Dead Man Writing (2005)

Book Review from the December 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Philosophical Arabesques. By Nikolai Bukharin. Pluto Press. 2005. £35 (hardback)

While Bukharin was in prison, awaiting the show trial that would lead to him being sentenced to death and executed in 1938 on preposterous, trumped-up charges of sabotage and treason, he chose to spent the time writing books. One of these was on philosophy. It was found in the Kremlin archives after the fall of state capitalism, published in Russia and now in English translation.

Bukharin was one of the more interesting and able of the Bolsheviks. Even before the Bolshevik seizure of power he had written a couple of books which are quite acceptable as an expression of a Marxist point of view: Imperialism and the World Economy and The Theory of the Leisure Class (a criticism of the Austrian school of marginalist economics), both written in 1914 when he was 26. After the Bolsheviks came to power he was an obvious candidate to codify Bolshevik theory; which he did in The ABC of Communism (written with E. Preobrazhensky) (1919), The Economics of the Transformation Period (1920), and The Theory of Historical Materialism (1921) which are sophisticated defences of Bolshevik theory and practice using Marxian terminology and concepts.

As a member of the Politburo, Bukharin also played a political role. In the struggles amongst the Bolshevik leaders following the death of Lenin in 1924, he supported the policy of consolidating the Bolshevik regime internally (as opposed to trying to foment world revolution) favoured by Stalin and most members of the Russian party. In fact, as editor of Pravda in the 1920s, it fell to him to come up with a theoretical defence of this policy.

It can even be said that he, even more than Stalin, elaborated the theory of "socialism in one country" so reviled by Trotskyists. To do so he had to identify "socialism" with the state sector of the economy, i.e. with what he had once called "state capitalism" (he had temporarily been one of the "leftist blockheads" denounced by Lenin in 1918 for opposing the Bolsheviks' economic policy of the time as "state capitalism": of course it was state capitalism, retorted Lenin, adding that, what's more, state capitalism would be a step forward for economically backward Russia). He opposed the adoption of Stalin's policy of forced industrialization and collectivisation of agriculture in 1929 and so fell from favour, but remained a leading figure in the regime. However, once Stalin decided in the mid-1930s to eliminate all potential rivals he was a doomed man.

Perhaps surprisingly, Philosophical Arabesques represents a return to his earlier Marxist approach to things, in the tradition of Plekhanov who wrote extensively on materialism and problems of philosophy. He does follow rather slavishly Lenin's philosophical views as expressed in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908) and Philosophical Notebooks (1915), but these were not all that different from those of other pre-WWI Social Democrats in the Marxist tradition. The trouble was that Lenin was intellectually intolerant and in his 1908 book violently denounced other materialists, who didn't agree with his version of materialism, for being not materialists but crypto-idealists, solipsists (people who believe that only their self exists) and what he called "fideists" (religious).

Thus, it is rather off-putting to find in the opening chapters of Bukharin's book the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume described as a "subjective idealist" and a "solipsist", whereas all he had done was to question whether or not such a thing as absolute knowledge was possible (a proposition also challenged, even if from a different angle, by dialectics). Hume - and the others in the British empiricist tradition which includes Bertrand Russell and AJ Ayer, both declared atheists - were not "idealists" in the sense of believing that the outside world only existed in the mind and were certainly not so mad as to think that only they existed.

They are certainly open to criticism for their approach of starting from the point of view of an isolated philosopher sitting in his study trying to work out, on the basis of his personal sense-perceptions, if he really can either know or believe that the outside world and other people exist; instead of from the point of view of humans living and producing as a social and socialised group - a criticism Bukharin also makes of them, pointing out that the fact that the isolated philosopher uses words to think shows in itself that other humans must exist since language is a product of human society. But to call them names that suggest they deny the existence of a world outside the human mind is absurd, in fact a display of ignorance.

Bukharin is more at home with German philosophy (which really was idealist) - Kant, Schelling, Fichte, Hegel. Although he mentions Hegel in every chapter, he provides a balanced view of his system, warts and all (and some of the warts were enormous) and of what Marx took from it as its "rational core".

Basically, what Marx retained and applied to the real world as opposed to the world of ideas was (1) that you should not judge by empirical appearances alone (otherwise you might think that the Sun went round the Earth) but try, by theoretical analysis, to get at what might be behind them, (2) that everything is an inter-related part of the whole that is the universe, and (3) that everything is in a constant process of being transformed into something else, but that this change is not always continuous but involves leaps and breaks.

Add to this the traditional materialist view, that non-living nature preceded living forms of nature, that as an animal capable of abstract thought and consciousness of self humans evolved from animals without this capacity, and that mind and consciousness cannot exist apart from a living body, and you have "dialectical materialism".

Whether dialectics is the basic law of motion of the universe (as Bukharin argues) or a human description and interpretation of what they observe in nature remains a subject of debate, evenamongst Marxists.

Bukharin's book would be of interest merely as the writing of someone who knows he is soon going to be killed but it is also worth reading in its own right as a work of philosophy. Bukharin obviously thought this an important subject to choose it as his last writing. He even asked to be executed by poison "like Socrates". Stalin let him be shot.

Adam Buick

News From Wales (1958)

From the March 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

For many generations the manufacture of steel and tin-plate, together with coal mining, has been the means of livelihood for the vast majority of South Wales workers (see article “How to attract workers" Socialist Standard, May, 1957). Now, thousands of men with years of accumulated skill in the production of steel and tin-plate and not without a certain pride in their craft, despite the notorious arduousness of the industry, find themselves redundant.

At the time of writing, approximately 7,500 are out of employment—with more to follow. The reason given is that the industry is going through a process of modernisation. Automation is, of course, inevitable under a system of mass production and it is not a question of whether we approve of it or not. No Socialist would support a system of manufacture which takes the maximum toll of flesh and blood as the tinplate industry in Wales has done throughout the years.

The concentration of production now taking place in four super factories has improved in some respects the lot of a much smaller labour force. This smaller army, geared to high speed machinery, has already created new records in steel tonnage. Stocks are mounting quicker than they can be sold.

It is obvious that the Steel Company has been forced to increase its investments in modem plant whilst attempting to decrease the labour force. The snag is, of course, that more and more invested Capital needs to be utilized in the attempt to capture markets by means of quantity and cheapness, whilst this very method tends to decrease their rate of profit, compared with the old days of cheap flesh and blood with a minimum of machinery. In the meantime, even their super factories have had to slow down.

Sometime or other demand will no doubt rise again, but these ups and downs present a problem that is insoluble within capitalism.

