is the outcome of lack of organisation in the sphere of distribution, resulting from private ownership

While Mr. Padley does not accept uncritically the view that Russia has established Socialism, he persists in asserting that state property and economic planning provide this particular nation-state with a “Socialistic economic basis” (page 133). This is playing with words. Can the close relationship between the State and industry in Russia be explained except by referring to the later development of industry there? No capitalist power on earth is able to administer capitalism along the lines of century old Manchesterian Liberalism.

Mr. Padley is also far too ready to regard Russia's attack upon Finland, Poland and the Baltic States as being simply a piece of military strategy. The restoration of the empire of Peter the Great cannot be dismissed in that lighthearted manner. Mr. Padley has gone to considerable pains to make it clear that nation-states express capitalist, needs. Military strategy is but a means to an end. Socialists are entitled to ask, “What has the recovery of the Russian nation-state to do with the emancipation of the international working class?"

Socialists have no blue prints to offer the world. Their task is to. mobilise the workers for the destruction of the system which robs them of the fruits of their labour. That is our only purpose in calling upon them to organise for the conquest of political power.

Eric Boden

Here and There: Harry Pollitt (1936)

The Here and There column from the June 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. H. Pollitt has written a series of articles in the Daily Worker on Communist policy. In the last, article, May 11th, he says: —

  “The peoples want peace. They want to be shown the clear road to be able to keep peace. The working-class movement has the sacred duty of showing them . . . what road has to be taken.  . . . Let the working-class movement of Great Britain lead the way to peace. It can do— it shall do!”

AND HOW?

  "Forward, then, to the greatest Crusade for Peace this country has ever known: —
  For the defeat of the National Government;
 for helping in every way the German people to overthrow the Hitler Government, the Government that is the chief war incendiary in Europe to-day;
 for the expulsion of the Japanese invaders from China and for a democratic Japan;
 for the expulsion of the Italian plunderers from Abyssinia, and the liberation of the Italian people from Fascism;
 for a world front of workers and peasants and all friends of peace against the instigators of war.”

If Mr. Pollitt ever gets the time to ponder on his inane slogans he might ask himself and try to explain how the working-class movement could effect the expulsion from Abyssinia of 250,000 Italians, armed with guns, tanks, aeroplanes and poison gas, without war. Having settled that problem he might also try to explain in what way the working class would benefit by the expulsion of the armed forces of Italy from Abyssinia and of the Japanese from China.

Come, Mr. Pollitt, the Daily Worker will be read with interest for your reply!

#    #    #    #

Thieves’ Progress
Slave-ridden, barbaric, semi-feudal Abyssinia has been "annexed” by capitalist Italy. The annexation, inevitable otherwise, might have been prevented by the intervention on the side of Abyssinia of strong capitalist Powers like Great Britain and France. The intervention did not take place, despite the vociferous demands that it should by many capitalist interests, supported as usual by soft-headed Labour and Communist Party leaders. Italy’s new Abyssinian Empire, situated as it is on the British sea route to India, and in a strategic position among British African colonies, gives Italy a vastly increased bargaining power with British capitalism. The conquest has doubtless caused intense concern to British interests. That the British Government did not intervene to prevent this possible threat to its interests and prestige suggests that they had hoped for a result less decisive—a compromise giving Italy a less dominating position, or that they had considered the cost too great and the possible consequences at the moment too grave. For it is certain that if British capitalism became involved in another war that smaller capitalist Powers would seek to embarrass her by throwing off her domination, by demanding concessions, and even, if the opportunity occurred, by grabbing part of her wealthy Empire.

It is indeed a hard world for capitalist countries that have the responsibility of owning enormous wealth.

#    #    #    #

Capitalism’s Health
“The disappointing thing to me about the Budget is that it reveals an altogether unpleasant healthiness about the capitalist system."

