Make No Mistake About It (1978)

From the June 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

John Smith is a painter, Bill Brown is a clerk, and so on; five upright young men. Those weren’t the names nor, one supposes, were the ones on the poster the real ones. What have they got in common? Yes, we know they are all members of the working class, but the poster wasn’t put up by the SPGB. They are, in fact, all in the Territorial Army. However, unlike the usual recruitment advertising, these young men were not shown “learning a useful trade”, seeing the world, or doing anything which would ensure rapid promotion on their return to civilian life. This poster makes no bones regarding what joining the Army is all about (perhaps that is why it was so quickly withdrawn!). Facing the viewer directly, each one carries a submachine-gun.

The correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph of 20th April were headed “Land of Equal Opportunity”. The first three letters dealt with one of to-day’s “in” subjects — women’s right to be exploited at the same level as their male fellow workers. The last letter, from Lord Monson, ridicules (wittily and quite justifiably) the Equal Opportunities Commission’s injunction to parents to check their children’s books for “sex-assumption rôles”. So far so good. However, in his penultimate paragraph he refers to “the stomach-churning revelation that female recruits to the fighting branches of the United States armed services were being taught to shriek the words ‘kill, kill; hate, hate; murder, murder; mutilate, during bayonet practice”.

We too are appalled. Unlike Lord Monson however, who seems to see nothing wrong in men being taught to shriek ‘stomach-churning’ obscenities during bayonet practice, we protest at the fact that workers are not just taught that it is right to kill each other, but to the accompaniment of chants of hate. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT whatever the advertisements (usually) say about the wonders of a career in the Armed Forces, they are about KILLING; workers killing each other at the behest, and in the interests of, their real enemies — the capitalist class.

Eva Goodman

The Guardian solves unemployment (1978)

From the July 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing is inevitable about unemployment. It is man-made and man can abolish it.

The above quotation is contained in a box attached to an article in the Guardian (May 19) and is thus the distilled wisdom of perhaps the most distinguished columnist of perhaps the most distinguished paper in the English-speaking world and I dare say a good case could be made out that he is the most distinguished columnist in the entire universe. Unfortunately, without even looking too critically at the statement above, one’s immediate reaction must be—with such geniuses, who needs fools?

We can all, of course, agree immediately that unemployment is man-made. We are well aware that it was not given by God because it was laid down that Mr God (or maybe in these days we should say Mrs God or Ms God) chased out Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden because of some monkey business with fig leaves and there and then laid upon the human race the injunction to work. ‘By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread’. No question of unemployment there. It is one of the cardinal points in socialist propaganda that the capitalist system of society, which now obtains all over the world, produces a variety of social evils, prominent among which is unemployment. And as it is obviously true that man makes his own society, it follows that he also makes the evil of unemployment. And can therefore unmake it. Nevertheless Peter Jenkins is talking ignorant nonsense. For what he is saying, throughout this article, is that we have only to put our thinking caps on and, within the context of capitalism, we can simply eliminate the curse of unemployment.

The conceit of this man is truly alarming. It does not even seem to occur to him that unemployment has been a recurrent feature of the world we live in for nigh on two centuries. So what this conceited hack seems to be saying is that, whereas all the other conceited hacks (not to speak of conceited statesmen, academics and similar natural-born leaders of the human race) have lived and died through numerous periods of unemployment, some of which, for example in the 1870s and the 1930s, were far worse than the level being experienced today, yet none of them found the magic cure to unmake this man-made scourge. But he, Peter Jenkins, can provide the cure that has eluded all these other mighty intellects who have wrestled with the problem in all the industrialised nations of the earth.

No doubt the answer came to him in his bath like Archimedes of old. The only difference is that when the latter called out ‘Eureka!’ — I have it — he really did have it and his answer to that particular problem is accepted right up to this day. Somehow one fears that Jenkins’ name will not go down to history in this way. His notion that you can find a cure for unemployment, while still retaining the system which gives rise to it, is no better than looking for the philosopher’s stone.

Jenkins says the answer is to modernise British industry so as to bring the productivity of British capitalism into line with its main competitors. It only needs a moment’s thought from an ordinary mortal to demonstrate that, as a cure for unemployment, this must be nonsense. If it were true that Britain’s competitors who have indulged in so much more investment in industry and have thereby procured a higher rate of productivity (or a higher rate of exploitation of their respective working classes) have solved the problem, then of course the suggestion that all we have to do is to copy them and, hey presto, the problem is solved would sound fine.

But the whole thing is a joke, of course, even though Jenkins is apparently blind to it. Everyone else knows that, even in the currently most successful country in the western world, namely Western Germany, which has a trade surplus running into billions of marks, unemployment is proportionally almost as high as in comparatively backward Britain. Similar considerations apply to all the other relatively successful countries such as France and the USA. Unemployment is rife in them all, yet they all have highly paid scribblers like Jenkins, they all know that unemployment is man-made and not a fact of nature (it is understood that unemployment was not a serious problem among the slaves of Egypt or the peasants of medieval Europe) and yet none of them have ever been able to solve the problem.

The simple fact which Jenkins doesn’t see, is that unemployment is a built-in feature of the anarchic system known as capitalism. So-called crises are a feature of this system and always have been. Slump follows boom follows slump. And a slump simply means that markets are glutted, that more goods have been produced than purchasers have money to buy and consequently there is no profit in producing a still greater surplus of goods. Production is curtailed and workers become unemployed.

It is as simple as that and yet it is, by definition, incurable. What is needed is a system of society in which markets cannot become glutted because there will not be markets. Goods will be simply produced for the direct use and enjoyment of human beings. If, because of the powers of technology, more food or clothes or houses are produced than the human race requires for its convenience and enjoyment, then society may decide to work shorter hours.

Unemployment of this nature, however, would obviously be a boon and not a curse. After all, nobody worries about the sorrows of the class which is permanently unemployed because it is in fact the employing class itself. They are perfectly happy in the Bahamas or Ascot. Nobody seeks to solve their problem of unemployment, because nobody thinks it is a problem. It is no doubt too much to hope that the Jenkinses of this world will ever realise that it is impossible to solve the problem of unemployment in isolation. What we need is the abolition of employment and the introduction of a new, man-made system in which there will be no employers and no employed. And consequently no unemployed. There is no other way.

L. E. Weidberg

'Socialist' China Questioned (1978)

From the August 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our new pamphlet Questions of the Day is, we think, a good 50p worth.

But it does contain an error. On page 86 in the chapter on the Chinese Revolution, we quote from Mao's July 1949 statement On People’s Democratic Dictatorship.

. . . and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism not to destroy it.

Unfortunately, we omitted the word “present.” You may be excused for asking 'So what?’ However a blunder is a blunder. Besides, some members of a maoist sect were particularly annoyed and accused us of being liars and distorters.

The omission of the word “present” is important to the maoists. They believe that the policy of regulating capitalism no longer applies because China is now Socialist.

Let’s examine that claim. The People’s Republic inherited from the Nationalists a sizeable state-owned sector in industry, banking and transport. About one third of industrial output was produced by enterprises confiscated by the Nationalists as Japanese assets at the end of World War II. It gave Mao and the Chinese Communist Party a base for increasing state ownership.

At first, private enterprise was allowed to continue. After all hadn’t Mao urged the workers to “unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle”? (Whatever happened to the class struggle? You may well ask) This meant that those hundreds of thousands of capitalists got their reward for backing the winning side in the civil war.

Between 1952 and 1955, economic and ideological pressures coupled with financial inducements helped enlarge the state control at the expense of private ownership. Government policy was still to regulate capitalism, and the system was officially referred to as “state capitalism”.