The army of the unwanted grows. Once again we are back to the dole queues. Once more the pot of jam is making its appearance more frequently on the family table to the exclusion of more sustaining fare. Once more the working class house-wife is forced to deny her family in order to pay the rent Only this time the rents, especially on the Council Estates, are very much on the up and up.

There is, of course, no way out of such a situation apart from taking over the means of production. When this happens the shiny new factories will be really utilized. They will be manned by workers with a new interest in their work. Work will be a necessary task shared by all so that all can obtain the benefit of leisure and product The product itself will be freely distributed so that surpluses and unemployment will no longer arise.

In the meantime, the Welsh steel worker is issuing distress signals to his Union leaders. Councillors and MP.’s, all of whom are scuttling around interviewing Government Ministers, etc. The clergy are praying for the workers too. Congregations suffer when there are upheavals in the community pattern as occurred during the last depression when thousands emigrated to other parts of the country.

The members of the Socialist Party in Wales continue to put forward the case to the best of their ability. It is up to the workers to analyse it. They are going to have plenty of time on their hands in which to do so.

W. Brain

Exhibition Review: The ABC of Capitalism (2017)

Riiko Sakkinen

Exhibition Review from the February 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We live in a capitalist world. Capitalism defines our society, economy, politics and culture. However, it’s not a school subject in the UK or any other capitalist country.’ So runs the publicity for an exhibition ‘The ABC of Capitalism’ by Riiko Sakkinen, currently on display at Bury Art Museum, which is also described as containing ‘the School of Capitalism for kids’. This sounds potentially intriguing, but it all turns out to be a bit of a let-down.

The exhibition has a lengthy list of varieties of capitalism, including state capitalism, but no explanation of any of these. A map of the world states that there are 204 capitalist countries, and only two that are not capitalist, Cuba and North Korea, but there is no account of why this is the case or what system these countries have instead. ‘Freedom is a Free Economy’, announces a slogan, but this is meaningless as there is no explanation of what counts as a free economy. There is a display of supposed Heroes of Capitalism, from Adam Smith and Henry Ford to Thatcher, Reagan and Deng Xiaoping. A single out-of-context quote from each of these is used, but nothing is said to show why they are considered ‘heroes’. Pinochet is one of them, but it is not stated that he was a dictator who had his opponents tortured and executed. There is no reference anywhere to two of the defining characteristics of capitalism, wages and profit. But in a sense there would be no point in having a school curriculum along such lines, as the social and economic status quo is already implicit in education and the media, anyway.

Does a look at Sakkinen’s website (www.riikosakkinen.com) help at all? Sort of, as it says a bit about his Turbo Realism movement. But consider these quotes from it: Turbo Realism ‘is against the globalized capitalism and all other capitalisms’ but it ‘will be against the post-capitalism, and we will be the first artists interned in its camps’ and its goal ‘is to support the revolutionary forces in the society to establish a global socialist dictatorship’. Probably he is being deliberately provocative, disagreeing with himself, advocating one position and its opposite too.

The exhibition states that many people do not understand capitalism, but it is not clear that Sakkinen understands it either, and little that is said here will help. It may be claimed that art need not spell everything out, but it surely needs to say something more than is done in this ABC.      

Paul Bennett

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

From the May 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

A typical example has come our way recently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. Brain

About Productivity (1957)

From the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Head Office on Sunday, November 25, the film on show was about production and productivity under the title “Room for Discussion.” On the screen were the late Arthur Deakin, speaking for trade unionists, an employer, Mr. Graham Hutton, economist, and Mr. Speakman, of the British Productivity Council. The film showed them taking questions from the audience and giving their separate views. In fact there was little disagreement among the panel or those of the audience who put questions, and none at all about any vital question concerning production problems because no vital question was raised. All the discussion took place within the narrow framework of accepting the present social arrangements and seeing what small things could be done within that framework. Nobody raised the question of the desirability of the kind of things that are produced, such as armaments, nobody dealt with the ownership of factories or division of the product, or wondered whether the class relationship of employers and employed might have some bearing, and nobody mentioned the rest of the world outside this country except as a place in which British exports have to be sold and could be more easily sold if cheaper.

About the biggest suggestion made was that production would go up and costs be lowered if more workers went over to shift working so that the machines could be worked day and night. The panel smoothly agreed that this would be a good thing provided that the workers received some extra pay. It is understandable that the panel took it easily—they don’t work shifts—but none of the audience put the workers’ point of view about the objections to early, late and night work.

Nobody put the Socialist case that the only way to obtain a really big increase of goods and services useful to the human race (as against the comparatively trifling increases of output per worker that is all the productivity expects can show) is to free millions of workers from their present task of producing armaments, and running Capitalist financial and bureaucratic operations, so that they could be employed on socially useful work. In this way production could be doubled, but the Film Panel and audience seemingly have never even noticed the things that ought to hit them in the eye. They were all conditioned to accepting Capitalism as a necessity for all time.

The audience at our Head Office when the film was shown took part in an interesting and useful discussion of all the things the film ignored.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Art Racket Fairy-Godmother (1957)

From the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

No, fellow-worker, this does not concern you except in one important way. When you read in the Press £27.000 paid for a painting by Corot, £25,000 for one by Murillo, £2,300 for a copy of “Comrade” William Morris’s Kelmscott Chaucer, thousands of pounds for old silver, jewels, porcelain, etc., you may wonder what Fairy Godmother has visited the buyers. But would you believe it, you are the Fairy Godmother. It all comes from the profits you are bound to make for the Boss. Works of fine art and the fine dwellings to put them in are part of your contributions to His Imperial Majesty the Boss for the privilege of working your life out for wages. Maybe here and there, of all the thousands of works of art sold, a very small proportion go into public museums and galleries, and 90 per cent. of the time , these Galleries are open, you are at work doing the Fairy . Godma act and so your cultural uplift gets the go-bye. When next you go to the Public Library, look at the fine art journals such as The Connoisseur, etc., and you will see this is not just soap box oratory, for from cover to cover you will see works of art and craftsmanship for sale; charming things to solace the Captains of Industry while they wipe the sweat off their brows. Yes, it goes very well with roast pheasant and champagne! Not many crumbs of the sort fall to you from the Rich Man’s table. But be of good cheer for you have just had Christmas, with peace and goodwill to all men.

Now come along and make a New year’s resolution, to find out what is behind the art luxury rackets which run parallel with your lives of rush and insecurity. We can help you; read our case and get to work to make a world of Peace and Goodwill. Compliments of the season.