It must be discomforting to Mr. Maxton to reflect that six years ago he made a dramatic forecast that the capitalist system would collapse within six months. He was wrong, as we pointed out then, and as events proved. He is now disappointed in capitalism’s “unpleasant healthiness.” That much he has learned. If Mr. Maxton had the ability he might, by study, understand the workings of the capitalist system: why, in times of crisis, it appears to be collapsing and at other times shows “unpleasant healthiness.” It is more likely that Mr. Maxton will understand capitalism better and ultimately acquire Socialist understanding only as events force their lessons home to him. That is, in the same way that the mass of workers will acquire an understanding of Socialism.

#    #    #    #

Postmen and Knights
The Annual Conference of the Union of Post Office Workers, held at Brighton, at its sitting on May 5th, had a minor breeze. Sir Walter Citrine, General Secretary of the T.U.C., who was a fraternal delegate, came very near to being refused a hearing. A resolution was moved to delete his name from the list of fraternal delegates. This drastic action was proposed because Sir (formerly Mister) Walter Citrine had accepted a knighthood. The voting was amazingly close. The resolution was defeated by 1,081 votes to 910. In explanation, lest it be inferred that the respectable postmen recognise the emptiness of titles and the futility of working men possessing them, the resolution was supported mainly on the ground that it was conferred by the National Government. The delegates supporting the resolution staged a walk-out when Sir Walter rose to speak. An awkward situation, through which, it may be assumed, the dignity of his title helped Sir Walter without undue embarrassment.

#    #    #    #

Socialism versus Reforms
The Socialist argument that reforms have only a limited benefit for the working class is graphically supported by the following from the News Chronicle (March 12th, 1936): —

  Sir John Orr’s report on Malnutrition is no pleasant reading for a lazy afternoon; and it should dispel the belief which seems to be gaining currency in lazy circles that malnutrition is due to ignorance of food values rather than to poverty. It is easy for well-fed persons to accept such doctrines as the truth.
  Proof, if proof be needed, that poverty is, in fact, the villain of the piece can be found in Stockton-on-Tees, which boasts one of the best Medical Officers of Health in England: .
  In the last five years Stockton has re-housed nearly half its worst slum population in one of the country's best designed and spacious housing schemes.
  Economy and efficiency have made possible a rent in this new district of barely one shilling per week per head more than was paid in the slums.
  And in the last five years the only really noticeable difference between the slums and the new area has been a big increase in the death rate among those who have been better housed. The slum death rate remains the same.
  That one shilling per week per head means, in fact, sufficient food to make the difference between life and death.

We oppose reformist policy on the grounds that reforms do not solve the working-class problem of poverty, even though reforms might have some immediate benefit. The reform dealt with above— better housing—would appear to be definitely harmful to the working class: the position being that health suffers and the death rate increases as more money is spent on rent and less is spent on food. And after a hundred years of reforms we have as much poverty and more reformers than ever.

Harry Waite

The Engineers' Strike. (1926)

From the May 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

The strike of engineers at the Hoe Printing Works presents problems that merit the serious consideration of working men. The union leaders gave ample illustrations of their anti-working class policy, and the tricky way they forced the national committee to support them should enlighten members of the unions who are willing to pause and ponder a little.

The position ultimately taken up by the unions was the policy advocated by their paid officials and was an obvious policy of defeat.

In the “New Leader” of the 5th March W. M. Citrine, acting secretary of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, had an article on the subject headed “Back the Engineers." The following are two quotations from the article which throw light on the circumstances surrounding the dispute.

  It may not be out of place, however, to observe that although the Hoe dispute would appear to furnish the excuse for a lock-out, that incident cannot be dissociated from the negotiations which have dragged their weary way over the past two years. Men who are in receipt of wages entirely out of proportion to their degree of skill, and labourers who receive 37s. per week for 47 hours’ work, cannot reasonably be expected to exhibit Job-like patience. The . average time rates in the sixteen principal districts are: Fitters and turners, 56s. 6d.; unskilled labourers, 40s. 2d.
  The interminable negotiations have created the impression amongst rank-and-file engineering workers that the employers were deliberately operating a policy of procrastination and had no real intention of making any concessions. From time to time during the past two years district applications have been presented for advances which appear to have had substantial justification, but practically everywhere the districts have been met with refusal on the plea that, while national negotiations were proceeding, nothing could be conceded locally. (Italics ours.) 

