Editorial: Manpower and the Crisis (1947)

Editorial from the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Remedy the Labour Government Cannot Use

Capitalism breeds war, waste and want as a jungle swamp breeds pestilence. Practically every minister in the Labour Government has acknowledged the truth of this some time or other and has pointed the obvious moral that if you want to remove the pestilential effects you must remove the capitalist cause, and introduce Socialism in the place of Capitalism. They said this, but did any of them understand what they were saying? Probably not. If by chance some of them did then by taking office in the Labour Government they were acting a deliberate lie for they were promising something it was not in their power to do. There can be no Socialism until there are a majority of convinced Socialists in the electorate and even the most deluded of Labour leaders would surely not claim that the 12 million Labour voters were Socialists. A government cannot impose Socialism on an unwilling electorate. This should be obvious, but it took the recent crisis to jolt the “Daily Herald” into even a partial recognition of the facts. The “Herald’s” admission, a veritable masterpiece of understatement, was framed as a warning to Ministers not to entertain the “treacherous delusion” that would “regard the whole electorate as enthusiastic converts to Socialism” (February 8th, 1947). The same Editorial goes on to claim that “a peaceful revolution is being wrought in this land which will bring solid benefits within our lifetime, and will confer blessings untold on posterity.” We can leave posterity to speak for itself and content ourselves with foretelling a time when the electorate will count it an immediate blessing to be rid of the Labour Government.

The reader is of course entitled to ask us why we are sure that Labourism cannot succeed. The answer is to be found in the opening paragraph of this article. Capitalism we know; Socialism the workers can have when they are ready to grasp it; and there is no other choice. The root fallacy of Labourism is the belief that a Labour Government can administer capitalism in a non-capitalist way. With all the good intentions in the world it cannot be done” Labour Ministers may make election promises with perfect sincerity, but in office they learn day by day what it really means to keep this exploiting, profit-making system .going, in competition with the rest of the capitalist Powers. It means resisting wage claims so that the capitalists can go on making profit. It means perpetuating the vast gulf between rich and poor. It means maintaining the armed forces and struggling with rival Powers for trade, raw materials and colonies.

It is hardly necessary to say that it also involves swallowing past declarations of what ought to be done, such, for example, as Sir Stafford Cripps’ complete reversal of his views on trade rivalry. Now he is chief director of the export drive. Five years ago he declared, “If, after the coming of peace, we were to start once again the vicious circle of international trade competition, we should be lost, and in a few years would be confronting another war” (interview with a Brazilian newspaper—”Sunday Express” November 8th, 1942).

The recent crisis, forerunner of others, took on the appearance of a problem of fuel and manpower, brought to an acute phase by an “Act of God,” the British weather. It was, however, not a crisis of coal or of cold, but of capitalism. Let us examine this and see how capitalism, which caused the problem, prevents the Labour Government from solving it. The second World War (itself a product of capitalism) destroyed vast amounts of wealth and left a legacy of shortages of housing, food, fuel, clothing, transport, etc. Not that want was a new experience for the working class, but the war aggravated the problem by the immensity of the destruction it wrought all over-Europe and Asia. What would a sanely organised human society have done about this, assuming that such a form of society had to tackle the problem? It would have stopped all waste of labour and materials, halted the production of armaments, and of luxuries for the rich, and would have concentrated on producing the necessities of life in the quantities urgently needed by the population of the world. How did the Labour Government (and all the governments in all the countries) tackle it? They spoke the right words, but proceeded to apply fiddling half-measures. The British Labour Government said they needed man-power in production, but they found that British capitalism had a still more pressing need to keep 1,500,000 men in the armed forces and other hundreds of thousands supplying the needs of the forces and preparing for future wars. They said they needed more workers producing coal, food, houses, etc., for the millions who lacked bare necessities, but they left intact the class structure of capitalism, with its hundreds of thousands. of wealthy idlers consuming without producing, and its hundreds of thousands of workers engaged in banking, financial and other operations that only arise because of capitalism. There are over 700,000 non-industrial civil servants, about 350,000 of whom are Post Office workers. The great bulk of the remaining 350,000 are doing work rendered necessary only by capitalism, as is also much of the work of the Post Office. We are told that many civil servants are employed on insurance and similar work which the Labour Government regards as socially useful; but it is only the mind habituated to capitalism that cannot see what this work really is. Staffs handling unemployed and health. insurance are not there to see that the needy (needy because of capitalism) receive enough to satisfy their needs, but to protect capitalism against the needy receiving more than the niggardly amount allotted to keep them quiet.

The same contradiction between proclaimed aims and practical activities can be found in every sphere. The luxury needs of the wealthy have not been sacrificed to speed up the provision of necessities. On the contrary, the Government has encouraged the planning of luxury liners, luxury air travel, and luxury goods for export. These schemes are defended with the plea that luxury exports make it possible to import necessities unobtainable in other ways. The curious thing is that the governments of other war-damaged countries (France, for example) are doing the same and on the same plea, so that some luxury goods are being imported by all the countries which declare their inability to supply enough necessities for their populations. What it shows is that, despite Labour Party talk about a “new world,” the British and other Labour Governments are basing their plans for the future on the continuance of the same old capitalism, with its extremes of wealth and poverty. They are all catering for the needs of the wealthy.

Here then is the simple problem and the simple solution. On a conservative estimate the production of useful goods could easily be doubled in short time if the armed forces and propertied idlers and the workers doing work necessitated only by capitalism, were brought into production. Why doesn’t the Labour Government even attempt to do it? They don’t do it because even if they wanted to they dare not. They were put into power by an electorate that does not understand or want Socialism and which therefore gave the Labour Government nothing more than a man¬ date to go on administering capitalism.

The recent crisis arose because the capitalist state needs to have millions of people taken from production for the armed forces and other non-productive activities and therefore cannot take simple straightforward measures to make good the destruction of war. It led to great suffering and to the increase of unemployed to about 2,500,000 at the peak. In due course another and more usual type of capitalist crisis will blow up. Goods will be produced in excess of what can be sold at a profit, then unemployment will soar again. Then the Labour Government will be looking for other excuses than the cold weather to explain the failure of its plans. The “New Statesman,” which shared all of the foolish Labour Party beliefs in the possibility of applying so-called Socialist policies to capitalism, has in anticipation already coined the appropriate face-saving formula for the next crisis: “… the Government is confronted with the certainty, now that the illusions about a liberalisation of America’s trade policy have finally been dispelled, that a Socialist experiment confined only to this country is bound to fail” (February 8th, 1947). So the “New Statesman,” shedding one illusion, grasps at another equally absurd. It proposes that Britain cut adrift from trade and financial ties with U.S.A. and collaborate instead “with other countries which are experimenting with planned economies.” If it is a fallacy, as it certainly is, that a Labour Government can apply Socialist plans to capitalism, common sense should make it clear that you do not escape from the dilemma by linking up with other countries in which similar governments are trying to perform the same impossible feat. Capitalist crises know no frontiers, and Labour Governments here and elsewhere will no more escape the next crisis than they did the “economic blizzard” that blew down the British Labour Government in 1931 and simultaneously toppled over the Labour Government in Australia.

For the world’s workers there is no escape from the problems and crises caused by capitalism except by introducing Socialism.

"St Moritz and Miners" (1947)

From the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Observer of Sunday, Dec. 29th, 1946, describes the absence from work of Miners and Railway men, etc., on Friday and Saturday of Christmas week as “Shockingly anti-social.”

On the front page of the paper, and also in the Sunday Times, there was a photograph of the winter sports at St. Moritz (Switzerland), and many British holidaymakers are thus seen enjoying themselves there.