Then in 1955 a large scale nationalisation drive was launched to convert the rest of the private enterprises in modern industry to joint public and private ownership.

By the following year 67.5 per cent of industrial enterprises excluding handicrafts was government owned. The remainder were joint public and private enterprises. (State Statistical Bureau. Ten Great Years, Peking 1960.) The Government apparatus was still busy regulating capitalism

But wait! Here’s Mao claiming to have established socialism. In his speech ‘On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.’ Feb. 1957. (Selected Works Peking 1977 vol. 5, p. 394) he says:

But our socialist system has only just been set up; it is not yet fully established or fully consolidated. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, captalists still get a fixed rate of interest on their capital, that is to say exploitation still exists.

And How. In these public-private enterprises, the capitalists, in return for relinquishing full ownership received 5 per cent annual interest on the value of their investment regardless of profit or loss. This remuneration was promised to private stockholders for a period of six years. It should therefore have come to a halt in 1962.

However in 1966, Dr. Barry Richman, a Canadian consultant in management and economic development, went to China on a two month tour. He visited eleven cities and in the course of his research project conducted interviews in some 38 industries with over 200 Chinese people including managers, Communist Party and Trade Union Officials, specialists, engineers and other workers.

The results are in a bulky 968 page tome entitled Industrial Society in Communist China (1969). The chapter entitled Communist China’s Red Capitalists is most illuminating. It opens as follows:

   On my visit to Shanghai in May 1966 it was indeed disconcerting for me to be picked up by a native Chinese capitalist in a new Jaguar, taken to his large factory for a day of discussions, and later to his sumptious home where he still lives as a wealthy industrialist does in a capitalist nation. Mr. Wu Tsung-i, my Chinese Communist capitalist acquaintance not only lives like a capitalist but also looks like a capitalist and at times, still thinks and acts like a capitalist . . .

No wonder. His investment was assessed at $640,000 from which he was paid the equivalent in yuan of $32,000 per year. He also picked up a salary of 380 yuan per month. But Mr. Wu was small time.

Comrade Liu Tsing Kee was a real Chinese fat cat. A member of both the Shanghai Congress and the National People Congress, he received a whacking $400,000 annually from his five major cotton mills. His family assets were estimated at $16m and according to Richman he employed four servants in a palatial home which was stuffed with antiques.

Richman reckoned that there were about 300,000 capitalists in the People’s Republic. Ninety thousand of them, he said, were in Shanghai alone. And this was supposed to be Socialism.

As recently as 1972 Professor Ishwar C. Ojha of Boston University attended the funeral of the late minister of Foreign Affairs, Chen Yi. The professor told our companion journal The Western Socialist (No. 3 1972) that the national capitalists were represented by one of their number. In his opinion however, they were at that time somewhat subdued and not advertised as extensively as they had been in the past.

At the present time the Chinese ‘socialists’ are not very forthcoming about the status of the national capitalists. Perhaps they’re just too much of an embarrassment.

But regardless of their current standing one thing is obvious. The Chinese Communist Party equates socialism with nationalization. Mao himself said so in 1949.

   When the time comes to realize socialism, that is to nationalize private enterprise, we shall carry the work of educating and remoulding them (the national capitalists) a step further.

(On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship)

In the opinion of Professor Alexander Eckstein (China’s Economic Revolution, Cambridge Press 1977)

    . . .  a country embarking on the process of deliberate industrialization in the mid-twentieth century will necessarily develop a different industrial structure than a country that may have experienced its industrial revolution amidst laissez-faire conditions in the nineteenth century.

State ownership in China is nothing more than a move towards modernisation in an attempt to enable China to compete effectively with other nations in 20th century capitalism.

Apologists for the Chinese regime sometimes maintain that criticism is irrelevant because they are building an egalitarian society.

Professor Eckstein found little evidence of this when he visited China in 1972.

     “On the contrary,’ he writes on p. 281, “as one travels around China and meets peasants, workers, cadres, and high ranking government officials, status differences are clearly apparent in many subtle ways such as dress, bearing, deference by others, and many other privileges that surround power positions in all societies.”

He also points out that wages of top people can be as much as twenty times that of the lowest paid.

The Chinese Communist Party, being supposedly Marxist, would presumably be aware of Marx’s pronouncement on the possibility of egalitarianism within the wages system.

     Upon the basis of the wages system the value of labouring power is settled like that of every other commodity: and as different kinds of labouring power have different values, or require a different quantity of labour for their production, they must fetch different prices in the labour market. To clamour for equal or even equitable retribution on the basis of the wages system is the same as to clamour for freedom on the basis of the slavery system. (Wages Price and Profit)

Modern China has commodity production, buying and selling, wages and prices, money and markets—all the paraphernalia of capitalism.

Speaking about the modern state Engels pointed out:

   The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The wages workers remain wages workers—proletarians. (Anti-Duhring)

Anyone who still doubts that China is capitalist has only to consider Chairman Hua’s newest master plan —the introduction of bonuses, work quotas and piece work (Guardian 28th April 1978)

As any British factory worker knows, piece work is an attempt to increase productivity and therefore profits. It causes a speed-up in work rate which can lead to tiredness and a relaxation in safety standards.

Marx’s view of piecework was straightforward. It was, he said “the form of wages most in harmony with the capitalist mode of production.” (Capital Vol. 1) 

After the great leaps and the five year plans the Chinese Communist Party’s policy is still to regulate capitalism—only conscious political action by a majority of the world’s working class can destroy it. 

Eddie Toal

PAMPHLET QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

CORRECTION

Our attention has been drawn to an error on Page 86 of this pamphlet. The word ‘present’ was inadvertently left out of the last sentence of the passage quoted from a speech by the late Chairman Mao. It should read ‘Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it’.

The same quotation was used in its correct form in the Socialist Standard October 1974.

Proper Gander: Home Truths (2017)

The Proper Gander column from the August 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over 11 million people in Britain live in rented accommodation, mostly owned by private landlords, as opposed to Registered Social Landlords (councils and housing associations). The two kinds of landlord differ in the way their organisations are structured. RSLs don’t have shareholders to swallow up profits, so any surplus from rents collected is supposed to be re-invested into maintaining properties and building more social housing. The rents which RSLs charge are shaped by government, with the aim that they are more affordable to people on lower incomes. Private landlords are individuals who own the properties they rent, so they can choose the amount they charge and wait for the profits to land directly into their bank accounts. The terms of a tenancy agreement may or may not differ much between the private sector and social housing, depending on how closely the landlord sticks to the law and accepted practice. Consequently, renting from the private sector often involves even less security and shoddier properties than with RSLs. While many private landlords live in luxury bespoke villas, their tenants struggle to afford cramped flats with damp walls. How would these landlords react to having to live in the conditions that their tenants endure?

We find out in The Week The Landlords Moved In (BBC1), another one of those ‘switching lifestyle’ reality TV programmes, the offspring of Wife Swap and Undercover Boss. Each episode follows two landlords who move in to one of their own properties for a week and manage on the same income as their tenants, who temporarily move to other accommodation.

The participating landlords include a father and son who own properties worth £7million in London and the commuter belt which bring them £15,000 a month profit. Another has 80 properties which draw in £30-£40,000 rent each month. Two young entrepreneurs boast that they earn £750 an hour, and talk of people and property as ‘investment vehicles’. All the landlords are open about being in the property business to rake in the dosh, with ‘buy low, rent high’ and ‘let it and forget it’ as business models. One cannily realises that for him, the housing crisis is an opportunity. With lots of people looking for fewer properties, private landlords can pick which new tenants can pay the highest rents, boosting their profits.