Ted Kersley

Gradually modernising (2017)

Book Review from the February 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Modernity Britain, 1957–62', by David Kynaston. (Bloomsbury £14.99)

This is the latest in Kynaston’s massive history of Britain from 1945 to 1979. It is a detailed combination of political, social, cultural and economic history, with a lot of reference to and quotations from autobiographies and contemporary diaries.

1957 saw Harold Macmillan becoming Prime Minister; John Lennon met Paul McCartney for the first time; the causal link between smoking and cancer was confirmed; ball-by-ball radio commentaries on cricket Tests began; and there was a national bus strike. As the years passed, Blue Peter, Coronation Street and Z Cars started on TV, supermarkets became much more numerous, betting shops and commercial bingo halls opened, and many pubs and cinemas closed. In 1962 the Crazy Gang had their last performance, Accrington Stanley were wound up, the Beatles got a contract with EMI, and the centenary of ‘The Blaydon Races’ was celebrated.

Two well-known political quotations bookended the period. In July 1957 Macmillan announced that ‘most of our people have never had it so good’, and in June 1962 Harold Wilson stated that ‘the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing’. It is hard to imagine claims along these lines being made today.

Living standards improved for most people. Between 1951 and 1958 the average earnings for industrial workers had grown by over 20 percent in real terms. In the second half of 1957, 56 percent of adults owned a TV set and 12 percent a fridge, and by 1960 82 percent of homes had a TV and 21 percent a fridge. Yet plenty of people still lived in poverty, below National Assistance levels. There were massive programmes of slum clearance and the building of flats (such as Park Hill in Sheffield and the high-rise blocks in Glasgow), but in 1960 there were still 850,000 homes categorised as unfit and slum clearance rates were running decades behind the plans. This was part of more general moves towards town planning, the restructuring of town and city centres and the building of big road schemes, such as Birmingham’s Inner Ring Road.

A few women were becoming prominent, for instance as journalists or newsreaders. But it was generally assumed that most married women would stay at home rather than work, and women on the whole earned far less than men and were more likely to be doing unskilled jobs. Marriage was the norm, and less than three percent of households were lone parents with dependent children. While many men expected their wives to just cook and clean, ‘the sociological evidence was mounting that marriages as a whole were becoming more companionate.’ The oral contraceptive pill could be prescribed from the end of 1961, but only to married women.

Immigration was a live issue, though in 1958 there were just 165,000 non-white immigrants in Britain. The Notting Hill riots that summer were ‘the most serious civil unrest of the decade’, as mobs of white youths rampaged through the streets. Many ads for rented flats stated ‘No coloured people’, and there was discrimination in employment as well. By 1961 it was being claimed that prejudice against West Indians in Birmingham was leading to ‘neighbourhood segregation’; there were no more than 35,000 West Indians in the city.

The Conservative election victory in October 1959 was their third in a row, and led to many arguments within the Labour Party. It was claimed that nationalisation had been the most damaging issue, and Hugh Gaitskell reiterated that it was not intended to take every private firm or small shop into state ownership. In 1957 a motion on unilateral nuclear disarmament had been defeated at a Labour conference; Kynaston says that this was the moment when Labour and ‘radical’ ideas began to become detached from each other, but it needs to be asked how radical Labour had ever been. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was set up in early 1958, and the Committee of 100 in 1960.

This is a very wide-ranging history of the period, but it has little to say about inequality and the lives of the richest people in Britain. 

Paul Bennett

Dissing the Establishment (2017)

From the February 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

The resignation of the UK’s chief representative to the EU, Ivan Rogers, gives us an unusual glimpse into the inner workings of government.  His very public (if formally veiled) criticisms of government ministers goes against the normal practice of confidentiality and secrecy that lies at the heart of the relationship between civil servants and ministers.  This suggests not only a breakdown of the machinery of government, but also highlights the changes of the personnel in office, as well as the enormous difficulty of the choices facing politicians in charge of responding to the Brexit vote.

The UK civil service has been in existence since 1855, established to provide permanent personnel to administer government, and to end corruption and patronage, following the Northcote-Trevelyan Report.  This provided for civil servants to be permanent and impartial, serving through changes in ministry, irrespective of the political complexion of the government of the day.  The watchword became that civil servants advise, and ministers decide. 

Compare this to the United States, where the President appoints most senior offices directly, and Donald Trump has simply handed direct control of the state to people who are themselves direct capitalists: giving state power to one faction of the capitalist class and a world class opportunity for industrial scale corruption.

The UK system worked reasonably well, within its own terms, providing professionalism at the heart of the increasingly complex government machine, as the size of the state expanded through the first half of the 20th century.  In socialist terms, we understand the state to be the executive committee of the ruling class, the capitalists.  The permanent Civil Service, however, did not have to come from individuals who were themselves personally capitalists (indeed, an absence of a personal business interest meant that they could effectively remain neutral between business interests).  The civil servants, however, did remain personally close to the established interests of the country, going to the same schools and universities, intermarrying with their families and pursuing the same hobbies, entertainments and social activities: all the superficial markers that some associate with the 'upper classes' of British society.

This came to be termed 'the Establishment' in the 1960s, a term which is useful for every outsider group to rail against, not least because of the looseness of its definition.  Everyone currently in office becomes ‘the Establishment’ by default.  Obviously, in the UK this appearance was aided by the rump hereditary aristocracy that continued to haunt the corridors of power, providing many of the personnel for the lumpen political class.  Within these terms, the ‘chummocracy’ of David Cameron was a last hurrah for such an 'Establishment'. 

Today’s lumpen politicians come through slightly different structures: the established political parties provide career routes (start as an intern, advisor, get a council seat, stand for parliament), and they are kept in touch with the wider needs of the capitalist class through the open corruption of the revolving door, where politicians go on to work as directors or advisors to firms with links with the government, or on the boards of charities and quangos.

Saloon bar bores

The fallout from Brexit is that the Saloon Bar Bore wing of the Tory Party has had power fall into its lap.  The wider chummocracy has always been largely value-free: believing only in taking and holding office for its own sake.  To do that, they’ve needed to recruit true believers, people who can convincingly reach out to win the electoral coalition needed to get to office: otherwise known as fruitcakes and headbangers.  Professional ideologues, often from outside the social circles of the 'Establishment', they espoused the necessary Euroscepticism and free market fundamentalism to keep the shopkeepers, farmers and associated big fish in small ponds onside.