The Sunday Times (same date) tells us that between 13,000 and 14,000 holidaymakers travelled to the Continent during Christmas week. Considering that the workers in the main get two days’ holiday at Christmas, we are certain that a Continental trip for them is quite out of the question, apart from the expense. If that is so, then the lucky 13,000 must have both the time and the money.

The Observer, as a Capitalist organ, runs true to form in condemning the workers for absenteeism while wealthy idlers enjoy themselves in Swiss luxury hotels with the wealth created for them by their sweating wage-slaves.

J. D.

Paradise what? (1986)

From the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

". . . having lunch with Bryan Cogwill at Thames Television . . .  he suggested that 1 might write a story covering the period in England since the war . . ." In these resplendency comfortable words John Mortimer describes the genesis of his novel Paradise Postponed. He is — who doesn't know — a barrister, author, playwright and wit. in fact a personality, which is why he can have lunch with important people in television. His fame as the TV adaptor of Brideshead Revisited and as the creator of Rumpole of the Bailey foretold a wide interest in Paradise Postponed. The critics, it seemed certain, would have to take the book very seriously if all the money spent on it were not to be wasted. But need so many of them, perhaps searching for an elusive deeper meaning, have acclaimed it as a perceptive lament for the fine hopes nurtured by successive Labour governments since the war? Fiction, after all. must not lose all touch with reality.

Like any sensible novelist writing for television. Mortimer divides his characters starkly into goodies and baddies. Prominent among the goodies is Simeon Simcox. a stupid, cliche-dependent clergyman who punctiliously chases every possible left wing reformist issue, driving his bishop mad with letters about nuclear disarmament, lower rents for rural proletariats and the like. Prime among the baddies is Leslie Titmuss. who claws a determined way from village odd-job boy down to Thatcherite cabinet minister. These caricatures are surrounded by predictable cardboard characters — the village doctor who kids himself he is all forthright human feeling but who is really a prejudiced and irritating buffoon; the local squire who wearily longs for life to be like one long chivalrous game of pre-1914 cricket with everyone accepting their place in the batting order. There is a supporting cast of drudges who minister to the needs of the local bigwigs.

Of course this isn't Paradise and is not meant to be. Mortimer's village is moving, as the cynics take over from the simpletons and the property developers desecrate the High Street, in the opposite direction. But did Paradise ever exist? Was it ever likely to. or planned to? Was it really postponed to some time in the future? Will we ever get there, with the vicar and the squire and the village drudges?

To be sure, a vision not far short of a sort of Paradise was being offered as the future when the post-war Labour government came to power under Clement Attlee ("and a little mouse shall lead them" disloyally noted Attlee's first Chancellor Hugh Dalton, which was one of his many misjudgements. There were misjudgements on the other side too: "I feel that my entrails have been pulled right out of me" was the effect of the election on Tory Chief Whip James Stuart). What actually happened was far from paradisical. The British working class were told, again and again, that they were in an economic and financial crisis of unusual severity. In truth it was the British capitalist class who were in

that crisis — which had not been accounted for in the Labour government's assumptions about how they would run things:

We all thought that this post-war period was going to be easier than it has. in fact, turned out to be. in the economic sphere: and we have been trying to deal with it ever since by a series of temporary expedients which have led to a series of crises as each expedient became exhausted.

wailed Chancellor Stafford Cripps on the day he imposed another temporary expedient — the devaluation of the pound. "We work", the government informed the working class, "or want", meaning work much harder for less real wages. In any case people whose entire lives were shaped by their awareness that if they couldn't find an employer to buy their labour power they would suffer the harshest poverty hardly needed reminding of their reliance on working for their living. What the Labour government intended was to abate the crisis by imposing more intense exploitation of the workers but the little mouse and his ministers knew better than to put it that way. After all some of them, while this was going on, continued to describe themselves as socialists.

Paradise was also supposed to have a corner reserved for more amicable relations with the Stalinist rulers in Moscow, whose massive atrocities had been temporarily blanketed during the war by official propaganda. "Left can speak to left in comradeship and confidence" was how it was put by Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, whose comradeship was not something to be lightly accepted by the nervous. Perhaps that government might have decided, as others have done, on an alliance with the robbers and murderers in Stalin's Kremlin. But there were solid reasons, all to do with protecting and promoting the interests of the British ruling class in world capitalism, for choosing an alliance with the bandits and killers in Washington instead. So they went, wholeheartedly, into the Korean war and into many campaigns against nationalist guerrillas in what were still then British colonies. Or rather we — the working class went in. Labour ministers played their part in those conflicts by signing alliances, lengthening the term of conscription and delivering speeches telling us that the austerity and repression would have to continue — that Paradise had indeed been postponed.

There were many other aspects to that government which Simeon Simcox did not seem to be aware of. He saw nothing inconsistent in marching with CND while supporting the Labour Party, whose consistent policy on nuclear weapons has been far from disarmament. From the beginning the Attlee government gave their blessing to the atomising of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which, let it be remembered, are the only occasions so far when the bomb has been used on living human beings. Anxious that the British capitalist class should hold some sway on the ruthless international scene, they launched the programme to make a hydrogen bomb in this country and to set up a chain of nuclear power stations.

When they were eventually removed from office, having convinced many workers that socialism was a crackpot theory which really meant even more austerity in their lives than usual, society in Britain was still split into two classes who were continually at war with each other. One — the capitalist, ruling, class had kept their position of riches and privilege and power, their sumptuous homes, their secure and parasitical life style. The other — the working, exploited, class — still lived in degradation, still struggled in the mire of disadvantage, in their slum homes, the stresses of their poverty.

It was easy for disgruntled Labourites like Simcox (and Mortimer?) to write all this off as a betrayal of the faith. If only Attlee had not been Prime Minister, or Dalton had been Foreign Secretary, if only Cripps had lived or Morrison had died. . . . None of this, they consoled themselves in cheerless, abandoned committee rooms after their defeat, need have happened. Never mind, it was only a postponement of Paradise; there was that young Harold Wilson who showed such promise and who was a true left-winger. Of course in his time Wilson provoked the same anguish, the same doubts, the same excuses, the same stubborn defence of the party, right or wrong. It was the same with Wilson's successor Callaghan, whose government went down in bitter memories of breaking the firemen's strike, of fighting the workers in hospitals and local authorities. Unemployment had doubled and Denis Healey at the Exchequer had done much of the groundwork for Thatcher's policy of reacting to the gathering slump with cuts in expenditure.

By 1979 the argument that there was something accidental and avoidable about Labour's record in government had been worn out by reality. Labour supporters were suffering a discomfort which they could have eliminated by simply recognising the obvious fact that the crises which all governments face have nothing to do with the personnel of those governments. They are rooted in the very nature of capitalism, in the fact that the system is founded on the class ownership of everything that is used to produce and distribute wealth. From this the rest follows — class conflict, poverty amid plenty, exploitation. war. . . .

It is incorrect to argue that it all went wrong for the Labour governments; in truth it all went right. They administered capitalism just as it demands to be — in the interests of the minority class of social parasites and against the interests of the majority class of workers and producers. If they get power once more it will happen again for them — the exposure, the disillusionment, the despair. This may give someone the idea of writing another blockbusting, silly book which will enrich them but is very bad for the rest of us. And it is all because workers persist in voting for Paradise rather than taking over the Earth.

Ivan

Blogger's Note:

Steve Coleman's also wrote about John Mortimer's Paradise Postponed in the Between the Lines column in the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard.

The Passing Show (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attempts of our rulers and spiritual advisers to formulate the mode of procedure best fitted to keep the workers quiet are becoming so fantastic as to cause even their docile dupes to wonder if there is not some leg-pulling going on somewhere; the hope of heaven on earth promised at the last election has gone with the wind. The way of the transgressing wage-slave is indeed hard; he suffers for the sins committed in Capitalism’s interest and bears all the burdens of his exploiters during the process; he is becoming weary and inclined to flag, but this cannot be allowed. “What we want is more production.”