The properties they rent out include a two bedroom flat on the London / Essex border for £950 a month, £575 for a room and communal kitchen in Milton Keynes, and £450 a month for a two bedroom flat in County Durham. Mould is often thrown in at no extra cost, and many flats have unique features such as peeling paint on bathroom tiles and electric meters shared with the neighbour. Fixtures and fittings may not be fixed and fitted. Some of the tenants lack the confidence to report repairs or problems, worried about being evicted if they are seen to be awkward. Many live in fear of having to move out if the rents increase beyond their means. They have often learnt to manage without things like adequate money, heating, storage space and working appliances, things which the landlords take for granted. So, when the landlords move into their own substandard rented accommodation, it comes as a shock. Living on less than £100 disposable income for the week is another eye-opener for those used to ten times that much.

Living as tenants gives the landlords some much-needed empathy. One tearfully (and belatedly) comes to understand that he’s responsible for someone else’s living conditions. Another realises that he should be looking at the properties not through their ‘functionality’ but as homes for people. After the week is over, many of the tenants return to renovated and redecorated rooms and assurances that the properties will be maintained better in future. The landlords’ previous reluctance to re-invest much of their profits back into maintenance shows how the profit motive leads to greed and a poor quality service.

The Week The Landlords Moved In illustrates the alienation that the housing system engineers between people. Landlords are distanced from their tenants not only through their differing legal rights to the property, but also through the differences in their wealth. Their relationship is financial and bureaucratic, rather than co-operative and on an equal basis. We’ve learnt to accept as normal the notion of someone else owning and having control over where we live. And of course it is a normal, integral part of the system. But consequently, our homes don’t often have the security and comfort that they should provide. Paying a mortgage to buy our home doesn’t necessarily give where we live more stability, either, as then we’re financially tied to a bank instead of a landlord. And this option isn’t realistic for anyone unable to pull together the thousands of pounds needed for a deposit and solicitor’s fees. Capitalism turns where we live into a commodity, which shapes the way we relate to our homes. For the millions of people surviving on a low income, lacking the money (and the right) to make improvements, home doesn’t always feel like home. For the landlords, houses are likely to be seen just as sources of income, at least until a TV programme makes them think twice.

Mike Foster

The Questions They Ask . . . (1978)

From the September 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Mr. Speaker: What is the difference between capitalist economics and socialist economics?”

Speaker: (Thinks! What a smashing question!)

Answer: - The difference is the Labour Theory of Value. This law of capitalism, discovered by Marx, explains the operation of capitalist production and the exploitation of the worker.

The Labour Theory of Value states that the value of commodities is fixed by the amount of labour they contain. But not any old labour. “Socially necessary” labour, the labour required by society to produce an article. The determination of Value by the labour in an article was well known to the famous classical economists before Marx: William Petty, David Ricardo, Adam Smith and Ben Franklin the American; whom Marx quotes approvingly in Volume I of Capital (page 59, Kerr edition). "The value of all things . . . is most justly measured by labour"

The difficulty they found themselves in was this

1. Value is determined by labour.
2. What then determines the value of the labour?

They then went round in circles until Karl Marx cut the Gordian Knot by proving that Labour Power, as a commodity, is also subject to the Labour Theory of Value—that is, the amount of labour to produce and maintain a Labourer. Since those days capitalist "economics” have become a joke; starting with Marshall’s absurd "Marginal Utility” and finishing with J. M. Keynes’ disastrous inflation theories. Meantime the colleges teem with pompous wise-acres solemnly expatiating on "status” and "honours”, "power and conflict”, “blue-collar and white-collar workers” “the reward hierarchy” and associated trivialities.

Once you reject the Labour Theory of Value, you become an apologist—for capitalism.

The Labour Theory of Value also explains why, after 50 years of reformist legislation, Labour Parties have had no effect whatever. While they are trying to tart up capitalism with a few spraying jobs, an endless stream of profits pours into the laps of the capitalists, behind their backs.

A clear grasp of the Labour Theory of Value is a MUST for a scientific Socialist.

It is Socialist Economics!

Next question.

Horatio.

The Power of the Vote (1978)

From the October 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

The gaining of the vote by the working class in Britain, has provided a tool for its emancipation. In the past workers were destined to the political life of their masters’ choice; today, the vote gives us the power to determine our own destiny.

Historically, it is difficult to determine quite how the vote was won. Some historians see the working class franchise as being granted by class conscious radicals solely for their own interests; almost as if the working class was a political pawn in the plan of the ruling class. Other historians recognise the immense working class desire to influence the decisions of government, discernible from before the Chartist movement. Both views of the rise of political democracy contain more than a grain of the truth. What cannot be denied is that, having gained the vote, the working class has not significantly exerted its strength to bring about any change in its own favour. The ideological power which the capitalist class hold over the working class is such that, despite a change in the franchise from landowning minority at the beginning of the last century to full adult franchise today, there has been no corresponding alteration of the social system from one benefiting a parasitic minority to one benefiting all people. That the working class has not used the power of the vote is certainly contrary to the expectation of many of its early opponents, who believed that giving the right to affect political decisions to non-property owners would instantly lead to social revolution.

The worst fears of the opponents of the extension of the franchise did not occur; the parties of capitalism have successfully won working class support, election after election, by offering reforms in return for votes. The electorate, which overwhelmingly comprises workers whose political interests would best be served by the establishment of Socialism, have jumped from Labour to Tory and back again in a futile effort to use their votes to obtain the most they can out of capitalism. The choice of a party to vote for is seldom based upon rational judgement; this is even recognised as a necessary characteristic of electoral behaviour in a major survey of voting habits:

     There is nothing inherently wrong in the fact that electors associate the parties with images and not with politics . . .  if party support was entirely rational and solely based on policies representative government would become unworkable. The parties would never be able to count on some loyal support in cases of blunders and difficulties; nor would they ever be able to rally their supporters and thereby educate public opinion . . . voting is clearly partly an emotional affair. It is based on prejudices as well as on rational assessment . . .

(Jean Blondel, Voters, Parties and Leaders)

Blondel’s view is that most people vote for a party, not because its policies stand for their interest, but because parties set out to project images to draw voters into a mythical conception of that party solving problems. Workers vote Labour because “it’s the Party of the welfare state” or “the Workers’ Party”, or vote Tory because it is the thing to do if you have a mortgage.

One might conclude from all this that the vote is of no use to the working class. On the contrary, the vote is rather like the razor blade; you can use it to cut your throat or to have a shave. So far the workers have used the vote to register their consent to the present system. Each time an election comes around, seventy-five to eighty per cent of the electorate vote, mainly for the Labour or Conservative parties. About twenty per cent of the electorate regularly abstain from voting, although it is impossible to tell how many do so positively (as a conscious refusal to vote for the parties standing) and how many are negative abstainers (those who do not care). Even among those who do not vote many are confused or cynical. Many Labour voters may decide themselves that they want to see a social change in the interest of the working class, many Tory voters are looking for a party that will defend them from the omnipotence of the State, many Liberals are simply not voting for the others.

When the next election comes workers will once again be faced with the dilemma between voting for politicians to lead them into five more years of capitalism or not voting at all. But there is a third possibility, which is not voting for useless leaders, but considering the idea of Socialism and then voting for it. The Socialist Party of Great Britain exists to provide an alternative to those who wish to lead the working class. A vote for Socialism in the General Election is a vote in your own confidence to determine your future. If there is a Socialist Candidate in your constituency he will be conspicuous by not grovelling for your vote, but only asking you to vote Socialist if you understand and want Socialism. If there is not a Socialist Candidate but you want to cast your vote for Socialism, then write “Socialism” across your ballot paper. In every election it is power that is at stake; are you going to give a blank cheque to the parties of the profit system or will you use your vote in your own class interest?