Now that they are in charge, they are coming up against both the received wisdom of the bureaucracy of state, as well as the enduring interests of many very large and wealthy firms, not to mention the competing interests of capitalists within a large and necessarily byzantine international structure.  So, they are taking to shooting the messenger, and blaming the officials.  Further, faced as Theresa May is with making some difficult and potentially career-ending choices, she has taken the best politician's way out: and avoided taking those choices for as long as possible.

Rogers’ farewell missive ended with a reaffirmation of the traditional role of the civil servant:

  'I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power.  I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them.  I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.'

The only extraordinary thing about that is that basic principles only need to be publicly asserted when they are under strain.  The clear point is that it has been taken by most observers to mean that the ministers Rogers has had to deal with have been displaying muddle-headed thinking with ill-founded arguments.  Put another way, the rational point of view of the outsiders is greatly at odds with the rational point of view of career civil servants and the general interest they represent.  That, far from being permanent, Rogers has had to go, indicates where the real balance of power lies, and it is with the elected side of the state, not the entrenched bureaucracy as some like to believe.

Panic on the bridge

Rogers’ letter also shows how difficult the Brexit planning is, as he notes:

'We do not yet know what the government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK's relationship with the EU after exit.'

Given formal notice of Brexit is due to be given next month, this is an incredible thing to be saying.  Senior diplomatic staff cannot function without direction being given from the very top. If May is not only hiding her negotiating strategy from the public, but also from the officials most in need of political direction, that is a clear sign that it is not Machiavellian, high stakes poker bluffing that is going on, but blind political panic.  Clearly, the Saloon Bar Bores, finding themselves in office, worry they may not be in power.

The real gem given to us by Rogers is this:

'Contrary to the beliefs of some, free trade does not just happen when it is not thwarted by authorities: increasing market access to other markets and consumer choice in our own, depends on the deals, multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral that we strike, and the terms that we agree.'

This is not the voice of a theoretician, but a practical hands-on international trade negotiator.  This has been the socialist case for decades: that markets are not spontaneous, but stem from the infrastructure put in place by the politically dominant class to serve their interests.  It is this reality that is coming into hard collision with the utopians and ideologues who have made up the backwaters of the Tory party.  They need to believe that markets just happen when people are left alone by the state, that they are the natural state of hard-working responsible individuals, because that is the attractive and (in some ways) egalitarian appeal of capitalism to those who are not themselves capitalists ('it could be you, if you work hard enough') and the ideological stick used to justify attacking welfare and the public sphere.

It is this contrast between the Tory utopians (and the small proprietors whose worldview they most closely match) and the big capitalists with their global worldview that lies beneath much of the current upheaval in politics.  In the end, the Saloon Bar Bores will find that the enemy is not 'The Establishment', but the wealth and power of bigger capitalists, and they will have to accommodate to the needs of British industry and finance, one way or another, probably wrapped up in Union Flag gift paper. Otherwise they would need to mobilise a nationalist force.  Such a movement would also have to shackle the working class and any large scale union activity.  Either way, they have nothing to offer the working class, other than not being the current 'Establishment' that oppresses them.

Unlike leftists and populists, socialists do not look to the superficialities of the Establishment theory, and its personnel, but look to the actual underlying class interests that structure society.  Whoever’s name is on the brass plate of public office, they are going to have to find themselves working in such a way as to protect profits.  At most they can play one interest off against another, to persuade us all to join in the bunfight.

The lesson is clear, then.  Fundamental change cannot happen without the exercise of political power, and cannot happen without depriving capitalists of their property and profits. 

Pik Smeet

"The Life of Parnell": A Review. (1914)

Book Review from the December 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

To those who are interested in politics Mr. O’Brien’s work will be found instructive. To the Socialist it is doubly interesting, because it brings direct evidence in support of many of his contentions. The working class must, before they can establish Socialism, control the political machine; the history of the Irish Movement, especially during Parnell’s time, has been a record of the efforts of a party to achieve this for a specific object—Home Rule. These efforts took the form of appeals, arguments, demonstrations, and obstruction. The same tactics, with the exception of the last, as the Labour Party adopts. The plain fact that the Irish have not even yet succeeded, though more than half a century has covered their efforts, proves the absurdity of the Labour Party’s pretensions.

The Irish Party was a purely capitalist party, and as such, its success could only mean a change of rulers for the working class of Ireland. The latter had but to examine the condition of the working class of England, or indeed, the workers of any capitalist country, to see that the human parasite makes no distinction in the degree or nature of his exploitation, between the slaves of his own or any other nation.

Mr. O’Brien frequently refers to the object of the Irish Party under Parnell as being revolutionary. It was, of course, nothing of the kind. There has never been anything else in Irish affairs but a quarrel between two sections of the ruling class for the right to govern the Irish working class. Of what minor importance they consider the quarrel is shown in the rapidity with which they patched it up on the outbreak of the present war.

When Parnell first entered Parliament he found the Party composed of men afraid to mention Home Rule, so ultra-respectable were they. Like the Labour Party they were fearful of giving offence. Parliamentary customs, procedure, and conventionality were sacred to them. Like them they acted on the assumption that moderation was best, that they should refrain from actions that might embarrass the Government. And, indeed, the course of moderation and restraint would be best if their object was to keep on good terms with society, or (in the case of the Labour Party) to ensure the goodwill of the Liberals that they might retain their seats—and salaries.

Parnell had been taught to hate the English and cared nothing for their regard; consequently it was easy for him to see how ridiculous was the Irish policy and methods. With the help of Mr. Biggar he systematically obstructed business in the House, earning not only the condemnation of the Government but of his own party as well. His object was to gain the support of the extremists, and, if possible, to reconcile the differences between the various sections. Isaac Butt unintentionally assisted him in the first, when at the instigation of English and Irish members, he reprimanded him for bis conduct in the House. Butt fought strenuously for his position, the forces against him, however, particularly the Fenians, were too strong.

Parnell became the leader and idol of the Irish; and although as ignorant and superstitious as the workers he led, he inspired confidence and received a ready support. Many labour leaders resemble him in this respect, though they lack his audacity and courage. A working class not understanding their class position is the natural prey of these "Born Leaders,’’ whether the latter are conscious of the fraud they perpetrate or not. Parnell openly boasted that he "led a nation.” When differences arose over Captain O’Shea's candidature, he won over the rank and file by merely proclaiming, without evidence of any kind, that he "held a Parliament for Ireland in the hollow of his hand.” On these and other occasions be allowed his ambitious nature to be seen, and showed that he could stoop, as other capitalist politicians, to the usual political confidence tricks. The fact that Parnell was incorruptible and sincere did not make his cause genuine. There are politicians in every party equally sincere, yet from a scientific standpoint equally in error. The workers cannot afford to waste time sorting out the conscious frauds from the mere sentimental babblers. Their wisest course is to ignore the leader and tackle the question on its merits: by careful thought it is easy to discriminate between the sound and the unsound.