It will be noticed that during those periods when the worker, driven beyond endurance, ventures to quit, he is always out of order (practically all strikes are unofficial). The Labour Leader of the Union and the Labour politician unite in condemning his rebellious conduct; and the capitalist press wholeheartedly support them. Denounced by the leader of his union, attacked in Parliament by his own Labour member, shown the error of his ways by the Church and universally vilified by the capitalist press, he may be excused if he doubts the evidence of his senses, but in spite of all these handicaps, he still keeps up the fight; he feels he must; his instincts bred of the class struggle he feels to be correct; he is becoming conscious of himself ; he is beginning to realise what history has called upon him to do. Upon the worker’s action rests the fate of humanity and every socialist on the planet is sustained during these perilous times by the firm conviction that he will not fail.

It is interesting to consider the views of the pioneers of scientific Socialism on the functions of the trade unions. Lucien Laurat, on pages 74 and 75 of his book. “Marxism and Democracy,” states that Marx made a number of important statements to Hamann, the treasurer of the Metal Worker’s Union. The discussion took place in Hanover in 1869. Among other things, Marx is reported as saying the following:—

“The trade unions must never be associated with or dependent upon a political group. Otherwise they would never be able to fulfil their task, and they would receive a mortal blow. The trade unions are the schools of Socialism. In the trade unions the workers become socialists because they see every day before their own eyes the struggle against capital. Political parties, whatever they may be, can arouse the enthusiasm of the working masses only temporarily for a time only, whilst the unions hold their loyalty much more securely, and it is only these unions which can be a real working class party and erect a bulwark against the power of Capital.”

This is what Marx is alleged to have said about 80 years ago. It is questionable if he would repeat the statement were he alive to-day.

Long before this, Engels, in his “Condition of the Working Class in England,” stressed the importance of the economic movement, and Marx, in his “Poverty of Philosophy,” fiercely attacked Proudhon for his hostility to trade unions and to strikes.

Wherever the unions are mentioned in Marx’s writings we find he defends them. In another quotation in the book above referred to he stated: “The struggle of class against class is a political struggle.” 

When the Chartist movement was analysed by the old timers the fact that the trade unions did not as a whole support the Chartists was referred to with regret. 

In “Value, Price and Profit,” the part played by the unions was dealt with, their limitations clearly shown, together with their utility, but it is pointed out they could be more successful if they used their power more intelligently: they should have as their watchword not a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but the revolutionary “abolition of the wages system.”

Since the founders of the movement passed away the workers have acquired considerable knowledge as a result of their experience..

The wage-slave sells his labour-power to the capitalist, and competing with him is his fellow slave. The identity of interests of the workers on the economic field is obscured.

When labour-power is in demand the sellers of that commodity, by means of their organizations, try and raise the price, but when the demand falls off, and the unemployed become numerous their organizations weaken and the price falls. There is nothing in trade union action that can take labour-power out of the category of commodities. Trade unions are often the means of enabling the workers to obtain a rise in wages before they otherwise would do and also in preventing a rapid fall when circumstances are in favour of the exploiter. They are, in addition, a vehicle for obtaining better conditions which through custom sometimes become more or less permanent, Their value to the worker cannot be questioned, but they cannot emancipate the toiler from wage slavery.

It is not the function of a political party to interfere with the operations of the unions.

The movement in Britain has not been helped by the political levy and the fusion of some unions with the Labour Party: the unions have not benefited: the trade union leader is now often in opposition to the aspirations of the rank and file, and is backed, on almost every occasion, by the Labour politician in resisting efforts to use the organisations for the purpose for which they were originally formed.

It is inspiring nevertheless to see the gradual spread of class consciousness : it is slow, but sure in its coming. Capitalism is up against problems it cannot solve. There is no power that can prevent the advance of the workers permanently, but it can be helped along by socialist knowledge.

The socialist aims at the removal of Capitalism : the trade unionist who is not a socialist thinks he can get something worth while out of the present mode of production. Sooner or later it will dawn upon the working class that trade union action can’t beat the capitalist system.

In 1850, at the time of the split in the Communist League, Marx judged it necessary to tell the workers “You will have to go through fifteen, twenty, perhaps fifty years of civil and international wars, not merely to change conditions, but to change yourselves, and make yourselves fit to take over political power.” He was optimistic; the workers are still in the wilderness, but his vision was clear. A long preparation was necessary before they could be equipped with knowledge sufficient to enable them to take possession of the promised land.

We have now undoubtedly arrived at a point from which the wage-slaves can see where to head for.

Charles Lestor

Blogger's Note:

Lucien Laurat's Marxism and Democracy was reviewed in the February 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard.

We can’t both have it ! (1948)

From the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

SOME MAKE BIG STUFF

SOME MAKE SMALL STUFF

MORE FOR EACH—IS MORE FOR ALL

The above wording is to be seen on a large landscape poster on hoardings to-day, and is one of the propaganda efforts of His Majesty’s Third Labour Government.

This poster, like others which have preceded it, is .intended to urge the working-class to greater efforts of wealth production, as it is on the ability of the workers to produce commodities for the markets (export) in ever greater and greater volume—thus cheapening their cost—that the Labour Government and the capitalists cling to the expectation of running capitalism with a minimum of friction. The former contending this will bring full employment and prosperity to the workers and be a step towards Socialism : the latter anticipating a continuance of “business” and the ensuing profits. To paraphrase a well-known cliché: “Two minds with but a single thought. “—but both expecting a different result.

In its effort to run capitalism—masquerading under the name of Socialism—the Labour Government is committed to certain activities. One of these is the avoidance of a slump and the consequent unemployment, and because it fails to understand the motive forces of capitalism, from time to time it demonstrates its ignorance and puerility. In fact, it is capitalism that runs the Labour Government.

Unwittingly, of course, the Government publicity experts have adorned the poster with wording that is in keeping with the facts. The “stuff” that the capitalists are concerned with is profits: the workers’ “stuff” is wages. The workers’ portion of the “stuff”‘ is small. Relative to the overall increase in the amount of wealth produced the workers’ portion of the ”stuff,” coming to them in the form of wages, tends to grow smaller.

It logically follows that MORE FROM ALL means more from all of the working class : more production, more distribution, more salesmanship, more marketing—more of everything that will keep British capitalism ahead of its competitors ! In a word, more and intensified exploitation of the class that looks to the present Government to solve its problems. And the resulting increase in wealth, brought into existence as a result of increased production MEANS MORE FOR EACH member or group of the capitalist class. This is because the workers will have increased the quantity of surplus value (the source of profit), i.e., the amount of wealth they create over and above their wages and salaries.

Posters on a wall will not rescue the Labour Government from the mess they will eventually find themselves in as a result of trying to serve two masters. Neither will more production rescue the vast majority of workers from their poverty position as members of a wage-earning, property-less class.

GUY.

Who are the "Crackpots?" (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In its editorial, The People (7/9/52) greatly deplores the half million trade unionists who opposed the resolution on wage restraint at the Margate Conference of the T.U.C.

Referring to these workers as “crackpots,” “firebrands,” “flat earthers,” etc., who are “living in the age of the Tolpuddle Martyrs,” “Man o’ the People” tells us that “the workers do not want more money. They want more goods. More pieces of paper in their wage packets on Fridays cannot buy them more goods because they are not available.”

Here The People did not finish the sentence, which it should have concluded with—. . . . to the workers. But being supporters of the capitalist system The People could not be expected to see what must be obvious to every worker who takes his leisurely stroll in Kensington High Street or Oxford Street, etc.