The weapon of the vote is yours; you have only to use it.

Steve Coleman

Political Notebook: At The Seaside (1978)

The Political Notebook Column from the November 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

At The Seaside

In case you failed to notice, another season of seaside political conferences has passed. The three large parties carefully go through the charade of participation by the faithful and then proceed to ignore the wishes of the membership. This, they call democracy. The Labour Party have some experts in this field. Their former leader (more anon) is famous for his resolute refusal to take a blind bit of notice of the Labour Party Conference decisions from 1966 to 1970.

We can all remember Ted Heath’s famous U-turn on economic policy but we shall have to find another letter of the alphabet to fit the change which is apparently being contemplated now by Callaghan’s government.

To begin with, a little recent history. Labour came back to power in 1974 on a clear pledge that there would be no more interference with the unions’ bargaining strength. Their policy in the October 1974 election said, in part:

    The Social Contract . . .  is the agreed basis upon which the Labour Party and the trade unions define their common purpose . . . The unions in response confirm how they will seek to exercise the newly restored right of free collective bargaining.

Well we have seen what happened to the so-called free collective bargaining, as Healey has tried to impose successively lower limits on wage rises. But even more striking was the change in policy which Callaghan was threatening, when this year’s Labour Party conference rejected Healey's proposed 5 per cent limit on rises.

    “. . . if, as a result inflation starts to move up”, said Callaghan, "the government will take offsetting action to keep inflation down through monetary and fiscal measures”.

Now this is exactly the policy which has been put forward, as the solution to the current problems of British capitalism, by the likes of Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher who, says the Labour Party, have a burning ambition to discipline the workers with the scourge of unemployment.

Of course there is nothing new in Labour and Conservative Parties adopting each other’s policies; that is all part of the fact that they have basically the same policy — the maintenance of capitalism and, within that social system, the protection of the interests of the British capitalist class.

Dirty Hands Make Light Work

The Labour Party has other problems, too. George (now Lord) Thomson accuses Harold (now Sir) Wilson of having dirty hands; soaked in oil flowing into the illegal (“matter of weeks, not months”) Rhodesian Regime. Harold denies knowing anything about it. George says he has a copy of a letter sent to Harold when Harold was P.M. pointing out that petrol companies were breaking the sanctions. As The Times (21.9.78.) put it so diplomatically after the publication of the Bingham Report:

     Sir Harold has said that he never received any report of British Oil Companies being involved in supplying oil to Rhodesia. Lord Thomson maintained that he informed the Prime Minister of the time and other Ministers most directly concerned, of everything that happened at the meeting.

One of them is lying. It is so difficult to know which to believe, but as Harold is only a mere “Sir” and George is a “Lord”, I suppose most people will believe George . . .

One of the problems at the Labour Conference was whether Harold would turn up at all, and if so, what he would say, and what would be said to him. In pre-conference gossip, the Daily Mirror said Harold had applied for a ticket but his presence was “by no means assured” (29.9.78.). His assured presence was certainly dinted when a Canadian T.V. Reporter had the cheek to ask him directly about the sanction busting. Harold just stopped the interview. How dare they ask him such awkward questions!

Incompetent Criminals

The Liberal Party has similar problems. Their main difficulty seems to be in shaking off the scandal so obstinately sticking to them. What with missing funds, and the police swooping around their conference, they had indigestible problems enough. But these shrank to trifles compared to the unsavoury dishes being served up to Jeremy Thorpe; little matters like allegations of conspiracy to murder are not good for the image of the Party of good losers.

The majority of the current leadership tried to ensure Thorpe was isolated prior to the October general election that never was. They issued an injunction imprisoning him in his Devon Constituency. Treated like the chief carrier of the latest smallpox outbreak, Jeremy was banished from the Liberals National Campaign. He was also asked not to turn up at the Liberal Conference in September at Southport. Nevertheless, up he turned. The press loved it; perhaps they realise that the policies of the Liberal Party are about as interesting as steak to a vegetarian. But a bit of scandal . . . nothing sells better. So The Daily Mirror (15.9.78.) could write theatrical reports like “Everybody felt the tension, everybody knew he was out there, away from sight, standing in the wings, waiting for the signal to make his entrance”. Even The Times got carried away with the amateur dramatics of it all and ran a headline the same day saying "Mr Thorpe Takes The Limelight”. For those interested in these matters, Mr Thorpe is due to take more limelight at Minehead Magistrates Court on the 20th of this month.

This concentration on the bad boy of the moment annoyed the other Liberals at their Conference, so Cyril Smith made a long speech in which he explained just how good the Liberal Party really was. He spoke about its wonderful history and excellent record etc. Nice one Cyril! Nothing like self praise. Cyril also said with real feeling that the Liberal Party were sick of being painted as a bunch of “incompetent criminals" (The Times 15.9.78.). Suppose. Cyril, we call you and all capitalist politicians "competent criminals". Does that improve things? You are criminals because you deliberately deceive the working class into believing you can solve their problems, without a shred of evidence that you can actually do so. “Competent” because, alas, to date you succeed in your criminal enterprises.

Ronnie Warrington

Political Notebook: Chinese Takeaway (1978)

The Political Notebook Column from the December 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month’s Notebook looked at the current goings on in the big two and a half political parties. This month we turn our attention to what are commonly referred to as 'the extremists', a euphemism for those organisations which pursue the same sterile policies as Lib-Lab-Con, but haven't got many members.


Chinese Takeaway

Bad news for a few hundred million Chinese peasants. That famous book of everyday slogans for work, rest and sleep,  Quotations From The Thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. is no longer to be treated like the bible. The Chinese leadership — and the Maoists in the West — have decided that the time has come to end the deification of Mao. So, after a quarter of a century in which Chinese workers and peasants have been taught to learn the words of the great book parrot-fashion, it seems that all has changed. Indeed, Maoist bookshops in London seem to have stopped displaying the little red book, the Chinese Embassy has stopped giving away free copies and even the tramp who used to sell them at Speakers' Corner for thirty pence a copy has been given the push. It can be predicted that by 2001 — the year by which Mao says China will have become ‘a powerful socialist country' (p.179) — the little red book will be as scarce as the collected works of Stalin in Russia today. Mao’s book contains the following passage:

    . . . US imperialism has made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly isolated itself. Those who refuse to be enslaved will never be cowed by the atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the US imperialists. The raging tide of the people of the world against the US aggressors is irresistable. (p.78. written in 1964).

We wonder whether the book’s withdrawal could possibly have anything to do with the fact that China is now a diplomatic ally of the USA against Russia, is itself an imperialist power and has recently placed a multi-million pound order for Harrier jump-jets with the British Government.


A Front for What?

Mr. John Tyndall, like most of his good and sturdy fellow National Front leaders, is a man with convictions. In the case of Tyndall, these have sometimes been for breaking the law. It is interesting to read, in the NF paper. Spearhead, No. 18. just what Tyndall's idea of 'restoring law and order' involves:

    Driving out of Carnaby Street I beheld walking about a species of humanity that 1 thought only existed in the wilder forms of horror fiction and I resolved there and then that if I ever revisited this neighbourhood in the future it would not be at the wheel of a car but at the tiller of a chieftain tank, preferably with a flame thrower apparatus attached as an extra, and a large refuse van bringing up the rear.