Ireland, says Mr. O' Brien, more than any other nation, is addicted to hero-worship. If that is true the reason must lie in their greater ignorance. But hero-worship is common to every country; demagogues with plausibility and eloquence, when they discover the language that tickles the ears of the workers, are promptly idolised. For every hundred that worshipped Parnell a thousand worshipped Gladstone, and have transferred their reverence to his successors —all of them equally fraudulent and hypocritical, and like the Welsh peace and war god of to-day, covering their imposition with false sentiment, vehemence, and professed sympathy for the poverty-stricken toilers.

The ruling class does not rely on one demagogue to “lead a nation,” there are many volunteers and much competition, with almost as many policies and palliatives—most of them quite shallow and easily exposed. It is the workers themselves, by their adulation, that create personalities; that make a man great in the modern sense. When the "Hero” has gone the way of all flesh, the false and unscientific ideas that he foisted on an over-credulous working class are examined by those who come after with coolness and deliberation, and their verdict must necessarily be that those associated with it were either knaves or dupes. There is only one way for the worker to escape this verdict: to study Socialism, when he can no longer be fooled. Once understanding his class position, he has only himself to blame if he so far loses his self-respect as to act against his convictions.

In more than one respect the Industrial Unionist resembles the Fenians of Parnell’s time. Inconsistency is a characteristic of both. As an organisation the Fenians denounced political action, yet their members were at liberty to support Parliamentary candidates; the same applies to every Industrial Union. The Fenians wasted their time and energy in boycotts, outrages, and attempts to release prisoners, which even when successful merely gave a local or individual benefit here and there. The most that the outrages did was quite unintentional on their part; they strengthened the hands of the Parliamentary party, as Parnell discovered when the Land Bill was introduced. The Industrial Unionist copies the lawlessness of the Fenians with sabotage, but has never yet—even in the United States—scored any success worth mentioning.

The constitutional weapon is condemned by them because the class that controls it use it in their own interest They blame the weapon, when they should rather blame themselves for not organising to control it, instead of leaving it in the possession of their enemies. The machinery and forces that enable a class to govern are obviously instruments of oppression, and must be subverted before the oppressed class can be free. Precedents are only of value when the conditions are the same. The political machine has never helped the working class because they have never controlled and used it; they have never been conscious of the necessity.

The Industrial Unionist pretends to think that a revolutionary working-class party, politically organised, is an impossible conception. He purposely declines to see the wide difference that exists between the Socialist Party and the pseudo-Socialists and Liberal Labourites. But this blindness is only assumed to cover the weakness of his case in comparison with Socialism. He thinks that if he asserts the impossibility or non-existence of such a party often enough and loud enough, he will hide the fact that lie has never yet been able to show how, without political organisation of the workers, the machinery of government can be controlled or rendered ineffective.

The life of Parnell is a story of political machination and trickery. Not one of the actors escaped altogether the defiling influence of the struggle for power. It is a permanent example, exposing the trickery and cunning of capitalist politicians. Because Parnell's policy was effective, from the Irish capitalists’ view point. every possible means were adopted to crush him both inside and outside of Parliament. Gladstone imprisoned him, sanctioned a mission to Rome with the object of using the influence of the Vatican to turn the Irish priests against him and undermine his influence with the workers,  and seized with avidity upon the opportunity that Parnell's relations with Mrs. O'Shea gave to drive him out of public life. “The Irish Royal and Patriotic Union.’’ with funds supplied by men so high placed as to be "above suspicion,” employed Piggott, who they knew to be a scoundrel, to find or manufacture the evidence that would implicate Parnell in the Phoenix Park murders. "The Times” transactions with Sheridan showed the eagerness of the Press to help in the general movement to crush him, and sanctimonious pharisees of the Hugh Price Hughes type, while they gave—for an income—a willing support to the system that produces immorality in abundance, condemned him as unfit for public life in England —so pure is it.

There is not the slightest doubt that capitalist politicians will exercise all their cunning against the working class party as it advances. To-day any old tale goes down with the majority of the workers; as their knowledge increases and class hatred becomes general, the wiles of the professional politician will become more subtle, but the Socialist philosophy, based upon science and translated into definite principles, is proof against every form of trickery. It calls upon the workers to organise for Socialism only; to carry on the work of organisation openly; to keep the movement clean and free from suspicion, and to work zealously and fearlessly for the overthrow of capitalism, with all its needless poverty, and the establishment of that system wherein the means of life will be owned and controlled by those who use them. 

F. Foan

Scissors & Paste. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we are doing good work for our class the enemy is loudest in abuse of our conduct. Indeed, the only condition upon which the capitalists will speak well of us is that we cease to do battle with them and so desert our cause. Therefore we take a pardonable pride in the hostility which our propaganda provokes in the ranks of the exploiters, for we know it is the highest compliment they can pay us. This, however, is by no means the attitude of those “respectable and adaptable” citizens, the “Labour” M.P.’s. The ruling class speaks well of them. They are, in fact, so beloved of the Liberal enemy that he will, an far as possible, avoid the calamity (to him) of keeping them out of Parliament.

Thus the Daily Chronicle says (18.11.09),

“It is interesting to note that in Woolwich and Deptford the Liberals have apparently decided not to put forward a candidate in opposition to Mr. Will Crooks and Mr. C. W. Bowerman. . . . If, as we understand, Mr. Bowerman will be opposed only by a Tory, or two Tories (there is a split in the opposition camp), there is more than ordinary significance in the letter which Mr. A. J. Pease, chief Liberal Whip, addressed to Sir Henry Havelock Allen. In this letter Mr. Pease suggested, as we stated yesterday, that, ’Liberals should, so far as they could, respect the seats of the Labour Representation Committee’s candidates, and the Labour party in return should respect the Liberal seats.’ ”

The Chronicle man, as was natural, set out immediately in quest of the other party to this suggested understanding; and tracked the chairman of the Labour group to earth, only to find him as wily as the fabled fox. As the newspaper states:

“Mr. Arthur Henderson, chairman of the Labour party in the House, was seen yesterday by a ‘Daily Chronicle’ representative, but he explained that, as he had not had time to read Mr. Pease’s letter, and was, besides, hurrying off to Portsmouth, he could not express any opinion on the subject.”