Not available? The shops are crammed with every conceivable kind of food, clothing, furniture, etc.

“If we want more goods we’ve got to make them, or, if the goods we want come from abroad, we’ve got to sell more goods to the foreigner to buy them,” continues The People.

But that is exactly what the workers are doing, constantly making goods, but, with a difference, which seems to have escaped “Man o’ the People,” the workers are producing these goods for the capitalists, for sale and profit on the market.

The capitalist class, having property rights in all the wealth produced by the workers, and having to return only a part thereof for their upkeep, not only wants these things, but can pay for them, and has them.

The workers, on the other hand, lacking what the economists call “effective demand” cannot pay for these goods, and, therefore, do not get them.

They get slums, poor food, shoddy clothing, simply because they cannot buy back what they have produced.

The People, in common with other apologists of the capitalist class is constantly urging us to produce more and more and telling us that one day—it does not say when—we will all be better off.

A recent example of the work-harder campaign is the increasing unemployment amongst the textile workers in Lancashire.

“Under-production” or “over-production,” there has always been a shortage of the necessities of life for the majority of people, and whether the worker “thinks every employer is a wicked Capitalist engaged in a horrible conspiracy to down the working man” (in the words of The People) or whether he thinks they are all kind-hearted gentlemen, this is a fact which stares him in the face every time he looks in a shop window and wonders, “Can I afford it? ”

Whilst the majority of workers do not understand or desire Socialism, they will go on supporting Capitalism, and in doing so will continue to face the conflicts of that system of society. The struggle has not lessened with the “passing of the age of the Tolpuddle Martyrs,” rather has it increased.

The People ends with the hope that “the unions themselves will now set about clearing out these wreckers of the new social order that men died and slaved to build for us.”

We must confess as workers that we are unaware of any new social order having come into existence. Not having any reason to “study the stars” under The People's astrologer “Lyndoe,” it may have escaped our notice.

No, we still have Capitalism with us though we can grant this to The People, that “men did die and slave to build it,” thousands of them! Not only men. but women and children also, slaved 10, 12, 14, 16 hours per day and died of disease and poverty, often at an early age, and though in our present era the slavery may be masked a little, by a “five-day week,” “music while you work,” “National Health Schemes” and all the other “benefits” modern Capitalism has bestowed upon us, the slavery is still there.

Our forbears who struggled with eternal hope would indeed turn in their graves could they see how their successors have deserted the class struggle for the wining and dining, and kowtowing of our present “leaders.”

As trade unionists, we do not (as The People suggests) believe that “ their outlook and their reason are about as out-of-date as the flat earthers.” We regard the struggle for higher wages as a continuous necessity whilst Capitalism lasts, and incidentally, point out that the choice of “flat earthers” is an unwise one. as it was shown then that the ruling class was opposed to the ideas of the “crackpots” of that day.

When the new “social order,” Socialism, is established, access to the goods produced will not be determined by how much we will have in our wage packets, because there will be no wage packets.

The terrific waste of man-power at present directed to the needs of Capitalism, would be ended to ensure an abundance of all the things we need plus the so-called luxuries that people may desire.

A hundred and one different occupations necessary under Capitalism would not be required if goods were produced for use instead of profit.

When such a sane system of society is established only a few “crackpots” would wish to retain the present organised chaos known as Capitalism. They indeed would be the flat earthers!

G. H.

You—and the next General Election (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will be contesting two constituencies at the next General Election —North Paddington and East Ham South.

At the last General Election a majority of you voted a Labour Government into power. Are you satisfied with what you did? What have you gained from Labour Government? In their election programmes Labour Candidates promised you “Real Peace, a Good Home, a Good Job, Good Wages, a Chance for the Children, Rising Standards of Living for the Whole Population” and “Public Ownership—the organisation and control of the nation’s wealth and resources for the benefit of the Whole Nation—is needed to give our people a Better Britain.” Do you remember these promises, or is your memory so short that you have forgotten them? Look up the Labour programmes again and then compare the accomplishments with the promises.

Real Peace, a Good Home, Rising Standards of Living; what a cruel disillusionment! The armaments race is in full swing in preparation for another war; this time with one of the erstwhile Allies. The “good homes” have vanished in face of a greater housing problem for the workers than has ever been experienced before. The standards of living are going down as prices go up and the Government is appealing to you to abandon demands for higher wages. It is also throwing its weight against you, just as Tory and Liberal Governments did, when you come out on strike. Many large industries have been nationalised—has this meant a “Better Britain” for you? In all of them there is discontent and the workers are either on strike or threatening to do so. Where an industry has been nationalised you have only one employer; when you get the sack you are done for. Miners have already learnt this to their cost.

Labour Government is fundamentally no different from Tory or Liberal Government; each of them governs on behalf of the capitalist class and for the benefit of that class.

Before you voted last time we urged you to think very seriously about what you were doing. But you did not do so; you swallowed the hoary old promises that were so often broken. Your present bewilderment and apprehension in face of a world moving steadily towards another catastrophe is the logical result of the vote you cast at the last General Election. Once again we urge you to spend a few months in serious thought before the time comes to cast your vote. Give up trusting in promises and look behind promises to the facts of the life you are compelled to live. Here are some of the facts.

Within the last fifty years the means to produce and distribute wealth have been vastly improved and expanded. So prolific have been the social productive powers that, repeatedly, steps have had to be taken to limit production, and even to destroy large quantities of essential products that have been produced in excess of the market requirements. During the same period a relatively small section of the world’s population has been enjoying unprecedented wealth and luxury, whilst the vast mass of the people have been living on or near the poverty line, harassed by the dread born out of insecurity, and suffering most when the shops are glutted with the things they need but cannot buy.

During these fifty years the world has been torn by two devastating wars, bringing death, disablement and misery to millions of people, as well as diverting the energies of a large part of the world’s population to production for war purposes—that is production that makes and feeds implements of destruction. Neither Labour, Tory nor Liberal Government can find a solution to the problem of war. You who are workers produce the munitions of war, and give up your lives on the battlefields as well as behind the official front lines. What have you gained by your sacrifice? Nothing! After the first Great War unemployment and insecurity reached dimensions never experienced before. After the second Great War the housing problem has reached a pitch that is staggering and, allied with the scanty housing ration is the scantiness and soaring prices of needful things. Just imagine what it was like when oranges, bananas and the like were cheap and plentiful. No, you have gained nothing from war except misery.

All the arts of “leaders,” diplomats and governments are incapable of abolishing war because war is an integral part of the present social order whose basis is the production of goods for sale at a profit. Wars are waged for plunder, and the source of this plunder is the wealth you produce above what it costs to keep you and your families.

You are told that we are living in difficult times and that you must curb your demands for better wages because the war has left the world short of necessary goods. Yet, since the war, fortunes have been left by those who live on your work; banquets are given by the wealthy and Continental resorts still thrive out of their visits. If you had the money you could buy anything anywhere as the wealthy do. There is no shortage for them. Have you asked yourselves why your class must pull in its belt while the wealthy class can thrive in luxury in spite of a devastated world?

These are some facts over which you should ponder before going to the polling booths next time; but they are only a beginning.

Gilmac.

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Slums, like Poverty, are still with us.

Mr. Gibson (Labour, Kennington): ". . . There is no excuse whatever for the slightest complacency, for much remains to be done; in addition, there are slums which need to be pulled down; some of us have already made a start on slum clearance. I always thought that I knew something about slum conditions, but last week, when I went into one of the worst slum areas in London, I was appalled at the conditions existing in one part of Islington. The houses themselves are so sound structurally that medical officers of health are dubious about condemning them, but inside they have been allowed to become festering dens of unhealthy life, with walls falling down, floors cracking, no proper convenience, and no water. There are thousands of houses like these, not only in London but in many other large cities, which must be dealt with. There is, therefore, no call for anyone to imagine that there is not still a great deal to be done in the building of new houses.”