Are we honestly supposed to treat the National Front as a serious political party?


Vanessa's Revolution

Down at the High Court, Ms. Vanessa Redgrave (actress) and Mr. David Astor (former editor of The Observer) argued about whether the Trotskyist Workers' Revolutionary Party is a 'nasty, despicable, ludicrous and silly’ party (as Mr. John Wilmers QC. appearing for Ms Redgrave neatly put it), or not. The case concerned an article entitled "Vanessa and the Red House Mystery”, published by The Observer in 1975. The article described events involving an actress. Irene Gorst, which are alleged to have taken place at the WRP's ‘education school’ in the Derbyshire Peak District. Ms Gorst claimed that she was forcibly detained at ‘the school', subjected to political indoctrination and told of stores of hidden arms in the basement of 'the Red House'. Clearly, it was not for us, but for the Defenders of British Justice, to determine whether Ms Gorst's story was a complete fabrication or whether, as we've always believed, the WRP comprises a crowd of crazy fantasists, waiting to re-enact the events of Petrograd 1917 in the streets of Derby. Whether or not it’s true that they’ve got a few rifles hidden in the closet, the plain fact is that the entire Leninist concept of revolution. based upon enlightened leaders and armed uprising, is doomed to failure in the capitalism of 1978. So that’s why you’re 'nasty, despicable, ludicrous and silly', Vanessa. And you can’t sue us for libel for writing that.


Star Wars

The Communist Party also went to Court last month to try and stop the new soft porn daily from calling itself the Daily Star in case readers mix it up with the Morning Star. If readers ever began to confuse what’s written in the Socialist Standard with the nonsense in the London Evening Standard, we'd politely tell our editorial committee that it's time they gave up the job.

Steve Coleman

Flaming Forests (2017)

From the August 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

High temperatures and heat-waves are spreading like...wild-fires.

Recently extreme hot weather of 40 degrees Celsius in Portugal resulted in a devastating forest fire in the Pedrogao Grande region, some 150 kilometres north-east of Lisbon, leaving scores dead and many more injured. Early this year, firefighters died battling some of the worst forest fires to hit Chile in half a century. In both countries the natural compositions of their forests had been changed for the sole commercial purpose of exportation of timber and wood-pulp with the planting of eucalyptus and pine trees, known for their enormous thirst for water. Capitalism has always placed profit before people, and it always will. The timber industry has contributed to the destruction of native forests and its habitat. The state is at the service of capital, at the service of forestry companies that have only benefited a small group of individuals. Yet the responsibility ultimately lies with those who keep voting for capitalist politicians.

There have also been numerous big fires in various other places around the world and in increasing numbers where typically there used not to be large-scale wildfires. Forest fires aren't always necessarily bad and sometimes beneficial to the forest ecosystem for them to stay healthy. But this unnatural increase where entire forests burn down uncontrollably is bad for the environment and a risk not just to human life but also detrimental to human health.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, every state in the western US has experienced an increase in the average annual number of large wildfires over past decades. 2015 was a record-breaking year in the US, with more than 10 million acres burned. That's about an area the size of the Netherlands or Switzerland. Large forest fires in the western US have been occurring nearly five times more often since the 1970s and 80s. Such fires are burning more than six times the land area as before, and lasting almost five times longer. The wildfire season has universally become longer over the past 40 years. There is very well-documented scientific evidence that climate change has been increasing the length of the fire season, the size of the area burned each year and the number of wildfires. Prevailing climate conditions have become warmer and drier due to global warming from greenhouse emissions and this enhances the likelihood of forest fires.

The winters are shorter and warmer. The summers are hotter and drier. Human-caused warming makes forests more susceptible to burning. Record heat has increased evaporation and dried-out the soil and tinder-dry vegetation will set forests ablaze. Worldwide, droughts associated with climate change are causing increasingly unnatural forest conditions leading to forest fires in a way never seen before. 

The situation is a direct result of unplanned and unrestrained industrial growth and an economic dependence on fossil fuels. It is crucial to understand that climate change/global warming has contributed to the higher temperatures. Our choice is between capitalism and its environmental destruction or building a healthy socialist planet. Socialism will place the resources of the world in the hands of the people. Until the capitalist is removed from the management of natural resources, we can only expect that the antagonism between human society and nature will continue with mounting tragic consequences. What we are witnessing is the impact of capitalism throughout the world and humanity needs a socialist society that has social control, where production is for use and not for profit. The capitalist system is working against the interests of humankind.

ALJO

Editorial: Postscript on Mosley (1944)

Editorial from the January 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

As a demonstration that working-class sentiment is against Fascism, the outcry over the release of Mosley is welcome—but sentiment alone never won any permanent achievements for the working class, and the socialist movement, and the linking up of the agitation with acceptance of the Defence Regulations which give the Home Secretary power to arrest without trial is a dangerous feature. No ruling class has ever been deeply attached to democratic and constitutional methods for their, own sake, and if a time comes when our rulers want to use Regulation 18b to incarcerate without trial men and women active in the working-class movement, some of those who want Mosley sent back under powers given by that Regulation may see their mistake.

Though we are opposed to that and similar regulations and restrictions, we have no tears to shed over Mosley, whose British Union of Fascists was in favour of suppressing the propaganda of its opponents, though this aim was phrased in the contradictory declaration that "free speech" should be “regulated and controlled."—("Fascist Week," January 5—11, 1934.)

Mosley the Fascist denounces Parliamentary Government, and years before, when he was in the I.L.P. and Labour Party, he was advocating the use of Emergency Powers in order to get speedy action free from parliamentary "obstruction." In 1926 the Labour Party at first declined to endorse his candidature at Smethwick where he was put forward by the I.L.P., and the "New Leader" (December 3, 1926) said that one of the rumoured objections to Mosley was that at the I.L.P. Summer School he had “advocated the socialist use of the Emergency Powers Act.” It is ironical that Mosley owed his detention in 1940 to the Government's use of the kind of emergency powers he himself had advocated, and that he now owes his release to the fact that Parliament, which he despises, endorsed the action of the Home Secretary. It is interesting to recall that Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as many other members of the Labour Party and I.L.P., used also to advocate the use of emergency powers. Sir Stafford Cripps wrote in 1933: "The first measure to come before Parliament under a Labour Government should be the Enabling Act to deal with the emergency by Orders in Council." ("Where Stands Socialism To-day?" p. 39.)

On the other hand, many of those who for years denounced the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and demanded its repeal (among them the Communists), and who opposed Regulation 18b when it was introduced in 1939, have completely changed their attitude. Yet the E.P. Act was a far less powerful weapon in the hands of the ruling class than are the present war-time Acts and Regulations. In particular that earlier Act excluded "any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription"—but now its erstwhile opponents are favouring both the latter measures.

Much more important than the question whether Mosley should be in or out is the question how such people as Mosley come to be a force in politics at all. Among those who now oppose him are many who rapturously supported him when he left the Tory Party, flirted with the Liberals, joined the labour Party and I.L.P. (1924), went on to form the New Party (1931) and became Fascist (1932). Yet Mosley and the ideas he stood for were always a danger to the workers not merely when he donned a black shirt. Mosley was the flamboyant, rich and ambitious demagogue who offered to lead the workers to the promised land while carving out for himself a career in politics. He would never have amounted to anything if there had not been sycophantic hangers-on in the Labour Party and I.L.P. who helped to build him up so that at one time he was spoken of as the future leader of the Labour Party. He had hardly joined that party five minutes before it was reported that he had been offered the choice of 80 seats as Labour candidate. That such a thing could happen was due to the attitude of mind of the working class; not understanding Socialism they could then, and do now, believe in the dangerous illusion that leaders can bring them emancipation.