Of course the chairman of the House of Commons Labour Party “could not express any opinion.” Was he going to let the cat out of the bag ? “Keep it dark, for goodness sake? Don’t make a fuss over it or the game will be up!’’ was in all probability his muttered comment. And so the game will be up, we may add, when the rank and file understand the game that is being played.

Notice also how the Chronicle fawns on such men as Mr. Snowden. This is how it speaks of him in its issue for November 3rd.

“SOCIALIST MEMBER’S TRIUMPH.

  “These three were all good speeches, but they were overtopped by the fourth, Mr. Philip Snowden’s. His ascetic face lit up by the light of intellect is a familiar feature on the Labour benches. While be has often spoken effectively in the House be has never before won the triumphant success that be achieved tonight. He is heart and soul for the Budget—not, mark, because it is Socialism, but only because it marks a very moderate step forward on the long road of social amelioration.
 “An entranced House listened with every faculty on the stretch as this thoughtful Socialist expounded his creed. On the Government Bench Mr. Asquith sat with eyes fastened on the speaker, and Mr. Balfour, a nearer neighbour, turning round so as to catch every word, was another absorbed listener. The Budget is called revolutionary. It is nothing of the kind, said Mr. Snowden. It is not a revolution but a preventive of revolution. (Loud Liberal cheers.) It means not Socialism but Social Reform. He developed with great ability the distinction between the one thing and the other. In this connection he quoted the definition given by Mr. Balfour in a speech delivered in Birmingham in November, 1907."

Thus does Mr. Snowden proclaim himself the enemy of Socialism. But in order to throw his followers off the scent, he goes on to cunningly confuse capitalist development (which is toward more intense exploitation.and historically makes Socialism necessary while it precedes it) with the development of Socialist society. This dodge enables him to delude the ignorant into believing that he is working for Socialism while in reality be is helping the capitalists. He further says:

  “So far from the Budget being a revolution, it is such a slight movement in the wheel as to be almost imperceptible.”

Its imperceptibility is evidently its greatest virtue. “He is heart and soul for the Budget” because, apparently, it is not Socialism, and because so far from being akin to revolution, it is its very antithesis!

No wonder that Mr. C. F. G. Masterman, M.P. could say in The Nation (24.8.08) that

  "The accession of strength came with the realisation of the mildness of the Labour Party. Here were no wild revolutionists, harbingers of an uprising of the lower orders, determined to break up the recognised courtesies and hypocrisies of England’s benevolent plutocracy. Instead there was a mixture of old-fashioned trade unionists, with a sprinkling of well behaved and pleasant Socialists; more punctilious about the forms of the House than the oldest members; more eager in making a bargain with the Government and proving themselves agreeable supporters than the most truculent of the Radicals opposite.”

Let the toilers ponder this capitalist praise of the Labour Party, and they will find it convincing evidence of the utter worthlessness of Labourism to the working class; evidence, moreover, that is being confirmed by the daily conduct of the Labour members both in and out of the House of Commons.

F. C. Watts

The Quarrel 'Twixt Mr. A. And Mr. B. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “They were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other’s neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had ‘Dum' embroidered on his collar, and the other ‘Dee.’ ‘I suppose they’ve each got ‘Tweedle’ round at the back of the collar,’ she said to herself.  . . .
  “Of course you agree to have a battle?’ Tweedledum said in a calmer tone.
  “ ‘I suppose so,’ the other sulkily replied.’’

At the present juncture, now that the nerve-shattering crisis has at last arrived, it may be as well to think for awhile in what way working-class interests will be affected by the result of the present electoral struggle. The gauntlet has been thrown down by Mr. A. on behalf of his party, and has been eagerly taken up by the astute Mr. B. The leaders and their immediate followers are endeavouring to arouse the rank and file to a sense of the solemnity of the occasion. We are in the throes of a life or death conflict, the like of which has not been known for centuries. So we are told, at least. Yet, strange as it may seem, some few of us appear to care very little about this momentous issue. Whisperings have even emanated from certain sceptical quarters that the battle is not altogether genuine, that the Champion of Nonconformity and the Knight of Philosophic Doubt are not such implacable enemies as they pretend.

Perhaps, it all becomes a question of the point of view. The human race, as a whole, has developed, in a more or less perfect degree, the sense of sight. But very few of its members dare face, clear-eyed, the naked truth. Most men, fearful of blindness, and therefore, maybe, wise in their generation, prefer to examine all things through the blurred and smoky glasses of ignorance and prejudice. If the writer were a Liberal or Tory democrat, or, worse still, if he were a member of the I.L.P., he might imagine that the result of the 1910 General Election would change, for the better or worse, his present unenviable position in society. But not belonging to either of the hybrid political types above mentioned, be entirely fails to see how the workers as a class ever have been, or ever can be, affected by the results of the various struggles for political supremacy which take place periodically between certain sections of the capitalist class. Liberals, Tories and Labour men are alike thundering from their platforms their party cries. “Down with the House of Lords!’’ “Tariff Reform forever!’’ “Long live the Budget! ” and so on. Perhaps some of these “leaders of the people” will give us a little information as to whether, for example, the abolition of the House of Lords will change those huddled backed wrecks of humanity, to be seen any night reposing on the Embankment seats, back into men and women; or whether Tariff Reform will stamp out anthrax from among the Bradford wool-combers; or whether even such a munificient measure as “the People’s Budget” will enable the people to live as human beings should live rather than to rot and seethe in the hell of modern industrialism.

All over the country at the present moment the workers are listening, open-mouthed and credulous, to the specious promises of Mr. A. and Mr. B. and their lieutenants. Mr. A. is telling us in his usual lawyer like phraseology, that steps must he taken to see that never again shall the House of Commons be subjected to the indignities to which it has been forced to submit; while the metaphysical Mr. B. is explaining how Tariff Reform is not Protection, but only an attenuated form of Free Trade. In a week or two we members of the working-class will be registering our votes for one or other of our respective candidates. We shall make our choice for many and varied reasons. One of us will vote in a certain way because the candidate has a pretty wife; another because "well, he might do something or other for us if we give the chap another chance." We shall vote for any and every reason except for the one reason that really matters. What a tragic farce it all is! The working-class voters of the country hold in their hands the absolute power to free themselves from the misery and poverty in which they live and by which they are surrounded. And yet, time after time, election after election, they follow the political will-o’-the-wisps dancing before their eyes, to find themselves at the end sinking deeper in the slough of Capitalism, almost without hope of ever altering their condition.