(Housing Debate, 4/7/49.)

* * *

Day to Day Struggle—Matches Front.

Mr. W. Gallagher (Communist, East Fife): “ . . . In this particular matter of matches, as a pipe smoker and as one who uses a very considerable amount of matches, I ask the Economic Secretary to discuss the matter again with the Chancellor and see whether they cannot find some other way of assisting the manufacturers to meet the costs of production rather than by way of making an increase of this kind. I ask him very sincerely to withdraw this proposal.”

(Finance Bill, Proposal to raise price of matches by halfpenny a box. 22/6/49.)

* * *

Members of Nationalised Boards.

Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): “… All those who have any responsibility for airline operation are in favour of this Bill; not only that, they ask for it to be given legislative effect at the earliest possible moment. The boards of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are in favour of the Bill, and those boards are composed of business men—men who prior to coming into association with civil air transport were and in some cases still are associated with successful private enterprise …”

(Airways Corporation Bill, Second Reading, 29/6/49.)

* * *

A Man in an Absolute Muddle

Mr. J. Scollan (Labour, West Renfrew): ". . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us about the dollar crisis. What was the panacea that he had to offer for the problem facing us? Was it not the same as was offered in the 1930’s during the depression: reduce costs and increase production? Did not wages go down in the 1930’s? Had not we a lock-out in 1926 for the miners? Were not the miners locked out for weeks on end, until prices were brought down? Did that bring prosperity? It brought misery, poverty and degradation. I am surprised to hear some of the arguments today. What are the Government going to do to see that we can meet France and other countries in fair competition? It does not seem to occur to anyone that we recently decided upon a European bloc and unity. Now we are deciding to go into competition with the very people with whom we were to be united. We are hoping that instead of unemployment being in Scotland, it will be in France. That is the cure. I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if Scotland were a free and independent country—I am not pleading Nationalism— it could stand on its own economy in the world blizzard that is likely to hit us.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Bouquet for American Capitalism—from a Labourite

Mr. J. Carmichael (Labour, Glasgow, Bridgeton): “. . . My only trouble is the attempt on the part of some people to complain about the interference of American capitalism. Does anybody doubt the fact that whatever Government would have been in, there would have been need of American aid? Our complaint all along has been that America might have been more liberal in her aid, recognising the great economic sacrifices made by this country during the war. They were compelled to intervene. I do not complain about American financial intervention. I welcome it, because today in Scotland we have less unemployment than we had in the bad old days.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

Plain Words from a Tory

Major G. Lloyd (Conservative, East Renfrew): “. . . The solution is to be found in a steady courageous determination to bring down costs of production, to make it easier in a buyers’ market for our industrialists, traders and men of commerce to sell the goods, as a result of which alone they can employ the people . . . People can only be employed if our industrialists can sell goods. If they cannot do that, they cannot employ the people. There is no politics in it. It is a matter of plain economic common-sense.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Labour Leader talks Capitalist Economics

Mr. A. Woodburn (Secretary .of State for Scotland): “. . . However, one thing is certain, that the buyers’ market which has obtained since the war is ending. Just as we may have to go without some imports, so other countries may have to do without what we would like to send them. We may have to make both effort and sacrifice to stimulate trade by quality, price and delivery. If then, we are to keep vital trade going, our efforts must be directed to producing goods which the world wants at the prices at which other people are able or ready to pay. We cannot live without imports. This country must trade, or die.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Those noble slogans (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

For four solid years the British working-class has been urged, entreated, and cajoled to work harder and produce more. Hardly a day has passed without an appeal or exhortation from someone or another for increased output, until one would have thought that the very weight of words would have proved too much even for workers, and they would have thrown up the sponge in sheer weariness and disgust. The fact remains that they did not do this—rather did they put their noses to the grindstone and increase production to record heights

With what result? With one result at any rate—that the production programme of Messrs. Marshall, Sons and Co. Ltd., one of the largest groups of agricultural engineers in the country, is now being halved and more than 400 men have been dismissed. The statement made by the firm about the dismissals sums up the economics of capitalism so well that it is worth quoting in full. This is what it says:

“There is no sense in making machines that cannot be sold. Something has to be done and the first thing is to cut the programme for the time being in half and thereby at least halve our worries, liabilities, and costs.

“The cut leaves us with a number of people for whom there is no employment, and it is just not possible, at a time when costs must be cut to an absolute minimum, for those people to be given alternative employment unless that employment is going to contribute to the general economy. The first step, obviously, is to cut down on non­-productive labour, the next step is to cut down on certain productive elements. Length of service, age, past record (absenteeism, lateness, general behaviour, and performance) all have to be taken into account.

“Most of us are working hard and working properly, but there are those who are not, and we can’t afford it any longer. The war is over and the post-war boom is finished, money is tight and getting tighter. We’ve got to earn our living now and we can’t afford passengers.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/7/49.)

We wonder how those noble slogans “Work or Want” and “More from each is more for all” are sounding in the ears of those who got the sack, and in the ears of the rest of the firm’s workers who are wondering whether it will be their turn next.

Stan Hampson

The World To-Day — A Socialist Survey (1946)

From the March 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the corrupted currents of capitalist life the wage slave is never, but always to be blest. Good times are said to be coming, but they never arrive. During the war promises were lavishly spread and the workers looked forward to the cessation of hostilities eagerly, and hopefully, under the impression that the strain would then be over and they could relax to some extent from their arduous toil. They were soon disillusioned however. Exhortation was made to them to resume their weary burden, and when relief was sought through the election of a Labour Government there was no respite. The wage slave gets his fodder barely enough to work on—the difference between the working men who lost, and the working men who won the war-is soon levelled up—amid all the confusion of concentration camps, displaced persons, foes and friends, and the chaos existing everywhere, the commodity nature of labour power manifests itself: the slave must receive sufficient to generate within him what he is called upon to deliver.

The conflict now raging between the more powerful groups of capitalists has forced them to do away with internal competition as much as possible, and this is largely responsible for the growth of nationalisation. There are other causes of course, but this fact should not be lost sight of. A Labour Government puts it over for them, and what is more, fools the wage slaves into believing they are receiving Socialism. The pooling of national capitalist groups has had an effect on the international situation, which is revealed in the quarrel over the proposed loan from the United States, and the squabbles at U.N.O. The recipients of surplus value cannot reconcile their sectional interests; these stand out sharply immediately the war ends. The smaller nations are at the mercy of one or the other of the big three, the mighty economic forces are carrying society along, and forcing the thinking section of the community towards the point when they will be forced to perceive that Socialism is the only way out.

The U.N.O. Conference in London has disclosed the relative decline of European capitalism. Out of 51 nations not a quarter are Europeans.

The veil was lifted for a while during the quarrel between Bevin and Vishinsky, and the real character of Russia was revealed, as also of capitalist Britain. The sudden publicity given by Bevin to the part played by the Communists was not to Moscow’s liking. It looked at one time as if the Bear was going to hibernate, but instead he beat a strategic retreat. Whilst this was going on Molotov was telling the slaves of the Soviet Union that Russian would never allow any other nation to interfere in her internal affairs. A sense of humour is essential at these times even when discussing international bickerings.