Writing years afterwards, “Reynold's News" had this to say about him:—

    “It should not be forgotten . . . that the Democratic movement 'spoiled' Sir Oswald on his 'conversion’ from Toryism. Its leaders feted and flattered him. Even the I.L.P., archapostle of discipline, broke its constitution to endorse his candidature in a Smethwick by-election."—(“Reynold's [News]," July 26, 1931.)

Mosley, on his entry to the Labour Party, quickly mastered the oratory of the Labour leaders and learned how to win votes by giving the workers the soothing phrases they wanted to hear. A typical oratorical effort was the following, delivered after the defeat of the General Strike:—

      " . . . Without exerting anything approaching the full power of Labour, they had beaten the boss class. With one hand behind their backs they had whipped the Government. They were there to celebrate one of the greatest events in the history of the world. . . . They had shown that with industrial power alone they could beat the boss class. . . . Let them not forget this was a great workers' victory.—("Birmingham Post," May 17,1926.)

Though in April, 1931, "The Labour Magazine," organ of the T.U.C. and Labour Party, could publish an article saying that nobody "could have doubted the genuineness of Mosley's Socialism at that time" (i.e., 1929), the truth is that Mosley was never at any time a socialist—but neither were those who supported him. What they called Socialism was merely the advocacy of planning, State control, a "living wage," investment boards, etc., and this accounts for the fact that Mosley was able to take over many of the planks in the I.L.P. and Labour Programme into his new party. The “New Leader" wrote (November 7, 1930), "in the ideas of the I.L.P. group and the smaller Mosley group there is a good deal in common."

Mosley’s wealth and title, his friendship with MacDonald, his influential friends, and his fiery oratory all helped to give him a following in the Labour movement, though finally his arrogance and impatience robbed him of leadership when it appeared to be within his grasp. He quarrelled with the Labour Government in 1930 because it rejected his schemes for dealing with unemployment, and broke away with n considerable group of Labour M.P.s, most of whom, however, left him before he formed the New Party in 1931, or soon afterwards. Among those who in 1931 helped to draft Mosley’s manifesto, “A National Policy," were Aneurin Bevan, M.P., W. J. Brown, M.P., and John Strachey. Among his admirers at that period was the late Ben Tillett, who, according to A. J. Cummings ("News Chronicle," March 10, 1934), had declared that Mosley would one day become "the Solomon of a great philosophy of statesmanship." Earlier the communists had been among his admirers, and at the General Elections of 1923 and 1924 the Communist Party backed all the Labour candidates including, of course, MacDonald. J. H. Thomas, and Mosley. (The Communist Party has not changed in, that respect and doubtless a year or two ahead they will be denouncing as " fascist" the Tory M.P.s they have been backing in elections during the past two years.)

After Mosley, had been built up by his Labour admirers and had then gone Fascist he found new supporters who thought that he might be useful as a tool for anti-working-class measures. He claimed ("News Chronicle, October 19, 1936) that a number of industrialists in the North of England had been giving him secret support and the late Lord Rothermere backed him openly in the "Daily Mail." It was one of Rothermere's star journalists. Mr. G. Ward Price, who declared ("Daily Mail," April 23, 1934) that Mosley had proved himself at his Albert Hall demonstration to be "the paramount political personality in Britain."

Mr. Ward Price wrote this about a Fascist rally at Birmingham:—

    "The hold which Blackshirt ideas have upon the best elements of British life was manifested by the rapt attention with which each step of the technical argumentation was followed" (Italics ours.) — ("Daily Mail." January 22. 1934.)

The demand has been made that Mosley should be brought to trial, though on what precise charge is not stated. (It would be funny if the Communists wanted Mosley to be charged with sedition, for at one time they were campaigning for the abolition of the Sedition Laws "Workers' Weekly," October 10, 1924). If he were brought to trial it can be imagined that he would cause a good deal of embarrassment in very distinguished quarters by naming the men who backed him or who, like him, professed their admiration for Hitler and Mussolini before the present war.

One rather nauseating feature of Labour denunciation of Mosley now is the charge that he used his wealth to further his political aims.

A case in point is an article, "The Mosley Moneybags" by Mr. Will Nally, in "Reynold's News" (November 28, 1943). Mosley's Labour admirers never talked like that when he was in the Labour Party. Mosley declared, And it was never contradicted, that in those days he and other rich men were privately appealed to by the Labour Party for donations to their secret funds. ("Manchester Guardian" April 28, 1931.)

The moral of Mosley’s career is that the working-class movement should concern itself with the spread of socialist knowledge and with principles, not personalities. If the workers continue to put their trust in leaders and cherish the ever-renewed hope that at last they have found the inspired political Moses, who will lead them out of the wilderness, they do so at their peril.

The Docker's Problems (1944)

From the February 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having witnessed the spectacle of millions of their fellows chasing the will o* the wisp of steady employment in the long years before the present war, to-day in 1944 the workers are performing miracles of constant, unremitting toil. Their numbers reduced by the calls of the armed forces, they are feeding the mammoth war machine of Britain and simultaneously providing the civilian population with at least that minimum of creature comforts necessary. Intriguing speculations are rife in the world of the industrial workers, contrasting tho pre-war scene with the present one. One vivid contrast is that which prevails in the great ports.

Before the war, in “normal” shipping circumstances, there was invariably enacted at the northern ports scenes of struggle for four to eight hours' work that had to be seen to be believed. The docker was then ironically termed a “casual” worker, and the fight for bread often became an actual physical reality. Unfortunate foremen, whose unenviable task it was to select the recipients of four hours' work were often injured, their hands bitten and their clothing torn in the wolfish scramble that took place. Favouritism and nepotism were the order of the day, and violent was the experience often of any who presumed to change the status quo. To-day “things” are changed. The Government, in the beginning of 1941, perceiving the vital need of a trained supply of dock labour, introduced various schemes that have in effect decasualised dock labour. A minority of the men, recognising dangerous anomalies in the official proposals, resisted the innovation. Albeit, the Ministry of War Transport had its way, and to-day in all great ports the Government directs the ebb and flow of labour. Viewed superficially, the weekly guarantee of sums ranging from 55s. to 82s. 6d. to dockers is an immense improvement on previous conditions. For months past, in the columns of the Glasgow dailies, officious magistrates and others have dilated oracularly on the “enormous" wages of the Glasgow dockers. Their effusions have been productive of acid comment among the men concerned. The docker's wage rate has remained unchanged since early in 1940, since when prices generally have risen. The docker to-day, in order to earn a wage that will provide him and his dependants with a working-class standard of comfort has to work many hours of overtime. And that, at a task unquestionably enervating and exhausting. The dockers imagine that most Labour magistrates—who are especially prone to criticism of the men—would quail at the prospect of one hour's work wrestling with bales and cases or pushing trucks, let alone 70 or 80 hours! For years deprived of steady employment, to-day subjected to disciplinary measures for absenting themselves from work.

For years, accustomed to scrambling for work, to-day. in some instances, scrambling in the opposite direction. Their natural industrial combativeness gelded by a combination of patriotism and bureaucratic efficiency, they have in a situation favourable to them as sellers of their commodity, labour-power, allowed their wage-rate to remain static since the first year of war. The Government selected as local administrators prominent members of the dockers' unions, some of them Communists and I.L.P.ers. As is usual, these individuals have “out-Heroded Herod”! The dockers to-day are afflicted with misgivings regarding post-war conditions. Under the plea of a "quick turn round ” of ships to expedite the war effort, they have seen the insidious "whittling away” of much of their T.U. rights and conditions. Conditions that were won after years of unceasing bloody struggle. They see, also, mechanisation taking place, speed-ups that will remain, that will displace large numbers of men in the years to come.