There one can plainly see the advantage to the employers of the Agreement known as The Provisions for Avoiding Disputes, the interminable Government Commissions of Inquiry, and negotiations between Union Committees and Employers’ Councils. These are different ways of delaying improvements in workers’ conditions and yet they have the whole-hearted support of Trade Union leaders. J. H. Thomas gave public expression to this when he said :—

  The trade union leader who wants a strike is not fit for his job . . . Talk of class warfare can lead nowhere but to hell. (Quoted in No. V. Labour Research booklet from “The Times,” 28/4/23.)

Since the end of the war the wages of the engineers 'have gone down until they have now reached a figure that will hardly keep “body and soul” together. While the employers see no sign of vigorous opposition from the workers’ side there is little likelihood of their making concessions. Under such circumstances how humiliating has been the attitude of the officials the workers appoint and pay with the avowed object of safeguarding their interests. From the posting of the lock-out notices the union leaders have given a public exhibition of their fear of the employers. They have been running to Sir Allan Smith for private conferences and then after each meeting issuing their instructions to the Hoe workers to return to work.

The assertion that the Hoe workers were acting in a way that broke the Agreement can be met from two points of view. The Hoe workers meet it by the contention that their employers had already broken the Agreement themselves. From the other point of view an agreement that allows months and years to pass before a union can take strike action renders the strike (the workers’ only real economic weapon in industrial disputes) abortive.

On Sunday, March 7th, a meeting was held at the Elephant and Castle Theatre, to consider the Hoe dispute. This meeting consisted of London District Committees, Branch Secretaries, and Shop Stewards of the unions concerned. The executives desired the meeting to back their policy and instruct the strikers to return to work. The meeting, however, not only refused to do this, but it endorsed the demand of the London Engineering Trades Committee for a wage advance of £1 a week, and failing a settlement that the executives be asked for permission to take a district strike ballot.

They further moved that the executives be asked to take a ballot on the ending of the York Agreement, containing the Provisions for Avoiding Disputes, and endorsed the demand for a consultation on the question of a national strike ballot.

The executives were not satisfied with the conclusions of the meeting so a special conference of the National Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union was held at Manchester on Saturday and Sunday, March 13th and 14th. At this meeting J. I. Brownlie, President of the Union, presided and three other executive members attended. A motion was put forward in support of the men who had ceased work at Hoe’s. Before this motion was put to the vote Brownlie stated “that the Committee regarded this resolution as a direct challenge, and if it were carried it would be construed as a vote of no confidence in the executive ” (“Observer,” 14th March, 1926). After that statement, an obvious trick to sway the delegates over to the side of the Executives, the motion was of course lost by a large majority. The next day a motion was carried supporting the policy of the executives.

Since then pressure has been exerted from all quarters on the Hoe workers—even to the extent of a threat to expel them from the union—and yesterday’s (Saturday, 20th March) papers announce that they are resuming work on Monday under protest.

The attitude of the leaders, the daily papers, and the “New Leader” that the men should return to work and allow things to take the “constitutional” course, rather than do anything that would break the agreement, merits a few further remarks.

The leaders want a nice, properly-arranged strike that could proceed peacefully on its course without disturbing anybody or doing any real harm. This is evidenced by their concern for so-called essentiaL services and the opinion of the “public.”

The “public,” about whom there is so much concern, is really the shopkeepers, the Press, and the “salaried” workers, the groups to whom the workers in general need pay no attention. They are the hangers on and blind supporters of the employers in their attacks upon the workers, and from their ranks often come the blacklegs that help to defeat strikes.

The engineers, the coalminers, the railwaymen and others ought to know by now that a strike means the disorganisation of essential services or a failure. It is an attempt to force from the employers something the latter are not prepared to concede willingly. If all the essential services are arranged so that a strike will not disturb them; and if the employers are to be given weeks to prepare for the struggle, then how can the workers possibly expect success? Obviously they will only inflict minor discomfort on the employers, who can await with equanimity the rapid collapse of the movement owing to the privations suffered by the strikers.

As we have so often in these columns pointed out the limits of trade union action, I will forbear using up any more space on the subject.

Gilmac.