The Russians are the victims of their own propaganda ; we are told by them that there is no unemployment in the Soviet Union. There was little unemployment in the slave states of old, or under the feudal system, but this is not saying there was no exploitation. Russian has this in common with ancient Rome and the old civilisations—she allows little or no freedom. The masses are taught and induced to believe what the ruling clique consider it is desirable they should know; their contact with the outside world is restricted; a real knowledge of what exists in other lands might make the Russian workers dangerous from the standpoint of their oppressors. The wage slaves of Russia will grasp the facts underlying their real position eventually: the machine may help to clarify their ideas, and although freedom of association with the workers of other lands may be retarded, it cannot be permanently prevented.

We are beginning to obtain a little more information from Germany about the movement there, and it is pleasing to note that the opposition to the Nazi dictators was stronger than we had been asked to believe. The ruthlessness of the Hitler regime did not prevent certain groups standing out for what they believed to be the real interests of the workers, of which freedom of speech was one. The brutality with which they were treated by the Nazi gang is a sign that Hitler feared them. Many articles have been written about Nazism, but it is hard to accept the statement that the children of Germany were educated and trained by the Nazis against the wishes of their parents. The majority of the wage slaves of the Reich were willing tools and for this reason we should appreciate all the more the courage of those who refused to bow the knee and steadfastly stood, during the whole period of Nazi supremacy, for the unity of the working class of all countries.

There are great troubles ahead; the quarrel over the control of the waterways of Europe is now rampant, with Russia taking the place of Germany. 

How cynically the Russian rulers act: they apparently consider the masses of all other countries to be as backward as the peasantry of the Steppes. They classify themselves as belonging to the freedom- loving nations whilst holding against their will vast numbers of helpless individuals, whose voices they will not allow to be heard. Let the admirers of Russia read the chapter on Pan Slavism in Marx’s “Revolution and Counter Revolution”: let them take stock of the actions of Russia in the Baltic States, and everywhere where she has been able to get a foothold, and they will realise that this totalitarian power is as much a menace to all members of the working class, who are endeavouring to escape the horrors of capitalism by establishing Socialism, as are the rest of the capitalist Powers.

The Labour Government are still continuing their policy of dangling the carrot before the donkey. When anything was wanted during the war how quickly it was brought into being. What a difference when the wage slaves desire something for themselves. Houses, for instance. What a lot of discussion precedes action. The number of samples on show cause hope to spring in the breast of those who live in over-crowded conditions. Swedish houses, Canadian houses, American houses. The specimens are of wood, brick, aluminium or plastic. The women are being questioned as to why they do not have more children. One would think even a Labour Government would get the shelters ready before asking the slaves why they do not have more offspring. The maternity wards are said to be overcrowded. What more do they want? The fact is the God of Profit must be served first, and unless and until a way can he found to enable capitalism’s deity to obtain his pound of flesh, the woes of his victims will be allowed to continue. It is plain to every observant individual that the Labour Party cannot fulfil its pledges to the electorate. There was to be no unemployment. A visit to the Labour Exchange will soon show differently. Capitalism has its own laws and these are more powerful than governments.

To take something from one section of the working class and give it to another does not decrease the amount of exploitation or the amount of surplus value that goes to the capitalist class.

The above is all the Labour Party’s proposals amount to in reality. No expropriation of the recipients of rent, interest, and profit is seriously contemplated, and until that is done nothing is accomplished of lasting benefit to those who produce the wealth of society.

Charles Lestor

". . . And too dear" (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is some months now since the present Government started its "More production” poster propaganda campaign. The first, and perhaps the most notorious, of this series of posters, was the one headed. "Work or Want.” Many workers dubbed this the "Work and Want” poster. There followed the "Ten-per-cent” poster, being an appeal by Mr. Attlee for a 10 per cent, all round increase in production. Since then there have been a number of similar large bills, pictorial and otherwise, decorating the hoardings.

The recent one carrying the doggerel:

"Some make big stuff, Some make small,

    More from each means more for all.” 

gave rise to wisecracks and humorous comment from some workers. Popular was the parody,

"Some make big stuff, some make small,

   But the boss sits around and makes sweet nothing at all.”

The latest edition in this poster campaign is far from funny. It sounds a note of warning. This poster boldly announces that it is issued by "His Majesty’s Government.” In view of the speeches and writings of some of the members of that Government in their less palmy days, one can only conclude that, either they are indulging in downright lying propaganda and know it, or else they are so stupid and ignorant of the manner in which Capitalism operates, that one can only marvel that they should have achieved their present position. 

The poster reads:

"Jobs. The danger to full employment is not producing too much, but producing too little —and too dear.”

The fact that it has been found necessary to make such a statement as this is an indication that the real cause of unemployment is fairly widely appreciated by the working class. It is fast becoming apparent to the workers that, when goods have been produced in such great quantities that the markets of the world cannot absorb them, then production will cease, or, at least, slow down. In either case it spells loss of employment to many.

The warning of the approach of that day is contained in the final phrase on this poster. “ —and too dear.” No longer is there a “sellers’ market.” The post-war day is almost past when the demand for goods is so great that extravagant prices can be asked—and obtained—for them. Governments in all parts of the world are urging their respective workers to hustle, to produce more, to work harder, to work longer, to abolish restrictive practices, etc. All are striving to make the most of that wonderful market, that dwindling market which provides such remarkable profits. And with the wealth of goods that the workers are producing, the market is becoming saturated. It is less easy to sell now. Competition is becoming more keen. That means that prices will be cut in an endeavour to undersell competitors. Lower prices mean lower profits, unless the cost of production can be lowered also. Lowering the cost of production means that, either fewer workers are to be employed to produce a given amount; the same number of workers must produce more at the same cost; or the same number of workers must produce the given amount at a lower cost. And that word "cost” means “wages” to the workers. It is, of course, the second alternative that is being urged at the moment, with just a suspicion of a hint at the third.

We note that the employers in the Ladies’ Hairdressing Trade are saying that the present price cutting war in that trade will mean that they may he unable to meet their employees’ wage demands. This line of argument will not be confined to one trade alone.

Those words "—and too dear” are indeed a warning, maybe even a threat.

W. Waters.

'Some Tell Big Lies . . .' (1948)

 From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Some make Big Stuff,

    Some make Small;

More from Each

  Is More for All." — Govt. poster.

Some Tell Big Lies,

  Some Tell Small;

The one above this 

  BEATS THEM ALL!

 

Blogger's Note: 

For more background on the government poster reproduced above, see this article by Bill Waters from the same issue of the Socialist Standard.

A call to bolster capitalism: Cripps appeals to the workers (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The problem that affects the working-class is one of poverty. It is not one of trade, good or bad. Poverty presses upon them almost as relentlessly in times of good trade as in times of trade depression. Times of prosperity are never enjoyed by workers although they read of them. What is the cause of poverty ? The private ownership of the means of wealth production. Those who own can compel workers to accept wages so low that they are barely able to restore their energies and rear families. The surplus produced by the workers above their wages is the source of the vast incomes of the capitalist class; this surplus is unpaid labour. The total product of society is divided between the workers who produce it and the capitalists who own it. There is no other participant in the division of wealth. Nothing stands between the workers and the abundance they produce but capitalist ownership. Poverty can be ended when wealth is produced solely for use and freely distributed. That 'means that we have to end production for sale and profit; in short we have to end capitalism.

There are some who give other reasons for working-class poverty and offer other plans for dealing with it. Either they have no understanding of capitalism or they have an interest in maintaining it. Sir Stafford Cripps falls into one of these two camps Before the election he stated, for the Labour Party, "the comfort of the people is the A.1 priority." Now he intends to set up a triple alliance — Trade Unions Employers and Government. — who will plan to bring "British competitive industries to the highest pitch of efficiency."—Daily Herald, September 10th, 1945. For "comfort”? No, the priority is the export trade. In his speech outlining the plan Cripps suggested that it will be difficult for people to realise that by going short now "they are in fact making sure of better and far more stable standards for the future.” What a stale feeble doctrine.' We will paraphrase it, "Put up with your poverty a little longer and shortly. —The Kingdom of Heaven." Really, Sir Stafford ought to be ashamed of himself. Isn’t he able to do better than this? Of course, this ruse has been used very successfully for decades. In 1931 the National Government used it and they obtained 14,000,000 votes. A slight variation in Germany was known as “guns before butter.' How amazing that a famous Labour leader should formulate "markets before butter,” or, what amounts to the same thing.