Mr. Bevin, with others, has reassured dockers of the continued existence of guaranteed wages in peace-time, but— they are sceptical. Like the vast majority of workers, the promises made by official spokesmen of projected changes in the post-war industrial set-up, leave dockers cold.

They have been lavishly praised for their fortitude during the period of the blitz, and mention has been made of the fact that their dockside homes have been the target of many bombs. Despite all this, they are profoundly aware of the odds against them in their day-to-day struggle. The end of hostilities will find dockers denuded of many defensive conditions, essential to them to—at best—maintain their conditions of existence. The confident prediction that can be made of general post-war industrial upheaval can be made emphatically of dock-land. Unemployment has driven men to the docks of a higher intellectual level than the old-time docker, and this factor will be felt. The remedy for the docker, like all others possessing nothing but the ability to work, is clear. Jealously guarding their existing T.U. privileges, recognising the essential limitations of their efforts to withstand the attacks of their masters, they must perceive that the private ownership of the machinery of producing wealth, including shipping, is the basic cause of their perpetual poverty and consequent struggle for miserable employment. The S.P.G.B. do not, as our opponents impugn, idly wait on the working class. The lie must be bludgeoned—that S.P.G.B.ers are dilletantes, and the efforts of the members in the actual arena of the industrial workshops is the irrefutable proof. The clerks, labourers, dockers, railwaymen, seamen, taxicabmen, waitresses, etc., that form the membership of the S.P.G.B., call upon their mates, wherever they may be, to examine our case carefully. Having done so, we are sure of their ultimate verdict. We have a great historical responsibility to carry, and we need the help of the working class of the world.

Tony Mulheron

The Art of Insurrection by the B.B.C. (1944)

From the March 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

When one listens to the numerous "Revolutionary’’ plays broadcast for the benefit of home consumers, as well as for the oppressed nations of Europe, one wonders if the ruling class is conscious of a possible effect of their propaganda. The strike as a weapon of the class struggle has always been a thorn in the sides of the ruling class, but now that there is a war on we find the ruling powers on both sides applauding strikes abroad and condemning those at home.

Nationalists, Monarchists, Right and Left Wing Patriots, Liberals, Democrats, Priests and Communists, all come in for their shares of praise for their work against Hitlerism. This heterogenous mass, who are undoubtedly helping to undermine the Nazi regime, are being praised as heroes of freedom, because they are doing what the "British ruling class" want them to do at present.

When listening to this B.B.C. propaganda one cannot help thinking how childishly simple are these plays. Those who take the part of Germans, either as S.S. leaders or Generals, talk as if they were blockheads, and yet these men are supposed to imitate the executives of the German ruling class—thoroughly trained and disciplined soldiers of what the Nazis believe is a new social order, and, moreover, what we have been given to believe is a most ruthlessly efficient system.

It is a bit ironical for those who remember how British interests supported Hitler in his early years, at a time when even his friend Mussolini mobilised his troops against the Third Reich. Again, when the B.B.C. tells us about Hitler's speeches and denunciations against Bolshevism, it carefully refrains from reminding us that the British ruling class for several years believed these fulminations, and preferred to back Hitler as the Policeman of Europe to prevent the spread of the "Red Terror" 

Sabotage is a virtue if carried on in France, Belgium or Holland etc., but a crime if it takes place in India, according to the views of the British Government, and of course, just the opposite to the Nazis.

Many hints are broadcast from time to time to occupied Europe for the benefit of those who undoubtedly risk their lives for what they believe is the cause of freedom; but there is no intention behind the voice of the B.B.C. that a revolutionary change shall be made in the nature of society on the Continent.

That Conservative England should take a hand at such propaganda has its amusing side for Socialists, for are they not trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds? The speeches of Eden, Halifax and others have made it abundantly clear that the English capitalists look forward to their European markets after the war. which means that they hope and believe that capitalism, with all its privileges for them, and miseries for the workers, will continue to exist. But if the B.B.C. has any effect by encouraging the workers to print newspapers against the Nazis, and to blow up munition factories and power stations, in the occupied countries, Conservative England may well find that it has removed the Policeman of Europe only to find what it calls "anarchy or chaos" has replaced it.

Of course, there is always Russia to be taken into consideration. and as her present-day propaganda is far more nationalistic than England’s, we can console the B.B.C. that if they overdo this revolutionary stuff they will be able to rely on Russia putting the break on for them. Lenin is alleged to have said that it is one thing to start a revolution, but it’s another thing to stop it; and he should know.

So far as we are concerned all kinds of "revolutionary" activity may take place on the Continent after the war is over, with or without the B.B.C.’s contribution; but there are three things of which we can be fairly certain. Firstly, the ruling class will act along the line of its own class interest. Secondly, if the working class follow their example and adopt the principle of the class struggle, the ruling class of England (and Russia) will get very annoyed. Thirdly, unless the workers develop an understanding and desire for socialism, then all their struggles (so far as socialism is concerned) will have been in vain, and the B.B.C.’s plays and talks will merely leave them with but another, and perhaps modified, variety of capitalism.

Horace Jarvis

Miners and Leaders (1944)

From the April 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes to express its deepest sympathy with our miner fellow-workers. By the time this article appears, the struggle in South Wales will no doubt have been “settled.” Even in the extremely improbable granting of the strikers' full demands, the miner will remain one of the worst victims of capitalism. We speak as worker to worker. All of us in varying degrees have tasted the bitter pill of poverty and been under the harrow of callous employers.

We rejoice that the miner has not been driven so low as to be indifferent to the taste of the dirt of life offered by his masters, and explained away by his pastors.

The Daily Herald has offered you advice. It bids you “Go back to work; Trust your Leaders .”

The S.P.G.B. begs its comrades of the pit to review their history, especially in the light of this advice.

We appeal especially to those who are old enough to remember that staggering upper-cut delivered to the worker generally, and the miner in particular, in 1926 by Baldwin and “our beloved Prime Minister.” Never was the rottenness of the “Trust” advice more vividly shown up than by the General Strike.

The Daily Herald of May 30th, 1926, gave precisely the same advice, in the same words, “Trust your leaders.”

J. H. Thomas and others on the General Council were only too glad to seize on the previous “Samuel Report” (as useful as the “Porter Award”) to sound a retreat. Your own Arthur Horner (now slavishly toeing the line to the Government) wrote at the time, "The General Council betrayed the miners.

Six hundred years ago a youthful king promised an insurgent mob of peasants that he “would be their leader"; the history books your children read at school seldom mention the array of gallows which succeeded this promise.

Roman history relates how an aristocratic and privileged class bade the underdog of that time “trust their leaders,” though it was shown that the people's leaders were all too ready to act as the tools of the governing clique.

Consider the case of Ramsay MacDonald; fulsome adulation was accorded him by “Labour.” The S.P.G.B. alone saw the hollowness of the idol; it would be an unfortunate piece of history if there is likely to be a repetition to-day of something in the same line. Herbert Morrison (one of MacDonald's former supporters) is exhibiting the same vagueness of phrasing as characterised MacDonald—an astuter man than MacDonald, he may prove a real menace to the working class.