There may be certain critical apologists for Parliamentary procedure, who, on reading the above, will insist that we Socialists have no business to interfere with the freedom of the working class to vote. They will complain, perhaps, that we only listen to Liberal and Tory politicians in order to jeer at them, and that while we are quite at liberty to abstain from voting for any but Socialist candidates, we have no right to attempt to persuade others to do likewise. Well, business or no business, right or no right, we shall continue our tactics, we shall advise our fellow-workers to vote for no one bat a Socialist. It is our class—the working class— that in every case puts these charlatans, these sham knights of a grail they have defiled, into political power. That is the irony and the pity of it. Whether—by means of the working-daw vote, be it remembered—the Liberals or the Tories are returned as a body, the conditions under which the workers exist will not be improved one whit. Unemployment, misery, poverty, intellectual and bodily degradation, will increase year by year whether Mr. A. or. Mr. B. is the titular leader of the House of Commons. Not until the workers understand their own position in society and in Nature will there be any chance of an improvement in their condition. Only when this knowledge dawns upon them, when, as a consequence, they join themselves together into a conscious political force to seize political power, in order to use that power in their own interests, will they be enabled, as a result of so doing, to stand erect, free men and free women, reaping and garnering for themselves the world-wide harvest of their mental and physical labour.

F. J. Webb

Ulster: the origins of sectarianism (2000)

Book Review from the July 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ulster's Third Way by Brian McClinton, Ulster Humanist Association. 76 pages.

The title of this booklet is something of a misnomer. It does not really propose an alternative political or economic scheme for Northern Ireland. What it does do is outline the religious conflict that was, and is, interwoven into the politics of Ireland and which has played a vital role in confusing the working class. Unfortunately, the author gives religion an independent role in the Irish conflict whereas it was a weapon, albeit a powerful one, used by contending economic interests in fashioning the politics of the country.

Protestantism, in its most virulent form, as McClintock shows, came to Ireland in the shape of the Plantation of Ulster in 1603. But the Gaelic tribes that resisted the Planters did not do so because of their opposition to Protestantism. Had the Planters been Catholics, or even Humanists, intent on dispossessing those already there, the latter would still have resisted and the ensuing violence would have become a marker in Irish history.

The belief is common in Ireland, where it was ruthlessly promoted by the Protestant Ascendancy, that the Church of Rome strongly favoured Irish political independence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Inevitably some local clergy, reflecting their upbringing and the sympathies of their local communities, were Nationalist or Republican in outlook but the Irish Hierarchy remained consistent in its opposition to Irish independence through the ages. Rome's aspiration was to use Ireland as a springboard for the re-conversion of England, where, despite sometimes ferocious persecution, the Catholic Church retained many influential allies.

According to McClintock, Wolfe Tone and the Society of United Irishmen succeeded in persuading a group of Protestant and Catholic Irishmen to abandon their religious affiliations in the 1790s in pursuit of a common interest and that is the way forward. That is a half-truth that has sustained much Republican fiction. True, some northern Presbyterians and some southern Catholic peasants were united in an organisation whose purpose was to overthrow English power in Ireland. But the interest of the northern Protestants and the southern Catholics were certainly not identical. In the North the Protestants were farmers who enjoyed a modicum of prosperity as a result of the benefits of what was known as Ulster Custom. These, in turn, were led by a Presbyterian petite bourgeoisie, largely inspired by the French Revolution and the writings of Tom Paine. This revolutionary zeal was inspired by what they perceived to be adverse trade sanctions operated by London and, it is no accident that in later years, when their grievances were put right, the political heirs of these Presbyterians became the bitterest opponents of Irish Home Rule.

Conversely, in the south, the Catholic peasantry were motivated by their wretched conditions as tenants-at-will and, while the rebellion in the North was directed against the English military establishment, the Rising in the south was primary aimed against landlords, and their land stewards, who were invariably Protestants.

The working class and small farmers, who constituted the voting and cannon fodder at the turn of the last century and who are still burdened by the slogans of bigotry which disguise the true nature of the Irish conflict, did not mysteriously arrive at a sectarian consensus. This was the work of political opinion-formers, politicians, the business community and, of course, church leaders acting in a political capacity. Where the churches are indictable is in their willingness to be used by the profane business and political interests whose ultimate power resided in the numbers they could enlist into their battalions.

As a Humanist McClintock does a good job in helping to clear away the ignorance and superstition on which religion is based, but because in Ireland he finds more justification for his case in the story of what happened, he wholly neglects the more important question of why it happened. Thus he disregards the conflicting economic imperatives of the fledgling southern capitalists and those northern capitalists who had got fat on the benefits of the British connection imperatives, which lay behind an apparently religious conflict.

Richard Montague

The Passing Show: Fifth Column (1960)

The Passing Show column from the February 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a letter to The Times Maurice Macmillan, the Conservative M.P. and Chairman of the Wider Share Ownership Committee, wrote as follows (18/12/59):

Your leading article on wider shareholding on December 14th draws attention to the Acton Society Trust’s conclusion that this is a socially desirable goal, and that among employees there is very little opposition on political grounds to the idea of owning shares.

Mr. Macmillan’s Committee is, he says, examining “the problems involved,” including the “means of overcoming the feeling that share buying is for the rich.” Many workers will hope that the Committee will also study another of the “problems involved”: where the money is going to come from. Mr. Macmillan only describes as a “feeling” the belief that share buying is for the rich. His committee—which includes “joint stock and merchant bankers, stockbrokers, unit trust and investment directors, well known industrialists.” and so on, could soon overcome this feeling by distributing enough money to the workers for them to buy shares with. Judging from the description of the committee-members, they could well afford a few thousands for this praiseworthy cause. They would find workers ready enough to keep some of the surplus value for themselves, instead of seeing it taken away for distribution among the non-workers. But supposing, Mr. Macmillan, that the workers got too enthusiastic about keeping surplus value for themselves Supposing they decided that since they produce all this surplus value, they would keep it all for themselves, and not let any of it be stolen from them for the support of idlers. Supposing, in a word, that they introduced Socialism. What then? How soon your committee-members would disband, about face, and form a “Narrower Share Holding Committee”! Perhaps you had better think again before encouraging workers to keep some of the surplus value for themselves.

Fifth Column

But let us examine the deeper implications of Mr. Macmillian's proposals. Of course, the stockbrokers and unit trust directors on the committee would like more people to buy shares, since that would mean more business for them. And. of course, all the committee members would like some workers to own a handful of shares, since then they would be tempted to oppose strikes and other forms of workers’ self-defence, to safeguard the extra pound or two they would get as dividends. It would be planting a ruling class fifth column among the workers. One doesn’t have to say who would gain most from this, the worker with his ten shares or the employer with his thousand.