It is interesting to see how we are to reach this paradise; "there will be an obligation upon the workers to give of their best,” and should some agitating socialist murmur, "oh—big profits,”—that scalawag is already answered, "not for the sake of the owner's profits but for the sake of our national economic survival and prosperity." The thinking worker will realise by now that as he has to go short in the national interest and we have already shown that there are only two classes in the nation, that "national survival or prosperity” is synonymous with capitalist prosperity.

In fact, it is quite easy to see this if we examine another part of this great cali. Cripps says that the Trade Union movement "must also take in the question of markets and consumer interests.” Who is this consumer whose interest is of equal or perhaps of more importance, than the workers' wages and conditions? In the first part of this article we showed that wealth is shared by two classes only. The consumers in society are the working class and the capitalist class. If workers forego their own interests in favour of someone else, that someone else is the capitalist class, however high-sounding the words that mask their sordid interest.

Let us look more closely at the matter. We know from experience that high or low prices matter little to workers in the long run; but what of the capitalist? They are not only private consumers., but as industrialists they buy the means of production. They have to build factories, buy plant, tools and the raw materials necessary to the production of other commodities. The value of the plant and the raw materials is transferred piecemeal into the new products. The only additional value is the new labour that has been put into production. But they cannot obtain this additional value—the source of their profits—until the goods are sold. They are forced therefore to cheapen their products in order to compete in the market. This they achieve by making workers work harder, by using labour-saving machinery and by obtaining cheaper raw materials. We will give an example. Behind the agitation for more efficient coal production lies the hard economic fact that its cost as a raw material is embodied in the cost of the new or finished products. Mr. R. Summers, Chairman of J. Summers, Ltd., stated at their annual general meeting that critics of the steel industry did not fully appreciate that as the price of coal was more than double that of 1939 it had a serious adverse effect on the price of steel. —Economist, June' 9th, 1945. He was aware of the need for lower prices, “to compete in the export markets of the world,” but he emphasised,, “that everything possible must be done to lower the cost of vital raw materials.” The capitalist aim behind the struggle for lower prices is quite clear; it enables a quicker sale of products and a quicker realisation of profits.

But does Cripps' aim differ in any way from this? His aim also is to obtain lower prices and capture markets. He calls upon workers to. “give of their best.” To whom? To those who exploit them. Where will the working-class come in during the process of labour-saving? Some will clock in at the factory gates to work harder than ever before while the displaced and unnecessary workers will show their cards at the Labour Exchange. All will remain in poverty.

Cripps made one or two statements that should be noted. He warned the trade unions that; “the whole reputation of the Trade Union movement will be at stake.” and that the Government will be advised by the three party group (Triple Alliance) as to what, “ compulsions are required to see that the minimum plan is implemented.” The compulsion will be required for, “a few recalcitrant and non-co-operative members.” What does he mean by this? This is funny language from a leader of the party that only seven weeks before (July 26th) was hailing the “dawn of a new day.” This is the language of capitalism in extremity. Does Cripps intend to resemble Dr. Ley? Certainly this plan bears no resemblance to Socialism. Incidentally, it is an indication of the childish imbecility of the I.L.P. that their comment on the plan was “The Stafford Cripps plan to establish committees representing Government, employers and the workmen .... must be judged on how far the Government is really putting through a socialist plan.”—New Leader, September 15th, 1945.

The Daily Herald, described this speech of Cripps as a “great call” to the Unions. True, a cull to bolster capitalism. Three years ago Cripps visited India with proposals which were rejected. Nehru’s comment was biting; “ From our side there are going to be no approaches to the British Government, for we know that whoever comes from there speaks the same accent as of old: and treats us the same way”—Reuter, April 15th, 1942. Quoted in Forward May 2nd, 1942 (our italics).

Consider the truth of those last few words: "treats us. the same way.” . The ideas of Sir Stafford Cripps, by virtue of his position in the Labour Party,, command respect among many workers. They should examine him as critically as Nehru did. It may be claimed that he is sincere, but that is of no avail. In his pose as a Socialist he is hindering the Socialist movement by cluttering up the path of Socialist propaganda with his misconceptions and delusions.

We have always known that he is not a Socialist and now we will give him this advice. Drop your pose as a defender of working-class interests. Your job is to patch up capitalism; stick to your last.

L. J.

Figures and Facts (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Why cannot we spend as freely for peace as we spend for war?” is the subject of an article by Norman Crump, City Editor of the Sunday Times, which appeared in the Daily Sketch, for May 28th, l945. He has much to say on trade and taxation, amongst it is the following :

“In 1942 people getting not more than £500 a year earned between them £5,200,000,000. Those getting £2,000 a year or more only got in the aggregate £540,000,000, or little more than one-tenth of the money earned by the relatively poor. If the Government wants more money it must go where the money is. The people with moderate incomes have the bulk of the money to-day, and so it is unavoidable that they should have to bear the brunt of such taxation as the Government, whom they return to power thinks fit to impose.”

It is often said that “figures cannot lie.” It is easy to prove that they can, but it is easier still for liars to figure and get away with it. We are not suggesting that Norman Crump is lying, or even that his figures are incorrect. On the contrary, we accept his figures; if anything giving him credit for understatement rather than exaggeration. Impressive, however, as the quotation—and indeed the complete article—reads, we cannot blindly accept the inference he draws from the figures. Let us see how they work out.

£5,200,000,000 contrasted with £540,000,000 gives an impression of a huge difference until we compare the recipients 22,000,000 and 34,000; or until we divide the £5,200,000,000 among the 22,000,000 “workers in factory, mine or farm”; Mr. Crump’s own description of “the people with moderate incomes.” When we find that the average earnings per year are £236, or just over £4 per week. Which provides the recipients with a very meagre living nowadays.

Next Mr. Crump says : “if we are to pay for our needs it is calculated that for every two tons of goods we exported in 1938 we must export three tons after the war. But in order to export we must persuade the rest of the world to buy our goods. And no one will buy them from us if he can buy them more cheaply elsewhere. It follows that excessive taxation would cripple our export trade by making our goods too dear in overseas markets. And if our export trade were crippled we could no longer import all the food and raw-materials which we need.”

Well, the cat is out of the bag and we know the worst. Instead of the new order they were promised the workers get the same old order. The pace being stepped up to increase production one-third over pre-war rate. There is no escaping the logic of Norman Crump’s reasoning. If markets at home, or abroad, are to be secured, our prices must be lower than our competitors. Whether the cheapness is accomplished by modernizing machinery or by speeding up the workers, the latter have to bear the burden. In the first case the new machinery displaces labour, and in the second they are worn out and flung on the scrap heap more rapidly.

That is the way capitalism works. Competition for markets. Producing and selling goods cheaper than the other fellow. It is what the Allied armies have been fighting for: “Our way of life.” What is this “way of life” so many millions have sacrificed so much to preserve for so few to enjoy? A system in which the means of life are owned by a relatively small class of capitalists, and the overwhelming mass of the people, the working-class, are enslaved by them.

We all know how the system works. Competition between workers to obtain and keep jobs, disputes and strikes daily over wages and conditions, wages being clamped down around the cost of living, and unemployment reaching astronomical figures with the almost continuous periods of slump. On top of all this comes the imperative demand that production per man-hour must be increased by one-third, and a hint from Norman Crump that any Government they may elect can do no other than tax their already meagre incomes.