The News Chronicle has a cartoon (9/3/44). “Underground” workers are depicted listening in; one exclaims, “So the Comrades in Wales are letting us down?” We hear precious little about the owners who are “letting us down.” There is a clear way out to end the trouble. Accede to the strikers' terms. It is safe to say that the diminution of profits to owners would still leave that class sufficient to continue to live at a scale which would not entail the deprivation of a fur coat for the women folk. It outrages decency to know that the pitiably small increase to the miner would still be a matter of real relief to the heroic miner’s wife. Colliery companies are doing well. “Labour Research” (February, 1944) states that out of 32 colliery companies chosen at random, 27 paid higher dividends in the last five years than in the period 1934-38. Yet the Government, as it admits, is concerned to prevent miners’ wages and all wages from rising, on the specious plea of preventing inflation.

When the rank and file of the Unions cease to be gulled by the “leader” who too frequently is seeking to round his own life into a success, when a secretary becomes a servant and not a boss, the Trade Unions will be a big factor in assisting at the birth of SOCIALISM.

Fellow-workers of the pit: In Socialism alone can your degradation be liquidated. Don’t be misled as to what constitutes “Socialism?" Study the eight points of our “Declaration of Principles,” and be assured that our “Object” is no pious expression of impossible attainment. In the politically instructed worker lies the future hope of all mankind.

Reginald.

Turmoil in the Coalfield (1944)

From the May 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Four days after the Miners Federation, the coal-owners and the Government reached an agreement which it was stated would guarantee peace in the industry for four years, the South Wales Miners' Executive Council recommended to the delegate conference that they reject the proposals (29.3.44). It was also announced that day that 80,000 Yorkshire miners were on strike; only two weeks had passed since 91,000 miners had returned to work in the South Wales coalfield. Four years is a short period for a peace pact when compared with Chamberlain's “peace for our time," but when considered against the background of turmoil in the coalfields, it seems as though the miners' leaders are guilty of wishful thinking. Industrial peace like international peace is impossible in capitalist society and we can confidently state that should the proposals be accepted, they will last only a short time. Little has been said about them but the main features are wage stabilisation and simplification. How these proposals will guarantee peace is not shown; rising or falling prices will compel owners and workers to press for changes in wages. The disputes are resolved, sometimes by arbitration, often by strikes or lock-outs. The miners will discover that like all previous agreements, this will leave their poverty intact.

Underlying much of the recent trouble are the experiences from which the miners have suffered during the bitter struggles of pre-war days, and also that many know that an even more grim struggle lies ahead when the war is over. These experiences and this knowledge makes them hostile to the glib and complacent phrases of their leaders. An example of this was the strike in the S. Wales coalfield which started on March 6th and soon involved 96,000 workers; the miners went on strike against the advice of their leaders. The immediate causes are now fairly generally known. According to the Porter "award" all underground workers (adult) are to receive £5 per week minimum wage. Whilst the terms of payment were drawn up the £5 was made inclusive, i.e., that special allowances for working in excessive dust and water were to be discontinued and also an extra, charge of 1/6 per week was proposed for the "cheap" home coal that miners obtain as a "privilege." These proposals had the effect of reducing the increase to a mere 2/6 for many miners; some had less while piece-workers had nothing. The immediate result of the strike was to hasten negotiations and extract a promise that the anomalies created by the award would be removed. The editors of Fleet-street surpassed themselves in scurrility; from their offices they hurled terms such as "plain anarchy" "intolerable" "industrial sabotage" and "difficult and irrational temper" against the coal producers. The Labour press offered much sympathy but they also "deplored" the strike. From the Times to the Daily Worker advice was offered to the miner that it was in his interest to return to work; it seemed as though the only person blind to the miners' interest was the miner. The Daily Mail discovered cause for alarm in the fact that the miners ignored the advice of their leaders (13/3/44). Our hearts, however, are warmed to the miner who at a mass meeting in the Rhondda, when urged to follow the lead of the officials, yelled "Follow your lead? we will lead you." A sound attitude. The Daily Telegraph added to the lighter side of the struggle, and became comical in its rage; it complained that the miners were able to get their extra 9-oz. of cheese, although idle (14/3/44). So we lost not merely 300,000 tons of coal but also about 20 tons of cheese. An interesting light on capitalist impartiality was provided by the Manchester Guardian Weekly, With the strike in progress they reported: "As for the strikes there is no 'bold imaginative step' open except the appeal to loyalty and common decency" (10/3/44). Four weeks earlier their comment on the explanation advanced by the mine-owners for not paying the increase, was: "The owners explanation is logical enough " (11/2/44). Logic it would appear is the prerogative of the ruling class and its representatives when dealing with discontented workers, who apparently lack even common decency.

Mr. Arthur Horner made an attack on the "comfortable people" who speak in "contemptuous accents" of the miner, who Horner states: "is a sport; when things are bad he can take it on the chin" (Reynold's News 12/3/44). On previous occasions when miners have found it necessary to take industrial action their leaders were the people who helped to create prejudice and spread contempt for them. The following examples of mud-slinging are from Trade Union sources: Mr. A. Horner; "Anarchy in the coalfield," "Certain irresponsible elements" (D. Herald 18/10/43). Durham Miners' Association : "These unwarranted stoppages," "Sabotaging the war effort and assisting the enemy." and "Section of disruptionists." (D. Herald 18/10/43). We agree, Mr. Horner, these "smugly righteous people" should note a few facts.

A Word on Wages
The method of computing wages is extremely complicated, and is very confusing to anyone not connected with the mines; it has been described as "baffling the outsider." Piecework rates are fixed, sometimes by measure, sometimes by weight; there are allowances for working in excess dust or water and also a percentage addition that differs in each district. Because of this confusion there has been agitation for a simplified wage structure which it is understood will be obtained under the new proposals. We cannot see that it will be of any real advantage to the miners as even though the method be simplified the wages will still be roughly the same as before i.e„ barely sufficient to replenish the energies of the worker and to enable him to keep a family. It has always "baffled" the writer how people lived on the wages. We suggest that in place of the reorganisation of the wage structure the miners follow the advice of Marx and substitute "Abolition of the wages system."

While on the subject of wages it is interesting to note that the Economist had the distinction of making a most reactionary proposal:

      "There may even be something to learn from the Soviet Wages system. Traditionally, the response of coalminers to increased wages is "heterodox"; above a certain level of earnings they are satisfied not to earn more by harder work. Increased wages should therefore not be guaranteed ay a flat rate. First the ratio between day wages and hewing pay should be weighted much more in favour of the latter, which is more dangerous, less attractive and more productive. Secondly, according to Soviet example, and contrary to the miners' own proposals, minimum wages should be left unchanged. Thirdly, increases in piece wages should be heavily weighted in favour of output above a certain minimum. Both time and piece rates should be made dependent on minimum attendance and minimum output. Should these fall below it, in the Soviet system, cumulative deductions are introduced. Thus the avenge wage of a miner would rise and fall substantially with output." (1/1/44. Our italics.)

One feature of the strike and its immediate sequel, the new agreement, was the critical attitude of the men to these new proposals and to their leaders. It has just been reported that the S. Wales miners' conference have rejected the proposals (2/4/44). Their attitude to it is that it is merely the "old meat—fresh gravy." It will become even more difficult for the capitalists to submit schemes for dealing with working-class poverty that will satisfy workers. The miners' exhausting toil has made wealth and luxury possible for the mine-owner—his toil has brought the miner only disease and poverty. They have worked hard so that their masters may live easily. They are now urged to forget the past, when their heavy work was no guarantee against poverty, and to work hard now, so that in the future, when the mistakes of the past will be avoided, we shall all enjoy prosperity. Hard thought, not hard work is required. Hard thought will show the miners and other workers the solution to their difficulties —the common ownership of the means of wealth production.

Lew Jones