But, however much the committee would like this to happen, on any significant scale it just isn’t practicable. Capitalism can only exist on the backs of a propertyless working class. Wherever capitalism, either private or state, has appeared, one of the essential pre-requisites has been the divorce of the mass of people from any ownership of the means of production—the peasant has been robbed of his land, the handworker forced from his tools. If the individual was left as a small producer, he could not be compelled to take on the stultifying, monotonous, deadening jobs which he must do to keep capitalism going, and the ruling class rich.

The same applies now. If any significant numbers of workers were to own shares sufficient to support them without working, there wouldn’t be enough people left to do the work which must be done to keep capitalism alive. Mr. Macmillan needn’t worry about this happening, however. For all employers are continually trying to keep down their workers’ wages. As soon as numbers of workers began to own shares, this would weaken their will to resist the lowering of wages (either by direct cuts or by inflation); and as wages fell, so even those workers owning shares would have to sell them to make ends meet.

To sum up, one might say that Mr. Macmillan and his committee are pursuing by impracticable means an impossible end, and one which would horrify them if they ever did attain it.

Cobwebs

In the public wrangle among Labour Party leaders, which has followed their third successive defeat at the polls, Douglas Jay, Labour M.P. for Battersea North, came out with the following (Daily Herald, 27/11/59):—

The other frankly Marxist cobweb is the belief that Socialism consists in turning the whole of industry and trade into a State monopoly.

This belief is certainly a cobweb. We have had more than enough demonstrations of the fact that state ownership of industry is merely state capitalism: the workers in state industry are still just as much exploited as those in private industry, the only difference being that the interests of the capitalist class as a whole are allowed rather more influence in its running, as against the interests of the private shareholders in that particular industry. It is an alteration made by the capitalist class for their own benefit, and has no more to do with Socialism than the manoeuvrings on the Stock Exchange.

So far we agree with Douglas Jay. But what on earth made Mr. Jay describe this operation as “Marxist”? Marx and Engels believed in a new society, where each would contribute according to his ability, and would receive according to his needs: this involving, of course, the end of our present wage-slavery, which is an integral feature of state as of private capitalism. If Mr. Jay has come across any evidence to the contrary, he should really let the rest of us into the secret.

Alwyn Edgar

The Passing Show: Churchill at Omdurman (1960)

The Passing Show column from the January 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Churchill at Omdurman

In his book My Early Life (quoted in The Observer, 6/12/59) Sir Winston Churchill talks of his part in the Battle of Omdurman. Just before the battle he was on patrol:

Talk of Fun! Where will you beat this! On horseback, at daybreak, within shot of an advancing army, seeing everything. and corresponding direct with headquarters.

Yes, it must have been exciting. Too exciting, perhaps, for some tastes. After taking part in the battle itself Churchill records what he saw:

But now from the direction of the enemy there came a succession of grisly apparitions: horses spouting blood, struggling on three legs, men staggering on foot, men bleeding from terrible wounds, fish-hook spears stuck right through them, arms and faces cut to pieces, bowels protruding, men gasping, crying, collapsing, expiring . . . In all out of 310 officers and men the regiment had lost in the space of about two or three minutes, five officers and sixty-five men killed and wounded, and 120 horses-- nearly a quarter of its strength.

But the men killed and maimed had not been sacrificed for nothing. The battle at Omdurman was a triumph for the British ruling class over the native Sudanese leaders, and meant that henceforth the British workers and the Sudanese peasants would labour for the same masters. It was not surprising that British Capitalism hailed this waste of life as a glorious victory.

The Bishops

In these decadent days bishops are always complaining about their half-empty churches, and it must be disappointing to them to find that their brand of aspirin is not selling so well as it once did. They can be forgiven, then, if like other firms they try a little self-advertisement now and again. Their managing director, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had this to say the other day (The Guardian, 20/11/59):

(The bishops) have no other means of directing or steering the clergy or laity except by their own quiet, loving pastoral discretion, and 1 believe that if there arc people who stand out far and away for their grace and wisdom, it is the bishops of the Church of England.

Since Dr. Fisher is the head bishop, he should know.

Poaching

Mr. D. L. Blunt, the Kenya Minister for Game and Fisheries, has warned the Kenya Legislative Council of the serious effects of the “large-scale poaching” of Kenya's wild animals (The Times, 9/12/59). He said that poaching had become “systematically organised and a commercial money-making racket.” No one would wish to see the wild life of Kenya slaughtered to extermination, but two comments may be made. Firstly, when the Kariba Dam was built by the white settlers in the Rhodesias, to provide the power needed for the development of Rhodesian Capitalism, they were not deterred by the thought of all the wild animals that would be drowned as the waters rose. And secondly, can the Kenya whites complain about the poaching of wild animals when they themselves have poached an entire country?

All-Powerful, All-Good?

According to the Italian commission of inquiry, “the 31 people—26 passengers and five crew—killed when a British European Airways Viscount crashed near Anzio in October last year after a collision in daylight with an Italian jet fighter, died because of ‘‘an act of God'" (The Guardian, 25/11 /59). The commission also found that a “further cause” of the disaster was that the Viscount had gone off its course, and was flying in an area reserved by the Italian Government for military activity.

Ruling classes have found since the beginning of civilisation that the idea of a God was very useful to them—no doubt one of the main reasons why the idea has survived, instead of vanishing along with the other frightened imaginings of primitive man. They still find it useful. The real cause of this disaster appears to be that the Viscount flew into an area reserved for war preparations: those killed in it were among the first casualties of the next war. But the Italian authorities could not be expected to admit that. It isn't the first time a ruling class has sheltered behind a God

Sweet Music

The latest move to “improve” factories is like reforms: ostensibly it is for the workers’ benefit, but really the advantage goes to the Capitalist class, or that section of the Capitalist class which introduces it. This new development is the continuous playing of background music, piped into the factory or office by any of half-a-dozen companies in this field. The aim is simply to increase production and therefore profits. As The Guardian says 110/12/59): “The pace must be stepped up at the times when workers flag.” No doubt our reformers, those staunch allies of “progressive" Capitalism, will lash themselves into a fever of enthusiasm in support of this step forward as well. Socialists will prefer to work for a system in which those who want to listen to music will be able to, and those who don’t want to listen won’t have to.

Alwyn Edgar