This problem of markets is only part of the whole set-up. This plain talking to the workers that they must work harder and produce more cheaply, merely a piece of impertinence from an idle class to the class that produces wealth in all its forms. War invariably speeds up the pace of capitalist development. New devices and adaptations to the existing machinery of production have been prolific and far-reaching. With their application to peace-time industry many workers will be displaced, and competition for jobs will be keener.

Norman Crump is not the only man to tell the workers that they are in for a hard time. Responsible men of all three political parties have been warning them that there is no soft time coming. Nationalization cannot save them. With the Labour party’s claim that only nationalized industries can attract sufficient capital to make them efficient goes all hope, nursed by the ill-informed, that nationalization is socialism. Efficiency for capitalist industry is the Labour Party’s goal, as it is the goal of the Tories, with their slogan of free enterprise. From the worker’s view-point there is little or nothing to choose between them. The vile things they say about each other are, no doubt, largely true. The good things they say of themselves together with their promises are best ignored. In any case their promises will be forgotten after they are returned. The 1945 election presents the same spectacle of unreality for the workers as any that have preceded it during the capitalist era. The shallow nature of the issues. The utter lack of any deep principles affecting the well-being of the mass of the people, and the complete indifference to indisputable evidence that our way of life is in violent conflict with our environment and the scientifically established laws of social evolution.

During the war leaders have held the centre of the stage. Their foresight and planning for months, and even years ahead have been given the widest publicity, after the event. The ensuing victory being, of course, proof of their judgment and resource.

But the leader’s job in war is quite different to that of the leader in peacetime. Slogans are easily thought out to keep the workers minds on the job. Bait in peacetime confusionist propaganda of a subtle order must be adopted if the workers allegiance to capitalism is to be retained. If his thoughts are to be turned from contemplation of the sordid nature of his existence, and the possibility of establishing a system of society where the means of life will be common property, and he with his fellow workers will be able to plan life for themselves within the limits imposed by nature only. This is going to be a full-time job for the leaders of all capitalist parties. But they are on the losing side, because their ideas, when examined, are empty of realism. Like Norman Crump they can only offer a choice between two forms of capitalist government, neither of which release the workers from wage-slavery; and the liability to military service in defence of capitalist rights.

F. Foan

Editorial: A budget secret revealed (1949)

Editorial from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tories praised Sir Stafford Cripps for his “honest and courageous" budget. Loyal Labour M.P.’s rallied round but sadly thought of the awkward questions they would have to answer when next they addressed their constituents. Some blamed him and his budget for causing the Labour Party to lose control of Middlesex and London in the County Council elections. Other aggrieved Trade Union M.P’s, and of course the Communists, raged against Sir Stafford and demanded what they call a "Socialist” budget. Practically everyone assumed that Cripps is the man solely responsible for what the budget contained and it falls to us to reveal that this is far from the truth. But before we divulge our secret and lay the blame where it justly belongs let us glance at what the Cripps budget did. and at the critics who demand a “Socialist” one in its place.

The principal budget changes are the increased prices the workers will have to pay for butter, meat, cheese and margarine because the government will not increase the subsidies on these articles; a reduction of 1d. a pint on beer that the workers drink, and of 2s. a bottle on light wines that the workers don’t drink; an increase of telephone charges; an increase of death duties on the estates of the wealthy; a concession to companies that allows them an increase of the initial tax free amount they may set aside for the depreciation of plant and machinery. .

What particularly shocked the Labour Party rank and hie was that "their own government," while insisting still that workers ought to refrain from wage claims except on special grounds, should itself raise the cost of food by £70 million a year and add insult to injury by the 1d. a pint oil beer and by various concessions to companies in the matter of taxation; and all of this in face of the urgent pre-budget plea by the trade unions for the cost of living to be lowered by abolition of some of the purchase taxes.

Guns before butter.

Now why did the budget contain these things, and not others more to the liking of Sir Stafford Cripps’ critics in his own Party? His own explanation ran on familiar lines. The government, he says, has to meet increased expenditure on the social services (the National Health scheme, etc.), and on expanding armaments to meet the new threats to world peace, and it cannot do this if at the same time it reduces the workers’ cost of living. Or to put it another way, you cannot devote more men and materials to the production of food, and of exports to buy food, if you have decided to take more men and materials for the armed forces and the manufacture of armaments (as a deceased foreign politician once said, "Guns before butter”). Cripps forestalled another line of attack by insisting that it is not possible for his government to go any further in the direction of soaking the rich to help the poor. The rich must be left more or less with what they have and the poor must be patient until such time as they have greatly increased the amount of wealth produced and then some of it will come to them.

This argument fails to satisfy the critics;.they feel there is a catch in it Arithmetically considered, the critics obviously have an unanswerable case. If the rich were brought down to a common level the poor could have more. If armies and armaments were reduced or abolished more food, clothing and houses could be produced. If rent, interest and profits were reduced or eliminated wages could be raised. But we are not dealing with an arithmetical problem. What we are dealing with is the working of a social system—capitalism—and nobody has yet done these things with capitalism or shown how they can be. done.

There have been many Labour governments in different parts of the world but not one of them has ever done these things. They have all put forward the same excuses as Sir Stafford Cripps for not doing them.

Cant from the Communists.

The clearest example of all is that of Russia where a Communist government has had power uninterruptedly for over thirty years. Lenin promised that immediately they got power all managers, officials, etc., would be brought to approximately the workers’ wage. It has never been done. Instead there is the greatest inequality between the masses and the wealthy minority. The British Communists demand of the Labour government in Britain something that the Russian communist government has not done and has no intention of doing. Let the Communists explain why there are rich and poor in Russia—why not soak the Russian millionaires to help the Russian poor? And why not abolish the turnover tax (like the British purchase tax) so that prices paid by the Russian workers could be reduced? Russian State concerns have to make a profit and pay over part of it to the government; and the State concerns and the government pay out vast sums as interest to the bondholders. Why then does not the Russian government abolish profit and bondholding and use the proceeds to raise wages or reduce prices?

The answer to all these questions is that where you have production of commodities for sale and profit-making, where you have the wages system and property incomes, you have capitalism, and those who administer capitalism are forced within very narrow limits to do those things that capitalism requires, those things and no others. Where you have capitalism you nave rich and poor. Where you have capitalist competition for markets you have international tension and must maintain armaments.

It is not our purpose in this article to argue the practicability of Socialism but merely to hammer home the lesson that at present we (and the Russian and all other workers) live under capitalism and from that all else flows. Budgets are the financial arrangements made for the conduct of the Capitalist State and it is childish muddle-headedness to ask that they be transformed in “Socialist” budgets. It is equally unreal to ask that the British Labour government or the Russian Communist government should transform their respective forms of capitalism into Socialism. The great majority of the workers so far do not understand and therefore do not want Socialism and it cannot be imposed upon them against their will and understanding. 

Now we can reveal why the budget is as it is. Sir Stafford Cripps it was who put pen to paper after studying the problems before him, but capitalism and its forces dictated to him what the problems were and the shape his budget had to take. Beside him and backing him stand his fellow ministers, and behind them and sharing the responsibility are all those Labour Party propagandists, delegates and rank and file members who thought that they could run capitalism in a non-capitalist way. They are learning the hard way that they can’t, and are wasting precious years to do it. Any member of the S.P.G.B. could have told them what would happen to their attempt to run capitalism, as indeed we shall remind them again when eventually a disgruntled working class rejects them and they retire to hold a sad and angry inquest into the causes of their failure. They will probably blame Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps as last time they blamed MacDonald and Snowden but the blame and responsibility will equally be their own.